Shabby Public Realm

[pman]

Calling Toronto dysfunctional is a little silly. Have you ever lived in a really dysfunctional city? There are plenty worldwide, and while Toronto is not perfect (i.e. our political BS), it is certainly pretty functional. Some might even call it too functional! There is definitely a bias towards building things that simply work for their intended purpose, hence the shabby public realm.

You’re right, if we compare Toronto to some of the world’s true shit holes. I used to do some business in Sao Paolo, and I was appalled by the shanty towns lining the expressways. Toronto doesn’t have anything like that. And while I’ve never spent time in Detroit or Delhi or Dhaka, I’m reasonably sure Toronto compares quite favourably. However, I have spent a lot of time in London, Paris and Sydney, and I can confirm that Toronto doesn’t even come close in terms of infrastructure or public realm. I mean, is that proposition even up for debate? The delight of being a pedestrian in a great world city like London or Paris with a truly effective transit system and a concern for the design and maintenance of the public realm: really, would you even begin to say that describes Toronto? Or driving in a tunnelled expressway under Sydney’s CBD while the transponder pings because I’m paying for the service that I’m using...impossible in Hog Town. “Building things that work for their intended purpose”: like the overhead wires on my street that get taken down every couple of years when yet another un-maintained City tree drops a branch? Like the constant digging up and repaving of MacPherson because nobody, absolutely nobody, can coordinate utility work? Like the appalling condition of the pavement on so many of our streets? Like our crappy narrow sidewalks? Like yet another short-turned Queen streetcar, or buses that seem to deliberately bunch more of the time than randomness would suggest? Like all those dead and dying street trees in those seventies concrete planters - why do we even pretend to try? Like building high-order tunnelled transit literally under vacant fields into the lowest density areas in 905 while people in high density neighbourhoods like Liberty Village are completely underserved because of the majority consensus that downtown has enough subways? Like a Council with morons like Karygiannis, Mammoliti, Ford, Pasternak, Shiner and Di Cianno making multi-billion dollar infrastructure decisions and explicitly rejecting data, planning and analysis in so doing? OK, I’m ranting, but yes, I would describe Toronto as dysfunctional. As well as sad, poor, shabby and ugly.

 

[WislaHD]

Well, I have to admit. Pman did not pull punches, he has described Toronto exactly as it is.

 

[TransitBart]

I’m struggling to understand how sad, shabby, dysfunctional, poor and ugly are traits to be celebrated.

I also don’t believe that @WislaHD ’s statement is true. We lack European aesthetic and the willingness to spend money to achieve it. It’s an infection from the south and the British Isles. Parsimony. but I would say that it has improved in the past ten years.

 

[Northern Light]

You’re right, if we compare Toronto to some of the world’s true shit holes. I used to do some business in Sao Paolo, and I was appalled by the shanty towns lining the expressways. Toronto doesn’t have anything like that. And while I’ve never spent time in Detroit or Delhi or Dhaka, I’m reasonably sure Toronto compares quite favourably. However, I have spent a lot of time in London, Paris and Sydney, and I can confirm that Toronto doesn’t even come close in terms of infrastructure or public realm. I mean, is that proposition even up for debate? The delight of being a pedestrian in a great world city like London or Paris with a truly effective transit system and a concern for the design and maintenance of the public realm: really, would you even begin to say that describes Toronto? Or driving in a tunnelled expressway under Sydney’s CBD while the transponder pings because I’m paying for the service that I’m using...impossible in Hog Town. “Building things that work for their intended purpose”: like the overhead wires on my street that get taken down every couple of years when yet another un-maintained City tree drops a branch? Like the constant digging up and repaving of MacPherson because nobody, absolutely nobody, can coordinate utility work? Like the appalling condition of the pavement on so many of our streets? Like our crappy narrow sidewalks? Like yet another short-turned Queen streetcar, or buses that seem to deliberately bunch more of the time than randomness would suggest? Like all those dead and dying street trees in those seventies concrete planters - why do we even pretend to try? Like building high-order tunnelled transit literally under vacant fields into the lowest density areas in 905 while people in high density neighbourhoods like Liberty Village are completely underserved because of the majority consensus that downtown has enough subways? Like a Council with morons like Karygiannis, Mammoliti, Ford, Pasternak, Shiner and Di Cianno making multi-billion dollar infrastructure decisions and explicitly rejecting data, planning and analysis in so doing? OK, I’m ranting, but yes, I would describe Toronto as dysfunctional. As well as sad, poor, shabby and ugly.

You and I have found much to agree on.

And there is no disagreement that the public realm, amongst other things could be better in this city and would benefit from greater civic ambition.

However, much as I may rant about the above and can (and have) offered specific examples of public policy or execution shortcomings, I find this swipe a tad too hyperbolic.

Toronto has consistently rated among the 10 most livable cities on earth for a decade or more by virtually every institution that attempts such a survey (Economist, Mercer, etc.)

Toronto is ranked among the safest major cities on Earth, and in my, rather well traveled experience, has amongst the best public services in many areas (libraries are a particular highlight, but so are parks when sheer quantity is considered.

I'd be happy to agree w/many of your points; but let's note...........the City's policy is to eradicate the concrete bunkers for trees, roughly over 20 years. That is not an official timeline, but my practical estimate of how long it will take based on current policy and funding.

Much more is changing beneath the public's radar. Much more needs to.

But your statements are too broad and harsh.

If you'd like I can duly eviscerate London or Paris and explain why. But let's be clear, I have a great fondness for Paris and appreciation for those things it does better than Toronto.

I also have a very clear understanding of its shortcomings, and the many areas where it fails to be as good as Toronto.

 

[pman]

You and I have found much to agree on.

And there is no disagreement that the public realm, amongst other things could be better in this city and would benefit from greater civic ambition.

However, much as I may rant about the above and can (and have) offered specific examples of public policy or execution shortcomings, I find this swipe a tad too hyperbolic.

Toronto has consistently rated among the 10 most livable cities on earth for a decade or more by virtually every institution that attempts such a survey (Economist, Mercer, etc.)

Toronto is ranked among the safest major cities on Earth, and in my, rather well traveled experience, has amongst the best public services in many areas (libraries are a particular highlight, but so are parks when sheer quantity is considered.

I'd be happy to agree w/many of your points; but let's note...........the City's policy is to eradicate the concrete bunkers for trees, roughly over 20 years. That is not an official timeline, but my practical estimate of how long it will take based on current policy and funding.

Much more is changing beneath the public's radar. Much more needs to.

But your statements are too broad and harsh.

If you'd like I can duly eviscerate London or Paris and explain why. But let's be clear, I have a great fondness for Paris and appreciation for those things it does better than Toronto.

I also have a very clear understanding of its shortcomings, and the many areas where it fails to be as good as Toronto.

You’re right, it was a pretty hyperbolic rant, in the sense that it focused exclusively on Toronto’s many negatives. I wrote it from Boston, where I’m always blown away by the beautiful architecture and the handsome public realm in the nicer areas of the city. But I could just have easily bitched about the infrequency and service disruptions on the T, next to which even the TTC is not that bad. I’m curious about your statement about under-the-radar changes in Toronto. I’m stuck here for the long haul, and I’d be happy to think we could make some marginal improvements.

 

[TrickyRicky]

We are speaking about public realm here so criticism of Toronto is warranted; however, I’m lost if we extend the general critic to living standard. The living standard in Toronto is exceptional, period.

It is my hypothesis, much criticized here, that the very things that make Toronto have a high standard of living are threatened by the very trends that will see the public realm improve. The rise of economic inequality, property price inflation etc. These are driving funding and political pressure for public realm improvements, but at the same time threatening the very thing that made Toronto so livable in the first place. That livability comes from the intersection of affordability with opportunity for all, with services and accessibility.

Ultimately the public realm aesthetic is superficial to the primary needs of the population.

 

[Adjei]

We are speaking about public realm here so criticism of Toronto is warranted; however, I’m lost if we extend the general critic to living standard. The living standard in Toronto is exceptional, period.

It is my hypothesis, much criticized here, that the very things that make Toronto have a high standard of living are threatened by the very trends that will see the public realm improve. The rise of economic inequality, property price inflation etc. These are driving funding and political pressure for public realm improvements, but at the same time threatening the very thing that made Toronto so livable in the first place. That livability comes from the intersection of affordability with opportunity for all, with services and accessibility.

Ultimately the public realm aesthetic is superficial to the primary needs of the population.

You would have a point if there weren't cities who have the same standard of living as Toronto but better public realm. The reason Toronto has a terrible public realm is people here don't care how the city looks while in other places people do. You can be sure if people cared enough about it, we would see some changes.

 

[W. K. Lis]

From MetroNews, at this link:

Austerity, status quo or city building: It's time for Toronto voters to pick a path
In the upcoming municipal election, voters will be able to determine which path is most important for the future.

Path #1: Austerity

Wallace called this path “focus on services to property.” If Toronto follows it, city hall would actively work to shrink itself. Fewer libraries, a reduction in recreation programming, less emphasis on building new infrastructure and so on.

The city government would focus most on stuff like picking up garbage and fixing potholes.

As Wallace explained it, this is the only pathway the city could take that avoids the need to increase revenue. You want property taxes to stay super low? You have to be OK with losing services.

Path #2: Maintain existing service levels

The status quo.

The same level of TTC service, the same amount of park maintenance, the same incremental implementation of strategies to tackle issues like road safety, poverty and climate change.

But be warned: even keeping the status quo requires the city to increase revenue.

Over the last few years, city council has used windfalls from Toronto’s hot real-estate market and an array of various accounting tricks to balance its books. Neither is sustainable.

Path #3: Broader city building

Down this path, Torontonians say to hell with the notion of cutting our city or maintaining the status quo, and embrace efforts to rapidly build. It’s about vision.

It won’t be free, because great cities aren’t built for free. Try as you might — and Toronto politicians have tried — you can’t pursue a city-building agenda while cutting the budget.

With the money, strategies to expand transit service, build bike lanes, make roads safer, fight climate change and address the city’s sky-high child-poverty rate could get the full level of investment they need.

The cost to you? Well, maybe Toronto wouldn’t be able to claim the lowest property taxes in the GTA any longer. It could also mean a new sales tax or parking levy.

 

[mrgrieves]

https://www.thestar.com/yourtoronto...-queens-quay-sidewalk-should-take-a-hike.html

Classic Toronto!

 

[DSC]

https://www.thestar.com/yourtoronto...-queens-quay-sidewalk-should-take-a-hike.html

Classic Toronto!

Did you read the Fixer's last comments' it's classic TORONTO HYDRO. It WILL be removed (along with all other wooden poles and overhead wires) but they don't know when..... Par for the course with Hydro!

 

[MisterF]

Did you read the Fixer's last comments' it's classic TORONTO HYDRO. It WILL be removed (along with all other wooden poles and overhead wires) but they don't know when..... Par for the course with Hydro!

Toronto Hydro is still Toronto.

 

[DSC]

Toronto Hydro is still Toronto.

Yes, and no. TH is a City owned corporation but is independent and really not controlled by the City. Certainly City staff seem unable to get TH staff to work cooperatively, look how often City projects are delayed by Hydro and how Hydro ignores City policies like the Streetscape Manual.

 

[MisterF]

Yes, and no. TH is a City owned corporation but is independent and really not controlled by the City. Certainly City staff seem unable to get TH staff to work cooperatively, look how often City projects are delayed by Hydro and how Hydro ignores City policies like the Streetscape Manual.

My point is that mrgrieves' post said "Classic Toronto", not "Classic City of Toronto", so it applies regardless of which corporate entity is responsible.

Besides, if a large part of the problem is the governance structure, then maybe that structure should be changed.

 

[TransitBart]

Who is responsible for the shit-ass temp fencing around the Queen’s Quay entry to the 509 loop.

Ok. I get that the building code may have changed and the barrier is supposed to be 3” higher.. Someone tell me if I am wrong.

But next summer we are going on three years since Queen’s Quay re-opened.

I know the TTC is hamstrung by budgetary concerns.

But Waterfront Toronto less so. This just doesn’t fit into any of their current budget envelopes.

I say we get a few oxy-acetylene torches and stage a flash-mob welding party and make some great art to replace the barriers. We can weld it onto the steel barrier that is there. Or ask a George Brown welder class to do the same...

Anything other than that pile of wreckage leaning on the foundation wall. What an eyesore.

 

[DSC]

There are also the metal crowd control barriers resting against the walls of the TTC streetcar tunnel at QQE @ Bay - or is that what you mean?