How Can Toronto improve? How can Toronto become a better city overall?

[Tewder]

I know, I wish I had something better to say to mark the occasion

 

[TonyV]

I know, too well.

Weird, but I believe that better thinking will prevail some day with regard to our public spaces (yes, weird, there is no other word to describe my confidence). Let's hope that the NPS completion will provide some focus.

BTW, I don't think I'll ever reach 3000 posts. I see how threads get taken off topic and I get discouraged and walk away, all to often.

 

[Thanos]

Two streets form what I refer to as the big t": Bay Street from Dundas to Richmond, crossed by Queen Street from Church to University. The "big t" aesthetic needs a refresh, redo, rethink, to pull it into context with the city that surrounds. Right now, everything about the "big t" is piecemeal and clumsy. Landscaping work and perhaps some public art could pull it all together. Hopefully the NPS renovation will be a catalyst.

The Yonge initiative put forward recently by Kristin Wong-Tam is ideal. A rethink / revamp of the "big t" would be a great followup.

Wasn't there some talk about the creation of a financial district BIA.
That could help Bay Street which can look quite odd at night.
Though the opening of several new restaurants and patios in the financial district is helping.

 

[TonyV]

Thanos, you are right of course, the newly created BIA will help, but I understand that the Ford administration may even try to hinder BIA initiatives. I will stop now because I may get depressed. Maybe some common sense will prevail.

But most of all I wanted to say to you, "welcome to the forum". You are a new member and you are evidently a bright one. I enjoy reading your contributions.

 

[Thanos]

Thank you TonyV.
Though, i don't think Rob Ford will have any type of power over a Financial District BIA. Too many power brokers who are much smarter than falling into his trap and listening to his crap.

 

[Electrify]

To add:

The urban, walkable city was the template upon which cities were built, spontaneously, for millenia. Even when the car was an available technology, low-density auto-centric development was an exception, rather than the rule, and was only available to a small percentage of people who could afford it. Walkable neighbourhoods prevailed.

Suburbia as we know it was only possible due to very left-leaning, Keynesian policies initiated in the 1930s under FDR. Before then, it was nearly impossible for a private company to build all the amenities of suburbia: public freeways and access roads, parking lots, a more spread out utility infrastructure, because it was not worth the risk. It might have struck the homebuilder of the 1920s as completely ridiculous to provide all these amenities just to build low density housing that had to be moderately priced.

Of course, suburbia stuck because we made regulations that forced it to be the default way of building communities; that doesn't mean it's cheaper or more efficient to do so.

It is also worth noting that in its simplest form, while mankind lived in density, historically we lived in much smaller populations. We didn't have the means to dispose of our waste and maintain sanitation in mass quantities like we do today. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this played a part in the Black Death in the earlier part of the past millennium. Even today, the sanitation in many cities in developing countries is appalling.

This is why I proposed the development of major and mini cores throughout the city. Even if you don't live in or next to a major core, you should have access to a mini core with a walkable environment and access to public space. Many of the people who voted for Ford felt that downtown was getting all the attention, while the outer parts of the city were being neglected. With a focus on core development, those in the suburbs could see their tax dollars at work.

 

[Tewder]

Isn't this what the Places To Grow plan is supposed to be about? Too bad they don't seem to be advocating for it! There are lots of little 'urban' nodes throughout the GTHA region and it makes so much sense to link them together through transit.

 

[Long Island Mike]

The difference is that Queens and Brooklyn aren't really suburbs, not in the same way that Scarborough and Etobicoke are. They're densely populated, urban places and they're a lot like central Toronto. If New York suddenly got amalgamated with Long Island then you'd probably see the same kind of fighting that happens in Toronto.

MF: I found this comment interesting...because Nassau County on Long Island was formed in 1898 by the three eastern townships in Queens County/Borough seceding at the same time that the 5 Boroughs/Counties (Manhattan-New York County; Brooklyn-Kings County; Oueens Borough/County; Bronx Borough/County and Richmond County/Staten Island Borough) amalgamated to form the current City of New York...

The Nassau County Towns are: Hempstead,North Hempstead and Oyster Bay and NC includes the cities of Glen Cove and Long Beach-LI's only two cities.

Yes-I will say that there is disagreement between NYC and Nassau/Suffolk Counties about issues...transit funding and the MTA is one subject that I am quite familiar with...and don't let me get started on the subject of LI's property taxes
which are substantially higher then NYC's...

Another thing that I have noticed about Toronto from back in the days of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto is that many considered the 5 "outer boroughs" the suburbs and only the original City of Toronto was considered
"the City"...in NYC some from the outer boroughs refer to Manhattan as "The City" even though they are NYC residents just the same...and some Torontonians still think the same today more then 10 years past amalgamation...

One final thought-I like the term "Metro" to describe the Toronto area much better then the GTA moniker...Thoughts from Long Island Mike

 

[Palma]

We have all heard the voluminous justification pumped out ad nauseum by professors who are required to publish or perish. Their output generally consists of pages and pages of foot notes linking their current volume of drivel to that of their fellows and little original thought, after all, they are not going to call into question the status quo that provides them with a nice living are they?

If density is so desirable, why is it suburban North York entered amalgamation with a healthy bottom line instead of proving to be a millstone around the neck of the original City of Toronto? Just askin'.

Because North York did not have to deal with all the issues Toronto did such as with social services and so forth. If you were down and out was it better to be in Toronto or North York? Toronto had so many more services that it offered and had to deal with than North York. Never saw people sleeping on the streets of North York. I think Mel Lastman even made a comment once when he was mayor of North York that the city (North York) had nobody that slept on the streets of North York

 

[Lansdown]

The first step is to educate idiot voters who vote in idiot mayors.

 

[TonyV]

The first step is to educate idiot voters who vote in idiot mayors.

Oh how I wish I could respond "lmao" but I guess it's not so funny.

 

[Dan416]

One final thought-I like the term "Metro" to describe the Toronto area much better then the GTA moniker...Thoughts from Long Island Mike

Just to clarify, the term "Metro" was only ever used to refer to Metro Toronto, not to the GTA (at least as far as I remember). "Metro" has simply been replaced by "City of Toronto" and old "City of Toronto" has been replaced with "former City of Toronto" or simply "downtown".

 

[jn_12]

Isn't this what the Places To Grow plan is supposed to be about? Too bad they don't seem to be advocating for it! There are lots of little 'urban' nodes throughout the GTHA region and it makes so much sense to link them together through transit.

Just wondering who you mean by "they"? Because the Ontario Government has put Places to Grow at the forefront since they implemented it.

 

[adma]

Just to clarify, the term "Metro" was only ever used to refer to Metro Toronto, not to the GTA (at least as far as I remember). "Metro" has simply been replaced by "City of Toronto" and old "City of Toronto" has been replaced with "former City of Toronto" or simply "downtown".

And don't forget "416" as an alternate catchall successor term to "Metro".

 

[Torontovibe]

Because North York did not have to deal with all the issues Toronto did such as with social services and so forth. If you were down and out was it better to be in Toronto or North York? Toronto had so many more services that it offered and had to deal with than North York. Never saw people sleeping on the streets of North York. I think Mel Lastman even made a comment once when he was mayor of North York that the city (North York) had nobody that slept on the streets of North York

Age has a lot to do with it too. Older infrastructure is much more expensive to maintain. That's why there is constantly work in Toronto, to replace old pipes and upgrade the infrastructure. It's not a fair comparison at all.

Oh, funny you should mention about homeless in NY.

I lived at Bathurst & Steeles around that time. (1980's) A homeless guy used to sleep in the stairwell of my building, almost every night. I never reported it to anybody but when Latman said there was NO homeless people in North York, I decided to give him a call. Lastman had a live TV show on cable and I called in. When I finally got on, I told Lastman about the homeless guy that slept in the stairway and guess what that bugger did? Yep, he hung up on me, live on Roger's Cable. lol He just cut me right off, no debate.

I called his office to give that fucker a piece of my mind. No homeless people in North York, BS!

That is a TRUE story.