Is Toronto Beautiful?

[RC8]

To say nothing of Chicago.

But all three lag behind New York in terms of high-rise residential.

So you think Paris, London, and Madrid look the same as one another?

As I thought we already established, Toronto and New York are nothing like one another. Chicago and Vancouver are much better comparisons but they are far from versions of one another. These are 3 different and incredibly unique beautiful city with their own character.

 

[Ladies Mile]

So you think Paris, London, and Madrid look the same as one another?

As I thought we already established, Toronto and New York are nothing like one another. Chicago and Vancouver are much better comparisons but they are far from versions of one another. These are 3 different and incredibly unique beautiful city with their own character.

Your first photo shows some mediocre older buildings offset by modernist high rise architecture and landscaping. It is a pleasant but undistinguished scene that is certainly not particular to Toronto.

 

[TrickyRicky]

We obviously have a long way to go but personally I don't know any part of the city that I routinely visit where the public and private realm are not being improved and invested in right now. Perhaps that is a function of the part of the city I live in but a question might be what part of Toronto is NOT presently improving it's public and private spaces?

P.S. I don't know what kind of rose coloured glasses are being worn but I must say that visiting Montreal again this last April (to be fair not the most flattering of months) I would not count it as an example for Toronto in terms of beauty and maintenance of the public or private realms. Montreal has a pulse and a character that is charming and interesting but that is not what we are talking about here.

 

[RC8]

Your first photo shows some mediocre older buildings offset by modernist high rise architecture and landscaping. It is a pleasant but undistinguished scene that is certainly not particular to Toronto.

As I stated before, we cannot have a discussion on those terms. I use a much finer filter in determining the components of a city's urban fabric than that.

If you refuse to spot the dramatic differences between the building mix of Toronto and San Francisco (or Boston or Portland or whatever) that's up to you.

 

[Ladies Mile]

As I stated before, we cannot have a discussion on those terms. I use a much finer filter in determining the components of a city's urban fabric than that.

If you refuse to spot the dramatic differences between the building mix of Toronto and San Francisco (or Boston or Portland or whatever) that's up to you.

And I reiterate that the older buildings in that picture are nothing special whatsoever, are certainly not unique to Toronto - are in fact, a dime a dozen throughout the continent - and that the newer buildings, while elegant, do not scream "Toronto" the way that, say, almost any 1970s apartment block does.

Toronto has an aesthetic, to be sure. I just don't see it in that picture, and claiming that mixing old and new is unique to Toronto is absurd unless you load on so many qualifiers as to negate the original argument.

 

[Ladies Mile]

I have been thinking about the original question and I have to say that the answer is no.

The follow-up question might be asked: is beauty a necessary component of urban reality in our time? The answer to this might also be no if we think we can see a new form of urban synthesis emerging in the development of Toronto.

The idea of the Parisian model is clearly dead, as ten minutes in Washington DC will show you. What might also be dead is the New York model, as ten seconds in Dubai might suggest. What remains is the idea of the city as a series of networks rather than avenues, events rather than monuments. The postering that so annoys some--every one of those posters is linked to something actually happening in Toronto that someone thought enough about to put up posters for. That to me is its own kind of beauty and something that places such as Chicago and Rome, whatever their architectural heritage, almost completely lack.

 

[Lenser]

Well said, Ladies Mile.

 

[RC8]

And I reiterate that the older buildings in that picture are nothing special whatsoever, are certainly not unique to Toronto - are in fact, a dime a dozen throughout the continent - and that the newer buildings, while elegant, do not scream "Toronto" the way that, say, almost any 1970s apartment block does.

Toronto has an aesthetic, to be sure. I just don't see it in that picture, and claiming that mixing old and new is unique to Toronto is absurd unless you load on so many qualifiers as to negate the original argument.

I never claimed the older buildings were special, or that mixing old and new is unique to Toronto. But the older buildings filled with successful retail in front of a hundred-year old streetcar line juxtaposed to a neo-modernist 50-story building (which would be the 3rd tallest building in Vancouver for example) housing state-of-the-art movie facilities is something which could only be seen in a handful of cities in the world (and definitely not in Portland, Boston, Philadelphia, etc).

6 out of the 20 tallest residential buildings in North America are currently in Toronto. One is in San Francisco, one is in Vancouver, 7 are in NY, and the rest are in Chicago. By 2015 (with the completion of Aura, L Tower, Ice, etc) Toronto will have 6 more(!) buildings in that ranking. As 10 York, 88 Scott, etc. are added to the equation Toronto's lead will be furthered.

Mind you I personally prefer mid-rise projects, but to deny that these towers have become and will continue to become iconic for Toronto is ridiculous.

 

[Tewder]

I have been thinking about the original question and I have to say that the answer is no.

The follow-up question might be asked: is beauty a necessary component of urban reality in our time? The answer to this might also be no if we think we can see a new form of urban synthesis emerging in the development of Toronto.

Again, I think 'beautiful' is somewhat of a catch-all term. We may not need to follow the aesthetic cues of Paris or New York, per se - and in fact we absolutely shouldn't - but this doesn't mean we shouldn't reach for own definition of it. Greening our city may make it more beautiful in a more traditional sense, for example, but it also makes the city a more liveable, healthy, sustainable and humane place... and really, isn't this just exactly what 'beauty' should be about?

Similarly, when we talk about 'design' are we not really talking about how our urban environment reflects our creativity and the way we interact with our built environment? For me, it implies an interaction that is meaningful, enlightened and artistic, in other words, and not simply one that is disregarded as somewhat of an afterthought. This again creates a liveable city because it 'fits' with us, reflecting the 'urban reality' of our time and place... and I fail to see how this wouldn't be beautiful.

In Toronto we get an attractive streetscape here and there because local businesses champion it, the local councillor gets on board, some funding is located, utilities are forced to co-ordinate, and the thing gets built eventually. This takes time, effort, and by definition happens only in the places where the stars align.

What's missing is an attractive public realm that's just sort of the default setting when anything gets done.

I agree with this completely, that what we are missing is standards... and standards that are well thought out and well executed. Again, we don't need to be 'Paris' but we do need to show more respect for ourselves by showing more respect for the city.

The vast number, height, and style of Toronto's residential high-rises are quite clearly setting this city apart from anything else in North America and the world. Some people think this is terrible, while others embrace it.

To be clear, I think there are all kinds of things, and all kinds of good things, that set Toronto apart from other cities, but this isn't quite the same issue as assessing 'beauty', in a wider sense at least.

 

[RC8]

To be clear, I think there are all kinds of things, and all kinds of good things, that set Toronto apart from other cities, but this isn't quite the same issue as assessing 'beauty', in a wider sense at least.

That's a bit of a side argument to be honest.

Toronto's beauty comes from the fact we have an incredibly lively walkable safe city, for the most part very clean, in an undeniably beautiful natural setting, with an iconic and remarkable mix of architecture. We are one of the few cities out there with an impressive skyline that's actually friendly to walk through and walking distance from all sorts of residential amenities.

Toronto is unable to fully exploit that beauty due to some of our car-centric heritage that simply refuses to die (like the Gardiner expressway, Richmond and Adelaide remaining one-way wide streets, etc). The car-centric era brought a shift to the way in which we experienced the public realm, and many of our heritage buildings were (and continue to be) neglected. Many bright back-lit signs further hit the appearance of these buildings. Our city services continue acting as if it was the 1970s and 'fix' sidewalks by pouring asphalt on cracks. Finally, due to the lane-widening craze we went through, we now have significantly less mature trees on our main streets than we should.

We have been slowly correcting the mistakes above, though, and this summer for the first time I feel Toronto is finally turning the page (that will happen as the park in the West Don Lands opens up). I feel that now for the first time in 60 years Old Toronto is more friendly to people than to motorised vehicles.

The sheer number of photographers, journalists, artists, etc. who specialise on Toronto as a theme tell me that this city offers a very unique positive experience worthy of being captured.

 

[neubilder]

I never claimed the older buildings were special, or that mixing old and new is unique to Toronto. But the older buildings filled with successful retail in front of a hundred-year old streetcar line juxtaposed to a neo-modernist 50-story building (which would be the 3rd tallest building in Vancouver for example) housing state-of-the-art movie facilities is something which could only be seen in a handful of cities in the world (and definitely not in Portland, Boston, Philadelphia, etc).

6 out of the 20 tallest residential buildings in North America are currently in Toronto. One is in San Francisco, one is in Vancouver, 7 are in NY, and the rest are in Chicago. By 2015 (with the completion of Aura, L Tower, Ice, etc) Toronto will have 6 more(!) buildings in that ranking. As 10 York, 88 Scott, etc. are added to the equation Toronto's lead will be furthered.

Mind you I personally prefer mid-rise projects, but to deny that these towers have become and will continue to become iconic for Toronto is ridiculous.

You just described half the cities in N.A. and even European cities like Frankfurt or London which juxtapose old with new iconic towers- except in these cases both the old and the new make Toronto look tattered and provincial by comparison. Toronto might win in the game of 'who's the tallest', (if you exclude asia) but who cares? Aura is big, but that's all it is. I wouldn't even call it architecture.

 

[Roy G Biv]

Let's keep it simple. Street-scaping and parks are the easiest paths to beauty, as defined in the traditional sense. Toronto is average at both. Give me better urban integration of green space, street art, healthy trees and warm lights. Density is good, but give me set-backs around nice and important buildings. Architectural trends come and go, but I want to feel like I'm walking through an urban park, whatever the style.

 

[neubilder]

Let's keep it simple. Street-scaping and parks are the easiest paths to beauty, as defined in the traditional sense. Toronto is average at both. Give me better urban integration of green space, street art, healthy trees and warm lights. Density is good, but give me set-backs around nice and important buildings. Architectural trends come and go, but I want to feel like I'm walking through an urban park, whatever the style.

Can't argue with that!

 

[RC8]

You just described half the cities in N.A. and even European cities like Frankfurt or London which juxtapose old with new iconic towers- except in these cases both the old and the new make Toronto look tattered and provincial by comparison. Toronto might win in the game of 'who's the tallest', (if you exclude asia) but who cares? Aura is big, but that's all it is. I wouldn't even call it architecture.

Hah no, I did not. You can hate the tall neo-modernist residential towers all you want and pretend they don't exist, but that doesn't make them less iconic in this city.

There's nothing like them in Europe, either. The community dynamic these giants produce is very different from what you find elsewhere. If you hate them and don't find any beauty in them you are entitled to that opinion, but to say they aren't a fairly unique phenomenon in their structure and setting here is pushing it. I also agree that sadly our design standards are often not up to European levels. Whenever you see similar developments in the US (like in Miami) the towers are usually built to accommodate drivers and not pedestrians.

Maybe it's because I'm not originally from North America and don't take things for granted, but I think each of the 4 big Canadian cities (Ottawa, Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal) are very unique and completely unmistakable from one another and from any other city in the world. They are NOTHING like the stuff south of the border. And I say this having lived in the US. I would argue they are all beautiful cities in their own right, too.

Genuinely ugly cities in my opinion are places like Mississauga, Buffalo, Ft. Lauderdale, Detroit, Tampa, Houston, etc. I've heard from dozens of people who've been to Calgary that they would NEVER go back if they can help it. Apparently LA is horrible, too. Outside of North America I know Lima (Peru) and La Paz (Bolivia) are terrible. Caracas (Venezuela) and Rio de Janeiro would be terrible but they are bailed out by some of the most spectacular natural settings anywhere. New cities in the Middle East and many in Asia are as neubilder would say 'crimes against humanity'.

 

[TrickyRicky]

I believe some of my comments may have been taken as meaning a city can't be aesthetically beautiful and have a high standard of living. That is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that a city need not be beautiful to be livable, and furthermore what is beautiful is not necessarily universally understood.

Take RC8's list of cities he thinks are ugly above. Many of these cities may be considered ugly by a good number of people, perhaps even a majority of people here. But if you look at the list you will find that it contains cities that have low standards of living or are struggling in decline, but it also contains cities that are the wealthiest and most successful in the world.

Suggesting a city is beautiful or not beautiful is like judging a person. You can certainly do so and perhaps even do so in a way approaching objectivity. However, you might want to ask yourself if being beautiful matters so much why isn't everyone beautiful?

The answer is two-fold in my opinion. The first part is that beauty is not absolute. Beauty is a measure of AVERAGE and it is a dynamic average, meaning that it is the measure of average at a given point in time only. The engine driving change in beauty is status. Because you can't have high status if others are the same as you, intrinsically what is beautiful must by definition change with time. The second part is that beauty is only one of countless survival strategies. Being beautiful is good, but most people and most cities are not beautiful because there are countless other survival strategies which have nothing to do with succeeding by being beautiful.

So what does this mean for a city like Toronto? What it means is that the definition of beauty is a moving average so the city can never be beautiful, it must strive to be beautiful indefinately. It also means that beauty is good and so we should strive for this beauty and take it into consideration but it is not our primary survival strategy and hence should not be our primary issue of concern.