Let cities reach for the sky - Density Issues - Toronto compared

[gweed123]

In the absence of some significant geographical feature that limits it isn't any city going to sprawl, no matter how dense and urban its pre-automobile urban core might be? ... and providing it is experiencing growth and prosperity of course. Manhattan could only grow so wide because of the rivers that surround it and the huge park within it, for example. It had nowhere to go but up. Yes, Toronto's suburbs may sprawl like L.A's but is the urban core of Toronto like that of L.A'? Does L.A. have the breadth and depth of diverse, inner-city 'liveable' and affordable (relatively speaking) urban neighbourhoods that Toronto does? I don't know the answer to that because I've never been, but I would say that this is one of the more notable and outstanding features of Toronto as a city... for large chunks of it at least.

Toronto doesn't really fit any molds of other cities, rather I think it has created its own. While the downtown skyline may not be that unique (and aside from the CN Tower, really that memorable), the fact that Toronto and the GTA have multiple different 'downtowns' that could pass for skylines of any mid-size city in North America, I think really makes it unique. As was mentioned before, with most NA cities with a pretty much unlimited supply of land, you have the downtown core, and then low density suburbs.

Toronto is breaking that mold, and will continue to break that mold. The amount of densification taking place in the inner suburbs is astounding. I don't think there's another city in NA that's experienced this degree of densification outside of their urban core.

Oh, and I think the fact that Toronto has as many murders in a year as LA does in a week or two helps contribute to the liveable factor (literally).

 

[Tewder]

Yes, and the fact that people actually desire to live downtown... and can, unlike many US cities where the dream is to live in a middle-class burb or satellite node. This may be another indication that points to the 'liveability' of Tornto as a city, even in its most dense and urban areas... and lets not forget that no matter how dense and urban Manhattan is, almost nobody can really afford to live there now and most are fleeing for Brooklyn and Queen's etc, parts of which themselves are already getting priced out because of this.

 

[vicente]

I agree with the LA comparison. Toronto's arterials outside of the downtown area are mostly like LA's, composed of low-rise retail. And also that the neighborhoods are made up of detached single-family houses.

What's different is that LA's public transit sucks, they barely have a heavy rail system though they are building a new LRT line and extending another. The subway to Santa Monica doesn't seem like it's ever going to get built. Another difference is that nobody goes to downtown LA except for sports events, it's not the center of the metro like Toronto's or San Francisco's downtown is. A hundred suburbs in search of a city, as they say. Toronto also has a lot of highrises in the middle of nowhere, unlike LA.

 

[ahmad.m.atiya]

I agree with the LA comparison. Toronto's arterials outside of the downtown area are mostly like LA's, composed of low-rise retail. And also that the neighborhoods are made up of detached single-family houses.

What's different is that LA's public transit sucks, they barely have a heavy rail system though they are building a new LRT line and extending another. The subway to Santa Monica doesn't seem like it's ever going to get built. Another difference is that nobody goes to downtown LA except for sports events, it's not the center of the metro like Toronto's or San Francisco's downtown is. A hundred suburbs in search of a city, as they say. Toronto also has a lot of highrises in the middle of nowhere, unlike LA.

I don't understand your point. Just about every major North American city has large suburbs with detached single family houses. At least Toronto has plenty of high rises and "city centres" outside of downtown. Have you seen Chicago's suburbs? You need good eye sight to spot a single highrise outside of downtown.

 

[jetsbackincanada]

I found LA to be the least walkable city Ive ever been to. Without a car LA is a nightmare. Honestly I dont think Toronto and LA have much in common, aside from the Century city comparison. You always have to go across town to get anywhere in LA, theres no density, theres no heart of the city per say. If you fly into LA, take a cab downtown and then what?? In TO, Chi-town and NY, if your downtown you've arrived. LA you gotta get back in a car and back on a freeway. In fact LA is just free ways and strip malls, if your in downtown Toronto, you can spend days there, you can spend weeks in Manhattan and not see it all.

LA is the anti city....suburban sprawl for miles and miles without the core of a real downtown. San Fransisco on the other hand is a far more "East coast" mentality, with the street cars and density and walkable neighborhoods. A good friend of mine lives in LA, and its common place there to drive 45 mins to an hour and a half to get where your going. In NY, you can go weeks without being on a freeway.

 

[taal]

Have you been to LA?, I never get the lack of density - it has a huge core of about 15-20 story buildings. It's not the most deseriable area and I guess that's why many don't visit and stick to the traditional tourist sites.

 

[steveve]

kinda random, but in terms of skyline look (not architecture wise), Calgary has always reminded me of canada's LA. (especially with the mountain regions close to it)
and yes, toronto and LA have very little in common (aside from toronto being canada's film hub and having a whole buncha different cultures).

we should probably get back on topic before somebody gets pissed.

 

[Translude15]

Sorry to go back to this discussion, but although the ideas about LA being a giant swath of sprawl are not unwarranted, there are efforts being made out there to reverse the automobile-centric habits of the past 50 years. Older buildings downtown, like here, are being converted into lofts/ small condos, and with the construction of LA Live by the Staples Center, there's a genuine effort being made to revitalize the Downtown LA area as a livable, and attractive centre. Metro Rail's current system length is at about 125 km, and the Metro Expo line, which is currently under construction, will connect Downtown to Santa Monica. Further extensions are also foreseeable. Essentially, public transit is slowly being embraced as a legitimate alternative for getting around town.

As with the TO-LA comparisons, there are a few that I have noticed, although LA in itself has a far different urban vibe than Toronto, especially given its mountainous backdrop, coastal location and Mediterranean climate. Western areas like Dundas St. east of Sherway Gardens, and Burnamthorpe west of Sq. 1 for instance, have a very LA-like appearance to them, as these sorts of street arrangements dominate LA, especially in the San Fernando Valley. Many of Toronto's highways, given their width and heavy usage, are no different than those of So-Cal. Parts of the 401 and 400, with the many industrial areas fronting onto them, remind me of LA as well.

Lastly, I think that the initial comparison comment was based solely on each city's skyline. Take the CN Tower away from a TO skyline shot from the west end, and the building arrangement and melange of colours is strikingly similar to LAs.

 

[jetsbackincanada]

from the Mississauga Clock Tower

Shouldn't there be flying cars in these pics, down the yellow brick road, to the cloud city Megathopolis>? It just looks so sci fi!!

Is it the zoom that makes it look so tall from so far away???

 

[johnwood]

wonder why toronto looks big sometimes like in some pics and looks like winnipeg in others. Calgary looks like la more than to? tell for yourself.

 

[Bruvyman]

wonder why toronto looks big sometimes like in some pics and looks like winnipeg in others. Calgary looks like la more than to? tell for yourself.

It is due, I would think, to perspective which would be affected mostly by the camera's location in relation to the subject and the focal length of the lens, and to a lesser degree the lighting, cropping, and composition of the photo.

...oh, and is the irony of four more off-topic posts discussing the lack of enforcement on off-topic posts not lost on anyone else?

 

[Bogtrotter]

I can see some of comparisons with LA which have been stated, the Century City comparison and TO's similar clusters of highrise nodes, the busy endless lowrise thoroughfares and wide freeways. The west end of the city I think has a bit of an LA feel, as well as the approach to the downtown from that direction. Once you actually get into the core, the comparison ends in my opinion- it's more like a northeast city.

 

[Bogtrotter]

wonder why toronto looks big sometimes like in some pics and looks like winnipeg in others. Calgary looks like la more than to? tell for yourself.

Not sure what you are getting at with these random shots of various cities, beyond broad generalizations they all look quite different to me. Can you be more specific in your comaprisons?

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

Man, this thread really got highjacked by the postcard-jizzers.

 

[TrickyRicky]

Back to the original topic: I've expressed my opinion in similar threads that building height is not a particular concern to me. However, looking at new developments in this city I would have to say that there is something not right about most of our new, particularly our larger, developments.

My suggestion is that planners and designers occupy themselves too much with building form and occupancy issues. Cities are places where people live and share responsibilities. It's been a while since I've read "Death and Life" but regardless of how right or wrong Jane Jacobs was she viewing planning through a human lens. That is the brilliance of her work. She tackled a discipline dominated by people who concern themselves with things and physical externalities, and said no wait cities are really about people and psychological projections of our minds. The author of the orginal article in this thread actually exposes an ignorance of this concept.

Where Jacobs may have failed was in contemplating the economic implications of healthy communities. Healthy communities are desirable and so, the most successful communities often become victoms of their own success. This circle sometimes completes itself and communities do not just go from death to life, they also sometimes go from life to death.

There is a direct tension between equitable opportunites and competitive forces in shaping cities. What direction makes a city successful? There is no answer, there are only self-interests. In some aspects Mahattan is a success and LA is a failure. But the reverse is also true. We in Toronto are transitioning from a city defined by success in creating equitable opportunities, to a city striving for success as a competitive landscape. The fall-out generates winners and losers because we do not all share the same self-interests.