News   Jul 12, 2024
199 Church Showcases Heritage Facade and Artwork at Street Level
 768     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Six Points Plaza Redevelopment Advances With 36-Storey First Phase
 694     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Trading Spaces: Can Real Estate Conversion Help Boost Housing Supply?
 302     0 

Magazine article -- "Toronto : Justice Denied"

I thought it was very good prose--as always with Kingwell--but I don't think I really got what he was driving at...
 
Agreed, and that's been said in some of the reader responses on the Walrus site. After reading this I'm not sure how much real meat there is to it, although it is certainly "literary".

Not that this was a total waste of time, but I would recommend some of the entries on Richard Florida's website instead.
 
I have to say, though, Kingwell is a very impressive guy with some great thoughts on the city which deserve attention. I heard him speak at the uTOpia launch a couple of years ago, and definitely got the impression that he has a very sensible, balanced view of Toronto's ideal future.

In particular, he was talking about the influence of Jane Jacobs, and what a double-edged sword her legacy has become for the city--in that being civic-minded in post-1970s Toronto has often been equated with saying 'no' to things, rather than articulating any real vision. It's an interesting thesis, and it definitely brought me around to the idea that maybe it's time to let some--though by no means all--of Jane's ideas rest.
 
I know we talk about all the Jane Jacobs NIMBYism and all that, but what have we actually said "No" to? Anything? Pretty much every development that has been proposed in the last decade has been approved, with at most insignificant modifications.

Besides, Jacobs wasn't about saying "No" to things. She was about protecting diversity in neighbourhoods, particularly established neighbourhoods, and that's a very noble goal that we're doing a pretty poor job of achieving.
 
Indeed, unimaginative. I don't think it's very logical to think that the misuse and misinterpretation of Jane Jacob's ideas is a reason to retire those ideas.

Someone should write a book "The Ideas of Jane Jacobs", to summarise, clearly present, and illustrate her ideas for the general public.
 
Better still, set yourselves up as the Dear Abby and Ann Landers of the Jane Jacobs world and set us all straight when we err or need advice.
 
Dear Abby is probably more to the point, since letters to Ann Landers get the same response as letters to Jane herself these days.
 
unimaginative2 said:
Besides, Jacobs wasn't about saying "No" to things. She was about protecting diversity in neighbourhoods, particularly established neighbourhoods, and that's a very noble goal that we're doing a pretty poor job of achieving.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I should have phrased my initial post better. The ideas were (and are) good...but Kingwell's point is that they do carry, in their very nature, significant potential for misuse. They can easily become a cover that allows people to sound very progressive when they're really just defending their property values.
 
Like tens of thousands of Torontonians, I live in an established neighbourhood where there is zero diversity; it works just fine - as it does for many such neighbourhoods - and the new official plan guarantees that it continues to do so by directing "diversity" elsewhere.
 
Urban Shocker said:
Like tens of thousands of Torontonians, I live in an established neighbourhood where there is zero diversity; it works just fine - as it does for many such neighbourhoods - and the new official plan guarantees that it continues to do so by directing "diversity" elsewhere.
Click to expand...

so ur sayin u like it tha way? segregated? mine south asian wich alone diverse, west indian, carib n somali. n if u cross border u can find some italians rare tho. so is diverse same w/ jnf
 
From 8 or 9 in the morning until 5 or 6 at night, Monday to Friday, Prime Riverdale is almost completely deserted. The adults are at work and the children are at school. There's nobody there, so there's nobody to be offended by the silence of our heavenly, single-use neighbourhood. Such superblocks work beautifully, as they were designed to do. Those of us who live in them ( my superblock runs from the Danny to Gerrard, from Broadview to Pape ) have no interest in shoehorning offices, shops or factories into our lovely residential streets, and the City politicians who rely on our votes have expressed no plans to do so.
 
I have no doubt that Ms. Jacobs would have absolutely loved Riverdale and would have had no problems with it, US. How does it differ greatly from the Annex? How busy is Albany Ave during 9-5 on a weekday?

I think you're mistaken as to some definitions and in your understanding of her ideas. "the Danny to Gerrard, from Broadview to Pape" is by no definition a "superblock", and is instead the exact opposite, containing many small blocks and local through streets. Riverdale includes commercial uses along its local streets of Broadview, Danforth, and Pape as well as at Riverdale Shopping Centre, so it's not a single-use community either.

It's silly to try and present Riverdale as being planned no differently than, for example, Regent Park.
 
My part of Riverdale presumably fits u2's definition of an established neighbourhood, since most of the houses were built between 1890 and 1920, yet the diversity that he talks of protecting in such an established neighbourhood consists of a single use which is residential, south of the Danforth, north of Gerrard, east of Broadview and west of Pape.

One of the characteristics of it are the long east-west avenues east of Broadview, unbroken by cross-streets, that were built up with houses within a few short years. Mine is one of a largish group of similar semi-detached homes built by the same builder about a century ago. They're part of a larger block without cross-streets that is considerably larger than, say, the Pier 27 site which u2 dismisses in that thread with, "single-use superblocks developed at once like this are exactly what she ( Jane Jacobs ) spent her entire life fighting against" and insists should have shopping and restaurants and goodness knows what other commercial uses inserted into.

Superblocks when it is convenient to call them that, and not superblocks when it is inconvenient to do so.
 
I see. The Pier27 debate has wandered into another thread.

I will concede that your points are fair and true, if one sees the waterfront as being a district that requires the exact same approach and fills the exact same role in a city as Riverdale, Lawrence Park, Downsview, or Woburn.

However, if one believes that the form of the waterfront should be dictated by a different set of models and standards than single-family housing, such as those defined by experiences and conclusions gained from observation of higher-density multi-storey development, mentioning what works in Riverdale comes across as being as meaningful as what has created a healthy and vibrant neighbourhood in Moosonee.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top