Post: NY group flunks Toronto's waterfront

[roch5220]

My point is more they are critisizing the entire waterfront, vs. their other critisims of other places, which is of seperate parks. The Brooklyn Bridge Park is one area in NYC, you can also take one chunk and critisize it, but why would you say that the entire Toronto waterfront flunks? Large swaths of prime NYC waterfront is a lot worse, yet when comparing Toronto's waterfront, they compare it to small specific areas of other cities waterfronts? If this group is saying that Toronto's waterfront fails, I would expect that they would also say that NYC waterfront fails as well, as in my opinion, the better waterfront areas in NYC are actually in New Jersey. The west side and east side of manhattan are overrun with highways, Roosevelt island is an isolated commutity that feels more like a giant public housing project. And the queens/brooklyn waterfronts are nothing to excited about. The beachfront areas of coney island, fine, are nice, but so are the beaches along the south side of the Toronto islands.

SO when I see an article that comes to the conclusion that TOronto's waterfront flunks, while not critiquing other waterfronts in the same way - especially if its the groups home base (I am assuming they think the rest of NYC's waterfront is passes if they only point to Brooklyn Bridge Park), then I am going to attack it. They skew things one way to support their agenda, I'll pick it apart. I'd rather have condos line the harbourfront area, where pedestrians can walk safely inbetween them (then highways, right almost at the waters edge, where you have either no access, or view the waterfront via the overpass walkway).

Its not an inferiority complex of TO (since I no longer live here) but more the fact they are comparing different things that eggs me a bit. And I do realize the DVP and Rail lands are a barrier, especially downtown, but atleast it is accessable via streetcar, or walking under the bridges, overall, its a lot more assessible. So it tweaks me why. Why not just point to the downtown waterfront and compare it? There are decent areas of the 416 waterfront that provide proper recreation to the inhabitants.

 

[tudararms]

roch: Take it for what it is and move on! This is only an opinion or the overall impression of an outside entity, a 'non-profit urban planning and design organization", no less. Besides, aren't they really only saying what we've already heard before?...

"Private development has resulted in a barrier of condo high-rises, which blocks the view of the water from the rest of Toronto and creates a psychological barrier for the general public.

With a quite reasonable warning calling for better planning...

"Condos are being thrown up every week it seems," said Project for Public Spaces vice-president Cynthia Nikitin. "You'll have all these buildings and then when you want public space all the decisions will have been made and it'll be too late."

I don't think there is a conspiracy against Toronto, and they may not have ventured out to Scarborough to view how impressive and public the Toronto waterfront is, but this doesn't necessarily make an objective, outside assessment invalid. Hopefully when the waterfront is complete this assessment will be different, providing it doesn't continue to drag out for years. Remains to be seen though.

 

[roch5220]

I don't think there is a conspiracy against Toronto, and they may not have ventured out to Scarborough to view how impressive and public the Toronto waterfront is, but this doesn't necessarily make an objective, outside assessment invalid.

The waterfront stretches further each way outside of the downtown core. An idicment against the core area should not be an indicment against the whole waterfront. The point is, they didn't make an indicment against NYC waterfront just based upon one area. Why do the same for Toronto. I would have had no problems with their quams against the downtown waterfront/port area.

 

[Brighter Hell]

The waterfront's main weakness, according to the organization, is that it is dominated by privately owned commercial space.

That describes most of the major waterfronts in the world. High rises are close to the water in Chicago, New York, Vancouver, Sydney, Singapore, Hong Kong....

It's the emptiness of the railway lands, not condo towers, that separates the central waterfront from the city.

 

[tudararms]

"The waterfront stretches further each way outside of the downtown core. An idicment against the core area should not be an indicment against the whole waterfront. The point is, they didn't make an indicment against NYC waterfront just based upon one area. Why do the same for Toronto. I would have had no problems with their quams against the downtown waterfront/port area. "

It seems churlish to quibble over such details. They've given an assessment that is based on their impressions. You may be right about the details, but at the end of the day does that make their 'impression' invalid?

 

[hkskyline]

The Hudson River waterfront has gone through a lot of revitalization. Riverside Park South has a continuous bike / pedestrian promenade from the 80s down to 59.

I particularly like how they used the highway shade for a long bicycle pathway. Meanwhile, pedestrians would walk along separate paths right by the water.

They've done a fairly good job on this stretch of waterfront, and it's a huge section all the way from the Upper West to Midtown.

Meanwhile, there is another bicycle / pedestrian promenade under the FDR along the East River from Chinatown to South Street Seaport. It's not as pretty, but at least the area is open to public use.

Looking at how the two promenades have aged, it looks like the Riverside South piece is very recent. The New Jersey side has a lot of new walkways along the water as well, but they are more piecemeal developments here and there. However, the Hoboken - Jersey City is quite well done.

I get the impression after walking these promenades that the Americans have really gotten their act together on this.

 

[SD2]

"It seems churlish to quibble over such details. They've given an assessment that is based on their impressions. You may be right about the details, but at the end of the day does that make their 'impression' invalid?"

Well, everyone has the right to an opinion...but in this case is very inaccurate.

I guess you'd expect a group doing such a study to be a lot more thourough in their research.

 

[tudararms]

SD: You can be 'right' all you want but it doesn't change the impression one may have. Are you implying some sort of conspiracy against Toronto?

 

[SD2]

You can be 'right' all you want but it doesn't change the impression one may have.

I didn't mean "right" as in right or wrong.

Are you implying some sort of conspiracy against Toronto?

No.

Are you implying their work is above analysis or criticism?

 

[tudararms]

No, but either you value their 'impression' or you don't. Visitors, tourists and even residents of the city will not necessarily experience the waterfront in all its intricate detail from one end of the GTA to the other, yet they will still likely form an overall impression of it that they'll take away with them.

 

[roch5220]

It seems churlish to quibble over such details. They've given an assessment that is based on their impressions. You may be right about the details, but at the end of the day does that make their 'impression'

I more 'churlish' over the fact that they compare the 'entire waterfront', which there critisims clearly are focused on the downtown area, to only certain small chuncks of other city waterfronts. Like I said before, I have no issues with pointing out the problems with the downtown area, however, when you walk around hugh swaths of the waterfront outside the downtown area, like the beachs stretch, the Toronto islands, and even areas centered around the sunnyside pool, these areas are well visited on a sunny weekend day - moreso than the downtown waterfront. Hence, the waterfront area is just more than downtown area blocked off by condos. There 'impressions' appear to be no more than someone driving by in a car after making a quicky exit off of the DVP, going from, and back to the airport, if thats what they think the entire waterfront area are. I don't have exact numbers, but I'm sure the downtown area attract only a small fraction of people of the entire waterfront area.

 

[roch5220]

Visitors, tourists and even residents of the city will not necessarily experience the waterfront in all its intricate detail

Nor would a lot go visit the downtown waterfront either. This might change if the downtown waterfront was made over extremely, and romatisized, but lets face it, a waterfront area isn't a dealbreaker when people choose to visit a city. I would guess that more residents of the city would be inclined to visit the beachs or the Toronto islands over the downtown waterfront.

 

[SD2]

No, but either you value their 'impression' or you don't. Visitors, tourists and even residents of the city will not necessarily experience the waterfront in all its intricate detail from one end of the GTA to the other, yet they will still likely form an overall impression of it that they'll take away with them.

But these aren't just visitors or tourists - they're a group that focuses on the evaluation and improvement of cities, neighbourhoods, etc.

If they're going to publish an analysis that isn't even close to being accurate, then there's a good chance they'll be called on it...especially on this forum.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

SD:

They had been called on their piece on the waterfront on here before.

AoD

 

[Archivistower]

Hey Roch,

Nor would a lot go visit the downtown waterfront either.

Have you never been to Harbourfront in summer? Can't walk, can't sit, for the people everywhere. People shopping, sitting in the sun, taking boat cruises, etc. etc. Sometimes when I listen to people talking about our waterfront, I think there is another one that I'm unaware of.