Post: NY group flunks Toronto's waterfront

[roch5220]

This opinion is proffered by a non-profit organization

Well actually, it seems like one person's submission within their community. Which is then touted by the organization.

I too would agree with others to see how enitre waterfronts stack up at each other. I think some findings would be shocking, as some cities people look up towards the sky rather out to the water.

 

[roch5220]

Some of that stuff on the pps website is funny. In my opinion, the org. seems like an interesting community, something like these forums that have taken the next organized step forward.

www2.pps.org/news/one-ent...age_center

 

[tudararms]

Thanks Bogtrotter, you've put it succinctly!

SD2:

"That they're a non-profit organization is totally irrelevant."

Well presumably there is no hidden agenda here at least: There is no political or economic benefit for them to not like the waterfront.

"It's not a matter of them not seeing what I'd like them to see; it's a matter of them not seeing it for what it really is."

They saw what they saw, and made an assessment. One that isn't far off the mark, by the way, at least as far as the 'central' waterfront is concerned which is likely what they were looking at. Are you meaning that the central waterfront can be ugly and uninviting, but as long as the fringe areas of the waterfront are better then the waterfront should be considered favourably overall?

"I don't understand this line of reasoning. If someone came back from Chicago and told me the waterfront was stunning based on some time spent at Navy Pier, I'd think to myself "great, can't wait to see it". If I went, and found it to be less than spectacular after a more comprehensive look than my friend took, I would no longer place as much value on their impression, which judged the entirety of the waterfront on a small area."

I don't disagree with this SD, but the situation you describe isn't apples and apples to this assessment of Toronto's waterfront: To hear somebody rave about the marvel that is the Toronto waterfront I'd be pretty disappointed and underwhelmed as a visitor to come and see the ugly and uninviting mess that dominates. I may see some nice areas here and there, but my overall impression would not be great, and I don't think i'd be more impressed just because a local might keep insisting that my opinion isn't worth anything because I don't see the beauty they perceive or know to be lurking just beyond the next bend if I would only take the time to look. Sorry, I'm off to Chicago!!

"But that's the problem. They didn't assess it for what it is...they assessed the entire waterfront for what a small portion of it is."

Are we talking about the same place????? I think you need to take me on a tour, because clearly I've only seen the tiny negligible part of the waterfront that is lacking.

 

[roch5220]

Are we talking about the same place????? I think you need to take me on a tour, because clearly I've only seen the tiny negligible part of the waterfront that is lacking.

Any tourist book should help you. If the only place you've been along the watefront is the downtown harbourfront, then you should have said so at the start. Which is why, most posters here have said the same thing. The area downtown is lacking = doesnt equate to the entire waterfront. I understand the sphere of your views now. End of story.

 

[tudararms]

Roch: This may be hard for you to accept, but believe it or not it is the central waterfront that counts. fin de l'histoire.

 

[roch5220]

Obviously. If thats the only place along the waterfront you have visited.

 

[roch5220]

I seriously can't understand why you would debate such things, when you havn't seen more of the waterfront. Its one thing to disagree, because you've seen it and thought the other areas were immaterial, but to debate something so obtusely and then to label others as Toronto boosters who have seen more, is quite damaging to your reputation. To have a different opinion is one thing, but this is definately very ignorant. Its not worth the debate with you if you base your arguments on limited point of views.

 

[SD2]

Well presumably there is no hidden agenda here at least: There is no political or economic benefit for them to not like the waterfront.

When did I imply they had a hidden agenda?

All I said is that they did a bad job.

They saw what they saw, and made an assessment. One that isn't far off the mark, by the way, at least as far as the 'central' waterfront is concerned which is likely what they were looking at.

They saw what they saw, and made an assessment for the entire waterfront. It's like going to a restaurant and assessing the entire menu based on one item.

As I've said, being accurate about the central waterfront is one thing...but then judging the entire waterfront based just on that is very inaccurate.

Not sure how you can support such lousy research.

Are you meaning that the central waterfront can be ugly and uninviting, but as long as the fringe areas of the waterfront are better then the waterfront should be considered favourably overall?

When did I write anything like that? It's pretty clear the 'sour grapes' have been created in your head.

It isn't a simple case of the waterfront being good or bad. The central waterfront itself isn't ugly and uninviting in it's entirety, and there are many other areas of the waterfront that are not "fringe".

For an analysis of the waterfront you'd think more responsible than to take a small area and judge the entire thing on it.

I don't disagree with this SD, but the situation you describe isn't apples and apples to this assessment of Toronto's waterfront: To hear somebody rave about the marvel that is the Toronto waterfront I'd be pretty disappointed and underwhelmed as a visitor to come and see the ugly and uninviting mess that dominates.

These aren't just tourists!

I may see some nice areas here and there, but my overall impression would not be great, and I don't think i'd be more impressed just because a local might keep insisting that my opinion isn't worth anything because I don't see the beauty they perceive or know to be lurking just beyond the next bend if I would only take the time to look. Sorry, I'm off to Chicago!!

You seem to be referring specifically to the central waterfront. There are areas of the waterfront that are nice in their entirety.

Secondly, I didn't say I would tell a tourist that there opinion isn't worth anything...but rather that their opinion was based on a very small area and that having seen much more it's not as nice as it's made out to be.

As for tourists here, I would never dismiss their opinion...I'd just suggest some nicer places they could take a look at.

Are we talking about the same place????? I think you need to take me on a tour, because clearly I've only seen the tiny negligible part of the waterfront that is lacking.

Are you kidding me? roch5220 is right. It appears you have only seen a small part of the waterfront (the central waterfront). Apparently you aren't familiar with Humber, Sunnyside, Ashbridges Bay, The Beach, etc.

No wonder you seem to have no problem with this group's analysis...it appears you've only seen the central waterfront too.

 

[tudararms]

Roch: "I seriously can't understand why you would debate such things, when you havn't seen more of the waterfront. Its one thing to disagree, because you've seen it and thought the other areas were immaterial, but to debate something so obtusely and then to label others as Toronto boosters who have seen more, is quite damaging to your reputation."

No, I've seen other parts of the waterfront which makes your contention here inaccurate.

"To have a different opinion is one thing, but this is definately very ignorant. Its not worth the debate with you if you base your arguments on limited point of views."

You're welcome to ignore my 'ignorance'. If you cannot deal with a difference of opinion you should perhaps not be posting as that is what is of the essence here.

 

[tudararms]

SD2: "They saw what they saw, and made an assessment for the entire waterfront. It's like going to a restaurant and assessing the entire menu based on one item."

SD, I think maybe I can clear our difference of opinion: I feel their assessment is 'valid' if not necessarily 'accurate', at least in terms of the wider parameters you are arguing for above. Is that a more agreeable way to put it? To use your example above, the one item on the "waterfront menu" they tried was the featured entree, "Central Waterfront Special", which they really did not like, and within the limits and confines of this visit they have offered an assessment of the restaurant as a whole. Based on this point of view, I am arguing that although the restaurant management can dismiss this review off hand as unfair or limited in scope, wouldn't it be better to accept the criticism for what it is, learn from it what can be learned, and move on to do better later on?

 

[roch5220]

No, I've seen other parts of the waterfront which makes your contention here inaccurate

Are we talking about the same place????? I think you need to take me on a tour, because clearly I've only seen the tiny negligible part of the waterfront that is lacking

Crystal clear.

 

[roch5220]

To use your example above, the one item on the "waterfront menu" they tried was the featured entree, "Central Waterfront Special", which they really did not like, and within the limits and confines of this visit they have offered an assessment of the restaurant as a whole.

You have a valid argument, if thats what they were comparing it to. Unfortunately, when they looked at the 'Central Waterfront', they indicted the entire waterfront - even though they aknowledged it was only a small area of teh '23kms' of waterfront. When they looked at NYC, they indicted specifically the 'Brooklyn Bridge Park', and not the entire waterfront. Same goes for London. I think the real issue is that because Toronto isn't in the same leagues city status wise as NYC or London, they spent a considerable less amount of time, hence, they looked at one piece and extrapolated it, vs what they did for other cities which was to look at specific public places. And its not like the public places like the "Brooklyn Bridge Park" are so much more noteworthy and bigger in terms of attendance and space, if they did a comparison of that park, then ideally they could do the same for the Toronto Harbourfront, Centre Island, Beaches, Sunnyside, etc. Which is why we are not happy with what we feel as them comparing apple slices to oranges.

And its not like we are saying that all other waterfront areas are pristinely perfect. We have mentioned what we feel are bright spots, but there are other blights that could be further brought up.

 

[SD2]

SD, I think maybe I can clear our difference of opinion: I feel their assessment is 'valid' if not necessarily 'accurate', at least in terms of the wider parameters you are arguing for above. Is that a more agreeable way to put it? To use your example above, the one item on the "waterfront menu" they tried was the featured entree, "Central Waterfront Special", which they really did not like, and within the limits and confines of this visit they have offered an assessment of the restaurant as a whole. Based on this point of view, I am arguing that although the restaurant management can dismiss this review off hand as unfair or limited in scope, wouldn't it be better to accept the criticism for what it is, learn from it what can be learned, and move on to do better later on?

roch5220 has provided a great response so I'm not sure there's much to add.

The bottom line is that they've analyzed a small portion of the waterfront as the entire waterfront. In your analogy, the restaurant could perhaps learn something from the negative criticism of the one dish; but that doesn't mean the reviewers were correct in judging the entire menu based on one dish.

No one would accept such faulty reasoning...yet we're supposed to? I don't think so.

It's also worth noting that roch, I and others have in no way claimed the waterfront is perfect; quite the opposite. The issue is with the laziness and inaccuracy of the report.

As for learning something regarding the central waterfront...what's really to learn from their report? The issues raised are ones that I've been aware of for a long time (and I'm sure the same could be said for roch) and certainly do not pertain to the entire waterfront; it's not like they really did some groundbreaking work on the small area they did study.

 

[tudararms]

I think the original word I used was 'churlish'. Reading these protestations I find myself coming back to that word, and the circle is closed...for me.

 

[roch5220]