Post: NY group flunks Toronto's waterfront

[roch5220]

Archivistower:

Yes, Habourfront is crawling with people on nice days. But at the same time, most other areas that I mentioned are also crawling with people. The harbourfront area takes in a chunk of the people going to the waterfront, but given total waterfront attendance on a sunny weekend day, it by no means does it take in an overwhelming majority that would make all other waterfront areas immaterial. My point I am trying to make is that the downtown waterfront is just a piece of the entire waterfront, and the health of it doesn't give the entire waterfront a passing or failing grade, given its overall signficance.

And my comment that you were referring to regarding the harbourfront was geared more towards tourists.

 

[Archivistower]

Oh, I see. Well, I actually agree with you very much, there are many busy pockets of the waterfront on a good day, of which the central Harbourfront is just one.

People often fail to compare lenghts of waterfront. I think particularly of Montreal's "waterfront" towards the east end of downtown and beyond, which is unapproachable due to car and railway traffic.

 

[tudararms]

"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."

Without getting too philosophical here, how can an 'impression' be inaccurate? It is what it is, no? I may go to Buffalo and get a fairly unfavourable opinion of the place and this may frustrate local boosters who may insist I didn't see everything correctly, but that wont change my impression. It'll just sound like sour grapes.

 

[Oliver Tweed]

This is so frustrating! This is just an urban issues group based in New York!!! It's not the f***ing New York city council!

Who knows? They might even give a failing grade to New York's waterfront, but they weren't commenting on it at the time. This has nothing to do with New York vs. Toronto. The point is that they give the pre-redeveloped Toronto waterfront a failing grade. So what? Pretty well everyone here does too, hence the plan to redevelop it.

I think semantics are confusing the debate over the current state of the waterfront. The shore of Lake Ontario is beautiful. The parts that have been made open and welcoming to Torontonians are also very beautiful. I was just down there on the weekend and it was absolutely gorgeous. It was also crowded.

I feel - and I think others share this view - that given the enormous potential of the "waterfront" it is not currently well-used. That is slowly changing, though. The music garden, the new waterfront parks they are building, it's all starting to add up.

When people say things like "Toronto's waterfront sucks," or whatever, they don't usually mean the whole thing is crap, they just mean it could be so much better and much more work needs to be done. I think it's an expression of frustration, not defeat.

 

[roch5220]

This is so frustrating! This is just an urban issues group based in New York!!! It's not the f***ing New York city council!

Yes, but they are comparing apple slices to oranges.

When people say things like "Toronto's waterfront sucks," or whatever, they don't usually mean the whole thing is crap, they just mean it could be so much better and much more work needs to be done. I think it's an expression of frustration, not defeat.

And when the compare Toronto's waterfront, to specific areas within other cities waterfront areas, it doesn't read the same way as you described, in this article.

 

[roch5220]

Without getting too philosophical here, how can an 'impression' be inaccurate? It is what it is, no? I may go to Buffalo and get a fairly unfavourable opinion of the place and this may frustrate local boosters who may insist I didn't see everything correctly,

Tudarams

I think you are getting confused on what we are saying. I think most are in agreement that the downtown waterfront, the area THAT IS line with condo buildings, and seperated by both rail lands and the Gardiner is in need of redevelopment. But that area does not equate to the entire waterfront. Its not about being a local booster, its about providing a proper critique. Why must pointing out a miss represented argument, which you once posted as a 'technicality', be labelled being a local booster? (I ignored it once, but not again) I can start labelling things as well but we can leave that stuff at another website s.com. Where in our argument is wrong? I can say where theres is. The entire waterfront isn't blocked off by a wall of condos. Just the downtown area - where highrises tend to be located.

 

[roch5220]

The tract of land along the 25 kilometres of Lake Ontario has become prime real estate in the process of urban densification, renewal and development. Industrial infrastructure that lines the shore now houses cultural venues like Harbourfront Centre and the Power Plant, a community centre and contemporary art gallery. While there have been some creative and innovative efforts in creating public spaces that truly assert a local identity. Private investment-led development threatens to turn the waterfront into a tourist spectacle; already this investment-led strategy has resulted in a curtain of high-rise condos that visually and psychologically cut the waterfront off from the rest of the city.

Link to actual : Hall of Shame => www.pps.org/great_public_...&type_id=0

It seems to me that they acknowledge that the size of the waterfront, but extropolation doesn't cut it. On the other hand, a 25km curtain would actually be pretty site to some.


Though only a small patch of the entire Toronto waterfront,

Then why sell as more? It leads me to question their motives for other purposes.

 

[ganjavih]

Also remember for years the waterfront did really suck. Bad reputations take a long time to disappear, no matter what the new reality may be.

 

[Ed007Toronto]

Maybe the inner harbour did/does but most of the waterfront is pretty good and always has been. Did they not see the Islands across the harbour? Or Sunnyside, or Qew Beach or The Bluffs or... Do they not constitute "good" waterfront?

 

[SD2]

Without getting too philosophical here, how can an 'impression' be inaccurate? It is what it is, no? I may go to Buffalo and get a fairly unfavourable opinion of the place and this may frustrate local boosters who may insist I didn't see everything correctly, but that wont change my impression. It'll just sound like sour grapes.

What you're arguing is akin to a researcher publishing a sloppy, inaccurate work and then justifying it as their opinion/impression, and labeling the disagreement of others as sour grapes.

As an urban issues/improvement group routinely publishing research, I hold them to higher standards than a bunch of tourists.

If someone was to visit and get a negative impression of the waterfront, I'd have no problem agreeing if it was indeed one of the decrepit portions. At the same time, I'd point out some of the nicer areas they could visit their next time around.

In this case a group of researchers took a limited portion of the waterfront and condemned the entire thing based on the merits of a small area. This has nothing to do with sour grapes or insecurity; the fact is, they're guilty of some sloppy work and lazy research.

The difference between the two is that a tourist (in most cases anyways) here to see the city hasn't come specifically to explore/research the waterfront and publish something on it. If they happen to see a bad part of the waterfront, that's unfortunate. I agree that many parts of the waterfront need a lot of work, but it also has some very nice areas as well. This group, on the other hand, came to specifically examine the waterfront and gather some information on it for the purpose of analysis. They're held to a higher standard, the type of standard you'd hold any publication to.

If I wouldn't accept substandard work from any other group, why would I accept it from them?

 

[alklay]

Nicely put.

 

[tudararms]

"What you're arguing is akin to a researcher publishing a sloppy, inaccurate work and then justifying it as their opinion/impression, and labeling the disagreement of others as sour grapes."

This opinion is proffered by a non-profit organization. These are not the in-depth findings of an academic investigation or of a Royal Commission or of any paid, sanctioned organization. Take their findings for what they are! If there's something we can learn from their perspective, fine. If not, fine too (though I find that hard to believe!). Stamping your feet that they're wrong and inaccurate and didn't see all the things you want them to doesn't change their perspective. In fact, isn't it quite the opposite? Seems to me that an ostensibly objective, unsolicited, unorchestrated and undirected assessment of the waterfront may be far more insightful, if only from the point of view of an outsider.

Personally I could care less how Toronto's waterfront fares in comparison to whatever unfair portion of NYC they compared it with. What's more interesting and more telling is their reaction to here. It's not the whole story, obviously. They don't necessarily know what the plans are and what is unfolding. They may not have ventured out to the Scarborough Bluffs or caught the butterfly garden or something. That's okay, we know those things are there. Look at what they did see, and what they did assess and take it for what it is.

 

[Bogtrotter]

Well I certainly care how Toronto's public spaces compare to those in other cities, and the waterfront in particular. These guys seem to interested in such things and I don't begrudge them anything www.pps.org/info/aboutpps/staff/ They came, they saw, and they were disappointed.

When it comes to that important stretch of waterfront directly in front of the downtown, their comments are bang-on. Way too much commercial space and condos and very little of interest in between. I realize that some initiatives have been undertaken, but it's not nearly enough.

 

[esplanade guy]

I also like hear how Toronto compares to other cities, it's good to know how we stack up compared to other large cities. I have been to a lot of major cities and I haven't seen many great waterfronts. (except for small pockets) What major cities have great waterfronts? Not just one nice park or arts complex but a really accessable, attractive, exciting or charming waterfront. Other then the south or France, I have not seen many beautiful waterfronts, well, except for Vancouver's. I was very impressed by Vancouver and the waterfront was acceessable and nice.

 

[SD2]

This opinion is proffered by a non-profit organization. These are not the in-depth findings of an academic investigation or of a Royal Commission or of any paid, sanctioned organization.

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

Take their findings for what they are!

That's exactly what many of us are doing, but you seem to think we're being unreasonable city boosters if we disagree with their assessment and analysis.

Stamping your feet that they're wrong and inaccurate and didn't see all the things you want them to doesn't change their perspective.

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.

In fact, isn't it quite the opposite? Seems to me that an ostensibly objective, unsolicited, unorchestrated and undirected assessment of the waterfront may be far more insightful, if only from the point of view of an outsider.

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.

If someone were to mention my friend's opinion of Chicago's waterfront, I'd just say "They only saw a small part though...overall it's lacking".

I'd even put my own impressions up for review. If someone else went to Chicago and was even more thourough than me, I'd factor that into my views, and I'd be curious to check it out myself the next time I was there.

I certainly wouldn't accuse them of sour grapes.

Even making the assumption that these people are just a group of tourists providing their impression (which they aren't), I fail to see what's so negative about pointing out their analysis is flawed and takes into account only a small portion of the waterfront, while attributing it to the whole thing.

Personally I could care less how Toronto's waterfront fares in comparison to whatever unfair portion of NYC they compared it with. What's more interesting and more telling is their reaction to here. It's not the whole story, obviously. They don't necessarily know what the plans are and what is unfolding. They may not have ventured out to the Scarborough Bluffs or caught the butterfly garden or something. That's okay, we know those things are there. Look at what they did see, and what they did assess and take it for what it is.

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.

The issue isn't that they said something bad about the waterfront...but rather that they're analysis of the waterfront as a whole is very inaccurate. But, for some reason, you feel either one agrees, or they're displaying some form of insecurity.