The ‘Manhattanization’ of downtown Toronto

[Tewder]

TBH, Boston is my favourite city in the U.S. and I really don't see it as having much of an Identity apart from the historical connections, but it is a city that is quite enjoyable to be in.

Are you kidding me?

 

[freshcutgrass]

I think a big difference is Toronto has very little in the way of 3-6 story apartment complex whereas say Boston and Montreal have a lot of these

The main difference is that the prevailing urban planners of victorian/pre-war Toronto were dead set against the dreaded "tenement" housing style that was so common in almost every other city. Right into the 30's, the city pretty much banned this kind of housing in most places in the city. "Apartment living" was quite acceptable for even the rich in most large cities, but in Toronto, it didn't matter if you were poor, middle class or wealthy...you lived in a "house".

Toronto actually has a decent amount to the north (around St. Clair).

That's because Forest Hill was a separate municipality up until 1967, and out of Toronto's planning jurisdiction.


Toronto had a complete change of tune come the post-war era. Because Toronto was totally built out by then, and with the immigrant explosion starting in the 50's, there was a huge housing shortage in old Toronto. The "block-busting" days of the 60's was fairly short-lived (read St Jamestown style developments) thank god, and most of Toronto's victorian/edwardian nabs were saved.

It's funny....the nasty slum housing "wards" were mostly torn down for large commercial developments, and the wealthy areas of downtown housing (Jarvis, Queen's Park) either got demolished or was re-purposed for institutional purposes. The wealthy moved to midtown. It was the middle class/upper middle class areas that remained mostly intact, and are in fact, now becoming the new wealthy housing (a middle class victorian house was still pretty large and attractive by today's standards).

So yes, I agree that the core area of Toronto is a bit unique in that it is comprised of either a large amount of victorian/edwardian homes with frontages. and back yards (which explains why the core area is also unusual in its massive tree canopy)...or high-rise post war buildings...and not a whole lot in-between. Our large intact (and thriving) grid of late 19th & early 20th century "high streets" of "old Ontario town" scale is also something I find unusual.

 

[BMO]

Are you kidding me?

I'm not kidding...I actually don't identify Boston with anything other than Historical connections, in this regard I guess it can be seen as a cultural centre, but I think nowadays it's fallen in the backseat when compared to NY, LA, Chicago. What Idenitity would you say it has?

 

[BMO]

Back to the houses for a second, San Fran, Chicago and Boston definitely have a lot of houses close to their core! I'll look for picture support to back that up and get back to you.
Also, it really depends how you define the core. Toronto has a sort of I shaped area with very little in the way of housing. That would be, On Bloor, then straight down Yonge (on both sides a little) then across King W and Kind E (this stretches a little north and south in both directions.

I mean if you're referring to the area north of Bloor, no there are very comparable places in many cities, particular if you consider that Bloor is 3K North of the core per say. But maybe the east and west side of yonge ? Maybe in that sense we do have a little more houses close to the 'core'. More yes but the other cities have some as well.

I think a big difference is Toronto has very little in the way of 3-6 story apartment complex whereas say Boston and Montreal have a lot of these. Toronto actually has a decent amount to the north (around St. Clair).

Regarding the New York comment I didn't mean it in a negative way. New York city has over 8 million people. How can we ever reach that density ? We just won't. Again that's not bad. Maybe we can compare small areas of New York to Toronto. That's fair. I meant on the hole we'll never be that similar

Faire Enough, the area I personally see as the core stretches from Bloor in the north, harbourfont in the south, Bathurst in the West, and the DVP in the East. In this area, there are quite a few places within walking distance to the financial district, an example that comes to mind is Kensington Market area, or even Dundas st West by the AGO. And I'd even go as far as to say that Cabbagetown is walkable? (I'm not too sure, I don't really spend much time in the East end).

Toronto definitely has very little in the way of 3-6 story apartment complex's, and a lot of the 3-6 story apartment complex's that come to the top of my mind are public housing buildings. (think Front st East/ Esplanade Area, I forget the neighbourhood name).

Sorry for taking your New York comment the wrong way, I thought you were suggesting that we should not strive to be the best city because we will never become the best city. I think you make a fair argument to look at unique smaller areas of NY and compare them to Toronto.

 

[taal]

Faire Enough, the area I personally see as the core stretches from Bloor in the north, harbourfont in the south, Bathurst in the West, and the DVP in the East. In this area, there are quite a few places within walking distance to the financial district, an example that comes to mind is Kensington Market area, or even Dundas st West by the AGO. And I'd even go as far as to say that Cabbagetown is walkable? (I'm not too sure, I don't really spend much time in the East end).

Toronto definitely has very little in the way of 3-6 story apartment complex's, and a lot of the 3-6 story apartment complex's that come to the top of my mind are public housing buildings. (think Front st East/ Esplanade Area, I forget the neighbourhood name).

Sorry for taking your New York comment the wrong way, I thought you were suggesting that we should not strive to be the best city because we will never become the best city. I think you make a fair argument to look at unique smaller areas of NY and compare them to Toronto.

Oh no I'd love for Toronto to stive to be the best, but at the same time have had my expectations beaten down over the years One thing I really love is when people come to Toronto and comment out city is 'clean', what that tells me is maybe they visited the CN tower and ROM and left soon after (you can probably better answer this ? I've been to many American cities and Toronto is by far the dirtiest city! It's not just dirt on the ground (which is more comparable) it's the jumbled street fronts / graffiti / clutter. You know what though, I've come to love the later, that actually sets Toronto apart in some ways.


Maybe someone can better answer this. Compared to cities like Chicago, do we have more 'interesting' neighborhoods ? This is hard to say as a visitor and really takes someone who has lived in other cities. I visited Chicago and found quite a few 'interesting' neighborhood similar to my not all inclusive list above, but not nearly as much as Toronto has - but I'm sure I missed out on quite a few.

I'm really curious what people think regarding my last statement. If the answer is yes we do (maybe not to a huge degree) I think it further supports a point I've always had; Toronto is not a great place to visit for your 'typical' visitor (which I'd include my self in!) but it's an amazing place to live in or possibly visit longer term or for someone who really knows what to look for when they come.

 

[Tewder]

I'm not kidding...I actually don't identify Boston with anything other than Historical connections, in this regard I guess it can be seen as a cultural centre, but I think nowadays it's fallen in the backseat when compared to NY, LA, Chicago. What Idenitity would you say it has?

Good lord where to start? I can assure you that outside of the whole historic 'Spirit of America' identity Boston is a city steeped in layers of identity that have little to do with Paul Revere, even if many of these things have long-established roots. At the risk of being trite about this here are some points that come quick to mind when thinking of Boston:

- The regional 'capital' of New England with its 'Yankee' cultural underpinning. This identity is read nationally as well as locally, as the idea of the 'South' would be.

- Two dominant local ethno-cultural identities, the 'Irish Americans' of Southie and 'Italian Americans' of the North End.

- A national political bastion for liberals and the democratic party.

- A national centre for higher learning with the highest concentration of colleges and universities in the USA, including many that are among the most highly respected in the nation (Harvard, MIT etc).

- A rabid sports town, the Red Sox and Bruins.

- A literary and cultural centre for the arts with a number of important institutions.


I could go on and on. Yes, the history of Boston is part of its identity and informs the place as fairly conservative and established, in opposition to the more frontier-type identity that increases as you progress westward across the States. Is Boston the economic powerhouse that NYC and Chicago are? No, but as a smaller regional centre it definitely punches far over its head!

 

[ladyscraper]

Can you elaborate on this at all ? Not that I disagree with you in the sightless, but I'm curious what set's Toronto apart in your opinion i.e. what makes this a better place to live for you ?

I feel like Toronto has a lot going on without making me feel stressed out. When I am in New York, I feel some sort of stress nagging at me at all times. Like you can never turn it off.
A lot of neighborhoods in Toronto are just impossible in Manhattan because of how built up it is. I live in the Annex and I think it's one of the most beautiful neighborhoods anywhere. If that existed in Manhattan, it would be extremely famous but it doesn't exist there, it exists here.
I like that I can make Toronto change to suit my mood of a specific day. If I feel like being a part of the hustle then I can walk on Bloor and if I feel laid back and kind of introverted then I can walk down a parallel side street. This change can be achieved by simply walking one street over a lot of the time. It's just great.
In Manhattan, you just have to feel like being in the thick of things.. and if you don't happen to feel like it that day - then it's tough sh-- for you.

I hope that explains it. It all boils down to how much better I feel when I'm here versus Manhattan. It's mostly based on my personality.

PS - one last thing.. I actually lived in New York for a while with my wife before she moved here... sometimes I felt like when you live in New York, everyone is jealous and telling you how awesome you are for living there. I felt like my life was much worse though. My rent was very expensive to live in a crap apartment in a bad area. It was like the only benefit to living in NYC was that people tell you that your life is better even though it's worse.

 

[Tewder]

It sounds like New York's attributes, the very things people do love about it, just may not be for you. No harm! Toronto is positively sleepy compared to the Big Apple which as you say may sort of be its charm, for many. At the end of the day it sounds like you are where you ought to be and that's what's important, no matter what others may think.

 

[BMO]

Good lord where to start? I can assure you that outside of the whole historic 'Spirit of America' identity Boston is a city steeped in layers of identity that have little to do with Paul Revere, even if many of these things have long-established roots. At the risk of being trite about this here are some points that come quick to mind when thinking of Boston:

- The regional 'capital' of New England with its 'Yankee' cultural underpinning. This identity is read nationally as well as locally, as the idea of the 'South' would be.

- Two dominant local ethno-cultural identities, the 'Irish Americans' of Southie and 'Italian Americans' of the North End.

- A national political bastion for liberals and the democratic party.

- A national centre for higher learning with the highest concentration of colleges and universities in the USA, including many that are among the most highly respected in the nation (Harvard, MIT etc).

- A rabid sports town, the Red Sox and Bruins.

- A literary and cultural centre for the arts with a number of important institutions.


I could go on and on. Yes, the history of Boston is part of its identity and informs the place as fairly conservative and established, in opposition to the more frontier-type identity that increases as you progress westward across the States. Is Boston the economic powerhouse that NYC and Chicago are? No, but as a smaller regional centre it definitely punches far over its head!

hmm yea I can accept that! I think Boston has a much stronger Identity when the scope is narrowed to New England/ NorthEast U.S. On a more national or even global scale, think many of the identities you showed get hidden or clouded behind the much larger Cities in the U.S. As you pointed out I guess it does not mean it doesn't have an Identity, and I realize now that I was confusing Identity with Global Recognition.

 

[Tewder]

... and just to reiterate that nationally - and even globally for that matter - Boston is very much recognized for its institutions of higher learning. New York is one of the major cities of the world, so yes its profile is unquestionably greater. Chicago though? If we look beyond history for both Boston and Chicago I think it could be argued that Chicago is far more regional in profile than even Boston???

 

[TrickyRicky]

I don't think this city comparison talk has much to do with the intent of the orginal article. I think the author was commenting on increased densities and a shift towards balance of business and residential activity in some areas of the downtown core which previously were more uniform in their land-use. Which is to say "manhattanization" is the shift towards a high-density mixed use land-use with tall buildings that is analogues to how PARTS of the island of Manhattan function today.

I support this development because the concentration of density adds to the diversity of experiences and living options available to people in the GTA. Tourism aside most people do and will continue to consider densities at Manhattan levels as some approximation of hell on earth. To a select few however, a slice of the population over-represented on this forum, this kind of living is urban bliss.

Personally I extend my opinion to support low density development too. That is, low density development is as important as high-density development in enriching land-use diversity within the city region. However, the "optimal" level of density for both citizens and in terms of effective land use and management by society I believe is probably around the density of the Old City of Toronto today.

In a funny way our dysfunctional built form that combines a mish-mash of low-rise houses with tall towers is a really legitimate stab at achieving high-standards of living and a diversity of living options within a confined geographic space. Even if it is ugly it may (because it is an ongoing experiment) turn out to be great from a pragmatic living standard perspective.

 

[Register123]

I lived in NYC for 10 years. I lived in a beautiful neighborhood in Queens (Astoria). I feel like when people speak of nyc they really mean Manhattan. Astoria is comprised of mainly 5-6 story apartment buildings, with a few projects thrown into the mix as well as a few detached homes with yards. I found it to be perfect in so many ways. I had a large two bedroom apartment, rent was about the same as downtown Toronto, Tons of restaurants, 24hr stores, pubs, parks, etc. This sort of density seemed ideal for me, and I never felt living in NYC meant that you always had "to be on". When you live and work in a city it becomes very much like everywhere else. Get up go to work , go home watch some TV, go to bed, repeat. I didn't find that the city consumes you the way so many seem to think it will or does. Believe it or not there were many boring run of the mill weekends in NYC also.

 

[Register123]

Guess what I'm trying to say is Toronto has just as much going for it as NYC (although I do have to say I enjoy the city parks in NYC (Central park, Brooklyn Bot. Gardens, Prospect Park, etc. much more than Toronto)

 

[Oliver Tweed]

I don't think this city comparison talk has much to do with the intent of the orginal article. I think the author was commenting on increased densities and a shift towards balance of business and residential activity in some areas of the downtown core which previously were more uniform in their land-use. Which is to say "manhattanization" is the shift towards a high-density mixed use land-use with tall buildings that is analogues to how PARTS of the island of Manhattan function today.

Yes. The article was clearly not meant as a comparison of New York and Toronto.

But here's my two cents: For me, Manhattan is too dense. I hope we don't get that dense here in Toronto, but as one of the previous posts said, we're not even close to its 27,000 people per km (mi?). New York's high density compared to Toronto (even in the outer boroughs like Queens or Brooklyn) helps explain why we don't have the great subway system they have, though. I wonder what the density was in NY when the subways were built. Perhaps still more dense than Toronto is now. I would love to see Toronto two times as dense as it is now, but not three or four times. I like our hodge-podge mixed use chic. It's interesting.

 

[Hipster Duck]

I figure those houses have a while yet. The next wave will be heavy redevelopment along the currently low-rise arterials. That U of T residence at College and Spadina is the warning shot. Between those and ongoing brownfield redevelopments we have at least one or two more real estate cycles of development sites.

This is why they are trying to develop the suburban arterials, allowing some relief of space constraints downtown. Even allowing redevelopment where it makes some sense - for example that little pocket west of Grange Park - would cause riots.

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with keeping lowrise housing stock downtown. Even on Manhattan there are large swaths of (relatively) lowrise areas, including townhouses.

While the scale of development downtown seems to overwhelm us, the amount of land that the current boom has used up is fairly small. I wouldn't be surprised if we can sustain our present level of growth within the downtown core for another 30 years.

There's still a lot of is small-scale parking lots (the ones that have space for about 12-15 cars) beside an existing two-storey building. I think we're going to see a lot of skinny box towers pop up where the existing building is either demolished, or facadectomied, depending on its historic value.

Also, the persistence of some parking lots and low-rise strips in very hot areas still astounds me! Ten years ago, I never would have thought that the giant parking lot along Mutual street north of Queen would still be around; or the one at Queen and Soho, or Colborne and Church, or behind City Hall on Chestnut, or Richmond and Victoria. But they're still there and AFAIK, nobody has claimed them yet.