Toronto 16 York | 154.83m | 32s | Cadillac Fairview | a—A

The thousands of parking lots west of University were also former railway lands. They were meant to be temporary. I would think Torontonians in 1970s and even as late as the last 1980s would be shocked to hear they lasted as long as they did and we still have some like 400 Front.
 
A midwestern backwater? Hardly. Yes lots of parking lots but also a lot of growth and development. The modern CBD was basically built in the 1960's and 1970's. Find a midwestern backwater that built FCP, Commerce Court, Royal Bank Plaza, Eaton Centre and CN Tower (to name a few significant ones) within a 5 year span in the mid 1970's.
 
Even Midwestern backwaters are not the same as 50 years ago. It was a prime period for Toronto to gloat and feel good about itself.
 
Back then, Toronto was known as 'The City That Works". At that time, cities across America were emptying out, suburban development taking over as most had poor or no rapid transit to get people to the core, so their downtowns were in way worse shape. Sure, we lost buildings and railyards to surface parking lots, but it was way worse elsewhere, and our main streets were still fine. Yonge was arguably healthier back then. Sure we've come a long way, but if we were an armpit, then 90% of the other cities on the continent were hellholes.

42
 
I think we are getting lost with the hyperbole behind the statement.

Toronto may have 'worked', but it still had negative traits that detracted from the vitality of the city, including the sea of parking lots and the general state of the waterfront. Filip isn't amiss to state that it is a stark and wonderous change to compare to the state of affairs today.
 
As cities go Toronto was a bit of a dowager and second banana to Montreal --which had most of the glitz and international attention--from the fifties to the mid-seventies. But it was certainly not a midwestern armpit, nor was it ever heading in that direction. Of course, the 1976, PQ election victory jump-started T.O's ascent and made its eventual overshadowing of Montreal an inevitability. There was a bit of an economic and construction lull in the 90s, and an unsuccessful Olympic and Expo bid which briefly hobbled our "world class" yearnings. But, really, looking at the population figures, Toronto has, since its modest beginnings, been a city on the grow with increasing and seemingly unlimited promise. (Just ask Google, and they'll tell you)
 
Last edited:
Irishmonk said:
As cities go Toronto was a bit of a dowager and second banana to Montreal --which had most of the glitz and international attention--from the fifties to the mid-seventies. But it was certainly not a midwestern armpit, nor was it ever heading in that direction. Of course, the 1976, PQ election victory jump-started T.O's ascent and made its eventual overshadowing of Montreal an inevitability. There was a bit of an economic and construction lull in the 90s, and an unsuccessful Olympic and Expo bid which briefly hobbled our "world class" yearnings. But, really, looking at the population figures, Toronto has, since its modest beginnings, been a city on the grow with increasing and seemingly unlimited promise. (Just ask Google, and they'll tell you)
Click to expand...

Very well said.
 
hmm? 40% preleased

A growing option: building without signed tenants

The developer Cadillac Fairview Corp. announced its 16 York project in downtown Toronto in March, committing to building the $479-million, 32-floor, nearly 900,000-square-foot tower before it had a single tenant signed.

"It's basically unprecedented for us," says Wayne Barwise, the executive vice-president of development at the company. He says now that about 40 per cent of the space is preleased, something he expected because of the office situation in Toronto.
More....https://www.theglobeandmail.com/rep...lding-without-signed-tenants/article37098006/
 
WislaHD said:
I think we are getting lost with the hyperbole behind the statement.

Toronto may have 'worked', but it still had negative traits that detracted from the vitality of the city, including the sea of parking lots and the general state of the waterfront. Filip isn't amiss to state that it is a stark and wonderous change to compare to the state of affairs today.
Click to expand...
That’s exactly it. I think some of you have nostalgic rose coloured glasses and forget just how horrid Toronto looked and probably felt to an outsider back then. No wonder old school montrealers continue that narrative because they probably saw it in flesh. Nobody can deny today’s Toronto being a completely different beast and in a class of its own - at least in Canada.

To add, take pictures of Toronto in those decades and it would compare very favourably to current (and past) pictures of Pittsburgh for example, or Cincinnati, or Kansas City. Replace grand old buildings and skyscrapers with modernist towers (given americans’ preponderance for opulence) and you couldn’t tell them apart. Sorry but what I consider the grand old cities of North America (Montreal, Boston, San Francisco, of course NYC) were not surrounded by parking lots, railyards and lacked basic grand public spaces (which I argue Toronto still lacks). Toronto was always a very functional city. This explains its meteoric rise and also explains why the city looks incredibly unkempt for its wealth levels and global influence.

Let’s just be critical of what Toronto fails at instead of pretending it’s not a problem. This isn’t a question of livability but appearances.

Anyway this is completely off topic. Move on
 
That's rather insulting. Some forumers lived through that period and had the great displeasure to visit the cores of those "grand old " American cities. It's 50 years of progress in which US cities saw even greater improvements than Toronto. That's why the narrative of UT can be summarized as we're still falling behind regardless of the hundreds of towers that now fill those parking lots .
It's undeniable. Toronto was at the top. All of North America sucked if that helps you to understand.

The only thing that hasn't changed are old Montrealer opinions of Toronto. They're just for laughs.
 
maestro said:
That's rather insulting. Some forumers lived through that period and had the great displeasure to visit the cores of those "grand old " American cities. It's 50 years of progress in which US cities saw even greater improvements than Toronto. That's why the narrative of UT can be summarized as we're still falling behind regardless of the hundreds of towers that now fill those parking lots .
It's undeniable. Toronto was at the top. All of North America sucked if that helps you to understand.

The only thing that hasn't changed are old Montrealer opinions of Toronto. They're just for laughs.
Click to expand...
Lived experiences right? My condolences to those who had to live in shabby Toronto :)
 
You should have seen New York. I don't know what pictures you have been looking at through your own set of rose coloured glasses. Garbage everywhere. Abandoned building everywhere. Grand architecture buried under layers upon layers of grim and soot (much like Toronto .. compare and contrast Old City Hall now and then) There were parking lots too including vast fields of them. (they aren't all gone today either)

Boston was a little better but, not by much.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top