You are displaying too much home bias here. To be honest, Toronto's waterfront with all the tacky condos is nothing European. You don't see those along the Thames or Seine. It looks more like a typical second tier Asian city to be honest. And i don't consider it "interesting". We may have many real neighbourhoods where people live, but the waterfront is a special and unique location. It shouldn't be used just as another typical neighbourhood where people eat and live, otherwise, why not building 100 condos on the Toronto islands and make it a neighbourhood as well?
Central waterfront belongs to the entire city, not just waterfront dwellers. It is SUPPOSED to be public, beautiful and charming enough to attract both locals and visitors to go and see. In that respect, Chicago did a much great job than we, and denying that is nothing but silly. From a financial perspective, millions of people visit Chicago's spectacular waterfront (spending money there) because of its beauty. On the other hand, we almost never take my friends to the waterfront, because, what's the point of seeing another condo city? I would be embarassed.
regarding growing fast, maybe so in developing countries. But I can name a dozen cities in China, Brazil etc which are growing 5 times faster than Toronto. Compared with Shanghai or Sao Paolo, Toronto is a median sized city growing only modestly. The worlds doesn't just consists of North America and West Europe. "NO city grows faster", really? What about Shanghai adding 6 new subway lines in the past 3-4 years, each year equally the entire TTC system? What about the Shanghai International Financial Center, 492m tall, twice the size of Trump Toronto, taking shorter time to construct? Let's not let the overzealousness blind ourselves into believing something which is far from the truth.
OK, I didn't literally mean the fastest growing in the world, so I should have been more specific. As for Chicago's waterfront, I know that I may be alone in my opinion but I walked all along Chicago's waterfront and I just did not find it interesting to walk around. I'm talking about the area south of the highway. I am NOT talking about Michigan Avenue or Millennium Park. Those are near the waterfront but cut off from it by a large Highway. I consider the highways, the cut off for both Chicago's and Toronto's waterfronts.
I don't think having people live on Queen's Quay, ruins the waterfront. I think it improves it, by adding people year round. Go to Chicago's waterfront in January and you will be the ONLY one there, except at Navy Pier. Toronto's waterfront is used year round. Of course, we have a few blunders like Harbour Castle and a few condos but we have to live with that. We may have few iconic buildings but I saw nothing on Chicago's waterfront as iconic as Ontario Place's pods and Cinesephere. I'll take that over Navy Pier any day. Just because an area looks great from a distance, it doesn't mean it's pedestrian friendly on ground level. Have you ever been to downtown Miami? It looks great in pics but once you walk there, you realize there is nothing there. (where are the people?)
Here's the thing, Chicago's waterfront is very much the same, top to bottom, while Toronto's is so different, all over it's massive length. Compare our waterfront at the bluffs, The Beaches, Tommy Thompson Park, Harbourfront, Centre Island, Ontario Place or Etobicoke's condo area and you will see all those areas look and feel so different from one another. The Museum Campus area of Chicago, is right on the waterfront but is it a good place to walk? Have you walked there? The area is literally surrounded by huge parking lots and is VERY pedestrian unfriendly. There is nowhere to buy a drink or even use a washroom. I know because I was stupid enough to walk there, all the way past the stadium. Guess how many people I saw in that 2 hour walk? ZERO! (on a nice, sunny day) Everyone was in cars and I would have been too if I knew it was just mainly trees and parking lots. (Take a look on Google)
A great waterfront is walkable, pedestrian friendly, diverse and accessible. Despite our bad areas on the waterfront, most of it is like that. I'm not saying Toronto's waterfront is great, I'm just saying I find it more interesting than Chicago's. (once you take out the architectural views, which I realize is a big plus for Chicago) Toronto's waterfront may not be great right now but it has the potential to be. (If the Ford's don't destroy it first) Unlike most people, I do not want a waterfront lined with just parkland. I want diversity. I want the downtown portion to be of higher density with lots of things to do and see. (high on tourist attractions) The outer areas can have parks for sports fields and baseball diamonds. There should be spaces for all kinds of activities but the portion from the Portlands to Ontario Place should be a mix of tourist attractions, residential, commercial and cool parks like Sugar Beach and Sherbourne Common. I think Waterfront Toronto is on the right track, I just wish Corus was more of an iconic building. That's my main gripe. Give me a few major tourist attractions, great restaurants and original, iconic buildings and I will be HAPPY!
You are embarrassed to bring tourists to our waterfront? That's funny, when my family came to visit this summer, we ended up spending more time on the waterfront than anywhere else. They kept wanting to go back there. I guess one man's heaven is another man's hell.
