Forgotten
Active Member
Are those rusting and decaying lighting poles along their waterfront? I thought we only see those in third world cities with third world public realms (Toronto).
I can't emphasize the bolded enough - now that QQ revitalization is coming to an end, you can really see how the sub par architecture of the strip really does a number on the general feel of the street.
AoD
I'm glad that Harbourfront draws lots of people but come on, 17 million is a pretty self-aggrandizing claim
Where's the harm in wanting better architecture, better design, better accessibility, better events and destinations? This doesn't imply that what's already there isn't great, or at least it shouldn't.
not everybody shares your unmitigated zeal for it:
sue.edworthy
Knelman has clearly never attended World Stage.
Davey TG
In my opinion Martin Knelman himself is "tired" and maybe it's time for the Star to reinvent itself and get a more current and relevant arts writer who understands the culturally diverse city we live in. Not sure where he has been hiding but is definitely not at the exciting, culturally diverse waterfront.
For this very reason I've always wondered if the money for the QQ revitalization should have been spent on part of Yonge or Queen.
'Impenetrable'? I'd take Lakeshore Drive over an elevated highway, railway tracks, berms, arterials and ramparts of condos! Besides, even in the best of scenarios Toronto will have arterials to contend with too, it's not really the point.
The difference is that those aren't made of wood, aren't covered with thousands of rusty staples and flyers, or have wires and transformers hanging from them. Toronto's waterfront may be better than people give it credit for, but the public realm in the average neighbourhood is still worse than in most cities.Are those rusting and decaying lighting poles along their waterfront? I thought we only see those in third world cities with third world public realms (Toronto).
'Impenetrable'? I'd take Lakeshore Drive over an elevated highway, railway tracks, berms, arterials and ramparts of condos!
I'd take Lakeshore Drive over an elevated highway, railway tracks, berms, arterials and ramparts of condos!
Not sure what you're trying to say about condos. By ramparts do you mean neighbourhoods? Much of Chicago's waterfront is lined with condos, just like Toronto. Worse, actually. The condos near Toronto's waterfront have created urban streetscapes lined with retail and patios on streets like Lower Yonge and York. They make getting to the waterfront much, much more inviting than a decade or two ago. Back then when you walked to the waterfront you were walking by car parks and vacant lots. Now you're walking along streetscapes like this and this. Hardly architectural masterpieces but a huge improvement over what was there before. They don't block the waterfront, they link the city to the waterfront.
I disagree but I'll leave it at that.Well yea...actually it is a 7 days a week, 12 months of the year attraction. And it outdraws the aquarium any day of the year by a wide margin.
Nobody is taking your comments out of context...they a just blatantly incorrect.
If those pictures are any indication, Lakeshore Drive is a bigger barrier to the waterfront than anything you just listed. I'm no fan of the Gardiner, but at least you can cross it at many closely spaced north-south roads. The highway is also not rammed right up to the lake, otherwise our waterfront would be just as desolate as that bike trail above. I'm also not sure what berms you are talking about or why "arterials" is plural when it's only Lakeshore Blvd that's an issue, unless Queens Quay counts as an arterial road too. As for condos, I guess you're one of those people who are unhappy that you lost your view from the Gardiner, but interestingly you have no problem with all the condo's lining Chicago's waterfront.
While not the water's edge itself, referring to the map of Chicago waterfront posted by Tewder, I noted last week that Toronto FC, Toronto Rock, and the Jays were all playing home games last weekend. This is the central waterfront and those are all amenities. Maybe we could turn this thread around from "why is Toronto's central waterfront so poor and devoid of things to do, to what central waterfront in the world has more different things to see and do ?
I wonder, if I rode my bike along Queen's Quay to get a bit of exercise, would that be counted as part of the 17 million?
How about if I just popped into Rabba Foods on Queen's Quay?
Where did you get the figure 17 million?
Is that paid attendance for events?
I'm just curious because we live in a world where figures can be misleading.
We are visited 17 million times by over 2.5 million individuals each year
I think it matters how we define "attendance". For example, if I use the sidewalk going past the Aquarium am I attending the aquarium? Obviously not. But if I walk along one of the wavedecks going from, say, a condo to downtown, does that count as attendance to Harbourfront? Technically, I guess it does.
I think there are different types of attendance that need to be considered when discussing the popularity of an attraction. Yorkdale Mall gets more visitors than The Louvre but it's not a superior or more successful attraction.
You don't get it do you?
As for condos, I guess you're one of those people who are unhappy that you lost your view from the Gardiner, but interestingly you have no problem with all the condo's lining Chicago's waterfront.