Toronto The Florian | ?m | 25s | Mirabella Dev Corp | Hariri Pontarini

Hipster Duck said:
^Yeah, agreed, taal.

Toronto is - without exception - the city with the ugliest public realm in North America for its size, importance, wealth and vibrancy. There are parts of almost every city in North America that look as bad, or worse than, Toronto, but almost no downtown lets its public realm degrade to the state that Toronto does. I mean, we are talking about Yorkville here. This area has a combination of wealth, density, vibrancy and centrality that is probably only paralleled by two other places in North America: Chicago's near north side and the rich neighbourhoods (UES, UWS, SoHo, Tribeca, etc.) of Manhattan.
Click to expand...

Right, completely agreed, well, in terms of yorkville's wealth / size - I assure that is actually paralleled in many many American cities, much more then Chicago and New York. It always surprises me how much wealth exists in even US's most depressed cities ... having said that I find these areas very sterlie, so there is no comparison to Yorkville beyond the wealth.

Even the majority of the sidewalks / roads in Yorkville proper are a mess !

The sad part is these things aren't hard to change, but due cost a lot and I don't see a strong desire to do such ... so personally, I just put it to the back of my mind, I've always made it something to be proud of : ) Living in the worst city in North America in terms of the public realm ... yes it is that bad ... but meh at this point I don't care as much as I did say 5 years ago.
 
^Oh, there are much, much richer neighbourhoods in the US, but they're all in places that are decidedly less dense, urban and walkable. That's the problem: Yorkville is one of a handful of places where a millionaire is just as likely to exit his home (a condo) through the front door on foot as he is out of his garage in a car. The same can't be said about Beverly Hills or Westport, Connecticut. When that millionaire leaves the glitz of his condo lobby he exits out into a world where rotting telephone poles sag and the sidewalks are patched with asphalt.

In terms of cost, I really don't see why the city can't extract S.37 funds in this area to build a public realm to the highest quality, especially in an area where people shrug at paying $1,000/ft2 for their homes. The added cost would barely be noticeable and would greatly enhance the chic image of the area.
 
Last edited:
taal said:
Right, completely agreed, well, in terms of yorkville's wealth / size - I assure that is actually paralleled in many many American cities, much more then Chicago and New York. It always surprises me how much wealth exists in even US's most depressed cities ... having said that I find these areas very sterlie, so there is no comparison to Yorkville beyond the wealth.
Click to expand...

While I concede there are definitely areas for aesthetic improvements to the public realm and theoretically funding conduits for improvements through Section 37 allocations, I think Toronto chooses, with deliberate intention, to focus more on providing a solid safety net of support for those less fortunate than beautifying it's streets. Not to suggest there aren't buckets of waste swishing through City Hall as we speak, but in general the theme has been to encourage more social programs as far as I can tell. And that's reflected in the very moderate level of homelessness, crime & poverty found in Toronto compared with other large cities. Detroit is a pitiful comparison in each and every respect while Chicago is a pretty solid one.

Back to the building...I'm just not feeling it. There are way too many materials fighting for dominance at this building and at different angles in tends to project varying themes and angular concepts. It has no continuity or flow and when viewed in context with the Four Seasons it almost appears to come out of another era of architecture altogether. The way it attempts to meet the street almost conveys a subway station presence in my opinion. On the plus, the suites appear to look well designed from the listings I have seen and to be fair it's decrepit surroundings do it no great favors either. I'd be curious to read Hume's take on this building. He usually isn't afraid to voice his opinions.
 
And that's exactly what I'm talking about Taal. There's a pothole half a block away from a building that I've invested in Detroit that's literally the size of my head. The street infrastructure has improved and they've made an effort with planters but there's still a lot that needs to be done. Also, a lot of Torontonians are quite blind as to how rich the city and region really is. Many still refuse to believe that Philly is actually richer (city and region).
 
Thanos said:
And that's exactly what I'm talking about Taal. There's a pothole half a block away from a building that I've invested in Detroit that's literally the size of my head. The street infrastructure has improved and they've made an effort with planters but there's still a lot that needs to be done. Also, a lot of Torontonians are quite blind as to how rich the city and region really is. Many still refuse to believe that Philly is actually richer (city and region).
Click to expand...


If you are referring to how rich the Philadelphia CMA is your correct, its very comparable to the GTA, the GDP #s show that its actually larger. Now comparing its core to Toronto not quite as much, there is more office space in Toronto's core.

Anyway, the richness of an area has little to do with it, as again just about all cities (maybe less Detroit, I'll give you that), do a much better job on their core. Granted in some the areas just outside the core make Toronto's worst areas look Paris.
 
Bogtrotter said:
Perhaps because they are similar sized cities fairly close to each other. Detroit is showing signs of life from what I hear, more people are moving into the core with some reno's downtown. It has some excellent historic architecture come to think of it, and their sports teams are definitely more succesful than Toronto's :) The urban streetscape in the TO's downtown is one thing that has bothered me since moving here, it's definitely improving but their are still too many major streets that look neglected. It took them forever to do something to that weedy traffic island at Front and University- an obvious place for something really nice I've always thought. This building looks great btw.. I forgot all about it.
Click to expand...

This is a comical debate. Toronto and Detroit are not similarly sized cities anymore. Not even close. The urban renewal in Detroit is equivalent to the weeds that sprouted in Fukushima two weeks after the tsunami. I spent four days there this past May, and it was like being in a science fiction movie, post-apocalypse. The suburbs might have money, but the city looks like a bombed-out shell of itself. I stayed in one of the only decent hotels in the core and out my window as far as I could see were boarded up storefronts and buildings that were literally crumbling. And those were just the ones that had not already been razed. Weekend streetlife consisted of homeless people pushing carts across deserted streets. It was mesmerizing for all the wrong reasons; an absolute shock. There is no comparison to be made here.
 
Hipster Duck said:
Toronto is - without exception - the city with the ugliest public realm in North America for its size, importance, wealth and vibrancy.
Click to expand...


Completely agree... and I appreciate your clarity on this. People here are literally blind to how ugly the city is, or at least many are. Visitors to Toronto are not, however.

As for linking an ugly Toronto to the social/welfare state we have... well, yes, it is part of the problem to the extent that spending on the realm is politicized on both the left and right sides of the political spectrum as either unethical (all the while there are social groups vying for funds) or 'gravy'... all of which is a load of shite, to be sure! We do not need to pave the streets with gold, but we should absolutely be taking better care of our shared central areas. Let's do it for the children!!
 
Oliver Tweed said:
This is a comical debate. Toronto and Detroit are not similarly sized cities anymore. Not even close. The urban renewal in Detroit is equivalent to the weeds that sprouted in Fukushima two weeks after the tsunami. I spent four days there this past May, and it was like being in a science fiction movie, post-apocalypse. The suburbs might have money, but the city looks like a bombed-out shell of itself. I stayed in one of the only decent hotels in the core and out my window as far as I could see were boarded up storefronts and buildings that were literally crumbling. And those were just the ones that had not already been razed. Weekend streetlife consisted of homeless people pushing carts across deserted streets. It was mesmerizing for all the wrong reasons; an absolute shock. There is no comparison to be made here.
Click to expand...

I meant that is why I think these comparisons are made, I personally don't think that they are similar cities beyond basic population and proximity.

I do agree with Tewder, and surely maintenance and beautification are issues that most Western cities grapple with, we're not a uniquely left leaning city in Canada and definitely not Europe for that matter.
 
Absolutely Bogtrotter! There are many 'leftist' European countries, with healthcare/welfare systems that arguably are better than ours, that maintain beautiful and uplifting public realms. The sad state of the public realm in Toronto is the result of politics and an apathetic public... and on that note is the issue of the public realm much different than the transit issue was where for a long time nobody wanted to touch it and for a long time nobody cared that much?
 
^^But eventually every thread becomes the Shabby Public Realm thread, even those like this one where a complaint about an unkempt traffic median adjacent to a construction site was fairly promptly addressed by someone posting news of upcoming road reconstruction work.
 
Good. Every thread should be about the public realm. A city is not just about buildings, and UT is not just for those who like to drool over tall buildings.
 
Good. Every thread should be about the public realm. A city is not just about buildings, and UT is not just for those who like to drool over tall buildings.
Click to expand...

I don't know what the mods will think of that, nor have I really been a "drool over tall buildings" type of poster. But every time this subject comes up you imply that the public realm is in poor shape because those on the left consider it "unethical" to put money into the public realm, and either you or someone else will say that we do not put money into the public realm because of social programs. Whatever the politics of the 80s and 90s may have been, the politics of the 2000s have shown the left (assuming that's where we'll place Miller and his allies) putting significant effort into public realm improvements while the right has claimed we do not have the money for them, or made concerted attacks against significant public realm improvements like the St. Clair ROW, or opposed s. 37 funds being kept in the core. I would like to know of a single instance in the last 10 years where a councillor or mayor associated with the left called it "unethical" or some such thing for money to be spent on streetscape or other public realm improvements.
 
Grimace said:
But every time this subject comes up [Tewder implies] that the public realm is in poor shape because those on the left consider it "unethical" to put money into the public realm, and either you or someone else will say that we do not put money into the public realm because of social programs. Whatever the politics of the 80s and 90s may have been, the politics of the 2000s have shown the left (assuming that's where we'll place Miller and his allies) putting significant effort into public realm improvements while the right has claimed we do not have the money for them.
Click to expand...

Did you read his post? He was saying that it was BS that we are politicizing the public realm debate, and he criticized the right for their view of the public realm as 'gravy' as much as he criticized the left for making that false dichotomy between public realm spending and spending on social programs.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top