Eug
Senior Member
The uninteresting downtown cores aren't necessarily "down on their luck". They're just uninteresting. Active during business hours, but completely dead at night.
This is it ! You got it !The term semisuburban not does make sense. After all, suburban already means semi-urban.
The way I see it, suburban and urban are not two distinct terms. After all, the word "suburban" has "urban" in it, does it not? All suburbs do have certain urban qualities. If they were completely lacking in any urban qualities, they would not be suburbs. So you can't say that inner city Toronto is urban while Markham is not urban. It is more accurate to say that inner-city Toronto is more urban and Markham is less urban. After all, inner-city Toronto and Markham are quite varied within each of themselves, so I am not sure why so many people believe that there is a clear line between urban and suburban.
I consider density to be the primary attribute of urbanity. After all, what is the complete opposite of urban? What is non-urban? Non-urban is rural. And extreme low density, i.e. the lack of people and settlement, is the primary characteristic of rural areas. On the other side of the spectrum, all the most urban places in the world are also the densest. Higher density equals reduced distances, which means more mixed use, more transit, more walking, etc.
BTW, old Toronto is not as dense as old Montreal. All the old housing in Montreal was designed as apartments for multiple families. Toronto's single family houses cannot compete.