News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto Year-End Poll: Vote on the Best Buildings of 2024, presented by Sapphire Balconies
 957     5 
News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto's Social Media Presence Skyrocketed in 2024
 736     2 
News   Dec 20, 2024
Mattamy Homes Records A Year of Accomplishments
 1.2K     0 

We HATE Toronto!

Will tourists be flying here - or anywhere else - in this downturn? We'll have these lovely new cultural buildings all to ourselves!
 
"Thirdly, there should be a reversal of current trends within the entertainment sector. Bars, clubs and restaurants should remain open for longer hours to create a lively, "sleepless" atmosphere. Doing so would reverse the lifeless, boring label associated with our city."

The easiest, cheapest fix available. It's truly my only "cultural" beef with the city -that one can't get a drink when one wants too -without being "in the know". The grandest gesture city council could do would be to do away with last call altogether. Even Buffalonians get to drink until 4 a.m....
 
I'm also for longer transit hours as well. There's nothing worse than a $75 cab ride to the other end of the city in the wee hours of the morning.
 
Urban Shocker said:
Will tourists be flying here - or anywhere else - in this downturn? We'll have these lovely new cultural buildings all to ourselves!
Click to expand...

Will the govt get the cultural buildings completed before 2010-11? If not it won't have any affect.

Translude15 said:
I'm also for longer transit hours as well. There's nothing worse than a $75 cab ride to the other end of the city in the wee hours of the morning.
Click to expand...

I doubt this is ever going to happen. I haven't been to a city that has trains operating 24 hrs. Last one is around 12-1am. First one is around 5am maybe. Most end up staying at a hotel, taking a cab or taking a bus.
 
Last edited:
AKS said:
I doubt this is ever going to happen. I haven't been to a city that has trains operating 24 hrs. Last one is around 12-1am. First one is around 5am maybe. Most end up staying at a hotel, taking a cab or taking a bus.
Click to expand...
um.. New York City?
Of course, the reason it could do that is because of express and local tracks that allow trains to be diverted while the other pair undergoes nightly maintenance. But since those will not exist in Toronto in the foreseeable future (unless they decide to build DRL that way, which is doubtful), yes I agree that TTC subway will never be 24/365.
 
OttoSchloss said:
Ugh. Then it will never happen.

In the U.S. in most jurisdictions, it's a municipal decision.
Click to expand...

Otto, for a guy who is old enough to remember how New York was in the 70s you sure have a lot of stamina. I have trouble staying up (let alone partying) past 1:00 and I'm probably half your age.
 
Translude15 said:
Chicago has 24 hr. subway service as well.
Click to expand...
Yes, two of the lines. And so does Philly (the PATCO line and a few of the SEPTA trolley-subway lines).
But before this turns into another others-are-better / TO-bashing comparison, as I said these systems can run 24/365 only because of the availability of express/second-pair of tracks, and many cities with equally/more vibrant nightlife (London, Amsterdam, Hong Kong, Taipei, Tokyo) do not have 24/365 metro either (though in many cases they do have other convenient late-night transportation), so having such metro services isn't an absolute requirement.
 
jaycola, nice links. I dont think anyone has said TO is terrible. Its just that we want it improved. I am not personally happy with being in the top 10-15 - its good but not great. TO should be in the top 5. Some serious planning and strategy is needed for that.
 
(mods: I don't know if this is the appropriate place to put this, please move it to an appropriate thread / new thread if you deem necessary)

This is kind of OT because it is not really about Toronto, but it ties in to my first post above. There I was talking about Boston's obsession with "shadows", how NIMBYs here love to use "shadows" as their trump card to block development. Now it looks like the stupidity has risen to a whole new level (emphasis added):

Originally Posted by the Boston Globe

Bill looks to limit shadows on parks

By John C. Drake, Globe Staff | February 5, 2009


A pair of Boston lawmakers seeking to check vertical commercial growth in the Back Bay and along the Rose Kennedy Greenway have filed legislation that would outlaw new development that casts midday shadows on a half-dozen parks in the city.

Part of the impetus for the bill is a planned 47-story residential tower that would rise above Neiman Marcus at Copley Place, just steps from Copley Square, the Boston Public Library, and a couple of blocks from picturesque Commonwealth Avenue. (NB: this is basically the "upper downtown" of Boston, one of the most built-up areas of the city)

"The default here should be that open space should have as much sunlight as possible," said state Representative Byron Rushing, Democrat of Boston, who sponsored the bill with Representative Martha M. Walz, who represents the Back Bay and Beacon Hill.

"One of the things about having open space is not only do you get to see the sky, but also you get the sun on you," Rushing said. "We're saying there are places in Boston that, from now on, should have no more shadow in the middle of the day."

The measure caught the city by surprise. The legislation landed on Beacon Hill as the Boston Redevelopment Authority is preparing a review of its own development restrictions along the Rose Kennedy Greenway. (NB: This is the scar left by the infamous elevated highway Central Artery that cut right through the middle of Boston. The city is planning to restrict development height around the Greenway to 15s, basically ensuring the scar will remain for good) City officials said existing development guidelines are adequate to protect parks from shadow and the issue should be left to local officials.

"Their concern is my concern about development, about casting shadows in certain locations," Mayor Thomas M. Menino said. "We'll be able to deal with those issues through the planning process of the Boston Redevelopment Authority. When there are serious problems with shadows, we adjust the height of the building or factors that bring shadows onto those" parks.

But Rushing said the city has not done enough to keep parks from being covered in darkness during the day. The legislation would expand existing protections set in law that prevent the addition of shadows on Boston Common.

In addition to the Greenway, the bill would limit development that casts midday shadows on Charles River Esplanade, Christopher Columbus Park, Commonwealth Avenue Mall, and Copley Square Park. It also would affect Magazine Beach Park in Cambridge.

"If this law passes, there will be additional places in Boston where people will know that, from now on, they will get as much sunlight as they get now into the future . . . until we tear some buildings down, and then we'll get some more," Rushing said.

Meg Mainzer-Cohen, president of the Back Bay Association, which represents business in the district, said the proposed restrictions are extensive enough to seriously limit almost any new development in broad swaths of the city.

"Without any public process, it sounds like they're trying to create a development moratorium in the city, because virtually every development casts a shadow somewhere," she said.

Mainzer-Cohen said that, if passed, development restrictions that limiting could affect the city's ability to provide new housing and could rob the state of jobs and tax revenue created by development. Those concerns, she said, should be balanced against the possibility of allowing limited shadow on the city's abundant green spaces.

Susan Elsbree, Boston Redevelopment Authority spokeswoman, said that the city includes Boston's Parks and Recreation Department in a review of new developments and that the parks commissioner must sign off on any new development within 100 feet of a park. She said the original legislation affecting development around Boston Common was passed only after extensive study in cooperation with city officials.
Click to expand...
The gist, in case you didn't want to read the whole thing: the MA state legislature is tabling a bill that outlaws midday shadows on a series of parks running through the city. Now, Boston is a city of parks; the parks being named in the legislation run like a vein through the entire city. In fact there are already city regulations that prohibit shadows on two of the main parks, Boston Common and the Public Garden. So, if this bill does pass (and sadly, there's a significant likelihood given the sentiments of many Bostonian NIMBYs), it will basically be the end of development in this city. Mind numbing.
 
I'm surprised they're still trying to build in this climate. I thought US had a melt down? There's still new projects running?
 
There are several projects still under construction right now, but one has been suspended due to financing problems, just after the old building was demolished, leaving a major hole in the middle of downtown. However, actually several major developments have been brought up in the past several months and recently, mostly because the approval process in Boston could take up to a decade, so it's good time to start the process now and be able to start construction when the current recession cycle swings back in a few years. Besides, constructions create jobs and are a good stimulus measure, so some money is in the works to finance some of the troubled projects, including the hole I mentioned earlier.
Of course, everything will die off if this anti-shadow law does pass.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top