MisterF
Senior Member
I don't think that's necessarily the case. A lot of those medieval squares have been redesigned in recent decades and, like I said before, how they look is a result of relatively recent decisions. Those squares can be looked at as examples of public squares done right. Going back to the example of Dam Square in Amsterdam, it has a large centrepiece that acts as an informal gathering point year round. Most of the surrounding streets are permeable to pedestrians and the square blends seamlessly into the cityscape on all sides. No need for artificial canopies for enclosure. These features are shared with nearly all of the world's great squares and can and should be part of the design of squares developed more recently. Sure it wouldn't be the same atmosphere as Dam Square, but it wouldn't have to. The important thing is to get the fundamentals right.Comparing a modern urban square with no history to centuries old European squares as an example of how it should be done is a little silly. We really need to be looking at modern 20th/21st century examples, I suggested one a couple of pages back.
That's not even getting into the advertising structures that are being built in Dundas Square instead of simply surrounding it. Those decisions have nothing to do with the age of the city or square.
It's not about having the edgiest and snazziest architecture. It's about having better standards for how streetscapes and the public realm should look. A higher "bare minimum" standard for aesthetics. We're much worse than average in that respect, even if you don't look at Europe. But I think it's important to look at Europe because it gives us an example of what's possible.Having the edgiest and the most snazzy architecture is fun and lovely and I would love to see more in Toronto but it doesn't make any one 'Happier'