Tewder
Senior Member
I'm curious what your idea of a good time is (as it relates to city size)?
|
|
|
I'm curious what your idea of a good time is (as it relates to city size)?
ksun
Senior Member
hahaha. It seems you don't know me at all. I probably wouldn't move anywhere north of College/Carlton st as long as I live in Toronto. To live anywhere north of Eglinton is completely unimaginable to me. I'd rather remain single for life than marrying someone who will force me to move to a house in the suburbs (which means north of Eglinton, east of Woodbine or west of Dufferin).
One might say never say never, but for me, it is really a never. The density at Leaside or Oakwood–Vaughan make me want to cry.
Funny though, Stouffville. Even Yonge/Sheppard sounds remote to me.
I am probably too young to know it all historically, but I love density big cities (big population wise, not landsize wise). Paris for example, is a perfect example of size, density and urban vibrancy. Toronto would be ideal if the entire 2.8M people moved to the pre-1998 old city, then we probably would be able to actually build the city instead of constantly worrying about the feelings of people in Scarborough or Rexdale.
Last edited:
Tewder
Senior Member
So you're saying that the mere presence of lots of people in a small space spells 'good times' for you? Ok, well everybody's different I suppose.
Look, i would agree that there is no doubt a certain level of urban density that facilitates the sort of activities and venues that tend to create vibrancy, i'm just not sure that 'mega' is always better in this regard - or that more always means more - and would suggest there are probably a number of other factors at play that create vibrancy once a basic level of density is in place. It's all relative really, and a smaller city may be just as much fun, relatively speaking, than some bigger ones.
Look, i would agree that there is no doubt a certain level of urban density that facilitates the sort of activities and venues that tend to create vibrancy, i'm just not sure that 'mega' is always better in this regard - or that more always means more - and would suggest there are probably a number of other factors at play that create vibrancy once a basic level of density is in place. It's all relative really, and a smaller city may be just as much fun, relatively speaking, than some bigger ones.
ksun
Senior Member
no disagreement here. of course we are assuming the city is run successfully. Neither Dakar or Hong Kong, both highly dense, is my cup of tea. Mega doesn't necessarily mean good of course, otherwise, I would live in Shanghai with 24M people instead of Toronto a quarter of its size. Beyond a certain threshold, urban life simply becomes a burden but Toronto is nowhere there.
But I guess I have a higher threshold than most Canadians. For me, it is over 10M metro-wise. A large population makes everything fun more likely, otherwise, there is simply no such economies of scale and interesting stores (including ideas) can't pop up and manage to survive. How come there is so little retail or anything interesting on Jarvis, Bathurst, or East York, or St Clair east? Because the population is too small. In many areas the density is so low that it can't support a couple of convenience stores.
We all say it is not about the size, but I firmly believe it is substantially about the size. Small cities can be "livable" too, but in the safe, boring, uneventful way. Now matter how great people think Oakville is, a lot of its residents still need to come to Toronto for a lot of things, while people living at Yonge/College will never had to set a step in Oakville because there is really nothing special there. Smaller cities can be just as much fun? I disagree 100%. Is Ottawa fun? Or Hamilton? Even Vancouver is boring as hell to me. Toronto/Montreal are probably the minimum size to be fun for the sheer fact that a lot simply can't happen without a large population (or customer base) to support it.
I am probably one of the few who is of the opinion that Toronto is nowhere to be congested or suffering from the "urban fatigue" and that the city can easily double its population/density without hurting the quality of life. (assuming infrastructure as built in a sensible way of course).
Lenser
Senior Member
Yet since Toronto is, by your estimation, about half as big as it needs to be in order to properly support your idea of "fun," I wonder why you are living here in the first place. Are you stuck here doing some kind of penance for misdeeds? Or perhaps you a boredom analyst conducting a study on "not quite there" cities and have selected Toronto as your test field. Or maybe you simply fancy the notion of being an iconoclast whose routine consists of complaining about this city's shortcomings and gleefully pointing them out to the blissfully ignorant masses. I mean, will Yonge street ever live up to your expectations?
ksun
Senior Member
I don't know why you get so upset because others think Toronto doesn't live up to its full potential yet. If you think yonge st whether now or 20years ago is good enough, I feel really sorry for you.
Overall Toronto is a successful city. However If you can't tolerate people criticizing Yonge st why bother participating in this thread. To say I shouldn't live here because I think it is not big enough is silly logic - how many people actually live in their dream city? I think toronto has too few people and not dense enough, that really doesn't prevent me from living here.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Haha as a young person in Toronto it's hard for me to imagine that ever being something that young adults ever did. It's just not something that young people do anymore. We're far more inclined to take the TTC downtown to walk around the core of the city for a few hours.
I have friends in their late teens/early-mid twenties that live all across our city and only one of them own a car (he's a car buff). The rest of them show no desire whatsoever to own an automobile. Just yesterday I was talking to a friend of mine who has a 1 hour and 15 minute commute from Eglinton/Yonge to Sheppard/Morningside about if he wants to get a car to help quicken his commute time. His response was firmly no; he was perfectly content taking the TTC.
I've heard this sentiment dozens of times from young people across this city. They just don't want anything to do with cars.
I'm going to have to disagree with you Jason. I don't find that young people in northwest Etobicoke or eastern Scarborough are very much more enthusiastic about car ownership than young people downtown are.
Honestly finances has little to do with it in my opinion. I think that cars just fell out of fashion. No longer do they view car ownership as their key to freedom, as I suspect young people in the 50s to 80s did. Instead they're regarded as just another headache in life.
Last edited:
Johnny Au
Senior Member
I agree with TTM. For many Torontonians under 30 these days, getting a car is more of a liability than an asset, especially given how much public transit has expanded in Toronto. Buses these days are much more comfortable than the buses of yesteryear. The same goes with streetcars and subway trains.
There are extremely few areas in Toronto where one is more than two kilometres away from the nearest bus stop.
There are extremely few areas in Toronto where one is more than two kilometres away from the nearest bus stop.
Lenser
Senior Member
Do you really feel sorry for me, though? I think you're being insincere. Come on - fess up!
Now I asked you a honest question - why are you here, in Toronto? It's a question, not a demand for you to leave the city. Can't you recognize the difference? You do spend an awful lot of time complaining about the city as it is; it just makes me wonder if you don't simply like to gripe. And hey - if it floats yer boat, that's fine! Just trying to understand you a little better.
On one thing we can agree - Toronto is a successful city. If we could solve our transit woes and get rid of the Ford disease that's infected the city, we'd be going gangbusters.
thecharioteer
Senior Member
The reality of Yonge Street in the "old days": cinemas, record stores, restaurants, bars, department stores, clubs, book stores. And a lot of neon. And late hours....
thecharioteer
Senior Member
Even in the 1930's, the "heart" of the city:
Lenser
Senior Member
Great pix, both of 'em. It makes me wonder though - does anyone really equate Yonge with the heart of the city anymore? The geographic centre, perhaps... the dividing line between the east and west ends of the city, sure. But its cultural heart? I don't think so. It feels rather stripped of much of its former personality, as glitzy and dodgy as that used to be. A walk up or down Yonge between Queen and Bloor used to be like a carny experience... oddballs and creeps and delicious hints of danger and the forbidden... and a lot of raw flash. Now? It feels fairly sterile and managed... and dotted with corporate entities like chain stores and banks.
ksun
Senior Member
^ it is not a situation unique to the city of Toronto, isn't it? In the 1930s, there is no such thing as globalization and not everything was made in China. I'd say all major cities face exactly the same issue - the increasing dominance of chains. Even Champs Elysees is fighting homogenous chains.
Nor do I think there is necessarily wrong with it. Chains are popular because people want them. If everyone hates McDonalds' and Gaps, they won't survive or prosper, so who are we to say what kind of retail is superior? Maybe it is the individual businesses that need to take a look at themselves and find out why they ceases to be loved. I don't subscribed to the view that chains are popular because they are cheap - it only means independent retails fail to provide stuff that boring chain stores are unable to, doesn't it? Any business should know that in order to be successful, you either have to have 1) cost advantage 2) provide additional value to customers.
Apple is more expensive than other brands, and technically speaking it has no advantage in specifications (memory, storage etc) but how come it manage to defeat all cheaper devices? It is wrong to assume people will simply choose cheaper products but it is always correct that people will always seek cheaper price when there is no quality difference.
As to downtown Yonge, I don't agree it was better in the old days (although I was not here to see). Maybe the hippy stuff has shifted somewhere else in the city and I am sure through all the growth Toronto provides more "oddballs and creeps" than before but you simply can't expect them still to be located at the traditional core - why? 80 years ago Toronto was an unknown town and St Clair was probably considered as the suburbs but now it is a global city, which needs to meet the varied demand of people from all walks of life, and in almost all cities, the downtown/city centre is usually the most boring place when it comes to retail because that's still what most people want because with elevated rents, most business tend to play it safe to secure stable cash flow , so in most cases, a McDonalds is a lot safer than some local boutique eatery nobody outside Toronto has ever heard of (and therefore less likely to spend money there).
Nor do I think there is necessarily wrong with it. Chains are popular because people want them. If everyone hates McDonalds' and Gaps, they won't survive or prosper, so who are we to say what kind of retail is superior? Maybe it is the individual businesses that need to take a look at themselves and find out why they ceases to be loved. I don't subscribed to the view that chains are popular because they are cheap - it only means independent retails fail to provide stuff that boring chain stores are unable to, doesn't it? Any business should know that in order to be successful, you either have to have 1) cost advantage 2) provide additional value to customers.
Apple is more expensive than other brands, and technically speaking it has no advantage in specifications (memory, storage etc) but how come it manage to defeat all cheaper devices? It is wrong to assume people will simply choose cheaper products but it is always correct that people will always seek cheaper price when there is no quality difference.
As to downtown Yonge, I don't agree it was better in the old days (although I was not here to see). Maybe the hippy stuff has shifted somewhere else in the city and I am sure through all the growth Toronto provides more "oddballs and creeps" than before but you simply can't expect them still to be located at the traditional core - why? 80 years ago Toronto was an unknown town and St Clair was probably considered as the suburbs but now it is a global city, which needs to meet the varied demand of people from all walks of life, and in almost all cities, the downtown/city centre is usually the most boring place when it comes to retail because that's still what most people want because with elevated rents, most business tend to play it safe to secure stable cash flow , so in most cases, a McDonalds is a lot safer than some local boutique eatery nobody outside Toronto has ever heard of (and therefore less likely to spend money there).
Tewder
Senior Member
The 80s was really the swan-song era of car culture, to be sure, but it was also the final days of Yonge Street as a vibrant draw, in a way that public spaces in the pre-social media age could still draw people out to just hang and be.
In those days people came to Yonge on foot or by car to make the ritual progress up and down the thoroughfare, checking out the lights, the crowds, and general spectacle of all that was on offer... but this wasn't a consumer-centric ritual, which might be difficult for Ksun and many millennials to grasp:
A good time wasn't always equated with a consumer moment or experience in quite the same way it is today. Interaction was the defining element of the urban experience then, whereas commercialism seems to be the defining element now. The funny thing is, despite the growth in population and density we still see a rise in social alienation. Technology is very likely the key factor. You can add as much density as a place can sustain, take away all the cars and build transit everywhere but urban vibrancy will still never be the same in the technological era as it was before.... unless it takes on a different defining element at some point.
Lenser
Senior Member
I think you're rght, Tewder. Ksun thinks that if it came before him, it must have been all about hippies. Sigh. Such a grotesque and wrongheaded oversimplification; the mind boggles.
Last edited: