Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, but you can find lots of them online. The old downtown was mid-rise and very dense, with some beautiful buildings - typical northeastern urban architecture, similar to what you'd see in Manhattan, but not as tall. Rather than being located just west of Yonge as it currently is. The old downtown was concentrated just east of Yonge. The saddest thing about the destruction of our historic downtown is what it was replaced with - parking lots, for suburban workers who worked in the new, taller downtown. I can only imagine what Toronto would be like if the old downtown still existed alongside the new one Toronto has lost so many of its historic buildings. When you see stretches of Queen or King or College that have stretches of old architecture intact, you can only imagine how beautiful the streets would be if more of this older construction still existed. It's very sad. Urban renewal and suburbanization led to so much loss in our cities. While American cities were generally hit much harder, and many have not recovered, Toronto was hard-hit as well. I think Winnipeg was also hit by suburban flight. Not so sure about other Canadian cities.
Take a look at the link I provided. Its not bad and even includes a diving horse into Lake Ontario
Take a look at the link I provided. Its not bad and even includes a diving horse into Lake Ontario
Oh, I didn't catch that. We must have been posting at the same time Very cool link with lots of great photos. Wonder what was on that horse's mind Thanks for the link.
The most shocking photo I saw was posted in the Urban Planning forum. It was a set of two photos looking down on the old downtown from the same perspective, but taken a few decades apart. In one, you see a large, dense collection of mid-rise buildings built pretty much right to the lakeshore. In the other you see mostly parking lots, with a few structures like the old Flatiron Building poking up from the devastation. It was very eye-opening. Unfortunately, I cannot find the thread.
The most shocking photo I saw was posted in the Urban Planning forum. It was a set of two photos looking down on the old downtown from the same perspective, but taken a few decades apart. In one, you see a large, dense collection of mid-rise buildings right to the lakeshore. In the other you see mostly parking lots, with a few structures like the old Flatiron Building poking up from the devastation. It was very eye-opening. Unfortunately, I cannot find the thread.
Thanks - if only they knew then what we know now - Development would have occurred around these areas!! The CBD wouldn't even exist where it is and what is now the CBD would be considered 'Old Toronto' much like Old Montreal.. Losing them to fires is one thing but demolishing them for parking lots and skyscrapers is inexcusable.
Thanks - if only they knew then what we know now - Development would have occurred around these areas!! The CBD wouldn't even exist where it is and what is now the CBD would be considered 'Old Toronto' much like Old Montreal.. Losing them to fires is one thing but demolishing them for parking lots and skyscrapers is inexcusable.
Yea, that sort of development is generally a great idea. Paris with La Defense, London with Canary Wharf, Shanghai with Lujiazui in Pudong, and Montreal with Old Montreal basically save a lot of the old historic districts from being dismantled by setting aside a new space for the towering business district. It's odd that Toronto already has a fairly limited amount of historic neighborhoods among large cities due to it being only recently so large, and yet it's been so quick in bulldozing over what it has.
It's odd that Toronto already has a fairly limited amount of historic neighborhoods among large cities due to it being only recently so large, and yet it's been so quick in bulldozing over what it has.
Well that's the thing - The key historic nabe's were in what is now Old Toronto so if they remained intact the architectural heritage of the city would be far richer. Instead much was as you said bulldozed over. That isn't to say however that Toronto doesn't have some gems... They are there for sure just not in your face like Old Montreal and more spread out and intermixed between old and new. Additionally, T.O still has the largest collection of Victorian Architecture in the Western Hemisphere so all is not lost for those who know and appreciate that sort of thing.
I'm having a hard time visualizing the area you describe and accepting your exclusions. As many who live in DT Toronto would as well btw.
Is your eastern line stopping at Jarvis definitively? I live between Jarvis and Sherbourne on Wellesley so I wouldn't counted lol that would be nonsensical, I'm a 5 minute walk from Yonge and Wells! If you are not counting east of Jarvis to Parliament you are missing St Jamestown/Mossington Park/Cabbagetown (and as you've said Corktown/Esplanade not to mention Regent park which really is connected to DT
Your Eastern line should extend to the Don River that really should be the demarcation line -I believe you are missing some of the most populated and dense tracts in the city that are definitely considered Downtown.
What is the year of your census? Anything before 2012 is instantly way too dated in the case of DT Toronto.
Northern line Bloor
Southern line Lake Ontario
Eastern Line The Don River
Western Line Bathurst
My numbers are from the 2011 census. Those are the latest numbers available.
I disagree that the "real" downtown is within those boundaries. That's really more of a central area or "greater downtown." Yes that's what they're calling "downtown" now but it's not helpful for comparative purposes. St. James Town is a "tower in the park." Cabbagetown is too residential. The Annex and Kensington to the west are also central but not really downtown. If we're going to include this central area - akin to Manhattan below 96th, Central London, maybe Center City+University City in Philadelphia - then we'll need a more expansive definition of "downtown" Chicago.
BTW with an inverted "T"-shaped downtown - having downtown stretch east to Parliament and west of Bathurst south of Queen so it takes in all of Old Town/St. Lawrence (and University to Jarvis north of Queen) + greater Yorkville/North Midtown I get 106,132 in the 2011 census. In fact I had to make it go to the Don south of Queen because census tracts 16 and 17 cover Jarvis to the Don.
My numbers are from the 2011 census. Those are the latest numbers available.
I disagree that the "real" downtown is within those boundaries. That's really more of a central area or "greater downtown." Yes that's what they're calling "downtown" now but it's not helpful for comparative purposes. St. James Town is a "tower in the park." Cabbagetown is too residential. The Annex and Kensington to the west are also central but not really downtown. If we're going to include this central area - akin to Manhattan below 96th, Central London, maybe Center City+University City in Philadelphia - then we'll need a more expansive definition of "downtown" Chicago.
BTW with an inverted "T"-shaped downtown - having downtown stretch east to Parliament and west of Bathurst south of Queen so it takes in all of Old Town/St. Lawrence (and University to Jarvis north of Queen) + greater Yorkville/North Midtown I get 106,132 in the 2011 census. In fact I had to make it go to the Don south of Queen because census tracts 16 and 17 cover Jarvis to the Don.
Well you do whatever you need to do for other cities to make things 'comparable' (which isn't easy to do I know)...and is why this isn't an 'exact' science to say the least based on subjective definitions of what a DT core is, but everyone who lives in Regent Park, St Jamestown, Cabbagetown, Chinatown, Corktown, The Esplanade (which is literally a stones throw to St Lawrence Market) Chinatown etc considers themselves a part of DT and have every right to - i'm not sure what the aversion is to consider residential nabe's as part of a DT core - those who live in 'Tower in a Park' so to speak is puzzling.
Which is literally a 5 minute walk to the gay villiage and Maple Leaf Gardens is ridiculous if you ask me
Where I think Chicago owns Toronto is having a larger CBD. This is much more undeniable than who has the larger DT core. I think T.O has 65 percent of the office space in its CBD compared to Chicago's. Toronto's nabe's of High density seem to be more closely concentrated and intermixed with the CBD than in the case of DT Chicago.
2011 is ok but it'll be interesting to see what things are like in 2013 and beyond considering 2 years is a lifetime for population growth in DT Toronto. Consider that Toronto just overtook Chicago in city proper (I know this is an expansive area for both) but in 2011 Chicago was the bigger city proper so it goes to show you how dynamic things are in Toronto at the moment with the DT area being no exception. Clearly, something happened in the last two years!
Lets face it - both have large DT core and outside NYC are the largest in the U.S and Canada - trying to definitely say which is 'larger' in terms of population is difficult depending on comparisons used but if anything and Toronto is smaller in terms of population in recent terms and by probably a small margin, it isn't beyond reasonable inference to conclude that it is or will very soon eclipse Chicago based on growth. This is probably undeniable which is why I find it puzzling that you would state with such confidence that Chicago has the larger DT core.
Lets face it - both have large DT core and outside NYC are the largest in the U.S and Canada - trying to definitely say which is 'larger' in terms of population is difficult depending on comparisons used but if anything and Toronto is smaller in terms of population in recent terms and by probably a small margin, it isn't beyond reasonable inference to conclude that it is or will very soon eclipse Chicago based on growth. This is probably undeniable which is why I find it puzzling that you would state with such confidence that Chicago has the larger DT core.
I think almost any unbiased outside observer would disagree.
Chicago clearly has a larger downtown, and I don't think that will change in the near-term, even if Toronto is currently growing much faster.
Chicago has far more downtown office space, vastly more core attractions, more transit hubs, department stores, and other signfiers of core activity.
Toronto is building far more (currently), but the city is in a huge RE bubble, and it's 90% condo boxes, rather than things like offices, hotels, and the like.
Well you do whatever you need to do for other cities to make things 'comparable' (which isn't easy to do I know)...and is why this isn't an 'exact' science to say the least based on subjective definitions of what a DT core is, but everyone who lives in Regent Park, St Jamestown, Cabbagetown, Chinatown, Corktown, The Esplanade (which is literally a stones throw to St Lawrence Market) Chinatown etc considers themselves a part of DT and have every right to - i'm not sure what the aversion is to consider residential nabe's as part of a DT core - those who live in 'Tower in a Park' so to speak is puzzling.
I don't entirely disagree but then again there are people in High Park and the Beaches who "consider themselves" downtowners which is ridiculous.
I think it's hard to argue that downtown includes east of Sherbourne and especially Parliament St. But I did include Corktown/the Esplanade in the downtown figure of 106,000 I gave (I know it's grown since then!) Downtown also stretches further east and west south of Queen than north of Queen IMO.
Last edited by King of Kensington; 08-05-2013 at 02:32 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Toronto has lost so many of its historic buildings. When you see stretches of Queen or King or College that have stretches of old architecture intact, you can only imagine how beautiful the streets would be if more of this older construction still existed. It's very sad. Urban renewal and suburbanization led to so much loss in our cities. While American cities were generally hit much harder, and many have not recovered, Toronto was hard-hit as well. I think Winnipeg was also hit by suburban flight. Not so sure about other Canadian cities.
Very cool link with lots of great photos. Wonder what was on that horse's mind 
Thanks for the link. 
