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.
When were you here and where'd you go? I think that if it is anymore than 4 years ago that was too long ago to make a judgement for such a dynamic place as this. Anyway for those who know Toronto and it's nabe's the claim Old Toronto doesn't feel urban is kind of surprising really! If you were in North York or Scarborough - well..
I didn't say it didn't feel urban. I just said that it didn't feel as urban as Boston or San Francisco.
Hmmmm well I've been all three cities and I agree S.F and Boston are very urban... agreed - but the urban framework of Old Toronto is extensive and expansive.. I respectfully disagree that Toronto is less urban but it is your opinion. Regardless - as I mentioned anything more than 4 years ago and its not fair to judge Toronto then in the here and now. Having said that, we should resist the urge to bring cities other than those in the thread into this imo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
I didn't say it didn't feel urban. I just said that it didn't feel as urban as Boston or San Francisco.
Hmmmm well I've been all three cities and I agree S.F and Boston are very urban... agreed - but the urban framework of Old Toronto is extensive and expansive.. I respectfully disagree that Toronto is less urban but it is your opinion. Regardless - as I mentioned anything more than 4 years ago and its not fair to judge Toronto then in the here and now. Having said that, we should resist the urge to bring cities other than those in the thread into this imo.
My opinion is that Toronto doesn't reach the same peak densities/bustle/vibrancy, but does maintain it for longer stretches down some corridors. I was there two years ago. Valid?
Hmmmm well I've been all three cities and I agree S.F and Boston are very urban... agreed - but the urban framework of Old Toronto is extensive and expansive.. I respectfully disagree that Toronto is less urban but it is your opinion. Regardless - as I mentioned anything more than 4 years ago and its not fair to judge Toronto then in the here and now. Having said that, we should resist the urge to bring cities other than those in the thread into this imo.
People say this about every city on C-D. What has changed so much about Toronto in the past four years?
I dunno lol - I know what you are saying but didn't relly experience that but I live here so know how dense/bustling and vibrant it is and am basing my opinion on living here as opposed to visiting ie.. i'm taking into account when things go crazy because I know where they do and when...
answer to your question - semi valid but worth another trip to Toronto this summer
NOT winter lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
My opinion is that Toronto doesn't reach the same peak densities/bustle/vibrancy, but does maintain it for longer stretches down some corridors. I was there two years ago. Valid?
This is from 2011 - meaning these building are mostly being taken possession of in 2013/2014 and are condo's.. The construction boom is still happening and even bigger proposals are coming along.
Toronto 132 highrises under const... Boston 5 and S.F 2 as of Sept 2011
I'd say for North American standards this is absolutely exceptional and more than just a casual boom it is the largest and still is the largest boom in the western world. It takes no genius to figure out something extraordinary is going on in Toronto
Another thing that is extraordinary is the number of people flocking to DT Toronto versus the past... People want DT living on a scale greater than typical N.A cities...this is not diminishing and is actually intensifying - like a snowball effect.
This is true coupled with Demographics and Government policy..ie.. where people are moving within the UA and the fact that sprawl in the GTA has been curbed in favour of protection of surrounding marshlands and densification of cores - with Old Toronto being the most compressed and dense of the cores.
This also demonstrates why Transit ridership is so impressive in a city like Toronto vs cities like L.A/Dallas/Houston/Atlanta and to a smaller degree Boston. SF and Chicago because of population densification close to mass transit options.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
Pretty impressive immigration (like adding 100K, maybe) and construction boom (many highrises).
My opinion is that Toronto doesn't reach the same peak densities/bustle/vibrancy, but does maintain it for longer stretches down some corridors. I was there two years ago. Valid?
Sorry to say, but my opinion wold be that your opinion is very, very incorrect.
Structural density CAN be measured though, with L.A. scoring quite high, though certainly below CHI and TOR at the core level.
It's the importance that is placed on streetwalls and the like over population density that I disagree with, vehemently. It can supplement an argument, but that's it.
It's one thing to prefer a neighborhood like Adams-Morgan over a neighborhood like Koreatown. It's quite another to proclaim Adams-Morgan the more urban environment BECAUSE you prefer it aesthetically. Especially when every ounce of objective data will show that Koreatown is the more dense area, and that includes structural density.
You can disagree all you want, just don't hide under the veneer of objectivity. There is nothing objective about your perspective. (Or logical for that matter. I have shown plenty of thought experiments to illustrate why high population density - alone - does not necessarily translate to a high degree of urbanity. Similarly, low population density alone does not necessarily equate to weak urbanity. There are census tracts in Midtown Manhattan that have close to zero population density. Would anyone in their right mind say that Midtown Manhattan between 7th Ave and Park is not very urban?)
I do agree that pure aesthetics are subjective and should not be relevant to this discussion. But things people criticize about LA -- setbacks, surface lots, low structural density, lack of mixed use, auto oriented urban design, etc -- are not mere aesthetics. These are tangible, well-defined urban characterstics that are every bit as objective and relevant to discussion of urbanity as population density.
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.
