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.
Just because there are neighbourhoods of dense, old Victorian homes doesn't mean it's just like deep suburbia, that's ridiculous. That's just the vernacular of old Toronto, and it's still very urban. You don't just need rowhouses to be urban, every city is different.
Well I am sorry but I do not consider blocks of SFHs with front yards and driveways to be "very urban". If you do then we don't have much to talk about -- we must have different conceptions of urbanity. And no, of course it doesn't need to be "just rowhouses". But I find 3-5 story row homes (South End), brownstones (Back Bay) and tenements (North End) to be far more urban then the typical older residential blocks in Toronto.
"That's just the vernacular of old Toronto" -- exactly, that's the point.
The SF residential areas North of Bloor tend to have mostly detached houses, while East and West of downtown the SF residential areas have many more rowhouses and a more "urban" look. Even so, you can find other areas further North than Casa Loma (which is a particularly leafy neighbourhood) that look much more urban -- Toronto is patchy in its urbanity, and has islands of varying density all over the place.
This is a nearby residential street of SFHs in the Yonge and Eglinton neighborhood, it's more "typically" urban looking than the SFH areas around Casa Loma: https://goo.gl/maps/jRBBsACk9n62
These are a couple of the SF rowhouse type streets 2-3 miles West of Yonge St. downtown:
Anyway, all I'm saying is that I'm sure in either city you can find examples of areas that look "more suburban" and "more urban" at varying distances from the core if you look hard enough.
Even in the Boston spots you posted if you pan around or move half a block in either direction it becomes apparent that those areas have more solid urban bones than the area I referenced in Toronto. You see multi-family apartment buildings, small setbacks etc. Anyway, I am not sure what your point is. Even in Manhattan you can probably find a detached SFH somewhere if you look hard enough. And certainly plenty in Brownstone Brooklyn. But we are talking about predominant urban form, not isolated examples.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atticman
Anyway, all I'm saying is that I'm sure in either city you can find examples of areas that look "more suburban" and "more urban" at varying distances from the core if you look hard enough.
I agree. But the "more suburban" look is much easier to find in Toronto and much closer to the core. That's the point. So I don't really see the equivalence you are trying draw.
Last edited by Fitzrovian; 06-25-2017 at 02:21 PM..
Well, to start with, "urban core" and "downtown" are not the same thing. You should know that. Secondly I am not the least bit interested in how cities define their downtown -- which is often arbitrary and inconsistent. What I am interested in is the overall quality of urban core -- I thought that's what this thread was about. If you are comparing 6.5 sq miles of inner Toronto to 0.5 sq miles of inner Boston and concluding on that basis that Toronto's downtown is bigger and better then you are a fool.
Toronto's downtown is substantially bigger than Boston's downtown.
Even in the Boston spots you posted if you pan around or move half a block in either direction it becomes apparent that those areas have more solid urban bones than the area I referenced in Toronto. You see multi-family apartment buildings, small setbacks etc. Anyway, I am not sure what your point is. Even in Manhattan you can probably find a detached SFH somewhere if you look hard enough. And certainly plenty in Brownstone Brooklyn. But we are talking about predominant urban form, not isolated examples.
I agree. But the "more suburban" look is much easier to find in Toronto and much closer to the core. That's the point. So I don't really see the equivalence you are trying draw.
Are there any detached SFH's in Manhattan? I don't think I've ever seen one there in my entire life, nor can I think of any area for where to look for them. Maybe the closest thing I can think of would be an Upper East Side Mansion or Townhouse with a small crack of space between it and the next building.
Back on topic: there seems to be a lot of skyline talk in here. I don't think that's really important when it comes to urban core. For example Houston, Dallas, Atlanta have larger skylines than DC but that doesn't mean they are more urban than DC (not even close). And just look at pretty much any European city without a skyline.... those are great examples.
I love Boston, but it's obvious that Toronto's core is much, much larger. Even counting much of Cambridge, the Seaport area, etc., Boston's core isn't terribly large, especially for a city of 8,000,000.
Even in the Boston spots you posted if you pan around or move half a block in either direction it becomes apparent that those areas have more solid urban bones than the area I referenced in Toronto. You see multi-family apartment buildings, small setbacks etc. Anyway, I am not sure what your point is. Even in Manhattan you can probably find a detached SFH somewhere if you look hard enough. And certainly plenty in Brownstone Brooklyn. But we are talking about predominant urban form, not isolated examples.
Sure, but you also don't have to go very far from Casa Loma to find a much more solid looking urban environment, these streets are in the same neighbourhood, just a few blocks away:
Atticman let me give you some areas in Boston that would compare in vibrancy. 230000 -250000 pedestrians pass through downtown crossings in Boston daily. Faneuil hall has been listed by some as one of worlds most visited tourist attractions with 18000000 visitors annually. This being part of th freedom trail which is all quite busy. Downtown crossing, north end, Boylston and newbury, mass Ave central square and Harvard square would be the most vibrant sections of the city that could compare to Torontos most vibrant.
The difference is Downtown Crossing is a neighbourhood of several square blocks and different streets while Yonge and Dundas is a single intersection, but yes Downtown Crossing is indeed a very vibrant area.
Yes torontos urban core is larger. Boston's urban core, however, is absolutely not just downtown. It is just as vibrant in many areas and I prefer it architecturally and based on walkability. Boston's city center is not just "Downtown" In fact I would call downtown the least interesting part of Boston's city center. Technically manhattans downtown defined literally is south of soho in the business district also not an incredibly interesting area of Manhattan relatively speaking. Boston has vibrancy on par with toronto over a smaller geographical area and much of that vibrancy extends beyond city limits. You can prefer Boston's urban core while admitting torontos is geographically larger.
I love Boston and have decent familiarity with all of the downtown fringe areas, including Cambridge (really part of the core city and even the urban core). It's excellent and growing...just not on a similar scale either for what's there now or for the growth rate.
I agree torontos density is sustained over a larger geographical area and has more nodes of high density. I can't agree that it is more intense in peak areas than Boston which is the third most dense in USA and serves as the major city of an 8 million csa. It's peak vibrancy is at least on par. Again downtown crossing (represented mostly by the intersection of Washington and winter st gets 250000 pedestrians daily. I've been posting to clarify that Boston's urban core is not merely downtown as defined literally. Newbury st, the most active retail corridor is not downtown by these definitions. It's hard to get accurate census data but I'm calculating around 200000 people in the inner 5 or 6 sq miles. This includes up to Museum of fine arts on Huntington which is very active. Cambridge is also essentially inner core with Kendall square 3 subway stops from downtown crossing and central square 4 subway stops. Central square is home to 20000 people in less than 0.1 square mile.
I'll give you toronto being larger geographically with more nodes but these urban cores are not incomparable.
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.
