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.
The freeway does not cut through downtown SF. It's on the periphery because the city had the foresight to tear down most of the Embarcadero Freeway and now it has miles upon miles of waterfront in a very urban area that Toronto would love to have. This Waterfront stretches uninterrupted from the Giants Ballpark all the way to Chrissy Fields, which is close to the Golden Gate Bridge. The picture you're showing is a stretch of freeway on the periphery that's actually part of the Bay Bridge, which obviously could not practically be torn down because its SF's main connection to Oakland besides the Transbay tunnel. Let's not be facetious here. Look at a map of SF and show me how many freeways cross the city vs. Toronto. Yes, you would point out that the Ontario provincial government forced Toronto to incorporate the suburbs, but the point still stands.
Oh so wait - you throw around these Asian grenades and than say oh i'm not going to get into a debate about them lol..
Those songs were before my time Dave but party on
Grenades.... that bad. Of course the song was before your time. I missed being a adult in the era too. I was like 7-8 years old when the song came out. Love it though. So much of the 60s. Just 70s 80s were more my decades. 80s especially the music, is still popular among the young even today. In the US at least.
I'm sure you know I am not young. But SF then .... I'd have loved to have been. No cell phones to keep a nose in. . Yeah, I'd rather be back in them eras. But I sure would not want to lessen the current one for those young today --- Live it and fulfill your dreams.
The freeway does not cut through downtown SF. It's on the periphery because the city had the foresight to tear down most of the Embarcadero Freeway and now it has miles upon miles of waterfront in a very urban area that Toronto would love to have. This Waterfront stretches uninterrupted from the Giants Ballpark all the way to Chrissy Fields, which is close to the Golden Gate Bridge. The picture you're showing is a stretch of freeway on the periphery that's actually part of the Bay Bridge, which obviously could not practically be torn down because its SF's main connection to Oakland besides the Transbay tunnel. Let's not be facetious here. Look at a map of SF and show me how many freeways cross the city vs. Toronto. Yes, you would point out that the Ontario provincial government forced Toronto to incorporate the suburbs, but the point still stands.
The Gardiner doesn't really cut through downtown Toronto either, most of downtown Toronto was away from the waterfront and the waterfront was industrial land at the time of the Gardiner's construction. It only looks that way now because that land has been converted to buildings.
Looking at the map the way each highway cuts through SF and Toronto is quite similar, each highway goes around the periphery of the downtown core, not cutting through it. In SF it even cuts off the neighbourhood south east of downtown to the waterfront.
I just don't see how one is somehow better than the other by any significant margin here. Both SF and Toronto have highways entering the city. You can't call out the Gardiner and pretend there is no highway through SF.
You're also discounting Toronto's waterfront (a common theme here), I've been to SF's waterfront and arguably Queens Quay is even better than the Embarcadaro. Not to mention the Toronto Islands across the water which is significant waterfront greenspace downtown.
Last edited by Differential; 08-26-2019 at 11:21 PM..
The Gardiner doesn't really cut through downtown Toronto either, most of downtown Toronto was away from the waterfront and the waterfront was industrial land at the time of the Gardiner's construction. It only looks that way now because that land has been converted to buildings.
Looking at the map the way each highway cuts through SF and Toronto is quite similar, each highway goes around the periphery of the downtown core, not cutting through it. In SF it even cuts off the neighbourhood south east of downtown to the waterfront.
I just don't see how one is somehow better than the other by any significant margin here. Both SF and Toronto have highways entering the city. You can't call out the Gardiner and pretend there is no highway through SF.
We all know the Gardiner gets little luv. It is to have much eventually removed no? SF did remove the ugliest one its waterfront. Though fate had it damaged in the earthquake to get its fate chosen for it.
To debate these points is needless.... especially if an good portion of Toronto's will be gone in the future and much of SF's is already history.
Both are 'new' - just that the first is new infil intermixed with old and the second is a more suburban and more dedicated residential area.
I never cease to be amazed at the sheer volume of high rises Toronto is building--SF for being a far smaller city likewise has seen a huge transformation in it's downtown core with many, many highrises, albeit at a smaller scale than Toronto obviously.
But this leads me to a few questions you or any other Toronto forumer might know the answers to. I know that like SF, Toronto has a huge housing affordability issue. All the new housing has had virtually zero effect as far as lowering rents and home prices.
Has Toronto's affordability problem been helped by all the new construction? Or has it been like here, a bunch of new housing options for the rich?
Also, are buyers from China a major factor there like Ive read is the case in Vancouver?
Just wondering. Mainly because Im looking for cities where all this mega building has actually resulted in lower rents and home prices and I havent found such a place yet.
I never cease to be amazed at the sheer volume of high rises Toronto is building--SF for being a far smaller city likewise has seen a huge transformation in it's downtown core with many, many highrises, albeit at a smaller scale than Toronto obviously.
But this leads me to a few questions you or any other Toronto forumer might know the answers to. I know that like SF, Toronto has a huge housing affordability issue. All the new housing has had virtually zero effect as far as lowering rents and home prices.
Has Toronto's affordability problem been helped by all the new construction? Or has it been like here, a bunch of new housing options for the rich?
Also, are buyers from China a major factor there like Ive read is the case in Vancouver?
Just wondering. Mainly because Im looking for cities where all this mega building has actually resulted in lower rents and home prices and I havent found such a place yet.
The issue in Toronto is the residential vacancy rate in desirable communities like downtown are still extremely low and outstrip supply, despite all the new construction (and what's in the pipeline is even more crazy). The city is also growing in population too fast.
So no, affordability has not been helped. New construction condo prices continue to rise each year, benchmark 1br rental rates continue to rise each year, many new buildings continue to be built each year. I think this is a case of where no matter how wide a highway you build, it only encourages more people to drive, and therefore it will always be crowded. As the city grows and develops, it becomes more desirable, and more and more people want to live there.
One solution we've turned to is building high density satellite downtowns (that are also employment centers) outside of the core along transit corridors. Midtown Yonge/Eglinton and North York City Center are two examples. These too are growing fast with lots of construction. The idea is to diversify beyond just downtown. Rental rates are a little better in these areas but still pretty high.
I don't think the Chinese influence is as high in Toronto as it is in Vancouver, but even in Vancouver it's overblown and primarily relegated to higher end homes. The vast majority of the developers are domestic and buyers are residents. People underestimate how fast these cities are growing and if you look at the population stats it's eye opening. There is no way we can build fast enough to accommodate without significant zoning changes.
I think the issues you face in SF are even more challenging given how dense and tightly packed the city already is. Maybe you disagree but I don't think any amount of highrise building is going to make downtown San Francisco affordable. Downtown Toronto is getting pretty bad as well and there are more buildings there now than there has ever been.
The issue in Toronto is the residential vacancy rate in desirable communities like downtown are still extremely low and outstrip supply, despite all the new construction (and what's in the pipeline is even more crazy). The city is also growing in population too fast.
So no, affordability has not been helped. New construction condo prices continue to rise each year, benchmark 1br rental rates continue to rise each year, many new buildings continue to be built each year. I think this is a case of where no matter how wide a highway you build, it only encourages more people to drive, and therefore it will always be crowded. As the city grows and develops, it becomes more desirable, and more and more people want to live there.
One solution we've turned to is building high density satellite downtowns (that are also employment centers) outside of the core along transit corridors. Midtown Yonge/Eglinton and North York City Center are two examples. These too are growing fast with lots of construction. The idea is to diversify beyond just downtown. Rental rates are a little better in these areas but still pretty high.
I don't think the Chinese influence is as high in Toronto as it is in Vancouver, but even in Vancouver it's overblown and primarily relegated to higher end homes. The vast majority of the developers are domestic and buyers are residents. People underestimate how fast these cities are growing and if you look at the population stats it's eye opening. There is no way we can build fast enough to accommodate without significant zoning changes.
I think the issues you face in SF are even more challenging given how dense and tightly packed the city already is. Maybe you disagree but I don't think any amount of highrise building is going to make downtown San Francisco affordable. Downtown Toronto is getting pretty bad as well and there are more buildings there now than there has ever been.
+1 great info
I wish we had the political will to develop our suburbs--people out there are so adamantly against it.
I wish we had the political will to develop our suburbs--people out there are so adamantly against it.
That is interesting. I could imagine if Toronto was not developing outside the core, how much worse it would actually be in the core and Old Toronto in terms of housing costs. That all said, the days of Toronto being an 'affordable' city are gone now. The rental market used to be a respite even up to a few years ago, but even the old commie block Le Corbusier development that is quite common throughout the city, is expensive. Some people who are legacy tenants and protected by rent control are still paying affordable rates, but the market rate is often far higher for new tenants.
Do you think if S.F city proper expanded its borders in the manner of Toronto and Chicago, it would make a difference regarding control over suburban development? I'm thinking geography may have something to do with why say S.F and Oakland are separate cities.
The freeway does not cut through downtown SF. It's on the periphery because the city had the foresight to tear down most of the Embarcadero Freeway and now it has miles upon miles of waterfront in a very urban area that Toronto would love to have. This Waterfront stretches uninterrupted from the Giants Ballpark all the way to Chrissy Fields, which is close to the Golden Gate Bridge. The picture you're showing is a stretch of freeway on the periphery that's actually part of the Bay Bridge, which obviously could not practically be torn down because its SF's main connection to Oakland besides the Transbay tunnel. Let's not be facetious here. Look at a map of SF and show me how many freeways cross the city vs. Toronto. Yes, you would point out that the Ontario provincial government forced Toronto to incorporate the suburbs, but the point still stands.
That freeway in S.F is not exactly far from the DT core and abuts a lot of new development. As a matter of fact, the closeness of those buildings to the freeway sort of reminded me of Toronto. Gardiner aside though, Toronto, isn't just sleeping when it comes to waterfront development. Especially on the western part of the DT core. The east is next. Comparing the city of San Francisco to the city of Toronto vis-a-vie highways is ridiculous. Just as saying, well because Toronto incorporated more suburban borough's within its city borders, the 'point still stands' is also ridiculous. The 401 is like 12 miles away from the DT Core whether it is part of the city of Toronto or a suburban borough, it is still physically far removed from the core and Old Toronto. People allow arbitrary city lines to cloud their judgment.
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.
