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.
Whether Toronto is ugly depends what you are comparing to and which part you are looking at.
Compared with New York (Manhattan) and Boston, yes, Toronto looks like a poor city with no history or culture. Compared with downtown Chicago, Toronto looks like a messy chaotic piece of crap. There are however, many uglier cities, but should we even compare with them to start with?
Toronto's ugly parts in downtown that I hate to see:
The waterfront - the whole thing.
Queen East between Church and DVP - slum
Dundas East between Victoria and DVP - slum (regent park project is changing it gradually, hopefully)
Queen West from St Patrick to God knows where - all ugly rundown houses
Dundas West from Beverly all the way down
Yonge st from Dundas to Bloor - third world country standards
Bathurst st from front to Bloor (hideous suburbs)
Spadina ave from Queen to College
Kensington Market
Church st, Jarvis st and Sherbourne st from Richmond to Carlton
....
This is like 70% of downtown
The only interesting and non-ugly streets in the city is King st (east and west), College St, and Bloor West. Plus St Lawrence market area, Bloor/Ave road area. UofT campus is nice looking as well.
.
It figures you would go and choose some of the best parts of Toronto as your worst. The older parts of the city are by far more attractive and interesting than the shining new developments I mentioned earlier. My beef is with the new developments, not the older buildings. I believe most of Old Toronto is fine the way it is. If they want to increase density, do it with developments that fit the area, that are beautiful to look at, and don't do it by tearing down attractive older buildings! Modernist glass and stucco condos don't fit with early 20th century brick low-rise, or Victorian and Edwardian semis. But that's what our city's heritage is - not shiny, sleek, glass and concrete condo towers rising from a neighbourhood that is early-20th Century.
I agree with some of your points - I do think we deserve a better waterfront, better public spaces, and great neighbourhoods, but all these opportunities are slowly being squandered by the urban planners at City Hall and the developers paving over the city with condos.
Botticelli, sounds like you don't appreciate the few things that do make Toronto, if not beautiful, then at least full of character. Where many people see character and heritage, you see ugly old gritty mayhem that needs to be "made new" in the words of the Modernist, Ezra Pound. You've included some of Toronto's hottest, most expensive nabes in your list of worst parts of the downtown. Furthermore, Bathurst St. from King to Bloor is one of the most urban streets outside the downtown core, so why do you label it as being suburban? Do you live in Toronto?
Botticelli, Yonge and Queen are not lined with 2 storey "houses", they are mostly lined with a continuous wall of mainly 2-4 storey commercial buildings with the occasional taller building here and there.
King West and Yorkville are expensive, especially for what you get, but are not more expensive than Back Bay or Beacon Hill. The pristine Boston neighborhoods command close to Manhattan pricing and there is not much turnover with the immaculately preserved historic brownstones to begin with. A few years ago, a parking spot (not a unit, just a parking spot in an alley) in Back Bay near the Boston Public Garden went for $300K+. The most beautifual historic neighborhoods in Boston rival if not exceed the the best neighborhoods in New York of Chicago IMO and are among the most beautiful on the continent.
Now most cities on this continent don't have this kind of history and it's not something you can create so that's a tough standard to set for a younger city like Toronto. But Toronto doesn have it's share of nice, charming housing stock and should make efforts preserve what it does have. The city should, where possible, consider beautifying and breathing life into its older neighborhoods instead of tearing some of them down for glass and concrete. But I agree that there are some parts of the city that are not historic and just need to go.
I find the people who seem to love taking shots at Toronto and its weaknesses are certain Torontonians themselves. To me, these individuals in CD are more prolific than the CD Toronto homerific boosters.
Seriously though, what do you propose we do to accomodate the growth that is going on in Toronto? If not Condo's what - slums and barrios, commie blocks? Stunt the growth? tell people where they can and can't live? - do you really see this as realistic and practical because you don't like condominiums but instead want 'great neighbourhoods' and public spaces with nice sculptures and superlative architecture that nobody can afford.
I live in DT Toronto and love it - I have many friends who live DT as well who occupy these glass beasts and quite frankly they like the lifestyle...This isn't to say we shouldn't protect some heritage architecture and strike a balance between growth and pleasant hoods, but i'm sorry I just find you and the like in here unrealistic and in the minority when it comes to a broad sweeping hatred for anything that is a condominium or that is glass and concrete seemingly living in a time past. So, what exactly do you propose that is built to mesh with our architecture that can realistically accomodate our growth - hundreds of variations of the Chrysler and Empire State Buildings?
Perhaps some of you should just move to Guelph and call it a life or better yet, move to Boston.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TOkidd
I agree with some of your points - I do think we deserve a better waterfront, better public spaces, and great neighbourhoods, but all these opportunities are slowly being squandered by the urban planners at City Hall and the developers paving over the city with condos.
Seriously though, what do you propose we do to accomodate the growth that is going on in Toronto? If not Condo's what - slums and barrios, commie blocks? Stunt the growth? tell people where they can and can't live? - do you really see this as realistic and practical because you don't like condominiums but instead want 'great neighbourhoods' and public spaces with nice sculptures and superlative architecture that nobody can afford.
I live in DT Toronto and love it - I have many friends who live DT as well who occupy these glass beasts and quite frankly they like the lifestyle...This isn't to say we shouldn't protect some heritage architecture and strike a balance between growth and pleasant hoods, but i'm sorry I just find you and the like in here unrealistic and in the minority when it comes to a broad sweeping hatred for anything that is a condominium or that is glass and concrete seemingly living in a time past. So, what exactly do you propose that is built to mesh with our architecture that can realistically accomodate our growth - hundreds of variations of the Chrysler and Empire State Buildings?
Perhaps some of you should just move to Guelph and call it a life or better yet, move to Boston.
I personally do not find the new condos to be unattractive. They may not win any international design prizes but they are sleek and in good shape.
What I find less attractive is much of the stuff (often two-storey commercial-residential mixes on main streets) built 40 or 50 years that has not been maintained.
Seriously though, what do you propose we do to accomodate the growth that is going on in Toronto? If not Condo's what - slums and barrios, commie blocks? Stunt the growth? tell people where they can and can't live? - do you really see this as realistic and practical because you don't like condominiums but instead want 'great neighbourhoods' and public spaces with nice sculptures and superlative architecture that nobody can afford.
I live in DT Toronto and love it - I have many friends who live DT as well who occupy these glass beasts and quite frankly they like the lifestyle...This isn't to say we shouldn't protect some heritage architecture and strike a balance between growth and pleasant hoods, but i'm sorry I just find you and the like in here unrealistic and in the minority when it comes to a broad sweeping hatred for anything that is a condominium or that is glass and concrete seemingly living in a time past. So, what exactly do you propose that is built to mesh with our architecture that can realistically accomodate our growth - hundreds of variations of the Chrysler and Empire State Buildings?
Perhaps some of you should just move to Guelph and call it a life or better yet, move to Boston.
I think I was quite clear in how we can accommodate the "growth" in Toronto. Build neighbourhoods, not developments, and build structures that fit into the prevailing architecture of Old Toronto.
I'll say that it seems you expect very little from your city. When beauty becomes a luxury, we've either become Philistines or come to expect very little from the politicians and developers who make the decisions. Architecture should never be superlative....when you start thinking this way, it shows how little you demand from the developers making tens of millions off their developments. How is beauty ever superlative? Why do you think cities like New York and Paris have so many admirers? And New York's architecture is simple and utilitarian, for the most part. But it's elegant and pleasant to look at, like much of Toronto's older buildings. Building with glass, concrete and stucco is cheap. That's the only reason the developers in Toronto use it. It's cheap as hell, and can be erected very fast. But as I already explained, it's a terrible choice of building material for this climate. Perhaps a few of them would look okay, but that's all I seem to see in the downtown and it is not attractive. Being forced to live in such close proximity to one another, the least that we should demand is beauty. We don't have to build a second Paris, but we should aim to at least match the handsome older buildings this city has plenty of.
The Empire State and Chrysler Buildings are both office towers, so even New Yorkers don't enjoy living in high rises of that magnitude. But have you ever visited the Upper West Side of Manhattan, or even Washington Heights? Therse are two very different neighbourhoods, but offer examples of how we could build in Toronto to accommodate more people. The UWS is a mix of high-rise (6-20 stories, but mostly 6-10 stories) buildings, built of stone, some of which are very beautifully designed, but many of which have a simple, elegant, utilitarian design that reminds me of many of Toronto's low-rise buildings from the early 20th Century, just taller. Mixed in with these taller buildings are densely packed brownstones, typically three stories, and usually accomodating 2 families or several individual occupants. In the areas where we have seen massive glass condo developments blossom, they could have built smaller, more densely packed apartments and three-storey rowhouses that could accommodate two families each. Even the ubiquitous 5-8 storey New York tenement apartment would be better than what they're building in Toronto. Packed tight together, and laid out on a grid system, these developments could be mixed with fancier buildings to create a neighbourhood accomodating both buyers and renters, with shops and transit at ground level. Parkettes on each block could provide recreation space, and instead of throwing up tracts of condos, we would be building neighbourhoods - because people like to live in neighbourhoods, not developments. A development is a fancy housing project.
And just so you know, things like sculpture, beauty, nice architecture, and great public spaces are considered the norm, not expensive frills - even cities in developing countries have them, and the people love and appreciate them. The fact that you think these things superlative shows the kind of apathy we're dealing with in this city as we make room for more people. Do you really think a city should simply be a collection of dwellings and businesses? Even Stalin and Mao weren't so closed-minded.
By far, the most important thing is building residential architecture that is beautiful and matches the style of what has come before it. Building a giant glass condo smack in the middle of Old Toronto is exactly the opposite of this approach. I'm not against condos per se, just the way they're being built in Toronto. They don't fit with the architecture that dominates the city, are often poorly placed in neighbourhoods where they just don't belong (could easily be fixed with better design), and are built in tracts that resemble nothing more than a fancy housing project. Look at Brooklyn, the Bronx, Madrid, Barcelona, Paris and London - extremely dense places that have been built on a human scale with mostly mid and low-rise buildings packed together tightly in mixed-use neighbourhoods. This is what a city should be. Even in the burbs they have massive agglomerations of condos. That doesn't make the area feel urban....not when you have to get in your car to buy milk or go for a coffee.
If Toronto wants to be a "Global City", and it says it does, then it should remind itself what makes other Global Cities great and emulate them. We should be duplicating our great neighbourhoods, but building them higher and denser without changing the general style. What I see in these new developments is not much different than what I see in the 60's-era high-rise tracts of Jane-Finch and Scarborough, except newer and glassier. We may never have neighbourhoods as beautiful as the Back Bay, but we could certainly duplicate the height and layout of the Upper West Side or The East Village with the style of Old Toronto. IMO, this would be much more true to our roots and a vast improvement over the current "Glassy Towers in the Concrete" model currently showing up everywhere.
First off - bringing up Mao and Stalin is ridiculous-like seriously where is your head? Well actually we could curb our growth by killing two million Torontonians...lalala sorry but you mentioned it!
Anway, I don't think the developments you speak of will accomodate the growth we have at all and accomodate the desires of individuals to live in certain areas of the city. mostly 6-20 story stone buildings aren't going to cut it - condo's are becoming progressively higher in this city! As I stated before, you are living is points past! That is why I mentioned Chrysler or ESB - you'd have to build along those lines to accomodate the growth not what you speak of.. Chrysler and ESB could be converted to residential development if it was practical - clearly it is not as imo are your solutions.
As for your comments about Madrid, London and Paris etc - we aren't a European city we are newer than all those places and we aren't going to build based on that heritage - it isn't who we are and it is where we are going. Regardless - how far away from the DT core would we have to build outwards if we are going to match their architectural merits and style considering our growth in the here and now if not for 50 story glass condo's? I'd say it would be a radical and again impractical enterprise and I would say probably VERY far out maintaining our current mix of high density and low density mix. What I think you are proposing is a contiguous spread of medium density development- again not going to happen, we would practically have to raze the city in order to do this.
Regardless, the personal tastes and expectations of either you or me are truly irrelevant. It is the choice(s) of the individuals who are choosing to live in these devs and they've made their choice.. I'm sorry but you've been voted off the Island. We've gone the route of Hong Kong, not Boston or Madrid - you are going to have to accept that. Constantly stating that I have a closed mind or lack balance as either you or someone else in here has stated means nothing to Toronto and it means nothing to me because I find you are rooted in fantasy not reality. If you want to change the development of the city go out and sway the opinions of your fellow Torontontians - let me know how that works for you lol.. You could run for Mayor but it'll take a lot more than what you guys are doing in here!
I for one am more concerned about the lack of infrastructure development to accomodate our growth as opposed to the growth of tall glass and concrete buildings..I drive to/fro Dt Toronto to the airport everyday for work and traffic is becoming noticeably worse by the month. If this continues and there is no viable Public transportation option i'm going to have to move closer to work which is a shame.
Btw we are already a global city just not YOUR global city and that is ok... as I said move to Boston or NYC if that is your desire. Emulating other cities isn't our style nor should it be! I can tell you that there are plenty enough people who live and work in this city that are happy with it and they constitute the majority of residents. Those who live in old Vics - those who live in glass condo's and those who even live in a commie block in North York. You don't have to live in Madrid or Boston to have a monopoloy on loving where you live or taking pride in it and Torontonians love their city - shoot us!
Quote:
Originally Posted by TOkidd
I think I was quite clear in how we can accommodate the "growth" in Toronto. Build neighbourhoods, not developments, and build structures that fit into the prevailing architecture of Old Toronto.
I'll say that it seems you expect very little from your city. When beauty becomes a luxury, we've either become Philistines or come to expect very little from the politicians and developers who make the decisions. Architecture should never be superlative....when you start thinking this way, it shows how little you demand from the developers making tens of millions off their developments. How is beauty ever superlative? Why do you think cities like New York and Paris have so many admirers? And New York's architecture is simple and utilitarian, for the most part. But it's elegant and pleasant to look at, like much of Toronto's older buildings. Building with glass, concrete and stucco is cheap. That's the only reason the developers in Toronto use it. It's cheap as hell, and can be erected very fast. But as I already explained, it's a terrible choice of building material for this climate. Perhaps a few of them would look okay, but that's all I seem to see in the downtown and it is not attractive. Being forced to live in such close proximity to one another, the least that we should demand is beauty. We don't have to build a second Paris, but we should aim to at least match the handsome older buildings this city has plenty of.
The Empire State and Chrysler Buildings are both office towers, so even New Yorkers don't enjoy living in high rises of that magnitude. But have you ever visited the Upper West Side of Manhattan, or even Washington Heights? Therse are two very different neighbourhoods, but offer examples of how we could build in Toronto to accommodate more people. The UWS is a mix of high-rise (6-20 stories, but mostly 6-10 stories) buildings, built of stone, some of which are very beautifully designed, but many of which have a simple, elegant, utilitarian design that reminds me of many of Toronto's low-rise buildings from the early 20th Century, just taller. Mixed in with these taller buildings are densely packed brownstones, typically three stories, and usually accomodating 2 families or several individual occupants. In the areas where we have seen massive glass condo developments blossom, they could have built smaller, more densely packed apartments and three-storey rowhouses that could accommodate two families each. Even the ubiquitous 5-8 storey New York tenement apartment would be better than what they're building in Toronto. Packed tight together, and laid out on a grid system, these developments could be mixed with fancier buildings to create a neighbourhood accomodating both buyers and renters, with shops and transit at ground level. Parkettes on each block could provide recreation space, and instead of throwing up tracts of condos, we would be building neighbourhoods - because people like to live in neighbourhoods, not developments. A development is a fancy housing project.
And just so you know, things like sculpture, beauty, nice architecture, and great public spaces are considered the norm, not expensive frills - even cities in developing countries have them, and the people love and appreciate them. The fact that you think these things superlative shows the kind of apathy we're dealing with in this city as we make room for more people. Do you really think a city should simply be a collection of dwellings and businesses? Even Stalin and Mao weren't so closed-minded.
By far, the most important thing is building residential architecture that is beautiful and matches the style of what has come before it. Building a giant glass condo smack in the middle of Old Toronto is exactly the opposite of this approach. I'm not against condos per se, just the way they're being built in Toronto. They don't fit with the architecture that dominates the city, are often poorly placed in neighbourhoods where they just don't belong (could easily be fixed with better design), and are built in tracts that resemble nothing more than a fancy housing project. Look at Brooklyn, the Bronx, Madrid, Barcelona, Paris and London - extremely dense places that have been built on a human scale with mostly mid and low-rise buildings packed together tightly in mixed-use neighbourhoods. This is what a city should be. Even in the burbs they have massive agglomerations of condos. That doesn't make the area feel urban....not when you have to get in your car to buy milk or go for a coffee.
If Toronto wants to be a "Global City", and it says it does, then it should remind itself what makes other Global Cities great and emulate them. We should be duplicating our great neighbourhoods, but building them higher and denser without changing the general style. What I see in these new developments is not much different than what I see in the 60's-era high-rise tracts of Jane-Finch and Scarborough, except newer and glassier. We may never have neighbourhoods as beautiful as the Back Bay, but we could certainly duplicate the height and layout of the Upper West Side or The East Village with the style of Old Toronto. IMO, this would be much more true to our roots and a vast improvement over the current "Glassy Towers in the Concrete" model currently showing up everywhere.
Actually I totally agree with you. I guess i'm just low class with poor expectations lol...Regardless they are CERTAINLY improvement over the commie blocks of the 70's
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack
I personally do not find the new condos to be unattractive. They may not win any international design prizes but they are sleek and in good shape.
What I find less attractive is much of the stuff (often two-storey commercial-residential mixes on main streets) built 40 or 50 years that has not been maintained.
Last edited by fusion2; 04-06-2013 at 09:17 AM..
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.
