Public Realm in Canadian Cities - Developments

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

I was thinking of the post that cited Expo 67 and the Olympics, plus institutions like ICAO and the UN Biodiversity office.

Expo 67 and the Olympics were not primarily driven by the feds though they did support of course.

I will grant you those international organisations though.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Acajack

This post and your next one are good examples of why, although Toronto gets the "win", it is never really a TKO. Toronto you could say wins on points.

These days Canada tends to be pretty timid when it comes to public-sector infrastructure building and for better or worse we don't have the equivalent of European monarchs or American industrialists who want to build monuments to themselves.

Toronto in 2019 is very close to being Toronto in 1999 plus condos and office buildings. The TTC's subway map from 2018 looks very similar to the one from 1997.

When Montreal was more prominent in the 1960's Canada invested a lot more in infrastructure and wasn't afraid to crack a few eggs. Not all of those projects panned out of course, and today that type of risk and disruption would make so many of those projects look like complete non-starters. A few homeowners can stop multi-billion public projects in Canada, and the fact that all cost overruns are considered scandals means that it's politically difficult to try anything novel.

Here in Vancouver the level of ambition and forward thinking in public infrastructure development is markedly lower than Toronto or Montreal, at least in the inner areas. A lot of the inner city here isn't directly served either rapid transit or highways and the built environment is whatever was inherited from 1986 or so plus real estate development. This isn't to say that Vancouver can't be a good place to live but I am not sure the current path is going to lead to this place feeling like a major world city simply by virtue of more of the same post-2000 development happening over and over.

I think Toronto and Vancouver might actually feel a lot smaller for many residents in 10 or 20 years because people will have to live an work in a smaller portion of their metro area due to congestion and poor transit options. The central areas will feel more like theme parks for the rich people who can afford multimillion dollar condos, and will serve less and less as public gathering points for everyone. This is the direction we are headed in if the rate of population growth continues to exceed the rate of public investment.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by someone123

These days Canada tends to be pretty timid when it comes to public-sector infrastructure building and for better or worse we don't have the equivalent of European monarchs or American industrialists who want to build monuments to themselves.

Toronto in 2019 is very close to being Toronto in 1999 plus condos and office buildings. The TTC's subway map from 2018 looks very similar to the one from 1997.

When Montreal was more prominent in the 1960's Canada invested a lot more in infrastructure and wasn't afraid to crack a few eggs. Not all of those projects panned out of course, and today that type of risk and disruption would make so many of those projects look like complete non-starters. A few homeowners can stop multi-billion public projects in Canada, and the fact that all cost overruns are considered scandals means that it's politically difficult to try anything novel.

Here in Vancouver the level of ambition and forward thinking in public infrastructure development is markedly lower than Toronto or Montreal, at least in the inner areas. A lot of the inner city here isn't directly served either rapid transit or highways and the built environment is whatever was inherited from 1986 or so plus real estate development. This isn't to say that Vancouver can't be a good place to live but I am not sure the current path is going to lead to this place feeling like a major world city simply by virtue of more of the same post-2000 development happening over and over.

I think Toronto and Vancouver might actually feel a lot smaller for many residents in 10 or 20 years because people will have to live an work in a smaller portion of their metro area due to congestion and poor transit options. The central areas will feel more like theme parks for the rich people who can afford multimillion dollar condos, and will serve less and less as public gathering points for everyone. This is the direction we are headed in if the rate of population growth continues to exceed the rate of public investment.

I'd agree with most of your comments but I think you phrased your comments on Toronto in a way that makes its achievements sound less impressive than they are. I mean, the vast majority of buildings in most cities are either residences or workplaces, so if a city is mostly the same as it was 20 years ago except for major changes in these hugely important areas, it's kind of like saying something would be mostly the same if it wasn't so different. Well... yes?

You're absolutely right in that the transit investments have not kept pace with growth, but I'd rather have the current situation with lots of centralized development but lagging infrastructure than lots of decentralized sprawl with accompanying road expansion since the current problem is much easier to fix. If most of the downtown and central growth had instead been mostly outer suburban and exurban growth that would not have been pretty.

Besides, even if the biggest changes have been in terms of the condo and office development, other changes have also occurred. Things like the Queens Quay remake, the Berczy Park improvement, AGO and ROM expansions, Union station expansion, new aquarium, significant improvements to rail corridors allowing for two-way all-day UPE and Lakeshore services. Plus the Eglinton line is well under way. And after all, this is still just 20 years we're talking about. Yes Montreal developed a lot in the mid 20th century, but was its development really that much more extreme in just a 20 year period?

[csbvan]

Originally Posted by someone123

These days Canada tends to be pretty timid when it comes to public-sector infrastructure building and for better or worse we don't have the equivalent of European monarchs or American industrialists who want to build monuments to themselves.

Toronto in 2019 is very close to being Toronto in 1999 plus condos and office buildings. The TTC's subway map from 2018 looks very similar to the one from 1997.

When Montreal was more prominent in the 1960's Canada invested a lot more in infrastructure and wasn't afraid to crack a few eggs. Not all of those projects panned out of course, and today that type of risk and disruption would make so many of those projects look like complete non-starters. A few homeowners can stop multi-billion public projects in Canada, and the fact that all cost overruns are considered scandals means that it's politically difficult to try anything novel.

Here in Vancouver the level of ambition and forward thinking in public infrastructure development is markedly lower than Toronto or Montreal, at least in the inner areas. A lot of the inner city here isn't directly served either rapid transit or highways and the built environment is whatever was inherited from 1986 or so plus real estate development. This isn't to say that Vancouver can't be a good place to live but I am not sure the current path is going to lead to this place feeling like a major world city simply by virtue of more of the same post-2000 development happening over and over.

I think Toronto and Vancouver might actually feel a lot smaller for many residents in 10 or 20 years because people will have to live an work in a smaller portion of their metro area due to congestion and poor transit options. The central areas will feel more like theme parks for the rich people who can afford multimillion dollar condos, and will serve less and less as public gathering points for everyone. This is the direction we are headed in if the rate of population growth continues to exceed the rate of public investment.

Vancouver's public investment in infrastructure, particularly transit, has been quite strong in recent decades, especially for a North American city. Mass transit in the city is not even 35 years old, and Translink's ridership is already at 436 million boardings per year (all modes), with the highest growth in North America. A new rapid transit line opened in 2009, 2016, and two new lines begin construction in the coming years. It has only just been passed by Singapore as the world's largest automated mass transit system.

I don't think that anyone in this century would consider the construction of urban highways to be an ambitious or progressive public infrastructural investment.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

These days Canada tends to be pretty timid when it comes to public-sector infrastructure building and for better or worse we don't have the equivalent of European monarchs or American industrialists who want to build monuments to themselves.

Toronto in 2019 is very close to being Toronto in 1999 plus condos and office buildings. The TTC's subway map from 2018 looks very similar to the one from 1997.

When Montreal was more prominent in the 1960's Canada invested a lot more in infrastructure and wasn't afraid to crack a few eggs. Not all of those projects panned out of course, and today that type of risk and disruption would make so many of those projects look like complete non-starters. A few homeowners can stop multi-billion public projects in Canada, and the fact that all cost overruns are considered scandals means that it's politically difficult to try anything novel.

Here in Vancouver the level of ambition and forward thinking in public infrastructure development is markedly lower than Toronto or Montreal, at least in the inner areas. A lot of the inner city here isn't directly served either rapid transit or highways and the built environment is whatever was inherited from 1986 or so plus real estate development. This isn't to say that Vancouver can't be a good place to live but I am not sure the current path is going to lead to this place feeling like a major world city simply by virtue of more of the same post-2000 development happening over and over.

I think Toronto and Vancouver might actually feel a lot smaller for many residents in 10 or 20 years because people will have to live an work in a smaller portion of their metro area due to congestion and poor transit options. The central areas will feel more like theme parks for the rich people who can afford multimillion dollar condos, and will serve less and less as public gathering points for everyone. This is the direction we are headed in if the rate of population growth continues to exceed the rate of public investment.

I broadly agree. There may the odd exception here and there but in terms of federal support for (especially) urban infrastructure the Mulroney Chrétien Martin Harper era was abysmal.

Things are a bit better under JT.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I'd agree with most of your comments but I think you phrased your comments on Toronto in a way that makes its achievements sound less impressive than they are. I mean, the vast majority of buildings in most cities are either residences or workplaces, so if a city is mostly the same as it was 20 years ago except for major changes in these hugely important areas, it's kind of like saying something would be mostly the same if it wasn't so different. Well... yes?

The point is more that I don't think that the style of commercially-oriented real estate development common in Canada is sufficient to create the feel that most people associate with major world cities. For this it helps more to have distinctive grandiose projects that become landmarks or tourist destinations, impressive infrastructure, some kind of globally unique culture, architecture, or industrial cluster, etc.

Vancouver's SkyTrain has a high ridership and is relatively long, sure, but then again City Hall station here has one entrance and 40-50 m platforms. The system is very useful and practical and has good coverage of some suburban areas. It's not impressive to visitors who have been to other major cities. It seems good for North America because there are no Canadian peer cities and American cities of similar size have pretty bad transit (but far more impressive road networks).

This doesn't mean that Canadian cities are bad places to live. But they are fairly utilitarian, and to me it does feel like they have under-built infrastructure compared to other parts of the developed world.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I broadly agree. There may the odd exception here and there but in terms of federal support for (especially) urban infrastructure the Mulroney Chrétien Martin Harper era was abysmal.

Things are a bit better under JT.

It felt like the 90s were lost decade for infrastructure, particularly transit. It's only this decade where things have accelerated somewhat, although we are nowhere near where we were during the 60s and 70s.

Toronto in particular is going to have a hell of a time playing catch up with all of the development that is taking place. A good problem to have in some respects, but it will be costly.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by someone123

The point is more that I don't think that the style of commercially-oriented real estate development common in Canada is sufficient to create the feel that most people associate with major world cities. For this it helps more to have distinctive grandiose projects that become landmarks or tourist destinations, impressive infrastructure, some kind of globally unique culture, architecture, or industrial cluster, etc.

Vancouver's SkyTrain has a high ridership and is relatively long, sure, but then again City Hall station here has one entrance and 40-50 m platforms. The system is very useful and practical and has good coverage of some suburban areas. It's not impressive to visitors who have been to other major cities. It seems good for North America because there are no Canadian peer cities and American cities of similar size have pretty bad transit (but far more impressive road networks).

This doesn't mean that Canadian cities are bad places to live. But they are fairly utilitarian, and to me it does feel like they have under-built infrastructure compared to other parts of the developed world.

I think the main thing that keeps a highrise boom from making cities seem as much larger as one might expect is that if they're anything like me, people subconsciously divide a city's built form two main aspects with each having an impact on perceived importance and size: The monumental scale (large buildings and other structures such as skyscrapers, cathedrals, bridges, palaces, etc.) and the human scale (typical residential and commercial streetscapes). I would generally consider a building over 6-8 stories to be reaching out of the human realm and into the monumental realm but it's not just absolutely size/height, but also apparent size/height. For instance, from the perspective of a pedestian, a narrow street lined with 4 story buildings built right to the sidewalk would likely have a similarly imposing scale as a wider street lined with 6-8 story buildings that were set back from the street.

In North America, there is often a fairly impressive monumental scale due to the prevalence of skyscrapers, but the human scale is often more modest compared to Europe. You rarely see large areas of consistently 3-6 story areas maxing out the human scale and instead you have a lot more 1-3 story areas. I think this is largely what give Toronto its "overbuilt small city" vibe and Montreal its "underbuilt large city" vibe although the things you mention could also contribute.

[someone123]

I think the main thing that makes Toronto feel "overbuilt" is that it used to be smaller so it didn't inherit the 19th and 20th century features we might expect of a major North American city. It's a large post-1970 urban landscape grafted on top of a medium sized pre-1970 city.

If Toronto had been larger it would have had a big, central urban park, more monumental urban boulevards and pre-1920 landmarks, more old apartment buildings in areas that have rowhouses or duplexes, etc. There is a bit of this around areas like Union Station or University Ave but they are relatively small parts of the city. American cities with Toronto style early 20th century development mostly have around 1-2 million people, not 6.

Toronto might have a unique pattern of historical development. It doesn't match the East Coast US cities and it doesn't match Midwestern cities.

[Nouvellecosse]

I think it's more than it just not being a certain size in that era. Toronto intentionally limited the number of multi-unit buildings and tried to develop mostly in terms of houses because of the problems with crowding and crime observed in some other cites that they hoped to avoid a replicating. There was an idea that things like tenements breeds immorality. While the era in which a city develops greatly influences its trajectory, in the same way that not every city necessarily develops in the same manner in our era, I think we can assume the same to be true of previous eras as well.

[Doug]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I broadly agree. There may the odd exception here and there but in terms of federal support for (especially) urban infrastructure the Mulroney Chrétien Martin Harper era was abysmal.

Things are a bit better under JT.

Why should the federal government fund any urban infrastructure? The benefits are clearly local so the costs should be local.

[Nouvellecosse]

The benefits are not clearly all local as urban areas act as command, production and distribution centers for much wider areas with several being of significant national importance, and second because the scope of some of the projects make them cumbersome for smaller governments to tackle alone making it necessary for multiple levels of government to work together out of sheer pragmatism.

[Acajack]

Also, considering that cities have most of the population, generate most of the wealth and as result contribute most of the tax pie, if the feds do not want to help out on city issues then maybe they should reduce the taxes they collect and leave that taxation space to levels of government that do want to help out.

Thankfully all federal governments do not think that way.

[logan5]

The Shipyards in North Vancouver has finally opened to the public. Great addition for Lonsdale. It doesn't get much recognition, but Lonsdale is a fantastic neighbourhood, easily at the same level as better known neighbourhoods in Canada, like the Beltline in Calgary or the Whyte Ave in Edmonton.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/the-...orth-vancouver

[someone123]

Here's a little one I thought was nice. North side of Province House in Halifax. The south side is going to be done eventually but for now it's still a parking lot. It's really the old buildings and monuments that make the space:


Source

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by someone123

Toronto in 2019 is very close to being Toronto in 1999 plus condos and office buildings. The TTC's subway map from 2018 looks very similar to the one from 1997.

2019 Toronto is a very different city from 1999. The changes are far beyond just condos and office towers. I agree the subway map hasn't changed all that much and transit service in general. Commuting patterns are hardly what I would use to gauge changes in a city. The forum puts far too much emphasis on rapid transit lines as a measure of change and/or growth.

Toronto was still depressed in 1999 with an entirely different demographic. It's also the dozens of little changes such as the elimination of right turn lanes to improve the pedestrian experience that get completely overshadowed by grander scale projects like grade separated bike lanes focused to a couple corridors. Together these ignored little changes makes a much larger impact across the city.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

2019 Toronto is a very different city from 1999. The changes are far beyond just condos and office towers. I agree the subway map hasn't changed all that much and transit service in general. Commuting patterns are hardly what I would use to gauge changes in a city. The forum puts far too much emphasis on rapid transit lines as a measure of change and/or growth.

I dunno.. I feel like a measure like rapid transit stations per capita is very important for a city the size of Toronto. There's more than just subways, sure, but the subways are important and the measure is a simple way to gauge progress. Commute times and housing affordability are even better, and I would guess that both of those look miserable for Toronto from 1999-2019.

It seems like as we've gotten worse and worse at building big infrastructure projects the focus has shifted to more subjective measures and more boutique or lifestyle projects. It would be like if public health officials stopped looking at life expectancy and started talking about the wonders of mindfulness meditation. This would make me skeptical.

This isn't just a Toronto thing, it's true around North America. Some cities have done better than others but the good North American cities still aren't keeping up. Toronto is one of the worst Canadian cities for amount of new infrastructure per unit of growth.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

Am I the only one who misses the 1999 version of Toronto? Maybe '89 actually...

Like that North Van development.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Dr Awesomesauce

Am I the only one who misses the 1999 version of Toronto? Maybe '89 actually...

Quite possibly. Perhaps you forget how slow paced, provincial, and shabby Toronto used to be. The transformation in such a short time is remarkable although huge swaths of the city remain all kinds of ugly, depressing, backwater; even in the downtown.


You'd never know you were on the main street of a wealthy global city


Courtesy of urbanretailtoronto


Astonishingly ugly and hard to find a square inch of it that's attractive




And this is one of the better streets, Queen West


Courtesy of the daily hive

[softee]

^ Those streets are what make the city interesting and worth walking around in.