Homecoming reflections (TO, Mtl, Hfx)

[someone123]

Originally Posted by mistercorporate

Yonge and Eglinton is just as fun, so are some of the avenues such as College St., Adelaide West, Bloor Street, etc. It's not just 4 sq miles. Heck, the downtown core basically doubled in size the last few years and is pushing deep into the inner suburbs. North York City Center is improving, Square One is great as well, lots of hidden but fun neighborhoods in Richmond Hill, Scarborough and Brampton and Etobicoke.

I'm sure somebody out there would love living by Square One but I think you have to cook up some pretty contrived standards to say that both inner city Toronto and Square One are all uniquely amazing living propositions compared to other places.

One of my points is that if you're going to live in some marginal part of Toronto that's far away from everything you may be better off living in a nicer part of a supposedly less-great city. This angle is almost always missing from these analyses. People compare $4,000 apartments or $3M condos in one city with $1,100 a month and $400k in some other city all the time. Or they forget that one living arrangement has a 45 minute commute each way and the other has a 20 minute commute.

The 4 square mile number doesn't matter. I think my point is exactly what hipster duck is complaining about too which is that the best parts of Toronto hasn't expanded as much as the city has grown. Although I'm not so sure that we can separate out affordability as a cause. I think poor affordability causes people to lose out in terms of things like convenience of location of their home and place of employment and makes it harder for them to get around and less likely to go out and do stuff. It's kind of hard to justify a 12 km schlep for Filipino food when you work 50+ hours a week and spend an hour and a half or more per day commuting. I also think we can't separate out transportation infrastructure from affordability. People pay a price they can afford based on the combination of convenience and the amount of space they need or want. These things are all trade-offs.

[someone123]

Why isn't Toronto affordable?

[niwell]

I think the best parts of Toronto have actually expanded considerably more than some are giving them credit for. Some pretty far flung areas that were completely dead less than a decade ago are very happening now, and there are more on the radar for the near future. We aren't just talking about Bloorcourt and the like, either. However, I think it would be a fair point that it's not at the same pace as the rest of the city. This is a problem that's being felt in many places and I wouldn't really single out Toronto in this regard. Some older US cities are the exception here, not the rule.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by niwell

I think the best parts of Toronto have actually expanded considerably more than some are giving them credit for. Some pretty far flung areas that were completely dead less than a decade ago are very happening now, and there are more on the radar for the near future. We aren't just talking about Bloorcourt and the like, either. However, I think it would be a fair point that it's not at the same pace as the rest of the city. This is a problem that's being felt in many places and I wouldn't really single out Toronto in this regard. Some older US cities are the exception here, not the rule.

This is the norm in North America in recent decades, not the exception. It's hitting Toronto harder than most cities because Toronto is growing faster and didn't hollow out as much in the postwar years. The city had a relatively small stock of uncontroversial infill sites in, say, 2005.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by someone123

This is the norm in North America in recent decades, not the exception. It's hitting Toronto harder than most cities because Toronto is growing faster and didn't hollow out as much in the postwar years. The city had a relatively small stock of uncontroversial infill sites in, say, 2005.

Yeah that's what I meant. Places like Chicago with it's incredible urban bones and vast areas that hollowed out but are now desirable are the exception.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by someone123

This is the norm in North America in recent decades, not the exception. It's hitting Toronto harder than most cities because Toronto is growing faster and didn't hollow out as much in the postwar years. The city had a relatively small stock of uncontroversial infill sites in, say, 2005.

The loss of parking lots has been horrific. All the way down Bay Street; there is just the one left.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by niwell

Yeah that's what I meant. Places like Chicago with it's incredible urban bones and vast areas that hollowed out but are now desirable are the exception.

Toronto's gentrification is pushing east of Yonge, though. I remember about 25 years ago a friend having one of the first little condos just a block or two east of Yonge, on Richmond or one of those. I couldn't believe it ... it was unthinkable for anyone respectable to live there. Now that building is dwarfed by many others.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Final point: I try to support the businesses in my fledgling area around Bathurst and Wilson, which is the outermost point of Toronto that could be considered 'urban' in any way. I even walk to these places, even though driving would be easier. Beyond me, it's pure suburbia. I like the Filipino restaurants up here, and I also have a soft spot for the Jewish businesses further south of the 401 on Bathurst, but I can't get anyone to come up here and give it their time of day. Also, the good Filipino restaurants aside, I can't walk to a full selection of stores and services that meet my needs, so the area has limited appeal to me. A lot of Toronto's inner suburbia is stuck at that sort of Los Angeles-level of walkable limbo, that I think turns people off. On a more serious and less navel-gazing level, this area is very dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians. There's a flower tied to the pole outside of my building indicating that a pedestrian died there not too long ago. When I ride my bike, I ride on the sidewalk since the road is a traffic sewer. It's yet another part of the outer 416 where the distance between traffic lights means that people dart across the traffic just to reach a bus stop going in the opposite direction. In the areas where I live the city has built these bizarre traffic islands that permit pedestrians to cross to a sheltered midpoint, but leaves the act of crossing the road wholly in the pedestrian's hands. There isn't even a sign warning motorists that pedestrians might cross. A walkable area will not be cultivated here under these circumstances.

Originally Posted by mistercorporate

North York City Center is improving, Square One is great as well, lots of hidden but fun neighborhoods in Richmond Hill, Scarborough and Brampton and Etobicoke.

How are the attempts to densify and bring urbanity and the "city fun" feel to the 416 and farther flung suburbs going?

I hear about it but it still has a long way to go, towards that ideal, I think.

Could we have a Toronto where at least, say the 416, if not parts of the 905, are much more vibrant, akin to the boroughs of NYC, like Queens, the Bronx etc. if downtown/the old city is like Manhattan?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by mistercorporate

Yeah, Ottawa is awesome and fun, highly underrated city, and I'm fine with that. A hidden gem.

And if we're talking about social mores in general, not sure there is much of a difference between inner Ottawa and inner Toronto.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by CivicBlues

Does anyone find it a bit curious that Lonely Planet, the arguably the gold standard of travel guides, stopped publishing a city guide to Toronto?

https://shop.lonelyplanet.com/catego...ategory=canada

Vancouver and Montreal being the only 2 other Canadian cities to hold that honour.

The last edition Toronto City Guide was published over a decade ago.
https://www.amazon.ca/Lonely-Planet-...+lonely+planet

That is quite odd.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

It was the norm when I was a teenager in New-Brunswick. Heck, our senior year at high-school, we had obtained a liquor permit for minors(!) with cops looking after kids drinking.

Well sure. You're from the Madawaska in NW NB IIRC. That's about as close as you can get anywhere in the world to the mores and feel of Quebec without actually being in Quebec.

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

A liberal trait doesn't make its people different. People in Montreal give alcohol to teenagers akin to French people. Binge drinking is an Ontario trait, you'd barely see that in Montreal. In the end, which one is the most conservative? Knowing how to drink or getting shitfaced drunk?

This isn't about sticking "conservative" or "liberal" labels on either place for me.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by CivicBlues

Does anyone find it a bit curious that Lonely Planet, the arguably the gold standard of travel guides, stopped publishing a city guide to Toronto?

https://shop.lonelyplanet.com/catego...ategory=canada

Vancouver and Montreal being the only 2 other Canadian cities to hold that honour.

The last edition Toronto City Guide was published over a decade ago.
https://www.amazon.ca/Lonely-Planet-...+lonely+planet

Originally Posted by Acajack

That is quite odd.

That is odd.

Lonely Planet has for Australia -- Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane+Gold Coast, and even Hobart, so 4 cities with guidebooks or pocket guidebooks. So, why would Canada miss out on its biggest city and have only 2?

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

No, I don't think it's affordability. I think it has to do with the fact that the commercial areas where Toronto creative types want to settle is remarkably constricted and has seemed to hit a glass ceiling.

MonkeyRonin was right in a roundabout way: if more people with urban affinities supported the businesses around them, then Toronto's urban fabric (which is not just physical, but social) would expand. But they don't, so we're stuck pining over the same areas. If those areas expanded, then Toronto would be more 'affordable', in the sense that we would bring the desirable amenities closer to more people. Moving the mountain to Mohammed, so to speak.

Transit is the big issue here. It's too hard to get around the city, so most people want to stay as close as possible to prime neighbourhoods, subway corridors, and jobs. This also hinders the growth & improvement of the more peripheral neighbourhoods since they're harder to get to and can't really attract people from further afield.

I'm at the point in life where I'd like to buy a home in the next few years, and based on my regular MLS browsing there's nothing in my area that we could afford, but there is quite a bit of affordable housing stock in that Davenport to Eglinton stretch to the north, and up along the Weston corridor. Those are nice enough, solidly urban areas, and St. Clair in particular is a great retail strip - but it's just too hard to get around there for me to seriously consider living there. As such, I'll probably just keep renting a slightly more marginal apartment in the central west end for the foreseeable future. That would not be the case if there were fast, reliable transit between the two.

Final point: I try to support the businesses in my fledgling area around Bathurst and Wilson, which is the outermost point of Toronto that could be considered 'urban' in any way. I even walk to these places, even though driving would be easier. Beyond me, it's pure suburbia. I like the Filipino restaurants up here, and I also have a soft spot for the Jewish businesses further south of the 401 on Bathurst, but I can't get anyone to come up here and give it their time of day.

Hey cool, that's my childhood neighbourhood. It's a pretty decent place to live and has got some great stuff, but is so far off the beaten track that I'm still a little taken aback anytime I hear it mentioned - which actually seems to be becoming a slightly more common occurance these days with the neighbourhood being rebranded as 'Little Manila'.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

That is odd.

Lonely Planet has for Australia -- Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane+Gold Coast, and even Hobart, so 4 cities with guidebooks or pocket guidebooks. So, why would Canada miss out on its biggest city and have only 2?

Toronto must have been changing so quickly that they felt they couldn't keep up and that the info would be outdated practically as soon as it was released. They wanted to give some time for things to settle down a bit.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Well sure. You're from the Madawaska in NW NB IIRC. That's about as close as you can get anywhere in the world to the mores and feel of Quebec without actually being in Quebec.



This isn't about sticking "conservative" or "liberal" labels on either place for me.

I think you probably mentioned this in many different situations on this forum regarding how "liberal" both cities are.

Montreal is more "liberal" in a European sense -- less "prudishness" regarding stuff like drinking, sexual norms, religious laïcité, more student protests, more economically left-wing/socialist views as acceptable.

Toronto is more "liberal" in an American/Anglo sense -- definitely more liberal than most English-speaking North American cities, more "libertarian" regarding social, economic, political views, but also has some American social mores (eg. regarding the drinking culture, sexual norms etc.).

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Hey cool, that's my childhood neighbourhood. It's a pretty decent place to live and has got some great stuff, but is so far off the beaten track that I'm still a little taken aback anytime I hear it mentioned - which actually seems to be becoming a slightly more common occurance these days with the neighbourhood being rebranded as 'Little Manila'.

I'm just curious, what is needed for neighbourhoods/areas to be branded or rebranded as "Little (insert ethnic group's origin place)" or "(ethnic group's place)-town"?

Just an informal, let's popularize or "call it that" among the locals? Or are official designations for ethnic neighbourhoods often desired in Toronto?

In some cases, official designations can often be fiercely fought for, like the battle in Los Angeles over whether Little Bangladesh would be created from what was Koreatown.

https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2018...rhood-council/

I've also noticed that some cities have much more official naming, label or designation to traditional ethnic neighbourhoods (eg. subway or metro stations called "Chinatown" etc.) though Toronto doesn't as much, at least relative to its ethnic diversity. A lot of Toronto's ethnic enclaves are more informally named or used by locals rather than a thing to sell to outsiders.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

I think you probably mentioned this in many different situations on this forum regarding how "liberal" both cities are.

Montreal is more "liberal" in a European sense -- less "prudishness" regarding stuff like drinking, sexual norms, religious laïcité, more student protests, more economically left-wing/socialist views as acceptable.

Toronto is more "liberal" in an American/Anglo sense -- definitely more liberal than most English-speaking North American cities, more "libertarian" regarding social, economic, political views, but also has some American social mores (eg. regarding the drinking culture, sexual norms etc.).

I'd broadly agree with those characterizations as I've put similar ones forward before myself.

As for the liberal and conservative labels, I am certain I've used them often in the past but have started to refrain from doing so as they're increasingly meaningless.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Toronto must have been changing so quickly that they felt they couldn't keep up and that the info would be outdated practically as soon as it was released. They wanted to give some time for things to settle down a bit.

Anything you want. You got it.

Baaaaaaay-byyyyyy.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

Quebec is also the province where people against cultural appropriation are seen as racists (culture is everyone's)

"Culture" actually does belong to everyone, and no group has an exclusive claim to any cultural genre.

And BTW it's a lot more racist to say that totally innocent and well-intentioned white people aren't allowed to sing African-American slave songs, than it is to put on a respectful show about those same songs where the percentage of black performers is deemed insufficient by some.

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

and where any religious person is seen as a right wing nut (against the ROC's embrace of the religious minority).

Well some of them are and some of them aren't. The point is more that one shouldn't get a free pass to be exempted from (most) everything simply because you're religious, and this includes being labelled a right wing nut if that happens to fit the bill.

Note that I am probably less anti-religious than what is average for SSP Canada forumers.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

I'm sure somebody out there would love living by Square One but I think you have to cook up some pretty contrived standards to say that both inner city Toronto and Square One are all uniquely amazing living propositions compared to other places.

One of my points is that if you're going to live in some marginal part of Toronto that's far away from everything you may be better off living in a nicer part of a supposedly less-great city. This angle is almost always missing from these analyses. People compare $4,000 apartments or $3M condos in one city with $1,100 a month and $400k in some other city all the time. Or they forget that one living arrangement has a 45 minute commute each way and the other has a 20 minute commute.

The 4 square mile number doesn't matter. I think my point is exactly what hipster duck is complaining about too which is that the best parts of Toronto hasn't expanded as much as the city has grown. Although I'm not so sure that we can separate out affordability as a cause. I think poor affordability causes people to lose out in terms of things like convenience of location of their home and place of employment and makes it harder for them to get around and less likely to go out and do stuff. It's kind of hard to justify a 12 km schlep for Filipino food when you work 50+ hours a week and spend an hour and a half or more per day commuting. I also think we can't separate out transportation infrastructure from affordability. People pay a price they can afford based on the combination of convenience and the amount of space they need or want. These things are all trade-offs.

I've said similar things on forums and in person to people, but the retort is always that even if you're living in a subpar urban environment (say in Mississauga or Ajax), you're still not that far away from the awesomeness of the city's heart.

That said, I tend to agree with you that a lot of people don't really take advantage at all of what the city has to offer (and this also includes people living in more central areas where it's often right outside their door), and would make very significant financial and practical life gains by moving to somewhere like... Moncton. And 99% of what they do during a given year wouldn't change much at all.

Some years ago one of my best childhood friends moved from Ottawa to a small Ontario city where he did his PhD. Both he and his wife were from small towns but they met in Ottawa and got married there. The wife in particular absolutely loved Ottawa, and hated that other city where they lived for a few years. She complained about the lack of fine restaurants, the National Arts Centre (NAC), higher-end shopping, nightlife, etc. Though in one conversation, she admitted: "Not that I took advantage of that when I lived in Ottawa, but it's just nice to know that it's all there if you want".

They moved back to a suburban part of Ottawa eventually. That was about 20 years ago. I am pretty sure she hasn't set foot in the NAC since they moved back.