HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2017, 7:48 PM
Innsertnamehere's Avatar
Innsertnamehere Innsertnamehere is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 11,598
Regarding North York, it certianly has a very urban feel for it in the central blocks. Further out and it gets spottier, but it is always improving with the constant construction occuring. Multiple grocery stores, retail locations, restaurants, etc. all line the street with urban formats. Mel Lastman square provides a central community centre and public square. Lots of employment means its busy all day long.

The street is still 6 lanes wide and rather suburban in configuration, but there are plans to change that soon. To me, North York Centre has been successful in creating an urban facility in the suburbs. Does it run on for blocks and blocks in every direction? no, but that does not mean that it doesn't provide an urban living experience for around 50,000 people in the suburbs of Toronto.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2017, 8:04 PM
Crawford Crawford is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere View Post
lol Yonge Eglinton isn't urban? best laugh I've had in a while.
I think it would be wrong to characterize Yonge Eglinton as purely urban or purely suburban. It seems like streetcar era suburbia, but with a giant intersection of urban highrises right at the subway stop. To me, it's very similar to Arlington, VA, the LA Wilshire corridor and the like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere View Post
For example, Jackson, MI. Population 159,000. Downtown has several highrises, but not much retail beyond banks and bars. Most activity is related to government services located in the downtown. What little retail there is seems to largely cater to the lower end market. No significant retail streets. There is a small university on the edge of the urban area.
Jackson has 30,000 residents. It's a small, declined rust-belt city, one of the worst in Michigan. Not exactly representative of American norms, and it doesn't look much different from rusty Canadian downtowns like Sarnia and the like. Really the only difference is the American downtowns will have a few 1920's office buildings and the Canadian downtowns will have a few 1960's commieblocks.

If there's a really thriving Canadian downtown between Toronto and Detroit, I haven't seen it yet. London looks best, but still looks pretty mediocre, maybe a bit better than Lansing, MI and a bit worse than Grand Rapids, MI. There's a failed shopping mall, a bunch of commieblock towers, and the area is decent but quiet. There's a huge university but doesn't seem to have much of an impact. There's no Ann Arbor or Ithaca type university neighborhoods, I don't think.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2017, 8:13 PM
NorthernDancer NorthernDancer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 584
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Considering the first place I looked at on Google Streetview lacks a sidewalk, and I posted that exact sidewalk-less Streetview, I'll take your "clueless" accusation in stride. Is this Kellyanne Conway posting or something?
Are you blind? The streetview you posted has a sidewalk on the other side of the street. You're implying that most of the streets in North York lack a sidewalk is the height of stupidity. If any streets in North York lack a sidewalk (on both sides of the street), they probably make up less than 1% of the total street length in North York.

This is the location you showed in the first streetview swung around the other direction. You see that concrete walkway between the street and the houses? That's called a sidewalk.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7756...7i13312!8i6656

Please show us all these many streets in North York that lack a sidewalk. If they exist, at best they account for 1% of the total streetlength in North York. Your bullshit/ignorance/stupidity is not going to go on without being called out.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2017, 8:20 PM
NorthernDancer NorthernDancer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 584
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_denizen View Post
Toronto has highrise districts outside the core, like DC and Miami. DC and Miami also have areas that are 100% highrises (Ballston, Miami Beach and points north) that can put up massive density numbers, yet Miami and DC are far less urban than cities like Philly and Boston in aggregate.

DC's suburbs have some interesting historic places too. But far, far fewer than Philadelphia, NYC and Boston. Toronto, DC and Seattle all boomed in the postwar period. Places like Mississauga or Fairfax County have fewer urban areas of interest than suburban Boston or Philadelphia, because of when they were developed. I don't understand why this is controversial
I called BS on your statement that Toronto and Canadian cities have fewer "built up" (ie., high density) areas outside of the core than American cities, because the statistics prove that to be false. Toronto has a generally higher population density both "outside the core" and in the suburbs than any of those American cities do. As I stated, there are multiple suburbs in Toronto alone that are denser than many American "core cities" (Mississauga, Brampton, even Markham).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2017, 8:22 PM
NorthernDancer NorthernDancer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 584
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_denizen View Post
surely you are aware that mississauga is basically high rises towers around a large mall, with the rest of the city postwar suburbs?

we are not talking about barcelona here.
I lived in Missisauga for 20 years. What point are you trying to make? I stated that Mississauga has multiple census tracts in excess of 60,000/square mile. That is a true statement, not an opinion. And North York has at least three census tracts in excess of 100,000/square mile. Again, that's a fact, not an opinion.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2017, 8:25 PM
NorthernDancer NorthernDancer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 584
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister F View Post
although the claim that "you're lucky if you get a sidewalk" is laughably wrong
So is 99% of what Crawford says. I'd like to know where all these areas in North York that lack sidewalks are. I've been to North York hundreds of times and have never seen any of these neighbourhoods. Where are they?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2017, 8:33 PM
Docere Docere is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 7,364
When I first visited Burlington, Vermont it reminded me a fair bit of Kingston, Ontario.

Agree that London, Ont. feels very "average." It was always more of a white collar than blue collar city so it doesn't really feel "rust belt"-ish either. I guess it's comparable to maybe Columbus, Ohio or Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Both Western (London) and Queen's (Kingston) attract a lot of (often well-off) Torontonians for university. Kingston is smaller and the university is located in the core. Western in contrast is further away and you don't really get that "university town" feel in London.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2017, 8:38 PM
Docere Docere is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 7,364
[double post]
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2017, 9:05 PM
softee's Avatar
softee softee is offline
Aimless Wanderer
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Downtown Toronto
Posts: 3,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
If there's a really thriving Canadian downtown between Toronto and Detroit, I haven't seen it yet. London looks best, but still looks pretty mediocre, maybe a bit better than Lansing, MI and a bit worse than Grand Rapids, MI. There's a failed shopping mall, a bunch of commieblock towers, and the area is decent but quiet. There's a huge university but doesn't seem to have much of an impact. There's no Ann Arbor or Ithaca type university neighborhoods, I don't think.
I'd say Guelph has the best downtown between Toronto and Detroit, it's a university town of 131,000 with a metro of 151,000 as of the 2016 census, up 10,000 people from the 2011 census.

I think you're selling London a little short, its downtown consists of more than commieblocks and has several substantial office buildings, and is arguably more built-up than Grand Rapids' downtown, even though Grand Rapids' MSA is more than twice as populous as London's CMA and its urban area exceeds London's by almost 200,000 people.

http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=75947476
__________________
Public transit is the lifeblood of every healthy city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2017, 9:20 PM
dc_denizen's Avatar
dc_denizen dc_denizen is offline
Selfie-stick vendor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: New York Suburbs
Posts: 10,999
So grand rapids has 596,000 ppl in its urban area according to demographia. but the msa is a lot bigger..like 1,100,000.

Is London is 383,000 or 494,000 ("metro" from wikipedia)?
__________________
Joined the bus on the 33rd seat
By the doo-doo room with the reek replete
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2017, 9:27 PM
Crawford Crawford is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by Docere View Post

Both Western (London) and Queen's (Kingston) attract a lot of (often well-off) Torontonians for university. Kingston is smaller and the university is located in the core. Western in contrast is further away and you don't really get that "university town" feel in London.
It might be that Canada has less of the "university town" feel because Canada's leading universities are usually in its biggest cities? The U.S. and UK are kind of odd globally in that top universities are often in minor regional centers.

I mean, looking at the Ivy League, really only Columbia and Penn are in big city centers. The Big 10 has no universities in big city centers. For the Pac 10, really only USC, I guess. None in the SEC.

But in Canada, Toronto, McGill and UBC are probably the most globally prominent institutions, no? And they're in the three biggest cities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2017, 9:32 PM
Crawford Crawford is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthernDancer View Post
So is 99% of what Crawford says. I'd like to know where all these areas in North York that lack sidewalks are. I've been to North York hundreds of times and have never seen any of these neighbourhoods. Where are they?
Absurd. I'm posting Streetview. Is there some Google conspiracy to hide North York sidewalks?

I already posted North York streets lacking sidewalks. Here are others. It appears that North York is a pretty even split between sidewalk and non-sidewalk streets.:

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7710...8i6656!6m1!1e1

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7685...8i6656!6m1!1e1

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7821...8i6656!6m1!1e1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2017, 9:35 PM
Docere Docere is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 7,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
It might be that Canada has less of the "university town" feel because Canada's leading universities are usually in its biggest cities? The U.S. and UK are kind of odd globally in that top universities are often in minor regional centers.

I mean, looking at the Ivy League, really only Columbia and Penn are in big city centers. The Big 10 has no universities in big city centers. For the Pac 10, really only USC, I guess. None in the SEC.

But in Canada, Toronto, McGill and UBC are probably the most globally prominent institutions, no? And they're in the three biggest cities.
There isn't really an equivalent of Amherst, MA, Ithaca, NY or Oxford, OH which essentially *are* about the university. A place like Kingston is more akin to Burlington, VT or Madison, WI.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2017, 9:35 PM
Crawford Crawford is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by softee View Post
I'd say Guelph has the best downtown between Toronto and Detroit, it's a university town of 131,000 with a metro of 151,000 as of the 2016 census, up 10,000 people from the 2011 census.

I think you're selling London a little short, its downtown consists of more than commieblocks and has several substantial office buildings, and is arguably more built-up than Grand Rapids' downtown, even though Grand Rapids' MSA is more than twice as populous as London's CMA and its urban area exceeds London's by almost 200,000 people.

http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=75947476
I haven't been to Guelph, so I'll take your word for it.

And I agree that Canadian cities generally have somewhat better cores if we're comparing exactly apples to apples population. Certainly London is smaller than Grand Rapids, so you wouldn't automatically expect it to have a better downtown. Those commieblocks add more people downtown, Canada never had the white flight phenomenon, land use planning is much stricter, and somewhat less of a throwaway society.

But I still think U.S. and Canadian cities are a lot more similar than different. In both, shopping almost entirely migrated to the suburbs, the fringe is filled with McMansion-style housing, and high streets tend to be very underwhelming for global standards (obviously there are exceptions).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2017, 9:37 PM
softee's Avatar
softee softee is offline
Aimless Wanderer
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Downtown Toronto
Posts: 3,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_denizen View Post
So grand rapids has 596,000 ppl in its urban area according to demographia. but the msa is a lot bigger..like 1,100,000.

Is London is 383,000 or 494,000 ("metro" from wikipedia)?
London's urban area population is 383,000 (which happens to be the same as the city proper population) so I should have said Grand Rapid's urban area population exceeds London's by over 200,000 people, not almost. London's metro as of the 2016 census was 494,000, so Grand Rapids must have a whole lot of people living in very low density suburbia, though of course the Grand Rapids MSA is much larger in area than the London CMA.
__________________
Public transit is the lifeblood of every healthy city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2017, 9:53 PM
dc_denizen's Avatar
dc_denizen dc_denizen is offline
Selfie-stick vendor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: New York Suburbs
Posts: 10,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by softee View Post
London's urban area population is 383,000 (which happens to be the same as the city proper population) so I should have said Grand Rapid's urban area population exceeds London's by over 200,000 people, not almost. London's metro as of the 2016 census was 494,000, so Grand Rapids must have a whole lot of people living in very low density suburbia, though of course the Grand Rapids MSA is much larger in area than the London CMA.
ok cool...I think the MSA includes non-contiguous coastal towns like Holland and Muskegon, not suburbia. see below

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Gr...!4d-85.6680863

the urban area cutoff is pretty low (1500/sq mile) so most low density suburbia will be included in the UA number. just not anything separated by farms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_...ropolitan_area

what is included inthe London urban area but not the MSA? suburbs, or separated towns?
__________________
Joined the bus on the 33rd seat
By the doo-doo room with the reek replete
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2017, 9:58 PM
softee's Avatar
softee softee is offline
Aimless Wanderer
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Downtown Toronto
Posts: 3,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Toronto is an interesting case, because it can look "really good" or "really bad" depending on perspective. You could say it's crazy urban, with massive 60 floor towers in distant suburbs, or crazy suburban, with McMansion-type housing walking distance to Yonge/Bloor.
I think you'd have to walk pretty darn far from Yonge and Bloor before you encounter areas consisting of mostly suburban style McMansions. Old, but still fairly dense neighbourhoods of detached houses? Sure, there are areas like that close to Yonge and Bloor, but those are not really "suburban", IMO.

Yonge and Bloor neighbourhood:
by Jasonzed at UT
__________________
Public transit is the lifeblood of every healthy city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2017, 10:03 PM
softee's Avatar
softee softee is offline
Aimless Wanderer
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Downtown Toronto
Posts: 3,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_denizen View Post
ok cool...I think the MSA includes non-contiguous coastal towns like Holland and Muskegon, not suburbia. see below

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Gr...!4d-85.6680863

the urban area cutoff is pretty low (1500/sq mile) so most low density suburbia will be included in the UA number. just not anything separated by farms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_...ropolitan_area

what is included inthe London urban area but not the MSA? suburbs, or separated towns?
Ah, righto then. London's CMA also includes some non contiguous communities such as the city of St. Thomas and nearby smaller towns on the Lake Erie shoreline.

The London urban area consists of just the suburban areas that mostly lie within the city limits.
__________________
Public transit is the lifeblood of every healthy city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2017, 10:04 PM
memph memph is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_denizen View Post
Interesting, I imagine has something to do with Boston's industry (mills) being located on rivers away from the Bay, thus the secondary cities grew up very early around these industrial nodes...while Montreal was a port/fur trading terminus initially where most activity would have been concentrated near the port/waterfront with no reason for secondary cities to emerge.
Quebec just didn't industrialize as quickly, and remained more agricultural.

In the second half of the 19th century, the good farmland in Quebec was all taken, but you still had very high birth rates. The fur trade was winding down, but the cities weren't that industrialized. Some went into forestry and farming of marginal lands, but every decade about 10% of Quebec's population migrated to the US (many only temporarily), much of them to the mill towns of New England.

Quote:
Around 1900, a list of the twenty five North American towns containing the most francophones would have included Fall River, Massachusets (33 000 Franco-Americans), Lowell, Massachusets (24 800), Manchester, New Hampshire (23 000), and Woonsocket, Rhode Island (17 000). In these large cities, they frequently constituted a sizeable proportion of the total population, sometimes as much as 25% to 60%. The importance of these figures will be grasped when it is remembered that, if they are compared to the cities of Quebec, then Fall River was the third largest French Canadian city in importance, after Montreal and Quebec City; Lowell would be in fourth place, etc. In fact, in 1900, the New England area contained ten cities with a French Canadian population in excess of 10,000, while Quebec only had five, most of them barely above 10,000. During the same period, there were roughly as many daily French newspapers in New England as in Quebec; an author estimated that 195 Franco-American newspapers were founded between 1838 and 1910.
http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.be...gs/leaving.htm

The biggest towns in Quebec after Montreal and Quebec City were all under 15k and much of Quebec's urban population back then was Anglophone. Many of them were basically mill towns, like Valleyfield and Sherbrooke.

Some also moved to Ontario, up the Ottawa Valley and eventually into the Abitibi and Temiscaming regions. The main phase of industrialization in New England took place in the second half of the 19th century, while in Quebec was more from 1900 and the economy really began kicking into gear in the mid-20th century. As Quebec became more industrialized and prosperous, the cities finally started to really take off and emigration slowed.

A lot of the development in the Montreal wasn't just limited to the waterfront, but also followed the Lachine Canal, such as Saint-Henri and Verdun, although those are essentially contiguous with Montreal's urban core. The town of Lachine is a bit more separate though. But since a lot of the industrialization took place later, by that time you had railways, so you had industry in areas like the Mile-End as well as following highways (Autoroute Metropolitaine).

Last edited by memph; Feb 12, 2017 at 10:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2017, 10:05 PM
Docere Docere is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 7,364
I wouldn't call the houses of Rosedale "McMansions" but it is kind of a garden suburb type area very close to downtown.

NYC and Chicago - which were already huge in 1900 - don't have "Rosedale" type areas in their city limits. I'd say DC does though; much of NW DC reminds me of Rosedale/North Toronto.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:29 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.