[innsertnamehere]

Los Angeles.

Since when has Los Angeles been an authority on proper urbanism? The reason the city is like that is because nobody wants to live downtown, the city is essentially a giant suburb.

 

[someMidTowner]

Los Angeles.

Yea we totally want to strive for this: http://goo.gl/maps/XJoQX

 

[khris]

Yea we totally want to strive for this: http://goo.gl/maps/XJoQX

Well, we already got the sidewalk part down pat!

 

[innsertnamehere]

we got them beat on the curbs though, those are horrible. (Our sidewalks may be matching though, I agree, but our curbs are typically in half-decent shape.)

 

[OttoSchloss]

Nice try but not. You've obviously never been in downtown Los Angeles.

Uh yes. And except for a cluster of high rises it becomes a collection of 1-3 story buildings.

 

[OttoSchloss]

No one said it was an authority on proper urbanism however the question was "show me a major city where a downtown thoroughfare is dominated by 1-2 story buildings". Los Angeles qualifies as a major city. Furthermore downtown Los Angeles, despite having some success with gentrification is still fairly 9-5 and a no go zone after dark. Almost all of the more vibrant parts of L.A. and its thoroughfares are dominated by 1-2 (and sometimes 3) story buildings, even Hollywood Blvd. It's not my ideal but it works for L.A.

 

[DtTO]

No one said it was an authority on proper urbanism however the question was "show me a major city where a downtown thoroughfare is dominated by 1-2 story buildings". Los Angeles qualifies as a major city.

I'm pretty sure it was implied that the city should be a leading example on urbanism. LA is definitely not a good example to follow, and because of that, if anything, that just further proves the point that no self respecting city would allow one of its most major streets to be dominated by 1-3 storey townhouses (that are falling apart, at that).

 

[innsertnamehere]

DtTO, I can't believe I am saying this, but +1.

Now, back on topic (as a mod has suggested), have there been any more pours?

 

[Silence&Motion]

Carried over from the One Bloor East thread so that I don't get in trouble:

Show me please at least one major city in the whole world , where the main street in Downtown area so domitated by 1-2 storey structures ( their delapidated state is the different issue ) , which is totally out of scale of everything , what can be accepted for self respected city...

I'm just going to try to ignore the spelling, grammar, and the "world class cities need BIG!!11!!! BUILDINGS!!!11!!!!11!" attitude of the above quote and respond anyway.

Vancouver: Granville Street; Robson Street

San Francisco: Market Street

Montreal: Rue Sainte-Catherine

 

[junctionist]

I'm pretty sure it was implied that the city should be a leading example on urbanism. LA is definitely not a good example to follow, and because of that, if anything, that just further proves the point that no self respecting city would allow one of its most major streets to be dominated by 1-3 storey townhouses (that are falling apart, at that).

No self-respecting city would allow interesting, restorable and irreplaceable buildings to be destroyed without something truly outstanding taking their place. A 50 storey condo whose only architectural feature is a balcony slab repeated 50 times with some big-box store on the ground floor doesn't cut it. A good city would also recognize the asset that those narrow storefronts represent for accommodating many businesses and animating the street with people.

 

[marsh]

No self-respecting city would allow interesting, restorable and irreplaceable buildings to be destroyed without something truly outstanding taking their place. A 50 storey condo whose only architectural feature is a balcony slab repeated 50 times with some big-box store on the ground floor doesn't cut it. A good city would also recognize the asset that those narrow storefronts represent for accommodating many businesses and animating the street with people.

Faved!!!

 

[Memph]

Tokyo has a lot of vibrant commercial streets lined with 2-4 storey buildings.

http://goo.gl/maps/TMvUm
http://goo.gl/maps/KEbNb
http://goo.gl/maps/qnXT1

This area of Shinjuku is a bit taller, but still only 4-6 stories
http://goo.gl/maps/vmjOW

There are exceptions, although even those rarely go beyond midrises or short highrises.
http://goo.gl/maps/DAq4M

 

[DtTO]

uhhh...Toronto has plenty of examples of streets lined by 1-3 storey buildings. The difference is that Yonge is arguably the most important street in the city. Show me a picture of Tokyo's most important streets, and I guarantee you that they aren't lined by 2 story dilapidated townhouses. Even the cities that value heritage the most, in the European Union, had the sensibility to modernize their main business areas (ex. La Defense, Paris). Nobody's asking to tear down St. Lawerence here. The fact is that Yonge isn't as glamorous as the historians on this site make it out to be, and I'm not only referring to it's current form, but also it's potential with the current massing. It's sad when the city's most important road becomes an area to avoid when showing out of towners around, and I know I'm not the only one with this sentiment.

 

[adma]

Even the cities that value heritage the most, in the European Union, had the sensibility to modernize their main business areas (ex. La Defense, Paris).

Uh, La Defense is more like if Toronto transfered its "main business area" to NYCC.

The fact is that Yonge isn't as glamorous as the historians on this site make it out to be, and I'm not only referring to it's current form, but also it's potential with the current massing. It's sad when the city's most important road becomes an area to avoid when showing out of towners around, and I know I'm not the only one with this sentiment.

To most regular Parisian visitors, I reckon that La Defense is more of an "area to avoid"--too maddeningly hypermodern and remote from where all the tourist action is, y'know. Just reminding you. (And they're no more "uninformed" relative to the case for La Defense than your out-of-towners are relative to the case for "unglamorous" Yonge.)

 

[Silence&Motion]

uhhh...Toronto has plenty of examples of streets lined by 1-3 storey buildings. The difference is that Yonge is arguably the most important street in the city. Show me a picture of Tokyo's most important streets, and I guarantee you that they aren't lined by 2 story dilapidated townhouses. Even the cities that value heritage the most, in the European Union, had the sensibility to modernize their main business areas (ex. La Defense, Paris). Nobody's asking to tear down St. Lawerence here. The fact is that Yonge isn't as glamorous as the historians on this site make it out to be, and I'm not only referring to it's current form, but also it's potential with the current massing. It's sad when the city's most important road becomes an area to avoid when showing out of towners around, and I know I'm not the only one with this sentiment.

What about the cities I linked to? These are the main streets of Vancouver, San Francisco, and Montreal. And they have sections that are only 2-4 storeys. Vancouver's streets have been specifically designed to be low-mid rise at street level, with the high rise pushed back, away from the main street.

Your statement that Yonge is a place to avoid runs smack in the face of the evidence: Yonge is teeming with people all the time (and so is Queen for that matter). Bay and University, the other main thoroughfares in the city, are grand in physical scale but are anemic in terms of street life.

And by the way, Yonge and Wellesley isn't exactly our main business area. Yonge and King is, and that intersection is lined with skyscrapers.