[Calrissian]

No

yeah, why no? and be sure to show your work.

and notice in that Vancouver 2020 map? they count westcoast express as 'existing rapid transit' ? with that as a benchmark, GO transit would be a shinkansen system.

 

[officedweller]

I wouldn't equate an undergound Eglinton Line with a subway either - the at-grade sections on either end would be "rate-limiting" segments that would hinder efficient frequent headways (unless there was a lot of short turning at either end of the underground portion).

 

[Dan416]

Exactly. That and subway has higher capacity. But having an underground LRT is pretty ridiculous wihout thinking about how it's going to fare on the street. We still don't even know what the proposed stop spacing is or how separated it'll be from traffic. If it was completely separated in its own ROW, that'd be great, but then you may as well use subway cars.

 

[Dichotomy]

I rarely agree with Hume, but on this one item he is correct. Vancouver's love affair with everything tall is being done in a more orderly way, with far more attention to the streetscape.
Compare our Skydome area to this:

View attachment 537

 

[Archivist]

Pretty pictures prove nothing, especially when you make a comment about streetscapes and show a picture taken from way out on the water.

Hume is at his worst when he talks about other cities, I've never seen him say anything critical of another city at all. For my cup of tea, Vancouver is a bit of a win/loss: their buildings are a tedious repetition of forms, over and over again. I would argue that actual architecture here in TO is better now, more inventive and varied than in Vancouver. And the height restrictions make for a dull, oppressive skyline.

In the end, though, I would agree that Vancouver's streetscapes are better than ours. They place more demands on the developers, and their approach to their waterfront has a coherency that our lacks.

 

[Dichotomy]

For the record, I was standing on terra ferma when I took that picture.

Pretty pictures prove nothing?

Anecdotes are meaningless.

What does that leave us with? How would you define a 'conversation' or a 'debate?'

I guess we could just swap links to other websites and threads.

 

[officedweller]

One thing about the waterfront in Vancouver is that there are limited retail commercial areas on the water - stores and restaurants, etc. Condo residents complain about the noise. The seawall and parkland are there - but it's generally dead at nighttime.

 

[Archivist]

office, I see what you mean, but I love the occassional (architect-designed?) pavilions that are stuck out into the water (or at least abut the shore) and provide primo restaurant space. I'm not sure if that would work in Toronto, but I admire the examples in Vancouver.

dichotomy, you said "compare our Skydome area to this" and had a photo taken a kilometre away from a little silver ball and three condo towers? What comparison can be drawn? I have no trouble believing that in a comparison between a streetscape photo of the actual streets around those buildings and a streetscape photo of the CityPlace area near SkyDome, that Vancouver's would be better .... but whassup with that photo? We're talking streetscapes here, not waterfront views.

 

[Evan]

One thing about the waterfront in Vancouver is that there are limited retail commercial areas on the water - stores and restaurants, etc. Condo residents complain about the noise. The seawall and parkland are there - but it's generally dead at nighttime.

The only noise I hate in Yaletown is the motorcycle noise. There's no fucking noise regulations.

 

[Dichotomy]

office, I see what you mean, but I love the occassional (architect-designed?) pavilions that are stuck out into the water (or at least abut the shore) and provide primo restaurant space. I'm not sure if that would work in Toronto, but I admire the examples in Vancouver.

dichotomy, you said "compare our Skydome area to this" and had a photo taken a kilometre away from a little silver ball and three condo towers? What comparison can be drawn? I have no trouble believing that in a comparison between a streetscape photo of the actual streets around those buildings and a streetscape photo of the CityPlace area near SkyDome, that Vancouver's would be better .... but whassup with that photo? We're talking streetscapes here, not waterfront views.

Both Vancouver and Toronto look pretty in postcards. That isn't the issue. I am more concerned about ground level. It amazes me that for a forum that is overly concerned about pedestrian/cyclist access to space, there seems to be a large cheering gallery for all these 40+ story towers that are going up, directly to the curb.
In the end, what will be more 'liveable:' Vancouver's towers that are spaced further apart, surrounded by plazas, gardens and walkways, or Toronto's forest of tall condos that create a tunnel?
The picture I posted should have been a panaromic shot, because directly beside me was more parkland and more tall condos, but not on top of each other. What is happening around Skydome in Toronto, versus what is happening around General Motors Place in Vancouver, are case studies of what is right and wrong with these two city's approach to urban planning - or lack thereof.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

In the end, what will be more 'liveable:' Vancouver's towers that are spaced further apart, surrounded by plazas, gardens and walkways, or Toronto's forest of tall condos that create a tunnel?

Yes, like Vancouver has winters that are like Toronto's, and that towers in the park planning has proven to work by illustrious examples such as St. Jamestown, Flemingdon Park, Thorncliffe Park, etc.

Incidentally, Cityplace - which follows the Vancouver styled planning you've mentioned, is considered to be one of the less livable, "soul-less" area of the city.

Sorry, but your "style" of planning has been debunked 30+ years ago.

AoD

 

[Dichotomy]

Yes, like Vancouver has winters that are like Toronto's, and that towers in the park planning has proven to work by illustrious examples such as St. Jamestown, Flemingdon Park, Thorncliffe Park, etc.

Incidentally, Cityplace - which follows the Vancouver styled planning you've mentioned, is considered to be one of the less livable, "soul-less" area of the city.

Sorry, but your "style" of planning has been debunked 30+ years ago.

AoD

Debunked by whom?

St. Jamestown was amazing when I lived there 30 years ago: underground swimming pool, above ground swimming pools, YMCA in the complex, shopping in the complex, everyone had a fantastic view, waterfountains, and tennis courts. Then rent controls took their cumulative hit (inflation in the '80s was running higher than either vacanies or increases allowed, so why would the landlord's fix up the place?), 'adult only buildings' provisions were struck down, and then the 'boat people' started moving in: people living 6 and 7 to an apartment. Broken elevators. Strained services. Management changed to Medco keys and nearly created a riot (one key for each registered tenant!). I moved out.
Nothing wrong with the planning, just the people who moved in.

 

[Archivist]

Dichotomy has a point. I live right across from the Village Green, and you don't get any more suburban than that, in terms of towers in the park. Even the name reeks of suburbia. However, the buildings have been kept up appropriately, they are pleasant and great to live in.

I don't think "towers in the park" is always wrong, nor do I think that it is always right. The only thing I think is truly damaging to cities is to be didactic and limit the possible solutions to sites.

Vancouver is perhaps more "towers in the park" than Toronto, but it has lots of street retail and podiums that meet the street. Like others on the forum, though, I often like buildings coming right to the edge.

 

[adma]

And sort of midway are the whitebricks in the vicinity of High Park and Davisville stations--maybe not as spiffy or fully-serviced as when they were built, but they've kept up a certain demographic equilibrium (and I'm not referring to racial/multicultural matters here).

Besides, wouldn't you say there's been a general mass trend away from "full service" apartment-complex living, anyway, that's not entirely explained by lax maintenance, but perhaps more by flexibility, freedom of choice, etc? Like, the preference to swim or shop or congregate or keep fit in something other than self-conscious "assigned space"? In some ways, this is an analogue to the so-called decline of the civic sphere, or how university students are supposedly more and more apathetic to what the university has to offer (i.e. the notion that a lower quotient of the U of T student body "uses" Hart House now than back when Hart House was male-only)

 

[officedweller]

Concord Pacific Place isn't a "towers in the park" type of development. There are lots of City-required parks within the area of the master development, but individual buildings are not set back and surrounded by grass and trees the way they were built in Vancouver's West End in the 1960s and 1970s.
Concord Pacific Place typically has townhouses along short 2-3 storey podiums to allow light to reach the street. Retail is limited to the main streets.