[adma]

Anyways, isn't this forum supposed to have guidelines about just insulting others? Its not exactly like my feelings are hurt, but it is boring to constantly be called a jerk or clod or whatever for disagreeing with you, and then be accused of having a chip on my shoulder to boot considering every argument you make is predicated on how you are innately smarter than all others.

It isn't a matter of "disagreeing with me". It's a matter of having a tin-eared technique of disagreement. And you aren't advancing your cause by patronizingly referring to streetcars as "trams" and Toronto Islanders as "squatters" and clumsily identifying the Vaughan/Zeidler crew with the Chuckie Windsor retrogressives. Sure, you may choose to strategically distance yourself from the Mel Lastmans and Rob Fords out there; but in the end, you're squatting in and pandering to similar turf. Even John Tory, were he to run again against Miller, would try to distance himself against such trams'n'squatters rhetoric--that is, unless he really wanted to milk the disgruntled-suburban-populist angle for all it's worth.

It does no good to attach yourself to Alsop-inflected urban idealism when you wrap yourself in the kind of rhetoric that I'd expect from some local 1993/97 federal Reform standard-bearer. (A more subtle and less off-base message than it appears.)*

*NB: I think I read somewhere that a young Preston Manning pulled his premier father's strings re the approval of Douglas Cardinal's design for the Ponoka Government Services Centre.

 

[Whoaccio]

Well Queen Street is a main street, so of course it's always going to resemble one. And yes, it has "main street charm". But it's also unapologetically urban, diverse, and anything but conservative. Preserving the built form of a successful street is something big cities do, especially in Europe.

No, its not a main street. Main Street specifically refers to the primary street in a small town. It is also a metonym for small, conservative towns in general. Neither of which should be what Queen street aspires to. When Sarah Pailins and Joe the Plumbers go raving about American Main Street vs. Bay (or Wall) St, they aren't thinking of Queen.

No, it's very much apples to apples. Your contempt for small towns seems to come from ignorance. There's no such thing as a "typical 1-2 storey storefront" in Peterborough, or most small cities in Ontario for that matter. The typical downtown Peterborough streetscape is exactly what you describe as a typical London or New York street: tight building massing and continuous 3-4 storey street walls that generally equal the street width. Queen West could be described the same way, which begs the question - if the built form of Queen West is what you described above, and they're trying to preserve that built form, then what's the problem?

Its not contempt, I just don't see why we should aspire to look like every other small town. I also don't think your point about "downtown Peterborough streetscape is exactly a typical London or New York" is accurate If you told Micheal Bloomberg or Boris Johnson that Bond St. or 5th Avenue looked like generic S. Ontario main street, they would most likely be insulted. Five million people live hear for the love of god, what is so wrong with expecting something more than what Brantford has for one of our prime retail strips? Of all the architectural visions of what a street should look like, I refuse to believe that this is the best we can do:

 

[Whoaccio]

It isn't a matter of "disagreeing with me". It's a matter of having a tin-eared technique of disagreement. And you aren't advancing your cause by patronizingly referring to streetcars as "trams" and Toronto Islanders as "squatters" and clumsily identifying the Vaughan/Zeidler crew with the Chuckie Windsor retrogressives. Sure, you may choose to strategically distance yourself from the Mel Lastmans and Rob Fords out there; but in the end, you're squatting in and pandering to similar turf. Even John Tory, were he to run again against Miller, would try to distance himself against such trams'n'squatters rhetoric--that is, unless he really wanted to milk the disgruntled-suburban-populist angle for all it's worth.

It IS a tram. Of all the things I say that are probably crap, I find it incredible that I am being called out on calling trams trams. I guess TramLink in London is really just a secret conspiracy by me to discredit the Croydon Tram, and Cross River Tram is me again. Supertram was actually my brother, but it was my idea. This entire 27 page wiki article on trams, moi. How paranoid are you that you think 'trams' is a pejorative? Do you check your closet at night to make sure Mike Harris isn't there? Its not rhetoric, its the damn dictionary.

Anyways, you basically proved my point about your argumentation style consisting of nothing but insulting everyone. We get it, everyone is the 'standard bearer' of Reform and some freak offspring of Mike Harris and Deb Hutton. If all you want to do is spend your time moaning about the Toronto Sun and this Richard Nixon-esque belief in ideological bogeymen being out to get you, fine. But a tram is still a tram no matter how many times you yell Mel Lastman. It will always be a tram.

In future, why don't you just abandon the whole process and just start name dropping and posting pictures. That's pretty much all you seem inclined to do.

P.S. I also don't think men with hair longer than their earlobes should be allowed to vote, cuz you know disagreeing with adma pretty much means I spend all my time firebombing abortion clinics and devising plots to criminalize interpretive dance.

 

[nfitz]

Calling the streetcar a tram in Toronto is just plain trying to be a prick. I was born in London, and grew up in Montreal, but the Toronto subway is a subway. I wouldn't dream of calling it a Metro (even though it is), or an Underground (and it's just as underground as London's), or the Tube (though doesn't St. Patrick just should Tube!).

It's as silly and pretentious as calling the 401 a motorway, David Miller his worship, or telling someone you were listening to Jian Ghomeshi on the wireless (though ironically, you can now listen to him on Radio 1).

 

[golodhendil]

Calling the streetcar a tram in Toronto is just plain trying to be a prick. I was born in London, and grew up in Montreal, but the Toronto subway is a subway. I wouldn't dream of calling it a Metro (even though it is), or an Underground (and it's just as underground as London's), or the Tube (though doesn't St. Patrick just should Tube!).

It's as silly and pretentious as calling the 401 a motorway, David Miller his worship, or telling someone you were listening to Jian Ghomeshi on the wireless (though ironically, you can now listen to him on Radio 1).

Of all the things that I may or may not agree with Whoaccio, his use of the word "tram" is probably the last thing I would have any problem with, since it is a perfectly valid word to use and I can hardly see anything pejorative about that word (when he said "quaint tram", I would interpret "quaint" as the word that gives the pejorative meaning, not "tram"), and not least because I would also liberally and interchangeably use "tram", "streetcar", "LRT" or, heck, even "trolley" to refer to that mode of transit. I also don't see a problem, in my dreams or in reality, to call TTC subway a metro or rapid transit or HRT (underground/tube I would not, because those are fairly uniquely London terms, unlike any of the other names above).

As for His Worship Mayor David Miller, I sure hope the Creative Places and Spaces conference, the Cooperative Housing Federation of Canada, the University of Toronto or the City of Toronto are not being "silly", "pretentious" or "pricks" to address Miller like that.

 

[SimplyOE]

What?

 

[MisterF]

No, its not a main street. Main Street specifically refers to the primary street in a small town. It is also a metonym for small, conservative towns in general. Neither of which should be what Queen street aspires to. When Sarah Pailins and Joe the Plumbers go raving about American Main Street vs. Bay (or Wall) St, they aren't thinking of Queen.

Maybe in the States it refers to small towns specifically. But I've heard people refer to Yonge and St. Catherine as main streets. Would you consider Hamilton a small town? How about Winnipeg?

edit: The Canadian Oxford Dictionary defines a main street as "the principal street of a town or city."

Its not contempt, I just don't see why we should aspire to look like every other small town. I also don't think your point about "downtown Peterborough streetscape is exactly a typical London or New York" is accurate If you told Micheal Bloomberg or Boris Johnson that Bond St. or 5th Avenue looked like generic S. Ontario main street, they would most likely be insulted. Five million people live hear for the love of god, what is so wrong with expecting something more than what Brantford has for one of our prime retail strips? Of all the architectural visions of what a street should look like, I refuse to believe that this is the best we can do:

Well the description you gave does describe a lot of Ontario main streets. The tightly packed urban environment, the 3-4 storey streetwalls that equal the width of the street, etc. I realize the neighbourhoods you're thinking of are more in the 5+ storey range, but it's not like 3 storeys is unheard of in those cities. And yes, the main streets of Peterborough, Brantford, Kitchener, Sarnia, and others have similar built form as Queen Street. There might be major differences in the crowds, the stores, the culture, and the density of the surrounding area, but the built form is similar.

Let me ask you this: do you support smaller scale development along Queen Street than further south in the Entertainment district? How about preserving the 3-4 storey streetwall? Because that's the context that the phrase "main street charm" was used in. It's not trying to turn Queen Street into Port Perry.

 

[Whoaccio]

Let me ask you this: do you support smaller scale development along Queen Street than further south in the Entertainment district? How about preserving the 3-4 storey streetwall? Because that's the context that the phrase "main street charm" was used in. It's not trying to turn Queen Street into Port Perry.

No, thats sort of been my main point. A lot of it isn't even consistently 3-4 storeys (I can never seem to get the the KFC @ Augusta out my head). There are quite a few 2 storeys scattered about, and even a disturbing amount of high ceilinged bungalows, for our 'main street' at least. Street wall height should ideally be about 20-25m to match the current road with. At that height, you wouldn't be able to tell if someone puts a point tower on the back of the block from streetlevel, so I'm ambivalent to that. Its something like 250,000 people move hear a year, yea? That gives us the problem of either housing them in an urban setting, or letting them go to the 905. So far the 905 has been kicking our ass. Unless we start to actually make housing and employment for these people in the city, all we will get is more sprawl. Not that Queen should be expected to suck a few hundred thousands new residents a year, but we can't just expect to shove everyone in CityPlace while 90% of the City is stays static.

P.S. I am not debating wether a tram is a tram. If I am a prick for using the dictionary, fine, I'm a prick. It doesn't change the fact that a tram is a tram.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Whooacio:

I think there are very good architectural reasons as to why that stretch of Queen should be preserved - in comparison to streets of a similar scale, say Bloor in the Annex, etc.

Besides, if you really wanted to make density arguments, the 90% of the city that really shouldn't be staying static is the inner suburbs and its' vast amounts of low density detached housing.

AoD

 

[adma]

It IS a tram. Of all the things I say that are probably crap, I find it incredible that I am being called out on calling trams trams. I guess TramLink in London is really just a secret conspiracy by me to discredit the Croydon Tram, and Cross River Tram is me again. Supertram was actually my brother, but it was my idea. This entire 27 page wiki article on trams, moi. How paranoid are you that you think 'trams' is a pejorative? Do you check your closet at night to make sure Mike Harris isn't there? Its not rhetoric, its the damn dictionary.

Anyways, you basically proved my point about your argumentation style consisting of nothing but insulting everyone. We get it, everyone is the 'standard bearer' of Reform and some freak offspring of Mike Harris and Deb Hutton. If all you want to do is spend your time moaning about the Toronto Sun and this Richard Nixon-esque belief in ideological bogeymen being out to get you, fine. But a tram is still a tram no matter how many times you yell Mel Lastman. It will always be a tram.

In future, why don't you just abandon the whole process and just start name dropping and posting pictures. That's pretty much all you seem inclined to do.

P.S. I also don't think men with hair longer than their earlobes should be allowed to vote, cuz you know disagreeing with adma pretty much means I spend all my time firebombing abortion clinics and devising plots to criminalize interpretive dance.

You still sound like my father yelling at my mother.

 

[nfitz]

As for His Worship Mayor David Miller, I sure hope the Creative Places and Spaces conference, the Cooperative Housing Federation of Canada, the University of Toronto or the City of Toronto are not being "silly", "pretentious" or "pricks" to address Miller like that.

Wow, I've never seen that used on this side the pond; I guess I don't hang in the right circles! I guess that's what I get for living out near Main Street, rather than downtown.

 

[MisterF]

No, thats sort of been my main point. A lot of it isn't even consistently 3-4 storeys (I can never seem to get the the KFC @ Augusta out my head). There are quite a few 2 storeys scattered about, and even a disturbing amount of high ceilinged bungalows, for our 'main street' at least. Street wall height should ideally be about 20-25m to match the current road with. At that height, you wouldn't be able to tell if someone puts a point tower on the back of the block from streetlevel, so I'm ambivalent to that. Its something like 250,000 people move hear a year, yea? That gives us the problem of either housing them in an urban setting, or letting them go to the 905. So far the 905 has been kicking our ass. Unless we start to actually make housing and employment for these people in the city, all we will get is more sprawl. Not that Queen should be expected to suck a few hundred thousands new residents a year, but we can't just expect to shove everyone in CityPlace while 90% of the City is stays static.

Actually it's about 100,000 per year. While the city's population as a whole isn't rising by much, the downtown population is growing just as fast as the 905 cities. I agree with you that there's a lot of room for infill along Queen, and a lot of the 1-2 storey stuff wouldn't be missed. Most of the commercial streets in Toronto have too much of that, especially as you get farther from downtown. But I do think that we can beef up Queen while still maintaining its character.

Mind you it's kind of been a moot point. There's not a lot of development pressure on Queen itself. Naturally developers find it easiest to buy up empty parking lots in areas where there's not much context and no opposition to building tall. And while those lots are disappearing fast, there's still a lot of them left. I think in the next decade or two as those lots disappear we'll see a lot more proposals for infill along streets like Queen.

 

[adma]

Whooacio:

I think there are very good architectural reasons as to why that stretch of Queen should be preserved - in comparison to streets of a similar scale, say Bloor in the Annex, etc.

Besides, if you really wanted to make density arguments, the 90% of the city that really shouldn't be staying static is the inner suburbs and its' vast amounts of low density detached housing.

AoD

Or, for that matter (and maybe even more so), its vast amounts of brownfields and greyfields and retail strip space.

And to return to Whoaccio...

That gives us the problem of either housing them in an urban setting, or letting them go to the 905. So far the 905 has been kicking our ass.

This is getting to remind me of those dippy old miketoronto arguments about how Toronto's falling behind, can't stand pat, etc.

Look; there are other reasons besides housing affordability/availability why certain people choose the 905 (or beyond); and given the mentalities involved, more often than not the choice is terminal barring some massive cultural attitude adjustments out there. If our arse is being so-called kicked, Toronto's not alone in this among older urban centres; and actually, we're faring quite well indeed under the circumstances.

I mean, what's the story here? Suppress those Adam'n'Margie tram-loving neo-Victorian nostalgic sentimentalists, so that people won't flee for 905 sprawl? Sheesh. (Never mind the fact that a lot them are paradoxically fleeing more toward neo-Victorian nostalgic sentimentality: retro "New Urbanism" with stuff like Olde Unionville a short drive away, etc. Chedingtonista aesthetics thrive more in sprawl than in the inner city, interestingly enough.)

 

[unimaginative2]

This is getting completely off topic, but that just sticking your head in the sand. Obviously the suburbs are going to grow more rapidly than the built-out core city, but there are very clear planning and taxation reasons why all of the employment growth in the city has occurred outside the 416. The shift of industry to suburban business parks is natural, but the shift of the vast majority of office growth from downtown to 905 office parks is a direct consequence of planning decisions designed to discourage growth in the downtown core. Across North America, the success of a city's transit and its urban vitality are largely determined by the strength of employment in the downtown core, so it's a very important concern. Fortunately, those planning choices have fallen by the wayside in recent years and downtown development has resumed, albeit at a far slower pace than in previous decades. It will take a long time to make up for the lost years of growth.

The point, adma, is not residential growth in the suburbs. It's employment growth, and that is certainly not determined by the appeal of a faux-nostalgic aesthetic.

 

[Whoaccio]

Besides, if you really wanted to make density arguments, the 90% of the city that really shouldn't be staying static is the inner suburbs and its' vast amounts of low density detached housing.

I do. The last time I suggested that desnsification should take priority over preserving Don Mills bungalows, I was basically accused of being Mark Harris' sex slave for failing to see the inherent camp value of bungalows.

Actually it's about 100,000 per year. While the city's population as a whole isn't rising by much, the downtown population is growing just as fast as the 905 cities. I agree with you that there's a lot of room for infill along Queen, and a lot of the 1-2 storey stuff wouldn't be missed. Most of the commercial streets in Toronto have too much of that, especially as you get farther from downtown. But I do think that we can beef up Queen while still maintaining its character.

(whoops)
The areas of downtown that are growing are places like Clubland or the 'vertical sprawl' of CityPlace. So, yea, Ward 20 grew by an average of 3.25% from '01-'06. Almost all of that was from condo development. Its hard to specify a corridor in particular, but Queen's gentrification has probably caused it to stay stagnant or shrink slightly. The example would be somewhere like Ward 19 or 30, whose populations fell by 1.2% and 6.9% respectively. Wards 14 and 18 fell by 7.7% and 7.2%. Actually, every Ward downtown other than 20 & 27 fell as families are displaced by yuppies without pretty substantial condofication to bridge the gap. Based on the population motions elsewhere downtown, I would be skeptical of Queen having a quantitatively larger population or employment base.

I guess if I could ask a question, it would be what do we expect Queen to look like in 2079? If the answer is, basically, how it is now, I think that would be unfortunate. 'Maintaining character' schemes would be best targeted at more isolated streets/areas like Baldwin or Kensington that aren't one of the main e/w roadways into the core, or at least stretches of Queen further west (as opposed to the stretch between the CBD & Spadina). I remember back a few years ago when the Queen West community car wash got closed for condos or something, there was a predictable cry of anguish from the usual voices. This is exactly the kind of provincial mindset that holds Toronto back. Its not even like a car wash has any aesthetic value beyond the reactionary nature of the complainers.