Towered
Superstar
Is that seriously your counter argument? As if it wasn't obvious before, but this confirms your status as this forum's latest clown.
|
|
|
- Thread starter bar1967
- Start date
Is that seriously your counter argument? As if it wasn't obvious before, but this confirms your status as this forum's latest clown.
adma
Superstar
Sure. We wouldn't have out Interstate/400-series superhighway networks, or our ticky-tacky single-family sprawl, without Europe-in-1937 precedent.
Also, don't forget the refugees from Naziism who institutionalized modern architecture and planning in N America. So, even in spite of dictatorships, so-called European planning superiority ruled...
Dichotomy
Banned
Thank you! I'll take that as a compliment, coming from you. Often the Court jester was allowed to poke fun at the crowns of Europe and say what others didn't dare.
Considering Canada is larger than all of Europe with 7% of the population, I don't think we need concern ourselves too much with what they are doing.
Dichotomy
Banned
Opinions are like a$%-holes: everyone's got one.
There are places in suburbia that are tacky, just like there are places downtown that are tacky. One is not automatically superior than the other. People need to climb down off their lofty perches and get over themselves.
The auto is here to stay (sales UP again by 5% in July). Wishing them away, or trying to slowly squeeze them to death is not going to work.
isittimetomoveyet
Active Member
Of course they aren't going away, but there are ways to build cities that can minimize the need for cars. Isn't there a better use for land in Toronto than 1900 parking spots? Thats an insane amount of cars and the traffic around there will become a nightmare!
Dichotomy
Banned
I dunno: if the choice is between a wall of 50 story condos and a parking lot, I'll take the parking lot, thanks.
What is your definition of 'better use of land?' The fact that cities of three times Toronto's size manage their traffic better only points to how badly managed this city has been. Toronto is not the center of the unverse. Three million people: that's, what - the 37th largest city in the world?
It's not like we're running out of land, either. We've already land-filled about 200 metres into Lake Ontario. Everything south of Casa Loma is on 'found' property.
We just don't have the political will because the social engineers have taken over City Hall.
Towered
Superstar
You argue like you're 12 years old.
I urge the rest of you not to bother with this guy.
I urge the rest of you not to bother with this guy.
Dichotomy
Banned
And you resort to silly epithets, which alludes to your level of maturity. Is UT your personal sandbox - and now you are ordering others not to play with me because I don't agree with you?
Dissenting opinion is not automatically 'childish.' You cannot make a statement that European design is automatically superior and expect it to go unchallenged. By whose estimation? Unless, of course, you are preaching to the choir here on UT, as I suspect.
What Europe is doing for Europe suits them and their environs. With 14 times our population and diminishing natural resources, their challenges are quite different than ours. They certainly have a lot to admire, but then with their density of population they have more options than we do.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Both of you are pretty new here, neither with more than 500 posts on anything. I'd say let the Mods decide who's debate worthy.
Blovertis
Active Member
I guess that's as good a summation of your philosophy as we can hope for.
And while I would never try to deny your much cherished right to assert your beliefs on this board, I do wonder why you've decided to nest here of all places -- the Urban Toronto Forum.
Surely the CAA has some kind of discussion group?
Dichotomy
Banned
Forget about the automobile for a moment.
Perhaps because I have a fresh pair of eyes on this board I can see the forest rather than the trees. (No pun intended.) I had a lot of reading to do and a lot of pictures to look at to catch up to some of the 'senior' members on this site. Is UT really about posting pictures of tall buildings? Or is it a discussion group about the direction this city is taking? When you read a couple hundred threads over a period of a week or so, you get a bigger picture. Maybe some of you are to enamore in your swapping of stunning pictures of skyline vistas and deep holes to imagine where this is all going.
For the record: I love tall buildings. I was p'od when the city slapped a height limit back in the late '70s. I thought it was silly. I wanted a skyline to rival Chicago's. I still do.
What concerns me is how this density is being handled. Verve is an excellent example: beautiful building, great enhancement to the neighborhood. (Not too sure about closing a major hospital with 50,000 people living next door, but that is a different topic!) Would it have killed Tridel to move the tower to the middle or the back of the property? Even if they moved it back another 3 meters or so. It's footprint is what I am concerned with, not its height. And why did the city allow that co-op (or whatever the heck it's called - I'm too tired to look it up) next to 500 Sherbourne? Yikes. That third building should never have been wedged in there.
I have cited Plaza 100 (Wellesley/Jarvis) and Village Green as two examples of GOOD civic planning, IMO. Lots of green space. Fountains. The buildings are set back. You can walk down Maitland or Alexander and not feel closed in by the towers.
As awful as the base of the HBC is at Yonge/Bloor, at least it was set back to allow for a wide pedestrian sidewalk and 6 lanes of traffic. With Blu and others being jammed in beside the Manulife Tower, I fear that we are going to end up with one nasty tunnel (the wind beside the Manulife Tower NOW is nasty on many days, especially in the winter) that is not going to be conducive to pedestrians.
Does anyone remember the waterfall and pond where Indigo is on Bay St. Whatever happened to that? The city used to make demands of these developers, then 20 years later, the owners just go along and build over top of it.
Unacceptable. We can do better.
Blovertis
Active Member
Your views are obviously deeply held and there is not much someone like me (or anyone on this board) can say to change them. I'm probably just as unpersuadable from my end.
It's one of those unbridgeable gaps: You seem genuinely distressed by the city's increasing density whereas I think it's fantastic -- the more the better. On another thread (I think it was the one about the proposed redevelopment of the Cumberland Theatre), you raised the specter of Toronto winding up like Hong Kong -- as if that would be a bad thing. HK happens to be the most beautiful and exciting city I have ever seen.
It's one of those unbridgeable gaps: You seem genuinely distressed by the city's increasing density whereas I think it's fantastic -- the more the better. On another thread (I think it was the one about the proposed redevelopment of the Cumberland Theatre), you raised the specter of Toronto winding up like Hong Kong -- as if that would be a bad thing. HK happens to be the most beautiful and exciting city I have ever seen.
CDL.TO
Moderator
“business is conducted in the centre. This means that wide avenues must be driven through the centres of our towns. Therefore the existing centres must come down. To save itself, every great city must rebuild its center.”
Plan Voisin
Plan Voisin
isittimetomoveyet
Active Member
I would definitely take the wall of condo's, with certain condition of course. Parking spots, in my opinion, are the lowest form of land use there is!
Dichotomy
Banned
Believe me, I have no illusions about changing anyone's opinions on this Board!
I am here to listen, to learn and to hone my positions. I am here to find out how the other half thinks and how they justify their positions.One thing is for sure, in another 5 years one of us will be right and one of us will be wrong. Perhaps only people from Hong Kong will like this city in 5 years. I guess if there is enough of them (quite possible), it will be a success.