[Adjei]

Well, I'd say we compare our city infrastructure to other comparable cities, ones that were built at approximately the same time and in the same way. Comparing Toronto to Melbourne would probably be a pretty fair comparison, but so's Chicago. Amsterdam, on the other hand, is hundreds of years older and has had many different challenges than Toronto has faced or will face in city building.

As for your healthcare comment: The OECD seems to think we're in the upper third of its members with respect to healthcare --

http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/Briefing-Note-CANADA-2014.pdf

They laud us on reduction of smoking and drinking and comment that obesity is starting to make an impact, which seems like a reasonable analysis of Canadian healthcare.

I don't see what the age of the city has to do with anything. Just because a city is younger, it does not stop it from investing in the public realm or how the city looks. I also didn't mention infrastructure but my point still holds. New York is younger than London but has a comparable level of infrastructure and investment in public realm to London. What is important is that city recognizes and puts the time and resources into making the city look good. Everything else is just another excuse. Toronto just doesn't have the culture for such investments which is why we get the haphazard look of the city.

As for the healthcare comment, I made it to show that as Canadians, we need to stop looking to compare ourselves to Americans and stop viewing them as the global standard in everything and compare ourselves to the actual leaders. Just like we saw in this thread where someone said that at least our public realm is not as bad as some of the American cities close to us. As if those cities should be the ones we should be comparing ourselves to or holding up as a standard.

The link you posted also shows that Canada ranks 27 out of 34 countries for for number of doctors per 1000, 16 out of 34 for number of nurses, and 30 out of 34 for hospital beds per 1000. But I guess we should pat ourselves on the backs because we did better than the Americans.

On the topic of healthcare, I would be very, very careful comparing apples to oranges to lemons - the systems in different countries are vastly different in how they are funded and operated, and health outcomes are subjected to significant lifestyle differences. We should learn from other countries, by all means, but avoid worshipping them - it's often a matter of choosing outcomes you, as a society, is willing to live with.

AoD

As for bringing up the healthcare, I brought it up to show that we need to stop comparing ourselves to the US and patting ourselves on the back as if we have done a job well done and holding the US as the ultimate standard in everything. I see this far too often in this country. We should be striving to the standards of the actual leaders and not just trying to be better than the US.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

OT

The link you posted also shows that Canada ranks 27 out of 34 countries for for number of doctors per 1000, 16 out of 34 for number of nurses, and 30 out of 34 for hospital beds per 1000. But I guess we should pat ourselves on the backs because we did better than the Americans.

Quotations on the raw numbers of doctors/nurses/hospital beds per capital is a very poor indicator of "quality", especially for industrialized countries - some countries prioritizes care in hospital, others in the community; having a high number of doctors also doesn't mean much either beyond a certain figure - most of the time access to primary health care does not require care by doctors. It's a pretty meaningless measure.

AoD

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

OT



Quotations on the raw numbers of doctors/nurses/hospital beds per capital is a very poor indicator of "quality", especially for industrialized countries - some countries prioritizes care in hospital, others in the community; having a high number of doctors also doesn't mean much either beyond a certain figure - most of the time access to primary health care does not require care by doctors. It's a pretty meaningless measure.

AoD

But it was the only one that could be cherry-picked to 'prove' Adjei's point...

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

I don't see what the age of the city has to do with anything. Just because a city is younger, it does not stop it from investing in the public realm or how the city looks. I also didn't mention infrastructure but my point still holds. New York is younger than London but has a comparable level of infrastructure and investment in public realm to London. What is important is that city recognizes and puts the time and resources into making the city look good. Everything else is just another excuse. Toronto just doesn't have the culture for such investments which is why we get the haphazard look of the city.

In what world does NYC have 'a comparable level of infrastructure and investment in public realm' as London? I love Manhatten as much as anybody, but it's no London when it comes to publicly owned and operated infrastructure and resources.

As for Toronto, I'm hopeful that the example WT has set will get the city thinking in the same direction. But, given the reflexive caterwauling every time some project spends even a penny over its budget, I'm not optimistic.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

I always thought that Toronto, Melbourne and Sydney were all very similar and comparable cities.

 

[Adjei]

OT



Quotations on the raw numbers of doctors/nurses/hospital beds per capital is a very poor indicator of "quality", especially for industrialized countries - some countries prioritizes care in hospital, others in the community; having a high number of doctors also doesn't mean much either beyond a certain figure - most of the time access to primary health care does not require care by doctors. It's a pretty meaningless measure.

AoD

I don't really get your point. Are you saying that we can never measure healthcare systems across different countries? How else do you expect us to compare healthcare systems if you don't look at the health of the citizens in the country, access to healthcare services, etc. One of the key determinants of health is access to healthcare services:

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ph-sp/determinants/determinants-eng.php

So I don't see why we can't measure access to different healthcare services when measuring healthcare and health across different places.

Sure there are other factors which determine access to primary health care but if you are in need of a doctor and you have difficulty accessing one, I don't see how that's good for your health.

In what world does NYC have 'a comparable level of infrastructure and investment in public realm' as London? I love Manhatten as much as anybody, but it's no London when it comes to publicly owned and operated infrastructure and resources.

As for Toronto, I'm hopeful that the example WT has set will get the city thinking in the same direction. But, given the reflexive caterwauling every time some project spends even a penny over its budget, I'm not optimistic.

Do you think New York is some small town? In what way is New York not comparable to London? New York has comparable parks, public squares, civic buildings, etc. Which publicly owned infrastructure and resources does London have that you can't find comparable ones in New York?

 

[pman]

I always thought that Toronto, Melbourne and Sydney were all very similar and comparable cities.

Melbourne and Sydney are a lot less shabby than Toronto, as my Australian father in law sometimes remarks when he visits here.

 

[Adjei]

Melbourne and Sydney are a lot less shabby than Toronto, as my Australian father in law sometimes remarks when he visits here.

Don't you know that Melbourne and Sydney are much older cities than Toronto therefore they are supposed to be less shabby?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I don't really get your point. Are you saying that we can never measure healthcare systems across different countries? How else do you expect us to compare healthcare systems if you don't look at the health of the citizens in the country, access to healthcare services, etc. One of the key determinants of health is access to healthcare services:

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ph-sp/determinants/determinants-eng.php

So I don't see why we can't measure access to different healthcare services when measuring healthcare and health across different places.

Sure there are other factors which determine access to primary health care but if you are in need of a doctor and you have difficulty accessing one, I don't see how that's good for your health.

I didn't say that - I am saying that telling me the per capita number of health professionals is pretty meaningless in industrialized countries with established healthcare systems. There are far, far more sophisticated comparative measures (e.g. wait times, survival rates, eHR adoption, etc, etc) but use those with caveats as well. Please don't throw me a PHAC report without quoting the specific section and reading what it meant - access to healthcare services goes far, far beyond the simplistic measure of the number of doctors and nurses - for one, the site never made that equivocation. It's a huge leap to go from we have more doctors and equate it to you will have timely access to one. In fact, the PHAC report talks more about the inequitable distribution of lower level community care resources, and the how the accessibility of some allied health services not covered by the government are affected by income, not the numbers of doctors and nurses. So please, don't use OT comparators to make your point - and leave that to health policy analysts instead.

AoD

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

Melbourne and Sydney are a lot less shabby than Toronto, as my Australian father in law sometimes remarks when he visits here.

Sounds like we have work to do then!

Comparing ourselves to the standards in Cleveland, Buffalo and Detroit (really?) is not the way to go.

 

[AlbertHWagstaff]

Sounds like we have work to do then!

Comparing ourselves to the standards in Cleveland, Buffalo and Detroit (really?) is not the way to go.

Of US cities, I think Chicago and San Francisco are pretty suitable comparatives. In SF, there's been considerable redevelopment of run-down properties on downtown area streets, a lot of high-rise condo development, and of course waterfront renewal in various areas. The same issues of improving the public realm with attractive streetscapes, pavement, lighting, etc. are also being addressed.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Yup - I think SF offers a good case study. I can't help but think how well their Union Square Renovation went - compared to our half-assed YDS one.

AoD

 

[Adjei]

I never said the number of healthcare professionals is the only determining factor in measuring different healthcare systems. It is one of the many factors but it is important and measurable and it is done. Different healthcare systems measured all the time. This is not a new concept which has never being done and there are different ways to measure healthcare. You just listed a few yourself. I know access to healthcare services goes beyond just doctors and nurses but that is one of the most important aspects of it. If you can't see why that's important and why it's measured, I don't know what to say. No one in any of my previous statements did I assert that per capita health professionals is the one way to compare healthcare systems but it is one of the ways and in the link posted above the OECD seems fine to use it.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

This is the way you used it:

The link you posted also shows that Canada ranks 27 out of 34 countries for for number of doctors per 1000, 16 out of 34 for number of nurses, and 30 out of 34 for hospital beds per 1000. But I guess we should pat ourselves on the backs because we did better than the Americans.

No ifs/ands/buts when you used it - it was used utterly without qualification. It's simplistic and pointless - cherry picking stats somewhere on the interwebs to make your point, and throwing the PHAC website out without even bothering to read it in detail and understand what it is talking about further illustrates just how weak your analogy is. Really, please, stick with arguing on our poor public realm on its' own merit - you have a far, far better point there.

AoD

 

[niwell]

Yup - I think SF offers a good case study. I can't help but think how well their Union Square Renovation went - compared to our half-assed YDS one.

AoD

First time posting on UT despite being a member for years (post a lot on skyscraperpage if people follow) but had to weigh in on this topic.

I agree, San Francisco offers a good case study for many reasons. Things like Union Square are excellent and provide examples of what Toronto could be doing. On the other hand SF is also an extremely shabby city in areas - moreso than Toronto I would actually say. They treat many of their areas neighbourhoods outside of downtown just as poorly.

For instance the intersection of Haight and Ashbury - a tourist destination by any account: https://goo.gl/maps/eJ9iq

Wooden hydro poles, cracked sidewalks, multiple utility cuts, ugly street lighting and a lot of garbage. Literally the only thing I like better than Toronto is the traffic lights (I wish we had those on our streets!).


More random examples - Mission District: https://goo.gl/maps/lL671

Inner Sunset: https://goo.gl/maps/C07Yt

Castro: https://goo.gl/maps/OMXQc

Lower Haight: https://goo.gl/maps/lwzpV


Of course there are many areas that look better than these - but we tend to forget that not every street in Toronto has hydro poles and overhead wires that aren't for streetcars. Save Kensington Market the primary area tourists don't. Unless they are urbanites most people don't really past Spadina on Queen (where the wooden poles begin). Similarly, the shabbiness of SF didn't detract from the city at all for me. I honestly can't imagine having pristine sidewalks would have made a lasting impression as it was the vibrant neighbourhoods that I noticed. I can imagine a resident wanting better of course (sound familiar?). Similarly when I have friends from elsewhere visit Toronto not a single one has noticed public space issues unless I point it out. This doesn't mean we shouldn't ask for better but it's not the hyperbolic international disgrace many make it out to be.

FWIW there are also many commercial streets in Melbourne and (especially) Sydney outside the CBD that look very similar to Toronto. Wooden poles and all. Not tourist areas, of course.