[Silence&Motion]

Lighting up the facades of key buildings would help the atmosphere at night as well.

This has long been a dream of mine (and others as well). Let's start with Oldtown/St Lawrence district. The Flatiron building itself could be much better lit. I've always found that ring of lights around the base of its spire to be a halfhearted effort. St. James Cathedral would be great lit up.

The question always comes down to money, of course. Even if the city had the money, most of the buildings that would benefit from proper lighting are privately owned.

 

[DSC]

This has long been a dream of mine (and others as well). Let's start with Oldtown/St Lawrence district. The Flatiron building itself could be much better lit. I've always found that ring of lights around the base of its spire to be a halfhearted effort. St. James Cathedral would be great lit up.

The question always comes down to money, of course. Even if the city had the money, most of the buildings that would benefit from proper lighting are privately owned.

There IS a (2011) master plan for heritage lighting in St Lawrence and it is (too slowly) happening thanks to Section 37 $$. See: http://www1.toronto.ca/city_of_toronto/city_planning/urban_design/files/pdf/hert_final_report.pdf

 

[pman]

There IS a (2011) master plan for heritage lighting in St Lawrence and it is (too slowly) happening thanks to Section 37 $$. See: http://www1.toronto.ca/city_of_toronto/city_planning/urban_design/files/pdf/hert_final_report.pdf

They could spend some money repairing the hardscape for for ongoing maintenance of the park just west of the Flatiron Building. It's an increasingly shabby disgrace, even by Toronto standards.

 

[CityPainter]

They could spend some money repairing the hardscape for for ongoing maintenance of the park just west of the Flatiron Building. It's an increasingly shabby disgrace, even by Toronto standards.

That's Berczy Park, and it's about to receive a multi-million dollar makeover courtesy of contributions from nearby condo developments like 88 Scott and the Berzy. This will include major landscaping, better integration with surrounding streets including stone/brick paving of Scott St in a style similar to the new Market St, and a new fountain/sculpture. Completion date is estimated to be 2015, so it's starting very soon.

There's a UT thread on it here:
http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showth...eover-(Wellington-Front-Scott-Claude-Cormier)

And there's an information website with many plans and renderings here:
http://www.berczypark.org/

 

[P23]

Just got through reading much of this thread and agree with most that the city could do a much better job making the streets look nicer by reducing the clutter.

I think the way the streets look at night could also be vastly improved. One thing that has always bothered me about the city is how dark it feels at night in comparison to other major cities I have visited. Even friends who are visiting from abroad always ask why major thoroughfares, landmarks, and popular areas don't have adequate lighting. Many areas also have large trees that block out much of the street lights making the sidewalks almost completely dark. I hope the new white street lights going up will brighten things up but I have already heard nimbys complaining about how they miss the sickly orange glow of the old lights.

Lighting up the facades of key buildings would help the atmosphere at night as well.

Another thing that bugs me is that the city tends to go a bit overboard with planting trees along every street. I know trees are good for us, but there are some areas that would do better off with just some open sidewalk. Instead we have streets where trees don't thrive so we end up with rows of dead trees that need to be re-planted every year or two.

More light pollution and less trees? Lol, good luck with that. I do agree our more significant structures should have some tasteful lighting.

 

[JasonParis]

There's really only about 10 buildings in Toronto that need significant lighting (i.e., CN Tower, Old/New City Hall, Flat Iron, St. James, etc). It should be done though. |

The ON Legislature at Queen's Park should be at the top of the list. It's amazing to me that the top of our grandest boulevard sits in darkness.

 

[Tewder]

Some other locations that come to mind for effective lighting:

-St. Lawrence Hall
-One Spadina Crescent
- Osgoode Hall
-St. Lawrence Market

Any noteworthy heritage building that provides a significant view terminus should be lit, for starters.

 

[DSC]

Some other locations that come to mind for effective lighting:

-St. Lawrence Hall
-One Spadina Crescent
- Osgoode Hall
-St. Lawrence Market

Any noteworthy heritage building that provides a significant view terminus should be lit, for starters.

St Lawrence Hall is already beautifully lit.

 

[Silence&Motion]

There's really only about 10 buildings in Toronto that need significant lighting

Think harder. You'll come up with more.

A few of the lower profile buildings in the St Lawrence district are already lit up nicely (e.g. this one on the left). Really, the whole streetscape along Front St East between Jarvis and Yonge could be lit.

Bordeaux does a wonderful job with lighting:

 

[Watts]

There are far more than just 10 buildings in Toronto that should be lit at night. There are literally hundreds. Basically all of Queen West should be lit. Other prominent buildings that should be lit include: Commerce Court North, Victory Building, Northern Ontario Building, Canada Permanent Building, Prudential House, original Bank of Nova Scotia, Royal York, Canada Life Building, Confederation Life Building, basically all of U of T's St. George Campus, Tower Building, Balfour Building, etc...Also, what about buildings such as these:

Carlyle Block

Photo: TOBuilt

Photo: TOBuilt

Noble Block

Photo: TOBuilt

There are countless illumination opportunities, but why only look at the core? What about areas like Riverdale, Leslieville, High Park/Junction, and even in the suburbs. The entire city is full of great architecture from various periods.

As was mentioned above, I too have always found downtown Toronto to be very depressing at night. It's far too dark and some places have an almost ominous atmosphere. I can't figure out what makes this city so unique in that it regards lighting of its buildings as negligible. It's frustrating that this is so overlooked. It would make the city even more vibrant and exciting. Its not just landmark buildings that would benefit from such an endeavour. Look at how great the buildings across from the Goodherham Building look at night. Their lighting makes that part of the city look very classy and important. Refusing to do this for much of our building stock gives the impression that we don't value where we live. Does the photo in the above post not look fantastic? One can't help to feel intrigued, inspired and excited when faced with something as pleasant as that. Aside from the aesthetic value of lighting our buildings, doing so would be good for our psychological health; especially in the gloominess of winter.

 

[TrickyRicky]

I tend to agree we should light more buildings Watts; however, I see the arguments for or against. Asian cities are far too lit at night, exciting and dynamic yes but it amounts in my opinion to a visual pollution that is stressful and detracts from quality of life. The other end of the spectrum is a place like say Helsinki which I found so dark at night that it was kind of unnerving even if the city is otherwise safe. Yet this absence of light could be viewed as progressive if the intention is low stress and environmental concern.

One issue I take with the idea that Toronto is ominous at night is that it is common practice for store fronts here to light their store displays and signs at night and neither bar nor shutter them. Many cities, including those in Europe and elsewhere in North America really are ominous at night because of the common practice of shuttering and baring stores. On the contrary I would say that Toronto is less ominous at night.

 

[junctionist]

Landmarks throughout the city should be lit up at night--heritage buildings, churches and architecturally significant buildings, for instance. Public art should be lit up as well. Montreal does a fairly good job of lighting up its landmarks.

 

[Tewder]

Landmarks throughout the city should be lit up at night--heritage buildings, churches and architecturally significant buildings, for instance. Public art should be lit up as well. Montreal does a fairly good job of lighting up its landmarks.

You raise a good point Junctionist: how is it that a city like Montreal (with arguably far less resources than a city like Toronto) manage to maintain a better public realm? How do many other cities accomplish what seems to be nigh on impossible in hog town, i.e. burying hydro lines, keeping fountains working, maintaining nice road and sidewalk surfaces, etc., etc.?

It's a pretty basic question really and yet why isn't it being asked in our public discourse, even at an election time?

 

[junctionist]

Public realm improvements require additional work and don't make you money. They add value, but they don't make your city economically strong and successful. You don't need that value to be successful, and previous city leaders evidently didn't find it necessary to build grand streets for the city to prosper. Toronto found itself at the top of urban Canada on its economy.

With that said, high-value investments keep a city attractive--to its residents and visitors--so it's worth improving the public realm gradually. When improvements happen, they should be impressive so that it seems worth spending money over the functional status quo of concrete sidewalks and overhead wires.

 

[DSC]

Public realm improvements require additional work and don't make you money. They add value, but they don't make your city economically strong and successful. You don't need that value to be successful, and previous city leaders evidently didn't find it necessary to build grand streets for the city to prosper. Toronto found itself at the top of urban Canada on its economy.

With that said, high-value investments keep a city attractive--to its residents and visitors--so it's worth improving the public realm gradually. When improvements happen, they should be impressive so that it seems worth spending money over the functional status quo of concrete sidewalks and overhead wires.

This is exactly why the St Lawrence Neighbourhood Association, the St Lawrence BIA and many other local groups, Councillor Pam McConnell and City Heritage staff worked to produce the Heritage lighting master plan for Old Town Toronto ( See: http://www1.toronto.ca/city_of_toronto/city_planning/urban_design/files/pdf/hert_final_report.pdf ). The wonderful lighting of St Lawrence Hall was supported by section 37 funds and the lighting of additional public buildings will be dealt with in same way. Section 37 cannot be used to light private buildings but several owners (the block on Front west of Church is an example) have stepped forward and others are being 'encouraged". The City is looking into the legality of using Section 37$ to light or help light St James Cathedral and the Cathedral is also looking for funds.