News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.3K     0 

I dunno, I won't pass judgment on the plan (given the details in the article, it could have turned out crap or actually quite nice). The basic idea is right though. All other major cities (NYC, Chicago, Paris, London) had a guiding "grand plan" to ensure certain levels of architectural homogeneity and coherence, to say nothing of style. Toronto really has developed in a rather haphazard way. Sometimes I think it is a good thing, and it has left us with some very worthwhile neighborhoods, but other times you can't help but marvel at the dissonance in this city.

The one blank canvas we really have left are the Portlands, where our progress has left me rather unimpressed. Or take CityPlace. That has got to be the single largest development currently underway in Toronto with tens of thousands of planned residents. How do we serve them? A streetcar! Meanwhile we are extending the subway into government owned fields in an area which our own official plan doesn't target for significant growth. don't even get me started on Transit City, the triumph of the mediocre.

P.S. I like the idea of naming streets in Toronto after WW1 battles or otherwise significant Canadian moments. Why have King street instead of Paschendale?
 
Bloor et al.

I certainly like Toronto's "Neighbourhoods" and would not wish to have lost them to something overly grand, but equally intrusive.

However, a little grandness never hurt.

We do have University Avenue, the idea of which I think is great, the execution of which could use some re-thinking.

I think it would have been great to extend University to the Lake, as was originally contemplated.

However, that opportunity is now lost.

But there are many others.

Start by imaging....

University Avenue reduced by 1 lane each way, with that space being either added to the middle to create a full-on linear park OR adding bike paths on the side of University that would be physically separated from traffic by a tree-lined boulevard.

Re-do the sidewalks to have uniform and improved tree planters/trenches/pits; uniform decorative paving and lighting, and make sure all the trees are automatically irrigated to improve their longevity and health.

Then extend this thought north along Queen's Park, and glorious new flower beds to an improved running track along the outside of the park circle.

North of Bloor, reduce Avenue Road back to 4 lanes, and add bike lanes and widened sidewalks with trees all the way to St. Clair.

All of this is still possible, and affordable, it just requires we not get stuck thinking about what could have been or should have been and focusing more on what should BE and what can BE.

*****

In the same light, consider the Bloor Street Makeover, which I think will look very nice.

The project to narrow Jarvis, which has great potential (but no drawings yet)

And the Union Station precinct + York Street Narrowing.

Both of which could add much to the public realm.
 
City building is not about randomly narrowing roads, it's about placing things along roads that make people want to live, shop, or visit there, and providing necessary transit service to promote walking. You can narrow Jarvis, but it won't change the fact that the street is decrepit. You can narrow Avenue Road, but that's not going to transform it into a vibrant thoroughfare overnight.

Once the sidewalks are already overflowing with people, then narrow the road if its width is excessive. Consider that most avenues in New York are 5-6 lanes wide, and yet they are vastly more vibrant than anything we currently have in Toronto. Wide streets alone don't kill cities so long as the built form is done right.
 
I always thought that the city could have done more on Lakeshore avenue by the Ex. I'm currently working on a vision of that park area in front of the Princes Gates for the Spacing competition.

The thing that makes grand visions like Vimy Circle out of reach today is that its mainly for the automobile. Now if someone could design some insane Streetcar interchange, that could radiate out from a circle, it might be something quite unique. It could be like a giant game of chicken using 4 different streetcars. Whoo hoo!
 
Well, the magic wand of redemption was waved over the corner of Queen's Quay and Jarvis quite recently but no iconic structure appeared. The wand can be waved just about anywhere. I don't think it matters which corner.
 
I suppose some 'grandness' was achieved with University Ave @ Queens Park ... and on a lesser scale with Spadina Ave @ Spadina Cres (just north of College)
 
Bovaird - could there be an uglier name for anything? It sounds like a combination of bovine and laird.

Regarding Cambrai avenue, it might help to realize that even if it had been built, it would have been unlikely to survive in that form through the 1950's and 1960's. I would tend to assume that even if it existed now, we would look at those original plans with the same wonder that we do with it not being built. That is, we would be saying, "that's what Cambrai was supposed to look like?".
 
What's clear is that if that plan actually was implemented, Toronto would be a very different city today. While there is beauty in the "city beautiful" developments, it has a monotonous effect. Not to mention it was the 1920s-30s version of ploughing an expressway through a neighbourhood (a la Spadina). I liked the street names, but other than that I prefer the "random" and diverse streetscapes of Toronto.

The more I think about it the more I am convinced: the best vision for the city would be to tear down the Gardiner. There are so many things wrong with having an expressway running through the city.

P.S. Toronto needs more street trees. That survive. It's amazing what they add to street perception.
 
jswag said:
What's clear is that if that plan actually was implemented, Toronto would be a very different city today. While there is beauty in the "city beautiful" developments, it has a monotonous effect. Not to mention it was the 1920s-30s version of ploughing an expressway through a neighbourhood (a la Spadina). I liked the street names, but other than that I prefer the "random" and diverse streetscapes of Toronto.
Click to expand...

Why does it have to be all or nothing at all? Toronto has plenty of 'random' streetscapes, and messy urbanism for that matter, to go around. A little formality, here and there, would be very effective, imo.
 
Well, imo something like this would look out of place in Toronto today. There is a cohesiveness in the randomness.

That being said, I would love to see more buildings of that style around here.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top