It's your definition of urban that I took issue with. Having people present is actually a very good measure of urbanity...what the hell good is "pedestrian-friendliness" if there's no people? You forget that one critical component of pedestrian-friendliness is the sheer number of people walking around.
There is more to urban than just having people present, a shopping mall in Brampton is not urban just because there are crowds there!
...Nevertheless, I do seem to recall you taking issue with the whole 'pedestrian-friendliness' issue. So please clarify for me then: 'pedestrian-friendly' bad, 'lots of people' good?... Is that it?
I'm acknowledging that Toronto's suburbs and places like Bremner are urbanizing in many different ways (ways that do not converge on one monolithic version of urbanity that is highly ignorant of reality), and you base your opinions on planning buzzwords and the desire for world class neighbourhoods, but I'm the one with preconceived notions. Hilarious!
I'm eager to understand this chimera of yours that places all over are urbanizing in 'different ways'. Please explain. I mean, places are either 'urban' or not, have urban qualities or not, or are becoming urban or not but this has absolutely nothing to do with height of buildings present, eye colour of people there, how much those people earn, whether they are cool or 'hip' or not, or whether they enjoy Tim Horton's or $10 lattes.
...Furthermore, you seem to enjoy espousing the 'suburbs' as being 'urban' but if a particular suburb does in fact have urban qualities then it stands to reason that the place is in fact likely 'urban'. Cool! However, this would also mean that it is no longer really a 'suburb' except in the very strictest sense of the word, which would only be in terms of its geographic proximity to Toronto.
You seem only interested in areas that merit inclusion on guide book maps, so why not use Queen West as an example? You've already said you'd rather see it copied and pasted all over the city than risk building something that may not turn out identical to Manhattan. North York Centre is urban, and it is not less so just because it's not trendy. You disagree, either because it's located in "the suburbs," or because it doesn't resemble a Haussmann boulevard, or because you think it's not "pedestrian-friendly" enough, as if that meant anything other than empty rhetoric.
1. I've repeated here, ad nauseum, that my understanding of 'urban' is not circumscribed by demographics, and is not limited to a literal translation of Queen Street.
2. I've never expressed the desire or opinion that we should imitate or copy Manhattan in the newly developing areas of Toronto, at least not in the literal sense that you imply. In terms of 'urbanity', pure and simple, however, then I'd be all for it!
3. You have demonstrated a clear problem with the term 'pedestrian-friendly', yet your tirade above indicates that your only criterion for urbanity is having people present... There is medication available for such psychosis!
If even one more planning report was applied to the Bremner area, it'd be the wafer thin mint that makes Mr. Creosote explode.
I disagree. This is only 'city building' after all. Still, I'm too tired to argue. Peace