Transportfan said:
Compare Woodward Ave. in Detroit for example.
Click to expand...

Detroit is (more like was) a city built for the car. It didn't work out too well for them either. Pedestrians should always be at the top of the transportation pecking order. Public transit comes second and the car should be a distant third. Cities should be built according to the needs of pedestrians, and as a "tansportfan", I should hope you agree.
 
someMidTowner said:
Cities should be built according to the needs of pedestrians, and as a "tansportfan", I should hope you agree.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty arrogant comment. What's wrong with someone liking traditional street design and transportation? The problem with so many on this forum is that it's so ideological tilted to the left. Damn the traditionilists!
 
Transportfan said:
The problem with so many on this forum is that it's so ideological tilted to the left. Damn the traditionilists!
Click to expand...

You would make a top notch Calgarian
 
its true. After thinking about it, Calgary has a more progressive mayor than us. I guess i should rebuff my statement from calgarian to american
 
Guys, really? LOL.

Transportfan,
You'll probably not find too many on here that are in favour of wide(r) streets, likely the opposite. Especially since most cars are filled with one, maybe two, people. On a street like Yonge St, there's certainly more pedestrian traffic than vehicular traffic. Besides, plenty of studies show that widening roads doesn't reduce traffic, it just invites more cars from other routes.

I'd personally like to see parts of Yonge St. shut right down and handed over to pedestrians - at least in the summer. Given this is "Urban Toronto", I imagine most urban enthusiasts would agree that wide roads don't lead to urbanity; usually the opposite.

I would most certainly agree that pedestrians should be the first consideration, followed by public transportation. I wouldn't put private vehicle traffic a "distant 3rd" like others may, BUT, in the urbanized downtown core, I would argue that along some streets (Queen, College, King, possibly Dundas) that bicycle use should be given its share of the road considering the number of cyclists throughout the summer.
 
They really should be turning Yonge Street into a 3 lane Woofnerf - it provides the opportunity for widening the the pedestrian realm without shutting out cars and other vehicles would.

transportfan:

But the main street of a big city with four lanes does look better.
Click to expand...
What's wrong with someone liking traditional street design and transportation?
Click to expand...

How does the number of lanes on a street makes it "look" better (much less traditional)? There is nothing inheritly attractive about asphalt or the number of lanes on it, and in terms of urban design, the aesthetics value generally relates to the relationship between streets width and the height of the buildings (or at least cornice) beside it (1:1 ratio is often quoted, though it isn't a hard and fast rule and highly dependent on context). Yonge really isn't a ceremonial road in any case - that's University Avenue.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Aura (and the Ryerson SLC), by myself:

IMG-20120712-00186.jpg
 
Every time I see this building from the north, I actually wish that the horizontal silver bands they are using every 6 floors or so (on the tower portion) were more emphasized and stuck out from the building a little bit. I think it would add more texture to an otherwise unadorned flat surface of window wall.

The podium is looking great up-close; I'm actually quite satisfied with it its podium at this point.
 
Its amazing how messy the cladding looked with only a few floors clad, yet now that there is a sizable amount of glass it is really impressive
 
It's certainly better than when there were only a few pieces up, but I must ask what about it looks "impressive" to you.
 
Well it's certainly not an architectural masterpiece in the making. Im sure Wright and Van der Rohe would spit at it if they were alive today. I personally like the glass, the arena-like way it meets the street, and most of all the way it reflects both our ambitions and our shortcomings as a city. As a building it has a lot of flaws, but i will take an above mediocre 78s tower instead of a parking lot any day....so im biased
 
So in fairness, it's not so much that you think the glass itself is actually impressive, but rather you subjectively like it/ appreciate it for what it is. Not that there's anything wrong with that :)
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top