[Forgotten]

Are those rusting and decaying lighting poles along their waterfront? I thought we only see those in third world cities with third world public realms (Toronto).

 

[taal]

I can't emphasize the bolded enough - now that QQ revitalization is coming to an end, you can really see how the sub par architecture of the strip really does a number on the general feel of the street.

AoD

For this very reason I've always wondered if the money for the QQ revitalization should have been spent on part of Yonge or Queen.

 

[freshcutgrass]

I'm glad that Harbourfront draws lots of people but come on, 17 million is a pretty self-aggrandizing claim

I only trotted out attendance numbers for those who thought it was important to their argument. I can't help that it backfired on them.

Where's the harm in wanting better architecture, better design, better accessibility, better events and destinations? This doesn't imply that what's already there isn't great, or at least it shouldn't.

Actually, there were implying what's there isn't already great. And they were making false claims that I corrected. Be an apologetic for it if ya like, but I would be a little more selective about what I hitch my wagon to.

not everybody shares your unmitigated zeal for it:

I wasn't aware pointing out a few hard facts is what constitutes "unmitigated zeal" in your book, but nothing in that opinion piece contradicted anything I said. I'm not sure how much time you invested in cherry-picking some kind of negativity about Harbourfront Centre (or more importantly, why you feel you needed to), but Martin Knelman's opinion hardly counts for much. The comments are telling....

sue.edworthy
Knelman has clearly never attended World Stage.

Davey TG
In my opinion Martin Knelman himself is "tired" and maybe it's time for the Star to reinvent itself and get a more current and relevant arts writer who understands the culturally diverse city we live in. Not sure where he has been hiding but is definitely not at the exciting, culturally diverse waterfront.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

For this very reason I've always wondered if the money for the QQ revitalization should have been spent on part of Yonge or Queen.

Not really, if you are talking about a zero-sum considering the importance of getting it right to the rest of the waterfront. It sets the tone.

AoD

 

[MisterF]

'Impenetrable'? I'd take Lakeshore Drive over an elevated highway, railway tracks, berms, arterials and ramparts of condos! Besides, even in the best of scenarios Toronto will have arterials to contend with too, it's not really the point.

Toronto's Lakeshore Blvd sucks (worse than the Gardiner IMO) but crossing it isn't as bad as this:

...which leads to the aforementioned treeless concrete path.

Not sure what you're trying to say about condos. By ramparts do you mean neighbourhoods? Much of Chicago's waterfront is lined with condos, just like Toronto. Worse, actually. The condos near Toronto's waterfront have created urban streetscapes lined with retail and patios on streets like Lower Yonge and York. They make getting to the waterfront much, much more inviting than a decade or two ago. Back then when you walked to the waterfront you were walking by car parks and vacant lots. Now you're walking along streetscapes like this and this. Hardly architectural masterpieces but a huge improvement over what was there before. They don't block the waterfront, they link the city to the waterfront.

Are those rusting and decaying lighting poles along their waterfront? I thought we only see those in third world cities with third world public realms (Toronto).

The difference is that those aren't made of wood, aren't covered with thousands of rusty staples and flyers, or have wires and transformers hanging from them. Toronto's waterfront may be better than people give it credit for, but the public realm in the average neighbourhood is still worse than in most cities.

 

[salsa]

'Impenetrable'? I'd take Lakeshore Drive over an elevated highway, railway tracks, berms, arterials and ramparts of condos!

You don't get it do you? When I say nearly impenetrable, I'm talking about a huge road with a jeresy barrier in the middle, guardrails on the sides, and a service road right next to said huge road. Outside of downtown there are almost zero signalized intersections along the entire length of it. For pedestrians, places to cross this road are few and far between, and are often at least 800 metres apart or in some areas up to a mile. In fact you don't simply cross the road in the usual way, but rather through a narrow tunnel that typically looks like this:

At a small handful of locations you may instead find a road underpass such as this one, which are only there to access Lakeshore Drive onramps on either side. This one doesn't have sidewalks or bikelanes.

But to be fair, some underpasses do provide a small sliver of sidewalk space on one or both sides...

...or perhaps slightly wider sidewalks like with this lovely example.

Here is one of the very few signalized intersections outside of downtown, but it's only there for motorists to access Lakeshore Drive. There are no crosswalks. Pedestrians cross here by climbing down some stairs into a narrow tunnel. Not very convenient if you're bringing your bike.

Once you cross to the other side at the above location, there is little reason to be there anyway. Here the road is so close to the water that there is nothing there other than the bike trail. There are no trees, sandy beaches, buildings, restaurants, or boardwalks.

At the popular downtown waterfront itself, finally you can cross the road normally. Except intersections are spaced as far apart as any suburban road, and all of them require you to cross 10 lanes of traffic and provide you with only one crosswalk (seen on the right). That's after having to previously cross 7 lanes at Columbus Dr, and another 6 lanes at Michigan Ave just to reach this point.

I'd take Lakeshore Drive over an elevated highway, railway tracks, berms, arterials and ramparts of condos!

If those pictures are any indication, Lakeshore Drive is a bigger barrier to the waterfront than anything you just listed. I'm no fan of the Gardiner, but at least you can cross it at many closely spaced north-south roads. The highway is also not rammed right up to the lake, otherwise our waterfront would be just as desolate as that bike trail above. I'm also not sure what berms you are talking about or why "arterials" is plural when it's only Lakeshore Blvd that's an issue, unless Queens Quay counts as an arterial road too. As for condos, I guess you're one of those people who are unhappy that you lost your view from the Gardiner, but interestingly you have no problem with all the condo's lining Chicago's waterfront.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Not sure what you're trying to say about condos. By ramparts do you mean neighbourhoods? Much of Chicago's waterfront is lined with condos, just like Toronto. Worse, actually. The condos near Toronto's waterfront have created urban streetscapes lined with retail and patios on streets like Lower Yonge and York. They make getting to the waterfront much, much more inviting than a decade or two ago. Back then when you walked to the waterfront you were walking by car parks and vacant lots. Now you're walking along streetscapes like this and this. Hardly architectural masterpieces but a huge improvement over what was there before. They don't block the waterfront, they link the city to the waterfront.

It's important to note that the "this" and "this" you have cited are well on its' way to become completely filled in with development, which will turn out more like this instead.

AoD

 

[Torontovibe]

Well yea...actually it is a 7 days a week, 12 months of the year attraction. And it outdraws the aquarium any day of the year by a wide margin.

Nobody is taking your comments out of context...they a just blatantly incorrect.

I disagree but I'll leave it at that.


As for Chicago, I found Lakeshore drive to be a much bigger problem than the Gardiner is and I like the condos along Queen's Quay because they block out the view of the highway and provide retail/restaurants, helping to animate the street. (as well as block out the noise from the Gardiner) I like the fact that Toronto's waterfront is partly a residential community and used year round. I just want more things to do on the east side. I don't want to see any bedroom communities anywhere in the core. I think mixed use, with high density and great animation is the way to go for the whole central core.

 

[jaybe]

If those pictures are any indication, Lakeshore Drive is a bigger barrier to the waterfront than anything you just listed. I'm no fan of the Gardiner, but at least you can cross it at many closely spaced north-south roads. The highway is also not rammed right up to the lake, otherwise our waterfront would be just as desolate as that bike trail above. I'm also not sure what berms you are talking about or why "arterials" is plural when it's only Lakeshore Blvd that's an issue, unless Queens Quay counts as an arterial road too. As for condos, I guess you're one of those people who are unhappy that you lost your view from the Gardiner, but interestingly you have no problem with all the condo's lining Chicago's waterfront.

Thanks for the post Salsa. Great pics and comparison between our waterfront and Chicago. We are building a different connection to our waterfront when compared with Chicago. Our waterfront will be much more urban than Chicago. It will be busier, year round. It will not be a beach because that is not a good option for an inner harbor. It is the right use of the space. Granted, the architecture could be more exciting. That said, who knows what will happen at 1 Yonge, the redeveloped LCBO properties, the east Bayfront and lower Don lands. There is still plenty of opportunity to add impressive architecture.

If all else fails, there is still the option to add a huge Ferris wheel!

 

[Torontovibe]

While not the water's edge itself, referring to the map of Chicago waterfront posted by Tewder, I noted last week that Toronto FC, Toronto Rock, and the Jays were all playing home games last weekend. This is the central waterfront and those are all amenities. Maybe we could turn this thread around from "why is Toronto's central waterfront so poor and devoid of things to do, to what central waterfront in the world has more different things to see and do ?

OK, now I'm confused. So is Southcore now part of the central waterfront? I thought the central waterfront was south of the Gardiner Expressway from Parliament to Bathurst? We need some definate boarders on our neighbourhoods. This is just too confusing.

Sorry but I don't think of the CNE, CN Tower, Air Canada Centre, St. Lawrence Market or The Distillery, as being on the central waterfront. It certainly doesn't feel like a waterfront location. The Gardiner forms a proper boarder for the waterfront, in my opinion.

 

[freshcutgrass]

I wonder, if I rode my bike along Queen's Quay to get a bit of exercise, would that be counted as part of the 17 million?

No...QQBlvd is not part of Harbourfront Centre

How about if I just popped into Rabba Foods on Queen's Quay?

No...Rabba Foods is not located in Harbourfront Centre

Where did you get the figure 17 million?

From the official Harbourfront Centre site...

Is that paid attendance for events?

No...one of the highlights of Harbourfront Centre, is that over 70% of the programming is free. And no, it isn't difficult to assess attendance without ticket stubs.

I'm just curious because we live in a world where figures can be misleading.

And if you have any evidence to suggest this is the case....I'm all ears.

And actually, they elaborate a little on those numbers, which reveals the reason they draw such huge numbers...repeat visits.

We are visited 17 million times by over 2.5 million individuals each year

Does the average aquarium visiter go 6.8 times per year? Obviously not. But that's the beauty of being a venue that puts on over 4000 events all year round that caters to everyone, most of which is free, or very reasonably priced. They've been putting on a hell of a show for 40 years (I've been going regularly for over 30 years) and it's one of the great cultural institutions of this city. They deserve some respect

 

[Irishmonk]

I think it matters how we define "attendance". For example, if I use the sidewalk going past the Aquarium am I attending the aquarium? Obviously not. But if I walk along one of the wavedecks going from, say, a condo to downtown, does that count as attendance to Harbourfront? Technically, I guess it does. I think there are different types of attendance that need to be considered when discussing the popularity of an attraction. Yorkdale Mall gets more visitors than The Louvre but it's not a superior or more successful attraction.

 

[freshcutgrass]

I think it matters how we define "attendance". For example, if I use the sidewalk going past the Aquarium am I attending the aquarium? Obviously not. But if I walk along one of the wavedecks going from, say, a condo to downtown, does that count as attendance to Harbourfront? Technically, I guess it does.

{{I think I may stick this fork in my eye}} NO, obviously just using the sidewalk that borders Harbourfront Centre does not constitute "attending" an event at Harbourfront Centre. Obviously they can't do an exact count for everything, but they can approximate based on the number of events (over 4000) and knowing which venue and estimated attendance at each event.

I have no idea why some of you are grasping at straws here....it's pretty obvious that Harbourfront Centre puts on an enormous amount of events and programs that's pretty much unmatched by any other cultural venue, so it's really not the least bit surprising that they come out on top with attendance numbers.

I think there are different types of attendance that need to be considered when discussing the popularity of an attraction. Yorkdale Mall gets more visitors than The Louvre but it's not a superior or more successful attraction.

Is Harbourfront Centre supposed to be Yorkdale mall or The Louvre in this scenario?

 

[Tewder]

You don't get it do you?

Actually I get it now completely... in rereading your post it occurs to me that your definition of 'waterfront' is confined by your Toronto experience of one, which is to say a narrow sliver of boardwalk wedged between water and highways/rails/condos (+ Harbourfront). What you don't get is that Chicago's waterfront is conceived of differently, it embraces a far greater and grander 'open' space from Michigan Avenue all the way to the water, in its central area at least. In other words, your notion that the Chicago waterfront starts at the exits of those cherry-picked pedestrian walkways you posted misses the whole point of how their central waterfront has been designed.

Freshcutgrass falls into the same trap by pointing to Harbourfront (as successful as it is, by anybody's measure) and then blindly insisting on the non sequitur that since there is allegedly no single venue along Chicago's waterfront that is as successful as Harbourfont it follows that Toronto's waterfront is objectively/quantifiably more successful than Chicago's as a whole. Again, he erroneously circumscribes Chicago's waterfront to a narrow water's edge analogue of Toronto's. Perhaps he's jabbed so many utensils in his eye he no longer sees these things clearly?


By the way, plenty of pedestrian flow from Michigan Avenue to the water's edge:

I don't see a Shoeless Joe's but for those who feel that condos abutting the lake is the only way to add restaurants, commerce and other urban elements, wrong:

Yes, cars flow but so do people. The connections to the water are still there:

... but why not step back from the water's edge in Toronto to consider a Chicago analogue perspective:

As for condos, I guess you're one of those people who are unhappy that you lost your view from the Gardiner, but interestingly you have no problem with all the condo's lining Chicago's waterfront.

To clarify, we are talking about the central waterfront right? I am excited for the neighbourhoods emerging along other parts of Toronto's shoreline, and for many reasons!

Again, I know everybody here is really defensive but let's not lose sight of the real point in all of this backing and forthing over Chicago: Nobody wants us to copy Chicago's approach in any literal way, and it isn't even possible or probable. Most of us love and admire the Chicago waterfront for what it is, in an unbiased way. Toronto's will be different but it can be amazing in its own way. Many great elements are already shaping up. Looking beyond the construction zones, the barriers to the city, the mediocre standards of upkeep and maintenance we can see the potential... and the fact that it is being embraced by the people to the extent it is is incredibly exciting. That said, the central stretch lacks any 'wow'. This is the missing piece of the vision, making the central part the symbolic centre of the whole. Plenty of ways this could be achieved though, and the choice for the new ferry terminal was a major lost opportunity in this regard. Hopefully we will take advantage of other opportunities down the road.

 

[Skeezix]

Could we maybe start a separate thread for people who want to argue about the Chicago waterfront, and get back to the open spaces in East Bayfront here in this thread?