Maybe Guangzhou's the more pertinent comparison point than Dubai, in this case.

And the interesting myopia here is: perhaps in kkgg7's eyes, we UT-posting Westerners would--or should--be appalled and disgusted by any old, tired, worn-out c19/20 crud in Shanghai that's yet to be plowed down on behalf of "progress". Yet, go figure--we wouldn't necessarily be. In fact, we might as well be prone to embracing it against the grain of "progress"--that is, turning the impress-the-West motivation behind such "progress' upside its head.

I don't know, there's something about that retro-modernist school of urban thought that seems cartoonishly male-supremacist--a buncha guys, no girls, huffing and puffing about big buildings and progress like they're taking a poo (or taking it up the poo-hole) or something. And the forces of preservation and urban-retention are like, uh, "radical feminism" or something: sugar-and-spice girls with cooties threatening their inner sanctum...
 
adma, you hit on an important truth. The loss of character that has been evident in China's cities (excluding the pop-up Shenzhen) is absolutely lamented by the majority of people I know who go there, but much less by those who were originally from there. The sheer number of towers is impressive, and some are quite nice, but give them a few years and they will not be so shiny and sparkly anymore - the city's older character will be gone, and all there will be are aging relics from a build-at-all-costs era of cheap labour and property expropriation. Of course my Chinese friends simply see this as getting rid of the slums and progress, while some nice buildings in Shanghai have been spared from development. And they aren't all wrong. But when this moment of extreme growth has passed, the regret that many already feel at the loss of the past will show itself - and even in terms of tourism and world historical interest, will there be a London or Paris? Im not so sure: crumbling towers and dirty glass - yes. Perhaps that will be the future: not preservation, but the continual updating of tall buildings whose lifespan is drastically lower than the great buildings of the past. And of course the same applies to Toronto or any other city that chooses not to heed the more sensitive - perhaps 'radical feminine' - call of preservation and attention to texture, but instead beat the masculine drum of demolition and blank canvas construction.
 
Last edited:
That's somewhat unfair. If we look at this building cycle as a whole we've actually had a tremendous amount of city building take place. We've seen major work done for our transit infrastructure at Pearson and Union. We've had massive investment in our cultural facilities at the ROM, the AGO, the Aga Khan, the Gardiner Museum, the COC, and even the Sony Centre. The waterfront is actually becoming kind of a nice place to go.

Sure, we've had some misses, too. But I don't know if I can buy the argument that Toronto c. 2011 is a worse off place than Toronto c. 2001 as a result of all of the rampant development.
 
But that isn't the argument. The argument is that the past and heritage are ignored for the creation of a glorious future. I agree that progress has been made in some areas, and I welcome more - especially where there is simply fallow land or inadequate infrastructure.
 
agoraflaneur:

But of course, they might very well not be at the stage where the loss is enough to trigger a general, sustained cry for historic preservation. Such is certainly the case for Hong Kong - where the scales only tipped relatively recently.

AoD
 
whatever said:
But I don't know if I can buy the argument that Toronto c. 2011 is a worse off place than Toronto c. 2001 as a result of all of the rampant development.
Click to expand...
Off course, its gone from good to bad for some people with small town mentality, but to most city dwellers not much has changed.
 
agoraflaneur said:
adma, you hit on an important truth. The loss of character that has been evident in China's cities (excluding the pop-up Shenzhen) is absolutely lamented by the majority of people I know who go there, but much less by those who were originally from there.
Click to expand...

And another think to keep in mind re those "who were originally from there": try to dissect *why* they're no longer there. It's sort of like judging Toronto through the prism of an ex-Torontonian who now lives in Calgary, or something.

By that barometer, I'd expect there's more lament among those who are and opt to still be there (that is, if their voices aren't censored)
 
whatever said:
That's somewhat unfair. If we look at this building cycle as a whole we've actually had a tremendous amount of city building take place. We've seen major work done for our transit infrastructure at Pearson and Union. We've had massive investment in our cultural facilities at the ROM, the AGO, the Aga Khan, the Gardiner Museum, the COC, and even the Sony Centre. The waterfront is actually becoming kind of a nice place to go.

Sure, we've had some misses, too. But I don't know if I can buy the argument that Toronto c. 2011 is a worse off place than Toronto c. 2001 as a result of all of the rampant development.
Click to expand...

Honestly, if they want to keep Downtown Toronto (esp this area - downtown Yonge) a pleasurable place to live AND visit, something drastic needs to be done with the Yonge subway line; Either a DRL (Downtown Relief Line) or, as I read in the National Post today, added tracks for an Express Subway (Union-CP-Bloor-and so on).
As-is, Yonge Line on any given rush is unbearable - whether you have to wait 2-3 trains to finally get on one, or once you do you're a sardine, it's terribly annoying and could drive fence-sitters back to their vehicles, which would just increase congestion on the roads.

So is Toronto 2011 Better than Toronto 2001? I dunno, I wasn't taken the Yonge Subway Line back then. What I DO know is that if something isn't done NOW (ya ya, new trains w/ +8% capacity), it's going to get worse!
 
In Toronto 1985 you'd have to wait a train or two or three to get on during rush hour northbound. It's not a new problem but it's certainly worse now than a quarter century ago. The new train sets on Yonge will help plus the DRL isn't completely dead, it could still happen.
 
DC83 said:
Honestly, if they want to keep Downtown Toronto (esp this area - downtown Yonge) a pleasurable place to live AND visit, something drastic needs to be done with the Yonge subway line; Either a DRL (Downtown Relief Line) or, as I read in the National Post today, added tracks for an Express Subway (Union-CP-Bloor-and so on).
As-is, Yonge Line on any given rush is unbearable - whether you have to wait 2-3 trains to finally get on one, or once you do you're a sardine, it's terribly annoying and could drive fence-sitters back to their vehicles, which would just increase congestion on the roads.
Click to expand...

Your absolutely right. The transit in this city has become so overcrowded it is barely functional. If we really want to reduce cars downtown, transit needs a major boost – and I don’t see anyone stepping up to the plate for this. Sheppard line, Eglinton line are both very important but we really need new ways to get downtown. Eglinton and Sheppard will only dump more people onto the Yonge line and that’s not sustainable.
 
Big Daddy said:
Your absolutely right. The transit in this city has become so overcrowded it is barely functional. If we really want to reduce cars downtown, transit needs a major boost – and I don’t see anyone stepping up to the plate for this. Sheppard line, Eglinton line are both very important but we really need new ways to get downtown. Eglinton and Sheppard will only dump more people onto the Yonge line and that’s not sustainable.
Click to expand...

Sheppard, mmmmaybe but I'd be happier if it went as far as the Metro Zoo - Eglinton DEFINITELY needed. DRL could happen, probably not until Ford is outta' here IMO.

All these condos downtown aren't all lived in by people who also work downtown anymore, there's reverse rush hour happening now which puts more pressure on the Yonge/University southbound lanes as people arrive home from work & school to their downtown condos from points beyond. It will only increase as projects continue to fly up over the next several years.
 
I think any developer who wants to build along a subway line should be subject to a special tax which goes into fund to fund the expansion of transit and a downtown relief line. Developers always use the fact that the their condo tower is near transit as a selling point - therefore they should help pay for the solution.

I've lived in the downtown core since 1991 and I don't remember the subways being this crowded. Yes - subways were always crowded during rush hour - but even more so now - and also it really doesn't matter what time of day you get on where you were are going - they are usually crowded.

One of the reason's I'm opposed to a lot of the intensification in the downtown core intensification is being accompanied by an increase in services that intensification demands (transit being one of them) - and this is a rececipe for disaster.
 
Developers already pay a premium for land along a subway line, but that premium does not go back to the City - it goes back to the previous owner of the land. Lanterra paid the previous owners here a huge amount for this lot: $38.5 million. The current set-up only allows the City to make money here from the land transfer tax (which Ford originally promised to scrap, but which he hasn't said much about lately), and annual property tax revenue once the project is complete. It's in the City's interest therefore to allow the highest reasonable density on this property.

People who buy here won't necessarily all try to jump on the Yonge line and head south in the morning as dt_t_g has pointed out: many may head the other way too, while a sizeable portion may opt to bike or walk, as they may suddenly being living much closer to where they work.

I agree that we need to find ways to pay for more rapid transit - the DRL is our best option for improving transportation in this burg - but in the meantime while development pressures continue, we need to continue to plan for the greatest densities in places where the greatest amount of transportation infrastructure exists, and where new residents will be close to jobs.

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top