[allengeorge]

Part of the reason the public realm is so poor in Toronto is because the public doesn’t want to spend on it. IIRC, a recent survey had 22 (EDIT: 34)% of residents saying they would rather have lower taxes at a cost of reduced services, while 44% say the tax levels are fine where they are. With that kind of constituency there doesn’t seem to be a movement to spend money to improve how the city looks. Note that this is only part of the problem: we have city departments that take little care in their work/designs and who also aren’t effective in how they use money.

 

[DSC]

Part of the reason the public realm is so poor in Toronto is because the public doesn’t want to spend on it. IIRC, a recent survey had 22% of residents saying they would rather have lower taxes at a cost of reduced services, while 44% say the tax levels are fine where they are. With that kind of constituency there doesn’t seem to be a movement to spend money to improve how the city looks. Note that this is only part of the problem: we have city departments that take little care in their work/designs and who also aren’t effective in how they use money.

Do you have a link to the survey you quote?

 

[Northern Light]

Part of the reason the public realm is so poor in Toronto is because the public doesn’t want to spend on it. IIRC, a recent survey had 22% of residents saying they would rather have lower taxes at a cost of reduced services, while 44% say the tax levels are fine where they are. With that kind of constituency there doesn’t seem to be a movement to spend money to improve how the city looks. Note that this is only part of the problem: we have city departments that take little care in their work/designs and who also aren’t effective in how they use money.

I'm not sure I buy that.

I'd be interested to see how many surveys in Paris, France or Vienna, Austria were taken of constituents asking if they'd like to pay more taxes for better services and what the results were.
My suspicion, is that among those who would answer, people will more often say the current amount is either about right or too much.
I think that's probably true in places where government generally has high trust and is seen to use tax money wisely, never mind where it does not.

I also think that that is, in part, a product of people believing without a specific goal stated that the money will just disappear in pay raises for staff, or pols, or on the consultant enrichment industry, or on renaming something...
Note the same survey showed a majority of Torontonians oppose re-naming Dundas; and when you ask that question are thinking.....well there's $600,000 for a worthy cause before you reach into my pocket.....

But I think aside from the ability of politicians to do things that may not be popular, if they see fit; and which may become popular after they're done (public realm, elaborate new park etc etc.)......

I think its also probably very do-able to bring a majority on side for something specific and tangible. See how Los Angeles voters (notoriously anti-tax) voted for a surcharge on sales taxes in a referendum, so long
as the money went to Transit Expansion (there was a specific list of projects as well).

Don't ask, would you like to pay more money for some amorphous, undetermined improvement in service.

Ask would you like to pay more if it buys you 3 new subway lines; or provides for city-wide Bikeshare, or even beautifies........but bring renders, and make sure every area of the City gets something!

 

[Northern Light]

Do you have a link to the survey you quote?

I remember reading about it too; but in my 2m google for it..........no luck........have to get some work done, may come back to it!

 

[allengeorge]

Do you have a link to the survey you quote?

Mayor John Tory’s decision: Will he stay or will he go now?

With all eyes on the incumbent, five Toronto city councillors considered potential mayoral candidates are keeping mum about plans for the next civic election. Polling offers some insight into their chances.

www.thestar.com

Apparently I got some of the numbers wrong. It's 34% of people who would rather have lower taxes at the expense of lower services.

Just over half approved of the job the city is doing ensuring reliable transit and expanding transit; more respondents said they consider city streets dangerous for cyclists than consider them safe; more than half didn’t support the planned renaming of Dundas Street; and just over half supported the city’s decision to clear homeless encampments from parks.

Asked about property tax levels, 44 per cent said they want them to stay the same; 34 per cent wanted lower taxes even if it meant less services; and 22 per cent wanted higher property taxes to get better city services.

 

[allengeorge]

I think its also probably very do-able to bring a majority on side for something specific and tangible. See how Los Angeles voters (notoriously anti-tax) voted for a surcharge on sales taxes in a referendum, so long
as the money went to Transit Expansion (there was a specific list of projects as well).

Don't ask, would you like to pay more money for some amorphous, undetermined improvement in service.

Ask would you like to pay more if it buys you 3 new subway lines; or provides for city-wide Bikeshare, or even beautifies........but bring renders, and make sure every area of the City gets something!

I think that's very fair. IIRC (and I don't have the results off-hand) people were generally supportive of the City-Building Fund because it was specifically positioned as expanding transit and affordable housing.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Even businesses are OK with losing on-street parking. So why would Toronto undo curbside patios?​

75% of businesses surveyed indicate they’re in favour of losing parking spaces for CafeTO.

The “pro-parking lobby” has historically been one of the biggest impediments to public realm improvements. After the relatively uncontroversial implementation of the King Street transit mall, and the widespread popularity of CafeTO, I’d like to think that we’ve finally gotten over our civic obsession with parking. A straightforward approval of CafeTO would bode well for all our future urbanist ambitions.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Part of the reason the public realm is so poor in Toronto is because the public doesn’t want to spend on it. IIRC, a recent survey had 22 (EDIT: 34)% of residents saying they would rather have lower taxes at a cost of reduced services, while 44% say the tax levels are fine where they are. With that kind of constituency there doesn’t seem to be a movement to spend money to improve how the city looks. Note that this is only part of the problem: we have city departments that take little care in their work/designs and who also aren’t effective in how they use money.

I’m curious about how much of this poor public realm is just due to shoddy work (which you alluded to), rather than to budgetary constraints. We can allocate all the money in the world to maintenance, and still produce shoddy work if the City’s institutional culture does not support excellence. Throwing more money at the problem won’t necessarily fix it (not that I’m arguing against more funding).

I’m disappointed that the TOCore report (from the first post in this thread) didn’t specifically address maintainability. I think we’re at a point now where shoddy maintenance is going to be a bigger impediment to public realm excellence than poor initial designs.

Montreal is actually a good example of what I’m talking about. Montreals road maintenance is often very poor (a lot poorer than in Toronto’s), and I’m not given the impression that they’re expending a huge amount of money to beautify the city. However their main tourist thoroughfares are nicer than any streets in Toronto, and I’ve noticed that they’ve put quite a bit of effort into the maintenance of certain civic features, such as their bioswales around the city. That suggests to me that Montreal has just made an effort to pay particular attention to the maintenance of these details, even if they might not have an extraordinary maintenance budget.

 

[DSC]

I’m curious about how much of this poor public realm is just due to shoddy work (which you alluded to), rather than to budgetary constraints. We can allocate all the money in the world to maintenance, and still produce shoddy work if the City’s institutional culture does not support excellence. Throwing more money at the problem won’t necessarily fix it (not that I’m arguing against more funding).

I’m disappointed that the TOCore report (from the first post in this thread) didn’t specifically address maintainability. I think we’re at a point now where shoddy maintenance is going to be a bigger impediment to public realm excellence than poor initial designs.

Montreal is actually a good example of what I’m talking about. Montreals road maintenance is often very poor (a lot poorer than in Toronto’s), and I’m not given the impression that they’re expending a huge amount of money to beautify the city. However their main tourist thoroughfares are nicer than any streets in Toronto, and I’ve noticed that they’ve put quite a bit of effort into the maintenance of certain civic features, such as their bioswales around the city. That suggests to me that Montreal has just made an effort to pay particular attention to the maintenance of these details, even if they might not have an extraordinary maintenance budget.

Yes, Montreal maintains SOME parts of the City MUCH better than others. Really quite like Toronto.

 

[junctionist]

I find that the average neighbourhood street in Montreal is maintained similarly to an average Toronto neighbourhood street. But the civic spaces that matter like historic districts and landmarks, "crown jewel" parks and squares, tourist sites, the entertainment district, important neighbourhood parks, and subway stations are generally better designed and maintained in Montreal versus Toronto.

The differences are remarkable. More electrical infrastructure appears to have been buried. The downtown freeway was buried. It's not just one or two touristy areas that are better but the downtown overall.

More thought and money has also seemingly been invested in pedestrian safety like pedestrian-priority traffic signals, bike lanes and paths, and attractive street lights/traffic lights/street furniture in Montreal. Toronto often feels like it's managed like a small town, where the only thing you can achieve in the civic realm is cost savings.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I find that the average neighbourhood street in Montreal is maintained similarly to an average Toronto neighbourhood street. But the civic spaces that matter like historic districts and landmarks, "crown jewel" parks and squares, tourist sites, the entertainment district, important neighbourhood parks, and subway stations are generally better designed and maintained in Montreal versus Toronto.

The differences are remarkable. More electrical infrastructure appears to have been buried. The downtown freeway was buried. It's not just one or two touristy areas that are better but the downtown overall.

More thought and money has also seemingly been invested in pedestrian safety like pedestrian-priority traffic signals, bike lanes and paths, and attractive street lights/traffic lights/street furniture in Montreal. Toronto often feels like it's managed like a small town, where the only thing you can achieve in the civic realm is cost savings.

It’s a penny wise, dollar foolish mentality. Toronto already draws a large number of tourists, however perhaps they top complaint about the city is that it’s just ugly. It’s hard to quantity, but simply investing in the design upkeep of our major streets would likely pay dividends over the years in terms of tourism.

I look at Queen Street West as symbolic of this wasted potential. This is a street that has been recognized as a great shopping destination by global publications, yet you’d never guess based on its poor visual appearance. The physical layout of Queen Street West is fine, we just need to invest in the design and upkeep. Higher quality materials, burying the hydro wires, you know, the basics. That’s all we need to make Queen St W a destination rather than just a street.

Queen Street West (all 5.5 kms of it) is an incredible asset that damn near any city on this continent would kill to have, and we’re just squandering it’s potential. Maintained to the quality of, say, St Catherine’s Street in Montreal, and Queen Street would without question see global recognition as a truly great shopping destination.

This could also digress into a discussion about how we really oughta be maintaining Trinity Bellwoods and other prominent parks to a higher standard, but I digress.

 

[allengeorge]

It’s a penny wise, dollar foolish mentality. Toronto already draws a large number of tourists, however perhaps they top complaint about the city is that it’s just ugly.

This was the overall sentiment from my partner when she first spent time in Toronto. The word "ugly" came up a lot.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

‘This is going to change the look and feel of the city’: Mayor John Tory on Toronto’s Year of Public Art and his plan to keep artists from decamping​

As part of this vision, in late September Tory launched ArtworxTO: Toronto’s Year of Public Art. The initiative, which runs into fall 2022, will feature more than 350 new works and provide funding to just under 100 organizations throughout the GTA. Moreover, ArtworxTO kicks off a 10-year public art strategy that commits to bringing “creativity and community, everywhere.”