The Ugly Canada Thread

[Ashok]

I think we can add Laval as an entire city into this thread.

[leftimage]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Dear Lord! I've been to Montreal and the south shore many times but never set foot on the notorious Laval side. I can't believe those are new buildings! Why?!?

It's just that Laval is inherently ugly, having been planned almost entirely during the 30 year reign of a gangster-mayor (literally, a mayor facing gangsterism charges). So in order for new buildings to integrate harmoniously with existing structures - it is required that they be extremely unattractive.

I mean, look at this wasteland known as Laval's ''downtown core'' :



Because their city hall is so nondescript, a sign is required in order for folks to recognize it. Here is the sign :



The worst part... around 400,000 people live there.

[MTLskyline]

A few more from Laval...

Originally Posted by Eustache

Voici d'autres projets de Laval, certains sont moins pire que d'autres.

Square Jean Béraud



Édifice de bureaux au Centropolis, 6 étages



Cité Cosmo:





Viva







Résidences du boisé?? Phase 4

[Acajack]

And yet... many single family residential areas in Laval (from an aesthetic standpoint, not on sustanibility) are no bad and are certainly no worse than elsewhere in the country. Sometimes better.

[MTLskyline]

Originally Posted by Acajack

And yet... many single family residential areas in Laval (from an aesthetic standpoint, not on sustanibility) are no bad and are certainly no worse than elsewhere in the country. Sometimes better.

I agree, the ones built in the 1980s and earlier are not bad (even some of the newer ones are not horrible). Although I kind of wish there were fewer McMansions there (like the ones with the stone towers in the front and are completely plain in the back), which are tasteless in a nouveau-riche sense to the extreme.

This article is good for a laugh: http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/why-laval-sucks

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MTLskyline

I agree, the ones built in the 1980s and earlier are not bad (even some of the newer ones are not horrible). Although I kind of wish there were fewer McMansions there (like the ones with the stone towers in the front and are completely plain in the back), which are tasteless in a nouveau-riche sense to the extreme.

This article is good for a laugh: http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/why-laval-sucks

I hear ya. I live in Gatineau and in many ways it is basically a mini-Laval: a surprisingly decent chunk of attractive detached residential areas (though largely unsustainable from a diversified transportation perspective), but with a near-total lack of attractive urban commercial corridors.

[niwell]

Legitimate question -

There was discussion on a thread a week or so ago comparing Laval to Mississauga. Basically they are both large municipalities formed through the merger of smaller towns and have decided to start a new "downtown" around a mall. Mississauga has had a head start on the densification of the downtown (with mixed results), but they share quite a few similarities on the surface.

However, does Laval really have any intact older town centres? Mississauga has Port Credit and Streestville, as well as a few smaller old remnants at intersections. These areas add a lot to what otherwise would be banal suburbia.

I looked on google maps and found this: http://goo.gl/maps/Wc4MZ Which looks quite nice, albeit small. But that's all I can really come up with.

[Acajack]

Went by this new area in Gatineau the other day.

Whaddayasay people?

http://goo.gl/maps/rwYZH

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by niwell

Legitimate question -

There was discussion on a thread a week or so ago comparing Laval to Mississauga. Basically they are both large municipalities formed through the merger of smaller towns and have decided to start a new "downtown" around a mall. Mississauga has had a head start on the densification of the downtown (with mixed results), but they share quite a few similarities on the surface.

However, does Laval really have any intact older town centres? Mississauga has Port Credit and Streestville, as well as a few smaller old remnants at intersections. These areas add a lot to what otherwise would be banal suburbia.

I looked on google maps and found this: http://goo.gl/maps/Wc4MZ Which looks quite nice, albeit small. But that's all I can really come up with.

I don't have time to search right now and I can't remember exactly where, but on the extreme southern shore of Laval near where the bridges to Montreal area, there are few parts of Laval where the style of build form that everyone recognizes as Montréalais spills over into Laval, and it really looks pretty much like Montreal. These are older areas of Laval and you can see it was simply Montreal spilling across the river.

[O-tacular]

Wow Laval really takes the cake for ugly cities in Canada. Compared to it the much maligned Longueuil is an urban paradise!

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Went by this new area in Gatineau the other day.

Whaddayasay people?

http://goo.gl/maps/rwYZH

One is reminded of the saying "if you don't have anything good to say, then don't say anything at all". So ... .

[MTLskyline]

Originally Posted by niwell

Legitimate question -

There was discussion on a thread a week or so ago comparing Laval to Mississauga. Basically they are both large municipalities formed through the merger of smaller towns and have decided to start a new "downtown" around a mall. Mississauga has had a head start on the densification of the downtown (with mixed results), but they share quite a few similarities on the surface.

However, does Laval really have any intact older town centres? Mississauga has Port Credit and Streestville, as well as a few smaller old remnants at intersections. These areas add a lot to what otherwise would be banal suburbia.

I looked on google maps and found this: http://goo.gl/maps/Wc4MZ Which looks quite nice, albeit small. But that's all I can really come up with.

The more southern areas experienced a bit of spillover from north-end Montreal, and have main streets (e.g. rue Cartier in Laval-des-Rapides). The areas in the north were more rural, and have a more quaint small town appearance (like boul. Sainte-Rose in Sainte-Rose). In 1961, the whole island of Laval had 124,741 people in 14 municipalities (and 196,088 only five years later as one city...). The cente parts of the island were also rural, and lacked main streets. It is there that a large number of these newer developments are located.

http://socle.org/data/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=52

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Wow Laval really takes the cake for ugly cities in Canada.

I am not sure that Laval is really the worst. There is a string of resource-based cities almost in an arc across mid-northern Canada that were built with absolutely no concern for aesthetic legacies (like - we'll abandon this place once the stuff in or on the ground runs out) and which have an incredible utilitarian ugliness... and virtually no beauty whatsoever.

Places like Laval, although they might miss the mark, at least try.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by niwell

However, does Laval really have any intact older town centres? Mississauga has Port Credit and Streestville, as well as a few smaller old remnants at intersections.

http://routedupatrimoine.laval.ca/upload...re-complete-hdr-le-vieux-sainte-rose.pdf

I don't think Missisauga has old town cores with several surviving buildings from the mid/late 1700s and early 1800s like Laval has... does it? I'm curious. I've never seen anything like that in Missisauga. (Granted, I haven't attempted to explore it.)

The thing is, most of the heritage buildings in Laval (the old houses) are in the extreme northern part, along the river. Whatever future "real" downtown ends up emerging on the island won't have any heritage bits. Missisauga's older centers are probably closer to being near the areas where Missisaugans live/shop/go.

[Chadillaccc]

Both towns were settled in the early 1800s, so I'm sure there are still some buildings survivng. Here is Streetsville:


http://www.streetsvilleliving.com/2011/07/streetsville-gets-its-own-real-estate-district/


and this building is from the 1850s at least:

http://comedyuncovered.com/venue/the-franklin-house/



and here is Port Credit:


http://www.experiencemississauga.com/port-credit/


http://www.ontario-canada-travel.com/lake-ontario-ports-of-call.html

[niwell]

Originally Posted by lio45

http://routedupatrimoine.laval.ca/upload...re-complete-hdr-le-vieux-sainte-rose.pdf

I don't think Missisauga has old town cores with several surviving buildings from the mid/late 1700s and early 1800s like Laval has... does it? I'm curious. I've never seen anything like that in Missisauga. (Granted, I haven't attempted to explore it.)

The thing is, most of the heritage buildings in Laval (the old houses) are in the extreme northern part, along the river. Whatever future "real" downtown ends up emerging on the island won't have any heritage bits. Missisauga's older centers are probably closer to being near the areas where Missisaugans live/shop/go.

Cool thanks. That's the area I found on google maps - the main street looks quite nice.

Mississauga does not have anything nearly that old, probably mid 1800s at the earliest with the exception of a few buildings. That is normal for Ontario though! The two biggest heritage areas are Port Credit and Streetsville, the former of which is largest by far. Unfortunately many of the true historical buildings in Port Credit have gone, but in terms of vibrancy it is walkable and quite busy. Lots of 1960s/70s apartment buildings which aren't much to look at but make for some high density. Some new condo highrises as well. Having a busy GO station with service to downtown Toronto helps.

http://goo.gl/maps/LVQCn


Streetsville probably has more of it's history, and was never a large place. I don't know nearly as much about it but it looks nice and upscale.

http://goo.gl/maps/Peoe0


Both of these are well within the built areas of Mississauga and relatively easy to get to. The city made a concious decision to centre the downtown around Square One mall. Originally because this was the planning ideal at the time, but currently to preserve the original historic areas from the highrise condo boom.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by niwell

Cool thanks. That's the area I found on google maps - the main street looks quite nice.

Mississauga does not have anything nearly that old, probably mid 1800s at the earliest with the exception of a few buildings. That is normal for Ontario though! The two biggest heritage areas are Port Credit and Streetsville, the former of which is largest by far. Unfortunately many of the true historical buildings in Port Credit have gone, but in terms of vibrancy it is walkable and quite busy. Lots of 1960s/70s apartment buildings which aren't much to look at but make for some high density. Some new condo highrises as well. Having a busy GO station with service to downtown Toronto helps.

http://goo.gl/maps/LVQCn


Streetsville probably has more of it's history, and was never a large place. I don't know nearly as much about it but it looks nice and upscale.

http://goo.gl/maps/Peoe0


Both of these are well within the built areas of Mississauga and relatively easy to get to. The city made a concious decision to centre the downtown around Square One mall. Originally because this was the planning ideal at the time, but currently to preserve the original historic areas from the highrise condo boom.

Not that different from Laval's orientations when you think about it.

I think that few megaburbs here choose to graft their new ''downtowns'' on their older established areas, and prefer to start anew - even though it's probably a bigger challenge but of course we have to pray to the god of parking I suppose. This is where we greatly differ from Europe I'd say.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Not that different from Laval's orientations when you think about it.

I think that few megaburbs here choose to graft their new ''downtowns'' on their older established areas, and prefer to start anew - even though it's probably a bigger challenge but of course we have to pray to the god of parking I suppose. This is where we greatly differ from Europe I'd say.

Yeah it's a very similar situation, which is why I was asking the question originally.

There are pros and cons to both approaches I would think. On one level I am glad that many of the megaburbs went for greenfield "city centres" in the 1970s instead of razing historic areas for the requisite enclosed mall. However we are left with these tiny main street areas which are nice, but more suited for a place of 20k-30k instead of being in the heart of a major urban area.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by niwell

Yeah it's a very similar situation, which is why I was asking the question originally.

There are pros and cons to both approaches I would think. On one level I am glad that many of the megaburbs went for greenfield "city centres" in the 1970s instead of razing historic areas for the requisite enclosed mall. However we are left with these tiny main street areas which are nice, but more suited for a place of 20k-30k instead of being in the heart of a major urban area.

And yet, I am still amazed at how other places like Europe can make this work. Downtown is usually still where it was several hundred years ago, and much of the old architecture has been preserved while integrating new and additional usages.

[Ashok]

Originally Posted by MTLskyline

I agree, the ones built in the 1980s and earlier are not bad (even some of the newer ones are not horrible). Although I kind of wish there were fewer McMansions there (like the ones with the stone towers in the front and are completely plain in the back), which are tasteless in a nouveau-riche sense to the extreme.

This article is good for a laugh: http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/why-laval-sucks

Wow, I can actually see the gold painted rooms and red carpets in those McMansions.