Great Canadian Skyline Thread II

[WhipperSnapper]

Of note: Toronto is a provincial capital too. It's just a big city; too big for some people and there's nothing wrong with that. As I get older, I'm doing a lot less urban exploration myself. I think I could be happy in Halifax or any small city that can be explored out in time.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

We all have a hometown bias to a degree

I think this is true, but only to a point. I would say that some people have a strong hometown bias but everybody has blind spots. As a thought experiment though, let's think of other issues. It doesn't bother me at all to admit that Toronto has a far superior transit system to Halifax, or that Vancouver has far superior cycling infrastructure. So why am I stuck on insisting that it's about as good or better when it comes to pedestrians?

There's also data that somewhat corroborates my opinion. Victoria is the #1 city for commuting on foot, and the share is 10%. Halifax is tied for #2 at 8.5%. Toronto is at 4.6%, below cities like London ON, Calgary, and Kelowna. In practice, I find that the drawbacks in Toronto are the large streets, blocks, and buildings, as well as barriers like the Gardiner, Don Valley, and rail lines. The old part of the city is also a very small part of the metropolitan area as a consequence of the high rate of growth there. The city's growth also means that a relatively large proportion of older pedestrian-oriented development has been replaced with modern construction.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by csbvan

On a somewhat related note to the current discussion, Walk Score released its data for most walkable cities in Canada, the US and Australia, according to their metrics.

Canada:
1. Vancouver
2. Toronto
3. Montreal

US
1. New York
2. San Fran
3. Boston

Aus
1. Sydney
2. Melbourne
3. Adelaide



http://www.ctvnews.ca/lifestyle/vancouver-named-most-walkable-city-in-canada-1.3584352

Walkscore is fun but that's about it. I would not go to the bank with their rankings.

Based on searches I've done they often pick up on stuff that should not count and miss stuff that should.

It also seems to have trouble recognizing stuff that is not "labelled" in English.

[Martin Mtl]

https://www.instagram.com/p/BZATlmxggCz/?tagged=montreal

[MTLskyline]

^ Great, but rarely seen angle. Shaughnessy Village is kind of an ugly area, but really dense.

[shappy]

Originally Posted by someone123

I think this is true, but only to a point. I would say that some people have a strong hometown bias but everybody has blind spots. As a thought experiment though, let's think of other issues. It doesn't bother me at all to admit that Toronto has a far superior transit system to Halifax, or that Vancouver has far superior cycling infrastructure. So why am I stuck on insisting that it's about as good or better when it comes to pedestrians?

Because you prefer smaller centres?

Originally Posted by someone123

There's also data that somewhat corroborates my opinion. Victoria is the #1 city for commuting on foot, and the share is 10%. Halifax is tied for #2 at 8.5%. Toronto is at 4.6%, below cities like London ON, Calgary, and Kelowna.

Walking to work and walking for the joy of exploring your surroundings is quite a different thing. The smaller centres rank higher because the distances are way shorter. Relating this to pedestrian experience is not a good argument.

Originally Posted by someone123

In practice, I find that the drawbacks in Toronto are the large streets, blocks, and buildings, as well as barriers like the Gardiner, Don Valley, and rail lines. The old part of the city is also a very small part of the metropolitan area as a consequence of the high rate of growth there. The city's growth also means that a relatively large proportion of older pedestrian-oriented development has been replaced with modern construction.

Here is Halifax and Toronto roughly at the same scale. Block sizes are very similar. A city the size of Toronto needs to have a Gardiner, DVP and rail lines. Despite this, waterfront connectivity is really not that bad downtown. Halifax doesn't require such large-scale infrastructure - does that make the city more interesting to the pedestrian? That's a superficial and weak argument.

And speaking of corroborating with opinions... look at it this way, if you are a random first-time tourist to both places with no initial bias, would you walk away thinking Halifax has the better pedestrian experience? You know, more interesting streets, shops, districts, general downtown area, etc... general street level interest? I would imagine the majority would not. Of course, many would prefer Halifax but out of those my guess is the vast majority prefer smaller centres to begin with (which is totally fine but that doesn't speak to Halifax having a better pedestrian experience). Again, I'm shaking my head here.

Having said that, I genuinely enjoy Halifax a lot but I think I'm looking at this a bit more objectively than you.

[Martin Mtl]

Originally Posted by MTLskyline

^ Great, but rarely seen angle. Shaughnessy Village is kind of an ugly area, but really dense.

Many concrete slabs, yes, but nice urban vibe and still plenty of old architecture to make it frequently beautiful.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by shappy

Because you prefer smaller centres?

Not really. I was wandering around London and Paris a couple months ago and I would say that they both offer superior pedestrian experiences to any Canadian cities I've visited. I consider city size to be a largely orthogonal concern.

if you are a random first-time tourist to both places with no initial bias, would you walk away thinking Halifax has the better pedestrian experience? You know, more interesting streets, shops, districts, general downtown area, etc... general street level interest? I would imagine the majority would not. Of course, many would prefer Halifax but out of those my guess is the vast majority prefer smaller centres to begin with (which is totally fine but that doesn't speak to Halifax having a better pedestrian experience). Again, I'm shaking my head here.

Having said that, I genuinely enjoy Halifax a lot but I think I'm looking at this a bit more objectively than you.

Maybe we are talking about slightly different things. When I talk about pedestrian experience I am mostly talking about how pleasant it is to be a pedestrian, and how much walking can be used as a mode of transportation to get you where you want to go. I don't really consider the variety or size of attractions to be relevant, although it's important that there be some variety.

The waterfronts in the two cities are a good illustration of the differences. You say Toronto has good connectivity. But to even get there from Front Street you have to go under a tunnel, under an expressway, and then walk by a bunch of superblocks. Then the waterfront itself has a lot of large footprint modern developments, parking lots, industrial sites, etc.

This would be a better discussion if you'd stick to the topic instead of trying to poison the well by talking about how I must be so much more biased than you are. Note how you even make allowances for how visitors might say they like walking around in Halifax more, but if they do it's just because they like smaller towns! In other words, you've created an excuse for discounting the opinions of people who disagree with you. It is fine if we have different opinions and perspectives.

[G.S MTL]

Originally Posted by Martin Mtl

https://www.instagram.com/p/BZATlmxggCz/?tagged=montreal

Wow ! Love this angle !! Shows how big downtown is.

[shappy]

Originally Posted by someone123

Not really. I was wandering around London and Paris a couple months ago and I would say that they both offer superior pedestrian experiences to any Canadian cities I've visited. I consider city size to be a largely orthogonal concern.



Maybe we are talking about slightly different things. When I talk about pedestrian experience I am mostly talking about how pleasant it is to be a pedestrian, and how much walking can be used as a mode of transportation to get you where you want to go. I don't really consider the variety or size of attractions to be relevant, although it's important that there be some variety.

I'm responding to "there is a lot of street-level interest" and "how pleasant or interesting it is to explore on foot". Bringing up proportion of commuters walking to work is missing the mark.

Originally Posted by someone123

This would be a better discussion if you'd stick to the topic instead of trying to poison the well by talking about how I must be so much more biased than you are. Note how you even make allowances for how visitors might say they like walking around in Halifax more, but if they do it's just because they like smaller towns! In other words, you've created an excuse for discounting the opinions of people who disagree with you. It is fine if we have different opinions and perspectives.

You're reading more into this than should be. I really don't think it's a stretch to assume the perspective I've given. And I don't think it's outlandish to suggest that those preferring Halifax would more than likely prefer smaller centres to begin with. There are a lot of charming and unique spots in Halifax and I don't think it's radical to suggest quite a few people would prefer that to Toronto but I just can't see how it would be an even split or more would prefer Halifax...

[someone123]

Originally Posted by shappy

I'm responding to "there is a lot of street-level interest" and "how pleasant or interesting it is to explore on foot". Bringing up proportion of commuters walking to work is missing the mark.

Well, it's an attempt to add some data to an argument that previously had zero data. If it were hard or unpleasant to walk, presumably fewer people would walk to work.

I agree that part of why people tend to take transit instead of just walking to work in Toronto is that the city is physically larger. But really the root cause is that the distances they typically have to travel are larger, and that the city is therefore less conducive to walking. This is my experience there too. Normally you end up taking some kind of vehicle to get around, even if it's a subway car or streetcar. I prefer to get around by walking (or biking, if it's nice).

[shappy]

Originally Posted by someone123

Well, it's an attempt to add some data to an argument that previously had zero data. If it were hard or unpleasant to walk, presumably fewer people would walk to work.

I agree that part of why people tend to take transit instead of just walking to work in Toronto is that the city is larger. But really this means that the distances they typically have to travel are larger, and that the city is therefore less conducive to walking.

Ok... but that doesn't really speak to this: "there is a lot of street-level interest" and "how pleasant or interesting it is to explore on foot".

It takes me about 45 mins to get to work door to door. I walk to a subway station and then get off at Osgoode and walk about 10 minutes. I would be classified as someone who takes transit to work. Does that mean my walk is arduous and unpleasant? I walk through the Osgoode Hall courtyard, NPS and past Old City Hall. It's a very interesting and pleasant walk.

[someone123]

It's not as good of a commute or walk as it would be without having to deal with the subway.

[shappy]

Yeah, obviously. That's a highly sought after living situation - unfortunately I'm not a millionaire. Should that translate to a lesser pedestrian experience? Come on

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by shappy

Ok... but that doesn't really speak to this: "there is a lot of street-level interest" and "how pleasant or interesting it is to explore on foot".

The two cities are comparable on both fronts, obviously you'll run out of areas to explore faster in Halifax than in Toronto but Toronto also has more bland, unwalkable areas. Within the areas that would be considered walkable the quality of the experience is pretty similar on average. Toronto is more crowded and Halifax is more hilly. The commercial streetscapes are fundamentally very similar; chopped-up slices of architectural history with frequent storefronts and old buildings next to new buildings with even newer buildings on top. Toronto has supertalls but I doubt this really enhances walkability in any direct way other than personal tastes. Both might get an 8/10 for effort in the public realm with the occasional outstanding thing and a 7/10 for cleanliness and general maintenance of the public/private realm.

The waterfronts work really differently because Halifax's is basically the focal point of the city, whereas Toronto's is probably lower on the list of priorities/draws downtown. I'm not sure what the interaction with the water is like in Toronto but in Halifax there are constantly people getting on/off boats, cruise ships, people launching kayaks and fishing from docks, etc. The boardwalk is definitely one of the better pedestrianized spaces in Canada, at least in the summer.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Hali87

The waterfronts work really differently because Halifax's is basically the focal point of the city, whereas Toronto's is probably lower on the list of priorities/draws downtown. I'm not sure what the interaction with the water is like in Toronto but in Halifax there are constantly people getting on/off boats, cruise ships, people launching kayaks and fishing from docks, etc. The boardwalk is definitely one of the better pedestrianized spaces in Canada, at least in the summer.

Toronto's central waterfront sucks (though it's improving) but it does have amazing features the further out you go. There are little peninsula parks that feel like slices of cottage country in the city, there's the Toronto Islands, there's the Scarborough Bluffs, the Beaches, Leslie Street Spit, etc. There are also unexpected and sort of wild elements: In Scarborough, for example, there's a crazy post-apocalyptic looking beach that was clearly used as a post-demolition dump for years. It's mostly composed of old bricks and buildings ruins. The bricks at the water are just pebbles, washed away by the waves, while at the back they're nearly whole. There are staircases and and old signs and all kinds of stuff.

So Toronto's waterfront is very long and eclectic and interesting. But it's much less domesticated, if you will, than Halifax's, which is kind of ironic as it's a bigger city. It's a bit of a wild zone, but fascinating for that.

[Martin Mtl]

I think it's a stretch to say that the walking experience is similar between Halifax and Toronto. I have been to Halifax twice and I have explore it enough to say that it feels like a very subdued urban experience and a short one; Toronto has vastly more variety, intensity and you can explore it for many days, while you're pretty much done with Halifax's center after a day. Also, I always found that Halifax's historic center has been too damage and broken-up (compare to Old Quebec, Old Montreal or even Cabbagetown) to offer a truly immersive and durable experience. Halifax has its charms, for sure, but to compare it to Toronto in any kind of reasonnable measure is wishful thinking imo.

[esquire]

^ There is certainly something to be said for size and variety... one of the amazing things about being in a huge city like New York, Tokyo or Paris is the sense that you can pretty well spend your entire life there and still never run out of new and interesting things to discover.

By contrast, a smaller city like Winnipeg has some great urban environments, but as pleasant as they are, they all become extremely familiar to anyone who has lived here more than a few years. The same could be said for pretty well any Canadian city except Toronto, Montreal and maybe Vancouver. To me, walking is always most interesting when there is potential to find or see different things. I don't mind putting up with the occasional tunnel or transit ride if the result is a varied and fascinating pedestrian environment.

[someone123]

Here is a thought experiment. Imagine a city that is absolutely perfect to walk around in. Every part of it that you could be dropped into reflects whatever your Platonic ideal is of the perfect walking environment. It's extremely attractive and interesting, it's physically easy to walk around in. It's only 20x20 blocks. Would say that this place offers an inferior pedestrian experience to Toronto?

Another thought experiment. Pick the most perfect small town you can imagine in the world. Compare it to the walking environment in Halifax. Would you accept somebody's claim that Halifax has the better pedestrian environment because there is more to explore there?

[TorontoDrew]

Originally Posted by someone123

Here is a thought experiment. Imagine a city that is absolutely perfect to walk around in. Every part of it that you could be dropped into reflects whatever your Platonic ideal is of the perfect walking environment. It's extremely attractive and interesting, it's physically easy to walk around in. It's only 20x20 blocks. Would say that this place offers an inferior pedestrian experience to Toronto?

I don't think any Canadian city is perfect to walk around in. The only cities I can think of I've visited in North America are Boston and Portland. QC is probably or closest but only in the old town.