Neighborhoods you wouldn't recognize: Streetview observations 2009-2019 - Page 3

MonkeyRonin · #41 Posted **Feb 8, 2021, 12:39 AM**

matt602 · #42 Posted **Feb 8, 2021, 12:40 AM**

By far the most dramatic change in downtown Hamilton since 2009 is King William. In another 5 years though King Street between Catharine and James on the North side will have undergone about the same amount of change.

2009

2019

Kilgore Trout · #43 Posted **Feb 8, 2021, 12:56 AM**

Some more from Montreal.

Place des Festivals, 2007/2019:

Parterre du Quartier des spectacles, 2007/2019:

Notre-Dame viaduct, 2009/2020:

Kilgore Trout · #44 Posted **Feb 8, 2021, 12:57 AM**

I think Mississauga wins this thread.

rousseau · #45 Posted **Feb 8, 2021, 1:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Naysayers be damned, I think what's happening in Toronto is awesome. How can you not be excited about the transformation, all these new streetscapes? I know someone will have the precise figures, I'm sure, but it looks like there must be at least 50,000 additional people living downtown in all those condos since 2009. Right?

MonkeyRonin · #46 Posted **Feb 8, 2021, 1:16 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rousseau

Naysayers be damned, I think what's happening in Toronto is awesome. How can you not be excited about the transformation, all these new streetscapes? I know someone will have the precise figures, I'm sure, but it looks like there must be at least 50,000 additional people living downtown in all those condos since 2009. Right?

Ehh, the constant change is exciting - I just wish the architectural quality of most new builds were higher and that we could do it with more sensitivity to the city's heritage buildings. It would also be nice to see more liberalized zoning that allowed for more growth in the form of small-scale neighbourhood infill and not strictly condo towers. That would do wonders for the ongoing affordability crisis as well.

It's mostly just frustrating that we're going through a once-in-a-generation building boom that will characterize the city's identify & built form for decades to come, and the best that our architects and developers can come up with is doing this a thousand times over: https://goo.gl/maps/jG4c94USGhLcW4hy7

The population growth has definitely been a positive for the city's vibrancy though. Not sure what the 2021 numbers are, but the downtown population was 199,000 in 2011, and increased to 245,000 by 2015. It must be approaching 300,000 by now (that is, if COVID hasn't caused too much of an outflow from tiny condo units).

begratto · #47 Posted **Feb 8, 2021, 1:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Some of the changes are spectacular. It’s hard to recognize some of these places. Liberty Village... wow!

MonkeyRonin · #48 Posted **Feb 8, 2021, 1:35 AM**

To add to the above: my feeling is that the first decade or so of the boom (roughly 2005-2015) was mostly positive. We were largely seeing parking lots, brownfields, and other low-intensity uses (gas stations, car dealerships, etc) being developed. This made downtown feel more fully built out while still retaining its traditional character. Plus most of the construction was being done by local developers who understood the market and actually seemed to give half a shit about the city.

In the past 5 or 6 years though, we've run out of easily developable land so heritage demolitions have rapidly accelerated; and we've seen many of our beloved institutions, shops, entertainment venues, etc. lost to development. Land values have also meanwhile reached crisis point, and profiteering foreign developers have poured in to take advantage. Unit sizes have fallen, and even architectural standards seem to be in decline (see: the epidemic of gimmicky balcony designs as architects attempt to make their buildings stand out from the pack without actually spending more on materials or losing sellable floorspace).

It's not all bad, but I just feel like we've reached the point in our city's development where we're now taking two steps back for every step we take forward.

Acajack · #49 Posted **Feb 8, 2021, 1:42 AM**

Looking at these pictures before and after it made me feel like our cities were undeveloped or at least underdeveloped well into the 2000s.

And yet many of them are more than a century or centuries old.

wave46 · #50 Posted **Feb 8, 2021, 2:01 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack

Looking at these pictures before and after it made me feel like our cities were undeveloped or at least underdeveloped well into the 2000s.

And yet many of them are more than a century or centuries old.

The mantra of 'suburbs for all' was big from the 1950s to the 2000s. New urbanism wasn't much of a thing until after that. The cores of our cities were less 'undeveloped' but more focused on being business centres, not mixed use districts.

So, one could live in Toronto or Montreal cheaply in the core of the city. It brought out the creative class moreso, but left gaps in the fabric, because chasing that money wasn't worth it. A parking lot in the core of the city was probably more profitable in the '80s than developing it into residential.

There's the element of changing lifestyles too today. The appeal of the suburbs for a professional couple without kids waned.

someone123 · #51 Posted **Feb 8, 2021, 2:02 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack

Looking at these pictures before and after it made me feel like our cities were undeveloped or at least underdeveloped well into the 2000s.

Looking back a lot of it is much shabbier than I remember.

The 2000's were a kind of golden age for infill since there were so many prime empty sites that could be built on without upsetting anybody, and filling in old underused commercial and industrial sites has been the default strategy for residential intensification and has provided a significant proportion of the new housing supply in cities like Toronto. It'll be interesting how this shifts as that land supply runs out.

wave46 · #52 Posted **Feb 8, 2021, 2:05 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123

Looking back a lot of it is much shabbier than I remember.

The 2000's were a kind of golden age for infill since there were so many prime empty sites that could be built on without upsetting anybody, and filling in old underused commercial and industrial sites has been the default strategy for residential intensification and has provided a significant proportion of the new housing supply in cities like Toronto. It'll be interesting how this shifts as that land supply runs out.

Optimally, we see a shift away from single family residential in the inner suburbs. There's a lot of potential there just sitting.

someone123 · #53 Posted **Feb 8, 2021, 2:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wave46

Optimally, we see a shift away from single family residential in the inner suburbs. There's a lot of potential there just sitting.

These are off limits according to current planning rules in many Canadian cities. "Thou shalt not disturb intact single family dwelling districts" is perhaps the first commandment of Canadian urban planning, at least as far as the cities actually operate!

SkahHigh · #54 Posted **Feb 8, 2021, 3:18 AM**

Another one that's pretty drastic, although it's because of one megaproject.

The Glen Railyard in NDG, which became the MUHC

2009: https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4711902,...7Jv7P5EFxh_-XmjyFopCw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
2019: https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4712076,...ybfbFjtiBev_EfhxSAL7Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Also... We don't often hear of an entire street disappearing to make way for a megaproject, but that's what happened to May Avenue in Verdun with the new Champlain Bridge.

2009: https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4723002,...O2J8UjkVo9skhf9_AdxRw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
2020: https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4721427,...LmEY0cF7b1QkrWAwddNQQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Architype · #55 Posted **Feb 8, 2021, 3:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kilgore Trout

I think Mississauga wins this thread.

...

Although Vancouver's False Creek gives it a good run for the money, probably as a more cohesive less suburban neighborhood, except the buildings aren't as tall.

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9183546&postcount=16

RoshanMcG · #56 Posted **Feb 8, 2021, 4:31 AM**

Some more Halifax transformations:

Argyle Street

Granville Street

Brunswick Street

Spring Garden Road

Doyle Street (one block up from Spring Garden)

Denscity · #57 Posted **Feb 8, 2021, 4:45 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Architype

Although Vancouver's False Creek gives it a good run for the money, probably as a more cohesive less suburban neighborhood, except the buildings aren't as tall.

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9183546&postcount=16

Huge change wow!

Nite · #58 Posted **Feb 8, 2021, 6:42 AM**

Toronto

Corktown
2009: https://goo.gl/maps/73w77XMBJWq6evZq8
2020: https://goo.gl/maps/2ozWPunM19K1JGfEA

Log1988 · #59 Posted **Feb 8, 2021, 10:47 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Architype

Although Vancouver's False Creek gives it a good run for the money, probably as a more cohesive less suburban neighborhood, except the buildings aren't as tall.

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9183546&postcount=16

The change around Marine Drive Station has also been pretty dramatic:
2010 vs 2019

J.OT13 · #60 Posted **Feb 8, 2021, 1:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drybrain

And then Spring Garden Road and Doyle Street. A much more significant historic loss (besides this old deco-influenced bank building, there were also some Victorian townhouses on the block on the left side that are gone). On the southeast corner of the intersection, just out of view of these pics, there's a whole block of more modest historic buildings that was just knocked down for another project, by the same developer who put up the building on the left side of the 2019 pic.

This whole area has undergone really, really rapid transformation. Architecturally it's mixed (the loss of the block to the left is unfortunate, IMO, but the new central library on the right has been a huge positive for the area). But the area is becoming more densely built up and livelier, either way.

The new building across the library is actually quite nice. If I would not have known of the heritage building that stood there just a few years prior, I would think it's an excellent addition the area.