Great Canadian Skyline Thread II

[Martin Mtl]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

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.

I have to disagree. Outremont, the Mile-End, Le Plateau, Milton-Parc (including the McGill campus) is a vast urban and continuous territory with virtually no dead spot. You can walk almost anywhere on this territory and find good architecture or/and vibrant life. There are almost no surface parking lots and very rare historic part than have been demolished or replace with swat of banal modern architecture. The stock of victorian residential architecture is endless in all directions, most of the streets are lined with mature trees and there are many beautiful squares and parks all over. It's pretty much perfect in the Canadian context, I find. Of course, I'm heavily biased. And here I'm not even considering downtown, Old Montreal, the Golden Square Mile, Westmount, which are also all continuous (and the Mount Royal park, to bridge it all).

Also, Quebec city offers a great walking experience out of the old city, by the way, notably in Saint-Roch and Saint-Sauveur, and the whole haute-ville neighborhood (Montcalm, Saint-Sacrement, Faubourg Saint-Jean-Baptiste). One could even like those more than the old walled city, actually.

[FrAnKs]

Originally Posted by Martin Mtl

I have to disagree. Outremont, the Mile-End, Le Plateau, Milton-Parc (including the McGill campus) is a vast urban and continuous territory with virtually no dead spot. You can walk almost anywhere on this territory and find good architecture or/and vibrant life. There are almost no surface parking lots and very rare historic part than have been demolished or replace with swat of banal modern architecture. The stock of victorian residential architecture is endless in all directions, most of the streets are lined with mature trees and there are many beautiful squares and parks all over. It's pretty much perfect in the Canadian context, I find. Of course, I'm heavily biased. And here I'm not even considering downtown, Old Montreal, the Golden Square Mile, Westmount, which are also all continuous (and the Mount Royal park, to bridge it all).

Also, Quebec city offers a great walking experience out of the old city, by the way, notably in Saint-Roch and Saint-Sauveur, and the whole haute-ville neighborhood (Montcalm, Saint-Sacrement, Faubourg Saint-Jean-Baptiste). One could even like those more than the old walled city, actually.

I can certainly agree with it ! I had the chance to live in Montcalm between 2013 and 2017 and it's a fantastic place, hence it's not that I don't like Old Québec City, but it's not where the ''Real life'' is going on. Old Québec City became kind of ''Disney world'' to me, unfortunately, while, I think, this place should attract more peoples to live within the walls.
And for the Montcalm Neighbourhood, it remind me alot of the Mile-End in Montréal.

[shappy]

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?

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?

Not if it has more/similar amount of diversity and depth in those 20x20 blocks - I wouldn't think it's inferior at all. Don't have to look much further than many European cities. I don't see how this thought experiment applies to the discussion. Are you implying that Halifax's best parts are on par or better than Toronto as a whole?

Originally Posted by Hali87

The two cities are comparable on both fronts

Take St. Lawrence, Berczy Park, CBD and the car free Islands. Or Annex, Yorkville and UofT. Or Church St, Allan gardens, Cabbagetown, and Distillery district. Or Ossington, Queen, Chinatown, Kensington and Little Italy. Etc. All of these areas mentioned are interesting to explore independently never mind walking from district to district.

Halifax has some nice refined streetscapes in it's central parts - some lovely areas. Is this supposed to suggest that Halifax has the same or better pedestrian experience? I kind of feel like this is where the mindset is. Do the older buildings have that much of an impact? Are they that much more plentiful or architecturally interesting/grand than those in Toronto? Some are, sure - but we're treading into some seriously biased territory here if this is the crux of the argument.

[someone123]

I just wanted to establish in principle that average or typical pedestrian experience and size are two different things. It can be reasonable in some sense to say that Greenwich Village offers a better pedestrian experience than an array of 500 Cabbagetowns that each have a different flavour.

(If this weren't so, somebody could come on here from LA and argue that the variety there results in a superior pedestrian experience than Toronto.)

Let's imagine another hypothetical situation where I try to argue that Halifax is on par with or better than Paris as far as pedestrian experience goes. You counter with a list that includes the Marais, Tuileries, whatever. I'd concede; Halifax has nothing as refined and interesting as that. Now look at the murky comparisons in this thread. Berczy Park? Cabbagetown? Church Street? There are Halifax analogues of all of these and some of them are nicer. Are there Toronto analogues of the waterfront, Citadel, or historic properties that are significantly better? The nice parts of Barrington or Granville even? I am not sure. There is a lot of "bigger" but not much "better". Berczy Park has that row of 3-5 connected heritage buildings (depending on how you count). It's not as nice as the little pedestrianized block of Granville (which would surely show up in a list of why Toronto's better if it were teleported to the 416 area code). Most commercial strips in Toronto are mainly 3 floor Victorians or newer buildings. Those don't blow the stuff you find in Halifax out of the water.

I think the public spaces and buildings (finer grained stuff you walk by at street level rather than skyscrapers and the like appreciated from afar) are a bit nicer in Halifax pedestrian-wise while Toronto has more vibrancy (but that is not really a slam dunk either; there are lots of parts of Halifax that are about as vibrant as urban neighbourhoods that people love). Overall I think it's about a wash, although I don't have a strong opinion either way. I don't agree that Toronto is head and shoulders above, which is the original claim I was responding to. I'm making a weaker claim.

[Urban recluse]

Downtown Halifax makes Winnipeg its b*tch.

[Acajack]

When I read someone123's posts about Toronto and Halifax, I knew exactly what he meant. Especially about the waterfront.

In Halifax the waterfront is very organically integrated with the rest of the city, and especially the downtown core.

In Toronto it's greatly improved but it still feels disconnected from the rest of the city. For reasons we all know.

As a pedestrian the experience is definitely not the same.

BTW I was in Halifax three weeks ago and in Toronto two months ago. I spent time near the waterfront in both cities.

[WhipperSnapper]

There's just not enough of Halifax to explore. Quantity does have its role beside quality. (particularly at our level of quality)

What would Toronto be if its waterfront were stolen tomorrow? What would Halifax be? Making this about waterfronts gives you an incomplete picture to say the least.

[Nouvellecosse]

Personally I enjoy Lunenburg as a pedestrian equally to the pedestrian experience in Halifax, and I've tired myself out walking around and exploring it for hours.

[Martin Mtl]

https://www.instagram.com/p/BZCTisCANI9/?tagged=livemontreal


https://www.instagram.com/p/BZAbWjCHq6d/?tagged=livemontreal


https://www.instagram.com/p/BZBM0FKl3cY/?taken-by=yulovemtl

[Nouvellecosse]

I think a big part of the disagreement about the large city vs small city pedestrian experience is that people are essentially talking about two separate concepts. One side is talking about pedestrian-based urban exploration, while the other is talking mainly about pedestrian utilitarianism, ie walking for routine transportation or exercise.

Consider these two people. Person A is an out of town urban enthusiast who's come to the city as a tourist for a week of exploring a new city, and wants to see lots of interesting sights, neighbourhoods, architecture, etc. Person B works downtown and lives in an urban neighbourhood. She leaves home each morning and makes the 25 minute walk to work, always taking one of a few familiar routes. She often stops for a coffee on the way and enjoys the relaxation and exercise of the walk. She makes a 10 minute walk to a local parkette at lunch hour, and on the way home, she often stops for the odd errand.

For person A, their experience is likely to be far more fulfilling in the large city than in the small, but how about for person B? Is that person who's going about the same type of routine in the large city or in the small going to find her experience as a pedestrian lacking in the small city due to the lack of endless neighbourhoods to explore?

Remember, the average pedestrian isn't out to explore. They're going about their daily lives and know most of the areas they walk in already and simply want these areas to be pleasant, safe, interesting, and enjoyable.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by shappy

Halifax has some nice refined streetscapes in it's central parts - some lovely areas. Is this supposed to suggest that Halifax has the same or better pedestrian experience? I kind of feel like this is where the mindset is. Do the older buildings have that much of an impact? Are they that much more plentiful or architecturally interesting/grand than those in Toronto? Some are, sure - but we're treading into some seriously biased territory here if this is the crux of the argument.

I guess a lot of this has to do with the kind of experience we're talking about. I was thinking from the perspective of someone who might be in either city for a few days with various plans, things to do, people to see etc. within a walkable distance of each other in walkable areas. With no car/bicycle and limited use of transit/cabs/uber, which would make walking feel like more of an experience in and of itself and less of a burden? This is how I've experienced most cities so I guess it's a personal bias. In this case I think they are, on average, roughly equal.

If your hypothetical pedestrian has a limitless amount of time and energy and is simply walking for the sake of walking until they run out of new things to see, then yes, Toronto definitely offers much more quantity. But consider that the average pedestrian in any given city probably has bigger priorities than just "exploring" most of the time.

Edit: hadn't seen the above post. Similar idea.

[someone123]

One utilitarian thing I noticed when visiting Halifax that I had kind of forgotten about, that was already touched on previously, is how easy it can be to cross the street there. Most downtown streets have two traffic lanes and drivers there aren't very aggressive. If you look in Toronto and Vancouver, even many of the narrower streets have been converted over to carry as many vehicle lanes as possible.

You could say this is just a "big city" thing but actually lots of big cities don't have these arterial roads in their core areas. And either way it is a lot nicer to walk around in a city with easy to cross streets or, better yet, completely pedestrianized areas.

Actually in Halifax things are moving back toward the friendlier streets too even though the city is growing (e.g. Cogswell is coming down, Argyle is getting redone).

[DrJoe]

This is a cute discussion. The complete glossing over of how tiny downtown Halifax is is especially nice. Using these parameters I could argue Owen Sound ON can compete with Halifax on a pedestrian level. I bet you scoff at the very notion don't you? Is it too small? Can it be explored too quickly? Is it not nearly as vibrant? Well apparently these things don't matter, well atleast they don't seem to for Halifax...

[someone123]

Not really. I was going to say that I agree with Nouvellecosse about Lunenburg. If somebody said Lunenburg is nicer to walk around in than Halifax I wouldn't have a hard time believing them or understanding what they were getting at. I'm not sure what Owen Sound is like so I can't comment on that specifically. But lots of small towns out there offer a better pedestrian environment than Halifax does in a bunch of different ways.

[Hali87]

I don't know much about Owen Sound but the idea that it could be more pleasant to walk in than Halifax (or Toronto) doesn't seem impossible. There are probably other cities in Ontario that would be more plausible contenders though (Kingston?)

The point (again) wasn't really about which city has larger areas to explore, it's about which one offers a better experience between points A B and C on foot... which is subjective, and I think on average Toronto and Halifax both do fairly well in a Canadian context. Obviously the scale is quite different but the experience walking down a given commercial corridor is comparable (street/sidewalk/streetwall dynamic, frequency of entrances, mix of uses, variety of architecture, investment in things like pavement and street furniture, and general cleanliness/griminess, taking into account the fact that the individual buildings and people are obviously different).

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by DrJoe

The complete glossing over of how tiny downtown Halifax is is especially nice.

I haven't noticed anyone do that actually.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by DrJoe

This is a cute discussion. The complete glossing over of how tiny downtown Halifax is is especially nice. Using these parameters I could argue Owen Sound ON can compete with Halifax on a pedestrian level. I bet you scoff at the very notion don't you? Is it too small? Can it be explored too quickly? Is it not nearly as vibrant? Well apparently these things don't matter, well atleast they don't seem to for Halifax...

Perhaps i'm way off base, but are you implying that the only part of Halifax that's enjoyable as a pedestrian is downtown? I'm not even sure it's my favourite area to walk in tbh.

[DrJoe]

The discussion was about downtowns, but at this point since size, scale and vibrancy don't matter, might as well do away with the downtown requirement until we all end up hiking in the woods.

[Hali87]

Size and scale aren't really important when considering which is more pleasant to walk in, assuming that we're talking "walking to get to places" and not "walking to explore". In fact there is probably an inverse relationship, since most people are under time constraints of some kind and don't actually like having to walk long distances.

I'm not sure where anyone said vibrancy doesn't matter.

[DrJoe]

By virtue of all this we can conclude a small town that is walkable to from all corners offers the most pleasant pedestrian experience. Toronto, or Halifax for that matter, never stood a chance.