Quote:
Originally Posted by niwell
Kensington isn't a European pedestrianized high street / shopping district. It developed organically in a unique way that led to it's current form in the context of Toronto's vernacular. It probably has more in common with the Tokyo side streets filled with wires than the main thoroughfares. Originally residential, businesses filling in over time, cars have access but it's a pain to drive in, etc.
|
Kensington is no more organic than loads of European commercial areas. They have plenty of out of the way districts that started out residential and gradually had businesses move in over time. The only difference is that they tend to have a higher standard for their infrastructure while still retaining their uniqueness.
Kensington also has a lot in common with Melbourne's alleys, except that Melbourne's alleys have nicer paving and little to no overhead wires. Would
Hardware Lane in Melbourne benefit from adding wooden hydro poles and replacing the brick with asphalt? It is, after all, lined with restaurants that no doubt rely on daily deliveries (which can happen just as effectively in pedestrianized areas).
Quote:
Originally Posted by niwell
As it is there's already significant pressure on original businesses with landlords wanting to jack up the rent, etc. Also should be noted that many of these establishments are food distributors and require frequent truck access (plus smaller bar/restaurants have stuff delivered almost daily). A beautification / pedestrianization program would only accelerate this, I think. Sure you may end up with a busy pedestrian area, just lacking all of the eclectic charm today. You wouldn't be eating jerk chicken in the street unless it's a "contemporary interpretation". Go at it in Yorkville or the St. Lawrence area - these are areas more analogous to those pedestrianized Euro ones and would benefit much more. I'd support another shot at a pedestrianized Yonge, too. Current urban planning thoughts can focus too much on how to "fix" areas with programmatic ideals, which can be fine in certain instances, but not everything needs to be "fixed" to conform with current thoughts about what an area "should" look like.
I should note that the Pedestrian Sundays (last Sunday of every Spring/Summer/Fall month) program is quite successful, but I suspect because it's an event that attracts other uses into the street that would not be there daily. Although I know a few business owners who loathe those days - they don't make any more money but have to deal with more people acting like idiots.
|
Instead of thinking of it as beautification, think of it as having a bare minimum in aesthetic standards (buried hydro wires, brick/unit pavers, etc.). Think of it as making sidewalks wide enough to handle the demand. These things have absolutely nothing to do with jacking up rent or driving out uniqueness. This bizarrely Torontonian belief keeps getting repeated would be positively alien anywhere else. Improving the streetscape won't result in the loss of the jerk chicken place, and keeping it the way it is won't ensure that it stays put. Just look at how much Queen West gentrified despite its ramshackle appearance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kool maudit
Europe is a big place. Cities like Belgrade, Sofia and Tirana don't always bury their lines. Cities like Naples and Athens have other things going on that might qualify as messy urbanism, like clotheslines and whatever. Places like this almost appear like 'super-Kensingtons':
|
lol! Your examples are some of the poorest countries in Eastern Europe?? I don't even know what to say. Belgrade, Sofia and Tirana look the way they do not because they want to, but because they're poor. If they had the wealth to look like Western Europe, they would. A resident of Albania would look at our rusty staple covered hydro poles and wonder what we're doing with our fabulous wealth.
Athens and Naples are richer for sure (still poorer than us though), but both of them still have a consistently higher standard of streetscaping than most Toronto commercial areas. They have better paving materials, very few overhead wires, decorative street furniture, etc. The other things going on that you mention are more because of private development - like you said, clotheslines and whatever. That's a whole different matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kool maudit
In cities like Copenhagen or Stockholm (or Amsterdam or Brussels or Hamburg etc), no central neighbourhood would feature such modest buildings. That tradition is totally Anglo, totally alien.
|
Modest architecture is a reason to have better streetscaping, not worse. Look at those lanes in Melbourne again. It ain't Copenhagen, but it doesn't have to be. Hell, half the lane I linked to is lined with an ugly parking garage, but they don't use that as an excuse to make it look bad. Brick pavement, decorative bollards, car access allowed but discouraged, no overhead wires, etc. There's no reason that Kensington couldn't look that good without losing its charm. Or any other main street for that matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by niwell
Reading through urbantoronto I've noticed a thing that when new developments in the Kensington area pop up (most of which seem appropriately scaled, thankfully), there's comments about how "sketchy" or "rundown" the area is. I feel like there's a faction that would support the area turning into a high end, polished shopping district. Maybe another example of Canadians failing to realize and support the unique things we have, for the shiny veneer of world class (or whatever you want to call it). Part of our directionless current-state.
|
I disagree. It's an example of Canadians failing to realize that there's a better way and falling for the false choice you're presenting. A neighbourhood doesn't have to look like a frontier town to avoid becoming polished. We don't have to choose between ramshackle and sterile. We don't have to have ugly streetscapes to maintain uniqueness.
Prev
Linear Mode
