Quality of Canadian urbanism

[kool maudit]

I'll be blunt: I have never visited Edmonton, but photos and Street View have always made it appear the ugliest and most utilitarian of Canada's major cities. I have explored neighbourhoods like Oliver and downtown, and in terms of finding a good street, I have always come up empty-handed (I can sometimes find a good block).

That said, urbanism has a human element and the buildings are just the frame to scenes of human movement and dynamism. In this way, I bet there are a lot of places in Edmonton that would strike me, in person, as "this shouldn't work but it does". I have been to places in Miami, for instance, that are like this.

At the heart of urbanism is the phenomenon of placing sites of human activity in very close proximity, with the emergent property being the streetwall. You can get away with a lot of crude architecture if you just do this; if you go the opposite way, with beautiful buildings placed in isolation, like objets d'art, you get a kind of sculpture-garden type feeling that is very far from the feeling of the city. Zaha Hadid and architects like this are enormously guilty of this, as are many of China's new CBDs.

The correct, city-favouring worldview holds Le Corbusier as a minor 20th century villain (major in his field, but minor compared to the far more carnivorous types that so animated that terrible century). One day, his ideas will be as discredited and distasteful as eugenics or phrenology. B.F. Skinner, too, and Julian Huxley.

But these figures are at the foundational heart of our current order and the timeline implies that we go through... some shit before we return to right relation with towns and cities.

[kool maudit]

How close are we? In City Discussions, there is a post about that tech goblin's plan for a 5 million person desert city in the US.

It takes one look at the rendering, which is an obviously idealized vision meant to sell the thing, to tell that the scale is still all wrong, and the understanding of human energy flows among structures is so childish as to be tragic.

We're still in it.

We look at that photo of Houston in the '70s and start to feel good, but that was the absolute nadir of our barbarism. We are still very close to the bottom.

There is a kind of megalomania that is an emergent property of mass production and late 19th century utopianism (we are still working behind a 120-year-old avant garde), and it made us forget how to be small and close and tight. The car just meshed in nicely with that, but even without it we get La Défense.

"Intellects vast, cool and unsympathetic..."

[biguc]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

That said, urbanism has a human element and the buildings are just the frame to scenes of human movement and dynamism. In this way, I bet there are a lot of places in Edmonton that would strike me, in person, as "this shouldn't work but it does". I have been to places in Miami, for instance, that are like this.

I learned this in Shanghai. There are blocks of walled-off tower-in-the-park stuff but then later they knocked holes in the walls to build little retail shacks and cafes and shit. There's no substitute for density. Put enough people close enough together and a city happens.

I don't know if Edmonton is there yet. Downtown felt surprisingly small and dumpy last time I was there. Whyte ave--the whole Garneau-Old Strathcona area, really--is legit but there's not anywhere else to go.

Winnipeg can't really pull together a good high street, but it's got several functional neighbourhoods organized around multiaxial village clusters, somehow. It's weird that for all its old bones, this is a recent development. Winnipeg was a high-street-oriented city, enervated by streetcars. Turn the streetcars to stroads and side streets start absorbing retail pushed off the high streets. It's a credit to the resilience of some of these neighbourhoods, that they can grow around the cancer. Others, like the old Logan-centred neighbourhood, are so dead and gone it's like they never even existed.

Anyway, good thread. Good posts, ue. Thank you.

[Truenorth00]

Great thread. Amazing posts.

My one complaint about Canadian urbanism is the utter lack of ambition and this weird tendency to excuse the lack of urbanism on account of the lack of size.

Go to any small city and they'll tell you that x,y,z won't work there because they are not ... (Insert name of big regional centre). Go to a large metro and they'll tell you they can't do something because they are not Toronto. I literally had this conversation about buses in Ottawa yesterday, where somebody suggested that good off-peak service in Ottawa is not useful because people in Ottawa "don't like buses". And of course, if you go to Toronto, they'll tell you they aren't New York or London, despite their professed desire to be a "world class city". I'm starting to think excusing failures in urbanism is cultural in Canada.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Great thread. Amazing posts.

My one complaint about Canadian urbanism is the utter lack of ambition and this weird tendency to excuse the lack of urbanism on account of the lack of size.

Go to any small city and they'll tell you that x,y,z won't work there because they are not ... (Insert name of big regional centre). Go to a large metro and they'll tell you they can't do something because they are not Toronto. I literally had this conversation about buses in Ottawa yesterday, where somebody suggested that good off-peak service in Ottawa is not useful because people in Ottawa "don't like buses". And of course, if you go to Toronto, they'll tell you they aren't New York or London, despite their professed desire to be a "world class city". I'm starting to think excusing failures in urbanism is cultural in Canada.

I totally believe you as people always make stupid excuses of this sort, but it's ironic that person would say that as Ottawa even with LRT is still an extremely bus-friendly city for a Canadian city of its size and even bus-obsessed according to many observers.

During the peak Transitway years it was occasionally mentioned in the same breath (perhaps undeservedly) as Curitiba, Brazil.

That hasn't completely gone away, IMO.

[Razor]

Yes great thread..Some good insight!
I just want to briefly touch on Hamilton.I can't comment on it's quality of urbanism today, and my last visit was years ago, so my memory is a little foggy..Other then driving through, I spent maybe 2 separate days there in total, so I don't have a complete pulse on the city, especially Hamilton 2021..On my last visit I spent time in Toronto, than saw some friends in Niagara Falls area..We than drove up and spent a day with another friend who lived in Hamilton. I was literally just a couple days removed from spending time in Toronto, so what struck me about Hamilton was how independent it was from Toronto..It had it's own sense of place, it's own vibe, and own sphere of influence, albeit not as large as Toronto's. Unlike saay Mississauga, the Toronto buck truly stopped there. I also loved the old Victorian housing stock in Hamilton as well. When we drove through the CBD, I kinda sorta remember some well established inner city neighborhoods, and remembering that it FELT like fairly big city with a fair amount of highrises, etc..I can't comment on it's urbanism in 2021, but I only remember how truly distinct and stand-alone it was from Toronto when I visited years ago. Hamilton's situation is unique in Canada. It's the only fairly major Canadian city that I can think of that has a monstrous imposing neighbour almost in it's back yard.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I totally believe you as people always make stupid excuses of this sort, but it's ironic that person would say that as Ottawa even with LRT is still an extremely bus-friendly city for a Canadian city of its size and even bus-obsessed according to many observers.

During the peak Transitway years it was occasionally mentioned in the same breath (perhaps undeservedly) as Curitiba, Brazil.

That hasn't completely gone away, IMO.

It was in the Montreal-Blair Corridor thread:

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...92#post9391192

Apparently, Ottawa can't support 15 min off-peak bus service because nobody in Ottawa will use buses. I always say, Ottawa is Mississauga on the Rideau. I'm starting to think, this is unfair to Mississauga.

The one city that I can think of that actually doesn't seem to limit ambitions using its size as an excuse is Montreal, in my opinion. They don't seem to look to Toronto. They also seem to have a more independent urbanist dialogue (at least from my amateur view).

[JHikka]

Thanks for the great post.

Originally Posted by ue

With regards to Winnipeg urbanism, its edge is really only due to the sheer wealth of pre-war urbanism it has. What it has done in recent decades in terms of urban policy is often quite abhorrent. Closing Portage and Main to pedestrians, turning main streets into quasi-highways, racist pro-development governance, and laughable public transit. If you can never take the bus and simply walk or bike everywhere, Winnipeg is pretty alright if you live centrally. Because of the quality of pre-war urbanism, Winnipeg has a huge leg up, and its urban experience is probably closest to what Easterners would resonate with. You just don't get places like the Exchange, Wolseley, Point Douglas, and Wellington Crescent in Western Canada. Well, maybe you could make some analogues in Vancouver, but that's about it.

A lot can be said about cities that are pre-war or post-war, based solely on how they were designed or what was intended for when they were initially built.

There was a thread elsewhere on this forum relating to American cities and someone brought up that Montreal is inherently a better urban city than Toronto based solely on the fact that it grew/peaked earlier. Because Toronto's growth was heavily slanted towards the 60s and 70s a lot of its design was focused on cars and, to a lesser extent, 60s and 70s modernism in its buildings, which hasn't really aged all that well IMO. Because of that, Montreal has the tighter streets, mixed-use neighbourhoods, older buildings, and transit that allows people to get around prior to and without cars. I have no doubt that Winnipeg is of similar difference to Edmonton & Calgary based on this growth timeline.

This isn't to automatically say that older = better, but rather to point out the intent that developers and designers had at the time, and how cars really changed how cities were built (or deconstructed).

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

And of course, if you go to Toronto, they'll tell you they aren't New York or London, despite their professed desire to be a "world class city".

What is this in reference to? Transit?

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Go to any small city and they'll tell you that x,y,z won't work there because they are not ... (Insert name of big regional centre). Go to a large metro and they'll tell you they can't do something because they are not Toronto. I literally had this conversation about buses in Ottawa yesterday, where somebody suggested that good off-peak service in Ottawa is not useful because people in Ottawa "don't like buses". And of course, if you go to Toronto, they'll tell you they aren't New York or London, despite their professed desire to be a "world class city". I'm starting to think excusing failures in urbanism is cultural in Canada.

Colonial cringe is alive and well. Also, and as a side note... Toronto is at the point where, in order for it to join the next level, it has to participate in history in some major way, it has to be the site of something. For Toronto to be Greater, Canada needs to be Great.

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I always say, Ottawa is Mississauga on the Rideau. I'm starting to think, this is unfair to Mississauga.

I always thought that, minus maybe six to 10 square blocks, it felt basically like Brantford with somewhere to be on Monday morning. Very small-town feeling.

[Acajack]

Going out on a limb a bit but from what I've seen while travelling or via SSP and other vehicles, almost every single major Canadian city without exception has been doing good things of late.

My main concern is what we're seeing in some US cities as the urban renaissance seems to be plateauing due to some resurgent livability issues, coming to Canada.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Going out on a limb a bit but from what I've seen while travelling or via SSP and other vehicles, almost every single major Canadian city without exception has been doing good things of late.

My main concern is what we're seeing in some US cities as the urban renaissance seems to be plateauing due to some resurgent livability issues, coming to Canada.

"(R)esurgent livability issues"?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

"(R)esurgent livability issues"?

Crime? Homelessness? Etc.?

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

We look at that photo of Houston in the '70s and start to feel good, but that was the absolute nadir of our barbarism. We are still very close to the bottom.

Absolutely. Downtowns have made great strides in the past two decades.
But, most city development is suburban. And most suburban development planning starts and stops with the automobile. It is assumed that the car will be the default mode of transportation for almost everyone, for almost every trip. (St)roads are designed accordingly, with maximum parking in the big box barf that these environments attract. Given the vehicular traffic and speeds, the stroads are so unpleasant to cyclists (even if a nominal bike lane exists), let alone to pedestrians. Even SFHs (almost invariably snouthouses with protruding garages) that are very close together often have double garages (or double driveways) thus leading to postage stamp -sized front lawns/gardens and unidriveways. Almost all chain restaurants offer drive thrus. So do most banks. Malls are on the way out, replaced by behemoth smartcentres with hectares of parking interspersed with a few banks of stores. People walk their dogs, but nearly nobody walks to the store.

[niwell]

I have to say that the Ottawa of today is at least on somewhat of a different level than it was in the early aughts. Now it could simply be my perceptions after having not lived there for over 15 years now (and being kinda poor when I did!) but there really seems to be a tangible shift from the staid, boring town full of bureaucrats. That certainly still exists but I definitely felt more of a vibe going out to bars in Hintonburg or walking around the Market. Was just there the other week for the first time in a year - more if you count actually doing anything beyond hanging at the in-laws house - and had a surprisingly fun time.

[GreyGarden]

Great posts ue.

As all cities do in their own way, Winnipeg has an interesting aesthetic in Canadian culture. Not quite eastern, but not quite western. When I explore the city I have moments where I look around and feel a strong sense of familiarity with the scale and aesthetics of Toronto or Hamilton, and other times I feel as though I’m out west.

Ue has discussed Wolseley which is my dream neighbourhood for the reasons set out by ue. Currently I live in a central neighbourhood next to it that is sandwiched between Wolseley and downtown. It’s an amazing mix of narrow streets with old prewar homes and I shaped apartment buildings. The streets are lined with big trees. Here is a streetview to give everyone a sense:

https://www.google.com/maps/@49.8836...7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@49.8827...7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@49.8844...7i13312!8i6656

But interestingly, despite the good bones, and being quite walkable in almost all respects, it doesn’t have a good high street. The two commercial streets that close the neighbourhood in are underwhelming in terms of their offerings of retail, amenities, restaurants and bars. Looking at a map one can see exactly where they should be (east-west=Broadway, and North-South=Sherbrook), but they seem to struggle to gain any momentum.

I think what was said about momentum is an interesting point. There is a sense of stagnancy. I don’t think inner city / downtown Winnipeg has seen a large/medium scale residential proposal in about two years and the projects currently underway in the core seem to be bumping into issues. However, there is also a great energy in the inner city and core amongst young people and an optimism that leaves me hopeful. The core and pre-war suburbs are very liberal and progressive places in terms of people. I really don't sense the same longing to "escape" the city that I did say 8-10 years ago.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by JHikka

Thanks for the great post.



A lot can be said about cities that are pre-war or post-war, based solely on how they were designed or what was intended for when they were initially built.

There was a thread elsewhere on this forum relating to American cities and someone brought up that Montreal is inherently a better urban city than Toronto based solely on the fact that it grew/peaked earlier.

This isn't to automatically say that older = better, but rather to point out the intent that developers and designers had at the time, and how cars really changed how cities were built (or deconstructed).

That American argument relies on a weak bridge between two strong arguments.

The first argument is that building your cities to support car use is bad for urban vibrancy and life. No disagreement there.

The second argument is that we built our cities to support car use more after the war than before it. That's obviously historically provable.

But to say that a city that has more pre-war building stock is more urban is a bit of a leap. I can counter with many examples: Baltimore is obviously less urban than Vancouver by any measurable indicator. Vancouver itself is more urban than it was before the war.

Modern urbanism might still accommodate the automobile in ways that pre-war urbanism didn't, but once you pack people to a certain density and the destinations are close enough to be reached on foot, the majority of people will walk and animate the street. The way forward for Canadian cities - and we're getting there, despite obvious roadblocks - is to build densely on our small-ish pre-war urban built-up area. You don't need dozens of square miles of walkable fabric, either. Some of the greatest walking cities are just a few kilometers across.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

That American argument relies on a weak bridge between two strong arguments.

The first argument is that building your cities to support car use is bad for urban vibrancy and life. No disagreement there.

The second argument is that we built our cities to support car use more after the war than before it. That's obviously historically provable.

But to say that a city that has more pre-war building stock is more urban is a bit of a leap. I can counter with many examples: Baltimore is obviously less urban than Vancouver by any measurable indicator. Vancouver itself is more urban than it was before the war.

Modern urbanism might still accommodate the automobile in ways that pre-war urbanism didn't, but once you pack people to a certain density and the destinations are close enough to be reached on foot, the majority of people will walk and animate the street. The way forward for Canadian cities - and we're getting there, despite obvious roadblocks - is to build densely on our small-ish pre-war urban built-up area. You don't need dozens of square miles of walkable fabric, either. Some of the greatest walking cities are just a few kilometers across.

All good points, though on the last one I do think that more than a miniscule share of the city needs to be built that way in order for things to be optimal. Even if you have a super awesome but very tiny urban inner city, if 95% or more of the city is super sprawly and low-density, it'll often choke that area due to so many residents insisting on driving to get there and soak in the atmosphere. Even if you try and wean them off driving they will exert pressures (political and otherwise) and may end up killing off the area or at least compromising it.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by Acajack

All good points, though on the last one I do think that more than a miniscule share of the city needs to be built that way in order for things to be optimal. Even if you have a super awesome but very tiny urban inner city, if 95% or more of the city is super sprawly and low-density, it'll often choke that area due to so many residents insisting on driving to get there and soak in the atmosphere. Even if you try and wean them off driving they will exert pressures (political and otherwise) and may end up killing off the area or at least compromising it.

I think much of the misguided urban "renewal" efforts between the 1960s and early '80s suffered for trying to please the suburban crowd. Make everything new, just like the suburbs... make it drivable, ensuring parking was plentiful and cheap. Put a mall downtown to "attract" the people shopping at the ones in the newer parts of town. The result in many cities was a loss of heritage building stock (which seemingly wasn't valued as widely back then as it is today), blocks emptied for massive parking lots, and shops killed off, first by losing business to the newer suburban retail and then by the downtown mall that sucked away much of the remaining spending.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by JHikka

What is this in reference to? Transit?

Could really be said for just about anything. I've heard the same excuse for everything from bike lanes and pedestrian zones to bus services and rapid transit expansion. Lack of size compared to the next larger city or metro is almost a universal excuse for underinvestment and poor planning across Canada.

Originally Posted by kool maudit

Colonial cringe is alive and well. Also, and as a side note... Toronto is at the point where, in order for it to join the next level, it has to participate in history in some major way, it has to be the site of something. For Toronto to be Greater, Canada needs to be Great.

Disagree. Big cities almost universally set the trends. And as we see the constant excuse down the size ladder, Toronto's failings only get magnified elsewhere. For Canada to be great we need Toronto to be better. And by that I mean, not just the urban core south of Bloor, but the entire GTA. Because for however much Toronto itself has improved, the GTA is still a sprawling mess and arguably getting worse.

Originally Posted by kool maudit

I always thought that, minus maybe six to 10 square blocks, it felt basically like Brantford with somewhere to be on Monday morning. Very small-town feeling.

Small town feeling. Small town mindset. Big city prices. Big city traffic. Big city homelessness.

Originally Posted by niwell

I have to say that the Ottawa of today is at least on somewhat of a different level than it was in the early aughts. Now it could simply be my perceptions after having not lived there for over 15 years now (and being kinda poor when I did!) but there really seems to be a tangible shift from the staid, boring town full of bureaucrats. That certainly still exists but I definitely felt more of a vibe going out to bars in Hintonburg or walking around the Market. Was just there the other week for the first time in a year - more if you count actually doing anything beyond hanging at the in-laws house - and had a surprisingly fun time.

A few key areas are getting more urban and improving. But outside the Greenbelt, the city continues to sprawl and suburbanize, with some token efforts and building more towns and semis in new subdivisions. It really is following the path of the GTA. And not in a good way...

The worst part is the political system (a city Council that is dominated by suburban councillors) virtually guarantees a war on most pro-urban ideas. At least the City of Toronto only has to deal with 416 suburbs. Ottawa is comparable to the 905 having a say in what happens in downtown Toronto.