4 ms·

As someone who lives near CityPlace I've got to say that area is the most culturally sterile in the whole downtown core. That block is called the "vertical subu

As someone who lives near CityPlace I've got to say that area is the most culturally sterile in the whole downtown core. That block is called the "vertical suburbs" for a reason. Everything's convenient...if your tastes are bland. Everything's within reach...if you go outside your neighbourhood for some actual culture or variety. It's a great place to live if you want to keep to yourself, and occasionally become involved in the local scene. It's not immersive like many vibrant neighbourhoods are, where you're an intrinsic part of the community. Planned cities always fail. Those that are allowed to grow organically, evolving to fit the community's needs if and when demand builds, work out much better in the long run. The difference between an area like, for example, Trinity Bellwoods and CityPlace is a lot more than the few hundred meters of distance. It's culturally night and day.

rayiner 8y ago
What a load of hand-waving. "Planned cities always fail?" You mean like Chicago? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burnham_Plan_of_Chicago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burnham_Plan_of_Chicago
- omosubi 8y ago
  Chicago existed long before the burnham plan, and even then only parts of it were implemented. Large parts of it were a success, but I would not consider these equivalent city planning efforts
  - astrodust 8y ago
    The core of most old American cities are fantastic places, Chicago included.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    Chicago was always highly planned and engineered, starting from the original street grid, to raising the street level, etc. http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/410050.html http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/410050.html.
- astrodust 8y ago
  Manhattan was "planned" inasmuch as the grid system was created, but the exact character of each neighborhood wasn't laid down in advance. Defining "planned" is a matter of drawing a line on a spectrum, so there's a lot of arguments possible here. What I mean is to compare Manhattan, which was loosely planned, with Levittown (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levittown https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levittown), rigidly planned, which was the original planned city and the grandfather of overly aggressive city planning. Later this evolved into the dystopian monstrosities envisioned by urban megalomaniacs like Le Corbusier such as Ville Radieuse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ville_Radieuse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ville_Radieuse) which would have been so utterly unliveable. He honestly should have stuck to architecting open-air prisons and slaughterhouses. Even Manhattan got bludgeoned by overly aggressive planning in the 1950s and 1960s when tyrants like Robert Moses were involved. Creating great urban spaces takes a lot of patience, care, and most of all, a willingness to let the city grow as it wants to, not as you intend it to.
  - rohit2412 8y ago
    Not sure why you hate planned cities so much. I probably come from a much different land (India), where chaos and organic growth is the norm for cities 4000-5000 years old. However, my favorite city is Chandigarh, a city planned by the "meglaniac" le corbusier. It is a serene small town very uncharacteristic of India, with clean well planned roads, greenery, law and order abiding population (you don't know Indian drivers, but they follow laws in Chandigarh). I pin all this down to the planned nature of Chandigarh which allows city planners to control and mould how the city should look and be. I'm not perfectly clear why you'd prefer an unplanned chaos over planned orderly city. In contrast to Chandigarh, the city I originate from is a centuries old city which has grown "naturally", and doesn't even have sewage (and Indus valley civilization had them 5000 years ago). Not that there is a lack of "soul" or "culture" in Chandigarh, the planned aspect covers making sure the traffic doesnt crawl, there is enough greenery, and utilities and amenities are provided to the population.
    - justsomedude43 8y ago
      Not having sewage is this case an Indian problem, not problem of 'organic' cities.
mynegation 8y ago
CityPlace is convenient enough. I would say the problem of CityPlace is that it is wedged between Gardiner Expressway and railroad, with only two ins and outs via Fort York blvd and that contributes to its relative isolation. Liberty Village has a similar problem albeit less pronounced due to its larger size.
- astrodust 8y ago
  Liberty Village is a moderate failure to encourage local culture, and the only reason it's not bleak and desolate is the historical Village area to the west. CityPlace isn't a community so much as it is a way of fitting the maximum number of concrete boxes into a given space as permitted by zoning laws. Culture wasn't even a consideration. Compare with the King St. W. projects where the buildings try and augment the community instead of stomp and supplant it. These new buildings have created opportunities for new businesses to take root and thrive. Despite having a considerable population, it's slim pickings around the condos in CityPlace. Unless you like Starbucks, dry cleaning, and an astonishingly boring pub you're out of luck.

rayiner 8y ago

What a load of hand-waving. "Planned cities always fail?" You mean like Chicago? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burnham_Plan_of_Chicago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burnham_Plan_of_Chicago

omosubi 8y ago
Chicago existed long before the burnham plan, and even then only parts of it were implemented. Large parts of it were a success, but I would not consider these equivalent city planning efforts
- astrodust 8y ago
  The core of most old American cities are fantastic places, Chicago included.
- rayiner 8y ago
  Chicago was always highly planned and engineered, starting from the original street grid, to raising the street level, etc. http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/410050.html http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/410050.html.
astrodust 8y ago
Manhattan was "planned" inasmuch as the grid system was created, but the exact character of each neighborhood wasn't laid down in advance. Defining "planned" is a matter of drawing a line on a spectrum, so there's a lot of arguments possible here. What I mean is to compare Manhattan, which was loosely planned, with Levittown (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levittown https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levittown), rigidly planned, which was the original planned city and the grandfather of overly aggressive city planning. Later this evolved into the dystopian monstrosities envisioned by urban megalomaniacs like Le Corbusier such as Ville Radieuse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ville_Radieuse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ville_Radieuse) which would have been so utterly unliveable. He honestly should have stuck to architecting open-air prisons and slaughterhouses. Even Manhattan got bludgeoned by overly aggressive planning in the 1950s and 1960s when tyrants like Robert Moses were involved. Creating great urban spaces takes a lot of patience, care, and most of all, a willingness to let the city grow as it wants to, not as you intend it to.
- rohit2412 8y ago
  Not sure why you hate planned cities so much. I probably come from a much different land (India), where chaos and organic growth is the norm for cities 4000-5000 years old. However, my favorite city is Chandigarh, a city planned by the "meglaniac" le corbusier. It is a serene small town very uncharacteristic of India, with clean well planned roads, greenery, law and order abiding population (you don't know Indian drivers, but they follow laws in Chandigarh). I pin all this down to the planned nature of Chandigarh which allows city planners to control and mould how the city should look and be. I'm not perfectly clear why you'd prefer an unplanned chaos over planned orderly city. In contrast to Chandigarh, the city I originate from is a centuries old city which has grown "naturally", and doesn't even have sewage (and Indus valley civilization had them 5000 years ago). Not that there is a lack of "soul" or "culture" in Chandigarh, the planned aspect covers making sure the traffic doesnt crawl, there is enough greenery, and utilities and amenities are provided to the population.
  - justsomedude43 8y ago
    Not having sewage is this case an Indian problem, not problem of 'organic' cities.

mynegation 8y ago

CityPlace is convenient enough. I would say the problem of CityPlace is that it is wedged between Gardiner Expressway and railroad, with only two ins and outs via Fort York blvd and that contributes to its relative isolation. Liberty Village has a similar problem albeit less pronounced due to its larger size.

astrodust 8y ago
Liberty Village is a moderate failure to encourage local culture, and the only reason it's not bleak and desolate is the historical Village area to the west. CityPlace isn't a community so much as it is a way of fitting the maximum number of concrete boxes into a given space as permitted by zoning laws. Culture wasn't even a consideration. Compare with the King St. W. projects where the buildings try and augment the community instead of stomp and supplant it. These new buildings have created opportunities for new businesses to take root and thrive. Despite having a considerable population, it's slim pickings around the condos in CityPlace. Unless you like Starbucks, dry cleaning, and an astonishingly boring pub you're out of luck.