Yule Heibel's Library tagged toronto →  View Popular

Still, it's the provinces that provide the most glaring example of Canada's failure to keep up with its own evolution. Not only have they outlived their usefulness, these relics have become a divisive force that stand in the way of Canadian cities, which is where the future will unfold. Just look at Calgary and Edmonton, which despite being the most populous centres in Canada's richest province, are dull, dreary and decades behind the times.

The fact is that the gap between Canada and its political system has grown into a chasm. Our leaders – civic, provincial and federal – no longer reflect or operate in the real world. Unencumbered by the demands of reality, they are free to devote their time to their own needs and inter-governmental squabbling. It's really all they are able to do.

Richard Florida, director of the Martin Prosperity Institute at U of T's Rotman School of Management, spoke about dismantling the divisions between urban and rural issues, local and national issues.

"We need to move across the divide," Florida said, bemoaning the state of U.S. affairs. He said cities shouldn't be isolated from other concerns. "It has to be our obligation in urban areas to lead and help ... to benefit everyone."

During questions, one member of the audience raised the spectre of the Canadian Constitution, which delineates the provinces' authority over municipalities.

"The Constitution is an excuse not to do something," Miller said later, pointing to overlap in areas such as immigration, which is a federal responsibility, yet is an issue for cities, where most immigrants settle.

Most of the panel, which included environmental philosopher Ingrid Stefanovic, argued that urban issues were inseparable from national issues – from climate change, transportation strategy and the country's economic health, to immigration and concerns about urban sprawl and the environment.

Stefanovic, who argued cities and the environment should be viewed as one issue, said: "I think all political parties have to recognize cities are going to be playing an important role – should be playing an important role – in this election."

Then the city should focus on trees, which once defined Toronto, and drinking fountains, which used to be ubiquitous. After that, let's look at clocks.

In these ways, we could enhance our relationship with the city at relatively low cost. Even if Toronto doesn't change, the experience would.

Fifteen years ago, all new housing in Toronto had to have a front door. The high-rise market was dead, the 905 was booming and surface parking lots pocked the face of the central city. But things have changed - and once again prices reveal all. A beautiful house in central Mississauga with parking for four cars costs less than $200 a square foot. A slice of a midtown Toronto "filing cabinet," as Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion calls high-rise condominiums, costs well more than $400 a foot.

Why? It's the subway, stupid. It's the power of proximity, the value of choice, the enduring appeal of urbanity. As reckoned by the free market, the price of gas remains a minor factor in the total cost of the suburban lifestyle. Many ordinary people in Toronto today, especially those of the new generation, are more than happy to pay their voluntary carbon taxes - simply by moving into the suddenly fashionable, high-rise city. So let the Ottawa gang play their "revenue-neutral" shell games. The real leaders are ordinary people responding to clear market signals, calmly building a new city for the new age.

And so it is a measure of how far removed we have grown from ourselves that many of us now see walking as extraneous. It is viewed as a kind of hobby, a pastime, a luxury, certainly not essential, and definitely not a means of transportation.

Indeed, we have reached a point where we classify ourselves according to whether we walk or drive. Thus we are either drivers or pedestrians. Because walking is not considered necessary, we give precedence to those who travel in cars and trucks. From their perspective, people who walk are obstacles, in the way.

Though we can't turn back the clock, the only way to ensure urban health is to plan cities with walking in mind. If nothing else, this necessitates a human scale. There's no better measure of that than walking. Not to say that everyone will walk everywhere, but that we should be able to, it should be an option. No, it must be an option.

Fleet St., Lake Shore Blvd. and around the Rogers Centre. These islands of condos separated by six-lane highways are hostile, even dangerous, for walkers. Pedestrians are definitely not welcome here; they get in the way of drivers, who are always in a hurry.

This is not how to build a city. This is how to destroy a city.

There are so many other very reasonable access options the ROM has effectively decided against: Free access to the permanent collection. Free access for a day or an evening. Keeping all admission fees at $10 or under. Having concession fees for the underemployed. Admission by donation. The list goes on. Almost every museum in Canada has some combination of these strategies–and has to, in order to keep their funding and their reputation.

By throwing more money at the ROM without keeping them to a truly equitable public mandate, McGuinty is basically encouraging bad behavior in their museum management. Maybe he can abide by that. But I certainly can’t.

Shame there was no mention of museum access in other cities. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t Toronto the single most expensive city on the planet Earth for visiting the centrepiece museum? Isn’t there something wrong with that? Something that letting a few students in for free will not exactly address? Just as Pearson is the world’s most expensive airport (landing fees), but no one seems to care, there is a surprising tolerance for this gouging.

Cities, TTC, museums, airports - exactly how poor a country is Canada when it comes to government funding of anything other than health care? Think about that while you pay the world’s highest prices (plus GST!) for transit fares, airline tickets, ROM admission….

I agree that TO is not the most expensive city in the world. But the ROM fees are still far from reasonable and fair. This is particularly so for their permanent collection, which are the objects the public in effect owns. That’s why in MTL at the fine arts museum it’s free to see the permanent collection, extra for special exhibitions. Same at the Tate in London.

Also, the Louvre (9 euro daytime admission) has a variety of access strategies that the ROM does not: Discounts every day after 6pm. Free for all the first Sunday of every month. Free for those under 18 all the time. Free for those under 26 on Friday evenings. Free for those with disabilities, and their companions. Free for the unemployed. Free for those on social benefits. And these are obtained right at the gate, no need to get in line for rationed passes.

And the American Museum of Natural History permanent collection access is always by donation. They suggest certain donations, but ultimately all visitors regardless of income, can, yes, see the dinosaurs. Temporary exhibits require payment, as with the Tate and other museums.

A London monthly card for zone 1-2 is 93 pounds but that is also good for rail. A Twin Pass for GO/TTC is no longer available but for a comparable region it would cost far more than $185.

Based on purchasing power (relative to salaries, etc.) I still stand by my statement. Toronto is a bargain when it comes to skating rinks or housing or cost of living in general, but anything civic or infrastructure-related tends to be very, very expensive. To add to my list of “most expensive” — per-km toll highway, commuter train fares, observation decks…(ok, that last one is private and not civic but I still find it annoying.)

Leah is quite correct — all museums in New York that receive any city funding must use pay-what-you-wish admission or lose city funds. A noble principle that should apply to the ROM. MoMA is private and costs $20, but even that museum is free on Friday nights (4-8 pm).

Admission to the ROM, what with all the public funding it receives, should be based on suggested donation, along with possibly an admission ticket required for special exhibitions and the such. This way, let the clueless tourists shell out the suggested admission and everyone else get in for whatever they want to pay.

I am a New Yorker, and one of my favorite things about growing up there was how I could go to the Museum of Natural History and the Metropolitan Museum of Art on the same day for, well, 5 cents each, with a stroll through Central Park thrown in. My high school was a short walk away from the Met, and we would go there to hang out after-school (dorky? yes. awesome? yes)

And as a UofT student, I would love to go to ROM on a regular basis - and now I will be able to. But it would be ultimately better for everyone if that were the case for all of us. Toronto would do well to create a stronger sense of civic pride and belonging, and cultural institutions of course play a huge part in that.

But the ROM does not at all feel like it is a public institution. I remember being annoyed when I heard about how they were having a ’special’ opening for the rich (or whoever) before the ‘official’ opening of the crystal last year - and really, wtf was that? Sure, throw a ball for those that contributed money - but to have it before the public opening just told me that they did not want to have them in there after us common folk contaminated the place.

But really, everything, and I mean everything, in Toronto seems to be more expensive than what I experienced in NYC - and the quality is worse - and there is no reason why it should be that way.

Do working poor people really have time to spend at any museum or gallery? I recall freebie nights at the AGO attracting mostly middle class but cheap Torontonians and some students–most of whom come from middleclass backgrounds.

But yeah, make the ROM free from midnight to six AM!:)

Half a century after the Spit was begun, its problems are the result of this unexpected success. In 2006, the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corp., now Waterfront Toronto, announced plans to incorporate the Spit into a larger park, Lake Ontario Park.

This isn't necessarily cause for alarm. But we shouldn't forget that the key to the Spit's transformation from dump to natural habitat has been the absence of man. True, hundreds of trucks show up most working days. But their impact is minimal. They drive down the road that forms the spine of the peninsula, drop their load, and return.

The real threat may come from the people who go to the area for leisure. Though well-meaning and sympathetic, they represent the forces of gentrification. Despite their good intentions, their presence means planners feel pressure to ensure the park has all the amenities – toilets, interpretive centres, picnic benches, trails, lights, information kiosks and so on, the whole paraphernalia of civic green space – the public expects.

To a great many contemporary architects, this must seem precious and all rather beside the point. Their job is to deliver their client's bidding as cheaply and painlessly as possible, and to hell with the rest.

And the city, why should they worry about that, it's not their concern?

Condo critic

THE LIBERTIES, 717 BAY ST.: This nasty slab sums up the ethos of a generation of architects that may be well trained, but was certainly poorly educated.

There isn't a single element of this complex here that engages us at any level; more disturbing, there wasn't meant to be.

It comes to us as one of those poor architectural creations unloved by those who gave it birth. Its justification is strictly an economic one.

The miserable green metal columns that support the glass canopy clutter the sidewalk and the building. You just want to get past it as fast as possible.

The frontage on Bay and Gerrard Sts. has been broken up into a series of bays that reach up from a four-storey base.

The bricks are beige and the results aren't pretty.

GRADE: D

WHAT DO YOU THINK? Email us at condocritic@thestar.ca

Fear of change is nothing new, of course, but how did we become so fearful?

In part it may be because so much of the growth that occurred after World War II, however well-intentioned, was misguided and destructive.

During the 1950s, '60s and '70s, bad things did happen to cities. The dominant narrative was one of urban decay and the way out was through the kind of mega-projects that now make us shake our heads in disbelief.

Just look at Regent Park, the housing project that won awards at the time but is now being razed and rebuilt. Experts travelled to Toronto from around the world to gaze at the marvel that was Regent Park. Now we can't wait to tear it down.

Back then, however, it made sense to sacrifice whole districts, even cities, in the name of progress. It was an ideology, almost a religion, that took everything into account but the people it was meant to benefit. Neighbourhoods were torn apart, residents displaced and history destroyed.

The Spadina Expressway established a new normal, a new attitude, a new Toronto. Although it was right to say no to the Spadina Expressway, it's not right to say no to everything.

"Toronto doesn't know how to say yes."

And Toronto isn't alone. "Fear of change is palpable everywhere in New York," reports Hilary Ballon, who co-edited the recently published, Robert Moses and the Modern City, a revisionist history of the controversial builder.

Residents complain when a new building is constructed, then when it's torn down.