Hacker News Reader

Comment by cam3ham | Hacker News Reader

As someone who lives in CityPlace, it's actually a pretty awesome area to live for young professionals. Right smack downtown, close to pretty much everything - work/offices, parks, bars/restaurants, delivery (same day Amazon Prime, all downtown restaurants on Uber Eats), transit, walking distance to every major sports arena, etc.

Not to mention massive growth in the area has lead to a lot of attention and investment from the city... seems to only be getting better every year.

No idea where you got the idea that it was "soulless"? Perhaps because it is a relatively new development/area... there is massive construction going up everywhere in the area including 2 new schools and community center right in the middle of canoe landing park: http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2017/09/cityplace-finally-gettin...

View on HN

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.

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

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), 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) 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.

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.

Not having sewage is this case an Indian problem, not problem of 'organic' cities.

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

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.

The core of most old American cities are fantastic places, Chicago included.

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.

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.

I lived in CityPlace for over two years. The apartment itself was great. Fast internet, reliable guards / mail delivery. Nice BBQ area. I even used the football area.

My problem was once they started filling up the commercial areas downstairs. They were almost all kinda blah. The automotive-first design also made the area kinda sterile and windy. I used a bike, but most friends that visited felt like it was a part of Toronto that felt completely disjoint from the rest of it. Plus the bridge between the two buildings is so tacky and ugly. The area with the canoe is ugly. The "art" they put up is the type of garbage that makes it out of a committee. They could have engaged real artists. The look of the buildings themselves don't really bother me as much as they bother some other people, but they don't add a ton of architectural value to the city and their proximity to the rail yard makes them even more desolate from nice places.

CityPlace has gotten much better as retail has improved in the last year or so. A new Ramen place just opened up, as well as Bubble Tea place, a decent barber shop, a marijuana dispensary, a coffee shop, etc. More restaurants and retail places are coming as well now that most of the major construction is completing and the bottom floor retail spots are for rent.

Otherwise it's great for having a gym/pool/parking in your building which was the main draw for living there. But I'm not under any illusion it's a great cultural neighbourhood in itself. But regardless it's a 2min bike ride to King St W, 2 more to Queen St W, not far from Trinity, next to Spadina streetcar line, and Queens Quay waterfront. Walking distance to 75% of downtown tech companies.

Plus it's right off the highway making it easy to visit family in the country.

City place has many benefits and has improved, but it is what it is.

Renting a floor of a half renovated Victorian house or above a store on a main street has plenty of it's own downsides as well. Not to mention having to use a dirty packed Goodlife gym or public pool.

Good to know. I'll try to check it out next time I'm there. Is that where you're living these days? If so, let's grab ramen next time we're catching up! :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com