Cities with strong skylines and pedestrian realms

[softee]

Originally Posted by emathias

Maybe I've just been in the wrong parts of Toronto, and I'll admit I've only been there twice, but both time I found it to not be better than Chicago pedestrian-wise. It wasn't terrible, but I stayed right in the center near the subway both times, and ventured out via the subway to other parts of the city and it was nowhere near as good for walking around as New York and I found it less pedestrian friendly than Chicago or Boston or Portland.

Things can vary greatly depending on which neighbourhoods you were in, the time of year/time of day, the weather etc., so of course a couple of visits can't really give you an accurate assessment of day to day life in a particular city.

This video from last summer shows Yonge Street pedestrian volumes in what appears to be mid day (based on the lack of traffic), it would be quite a lot busier at rush hour. Things get interesting about 5 minutes in when the driver passes Bloor Street.

• Video Link

He has a bunch of other videos on his channel of other cities including New York, Chicago, Boston and Portland.

[memph]

Originally Posted by emathias

Maybe I've just been in the wrong parts of Toronto, and I'll admit I've only been there twice, but both time I found it to not be better than Chicago pedestrian-wise. It wasn't terrible, but I stayed right in the center near the subway both times, and ventured out via the subway to other parts of the city and it was nowhere near as good for walking around as New York and I found it less pedestrian friendly than Chicago or Boston or Portland.

Chicago probably has more attractive pedestrian infrastructure. Toronto has made some recent improvements, like on Bloor Street, but many key streets are pretty underwhelming when it comes to nice wide sidewalks, street trees. The main thing going for it is a lot of stuff to walk to and a lot of people walking.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by softee

Things can vary greatly depending on which neighbourhoods you were in, the time of year/time of day, the weather etc., so of course a couple of visits can't really give you an accurate assessment of day to day life in a particular city.

This video from last summer shows Yonge Street pedestrian volumes in what appears to be mid day (based on the lack of traffic), it would be quite a lot busier at rush hour. Things get interesting about 5 minutes in when the driver passes Bloor Street.

• Video Link

He has a bunch of other videos on his channel of other cities including New York, Chicago, Boston and Portland.

Are we talking pedestrian traffic volumes or pedestrian realm quality? Seems like you guys are discussing two different things.

[66days]

Originally Posted by memph

Chicago probably has more attractive pedestrian infrastructure. Toronto has made some recent improvements, like on Bloor Street, but many key streets are pretty underwhelming when it comes to nice wide sidewalks, street trees. The main thing going for it is a lot of stuff to walk to and a lot of people walking.

Toronto has the worst public realm of any city in the developed world. And the city seems oblivious to the fact.

[ue]

^ lol

Originally Posted by summersm343

I would say they would be:

NYC
Chicago
San Francisco
Philadelphia
Boston
Seattle
Los Angeles

In Canada:

Toronto
Calgary
Vancouver
Montreal

This is entirely subjective, but I'm not huge on the skylines of Boston and Vancouver. They both have decent skylines, but their street level experience seems far stronger. I could see the appeal of Boston's (though I think Philly, Atlanta, and LA are stronger) but Vancouver's is just a wall of glass boxes. It's backdrop is gorgeous, admittedly, though.

[MonkeyRonin]

I don't think anyone can quantitatively rank the pedestrian experience of North America's second-tier "urban cities" (i.e. not New York) - those being Chicago, San Francisco, Boston, Philadelphia, and DC in the US; and Toronto and Montreal in Canada - as in so far as pedestrian volumes, pedestrian friendliness, availability of destinations, and density and transit infrastructure to support walking are concerned, they're all pretty similar. Streetscaping and the quality of the public realm is another matter, however, but then, attractive streetscapes don't always correlate with walkability and urbanity.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by softee

...
This video from last summer shows Yonge Street pedestrian volumes in what appears to be mid day (based on the lack of traffic), it would be quite a lot busier at rush hour. Things get interesting about 5 minutes in when the driver passes Bloor Street.
...

Yonge was ok as a pedestrian usablity street. But that's one street and attractive, it's not. Just usable.

I guess part of my complaint is how poorly it interacts with its waterfront. Admittedly, Chicago interacts with its waterfront better than almost any other city in the world, so it's a high standard for comparison, but because of that Toronto felt more like a bigger, better Cleveland than anything that should be compared to Chicago.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by emathias

Yonge was ok as a pedestrian usablity street. But that's one street and attractive, it's not. Just usable.

I guess part of my complaint is how poorly it interacts with its waterfront. Admittedly, Chicago interacts with its waterfront better than almost any other city in the world, so it's a high standard for comparison, but because of that Toronto felt more like a bigger, better Cleveland than anything that should be compared to Chicago.

I wasn't too blown away by the Chicago waterfront to be honest. Grant park is gorgeous to look at, but pretty boring unless there's an event going on. I found Lake Shore to be a formidable barrier as well, particularly the underpasses north of downtown. I just couldn't really see myself spending much time on the waterfront in Chicago, and this jives with what people I know who live there say.

In both cities the strength is in neighbourhoods outside of the financial core IMO. Many of these aren't exactly aesthetically pretty but are functional and well used by pedestrians. Personally I will go for an area that is well used with interesting destinations even if it's not exactly polished. Not everyone feels this way though.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by niwell

I just couldn't really see myself spending much time on the waterfront in Chicago, and this jives with what people I know who live there say.

FWIW, i live in chicago and go to the lakefront as often as i can. being a 10 minute walk from the beach was a key factor in why my wife and i decided to move to our current neighborhood.

and from the the loads of people i always see along chicago's 20 miles of continuous lakefront park system, it's safe to say that many, many other people in the windy city take advantage of the lakefront as well.

the people that you know who live here who say otherwise sound like some serious weirdos to me.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

FWIW, i live in chicago and go to the lakefront as often as i can. being a 10 minute walk from the beach was a key factor in why my wife and i decided to move to our current neighborhood.

and from the the loads of people i always see along chicago's 22 miles of continuous lakefront park system, it's safe to say that many, many other people in the windy city take advantage of the lakefront as well.

I suppose I should have clarified to mean the core downtown waterfront. It seemed much more pleasant and usable north of Lincoln Park or so. Though to be fair I've never really been a huge waterfront person in general, particularly in touristy areas.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by niwell

I suppose I should have clarified to mean the core downtown waterfront.

when i lived downtown from 2006 - 2014, i walked/biked to the lakefront ALL. THE. FREAKING. TIME.

even more than i do now (because i didn't have kids back in those days and had loads more free-time).

Originally Posted by niwell

though to be fair I've never really been a huge waterfront person in general

you and i are very different people. i'm not just merely drawn to water, i'm inescapably tied to it. i've more or less lived in chicago for my entire life (except some college years up in minnesota), in 10 different homes over the years, and none of them have ever been more than a mile from the lakefront. i need the lake; it sustains me. and chicago's 20 continuous miles of public access lakefront are a shining beacon of good city planning in my opinion. a lesser city would have given over its lakefront to industry, commerce, and other private interests, but chicago saved its lakefront, just about all of it, for the public good. it was a brilliant move that continues to pay big QOL dividends to this day.

[softee]

Originally Posted by emathias

I guess part of my complaint is how poorly it interacts with its waterfront. Admittedly, Chicago interacts with its waterfront better than almost any other city in the world, so it's a high standard for comparison, but because of that Toronto felt more like a bigger, better Cleveland than anything that should be compared to Chicago.

Wait -- are you talking about the waterfront or the city as a whole?

I don't get all the gripes with the Toronto waterfront, sure the Gardiner is there, but it's no problem to walk under it and then the actual waterfront on the lake side of Queens Quay is extremely active and full of walking paths, bike lanes, trails, attractive parkland, neat little attractions, shops, restaurants, art, natural areas -- lots of stuff to make a day of it whether you just want to sit and watch the world go by and look at the lake/city skyline or be more active. Then if you don't feel like walking back the way you came you can hop on the streetcar.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by emathias

Yonge was ok as a pedestrian usablity street. But that's one street and attractive, it's not. Just usable.

I guess part of my complaint is how poorly it interacts with its waterfront. Admittedly, Chicago interacts with its waterfront better than almost any other city in the world, so it's a high standard for comparison, but because of that Toronto felt more like a bigger, better Cleveland than anything that should be compared to Chicago.

Toronto is quite shabby for a big global city but 2 points are worth noting. Firstly, the shabbiness/public realm is being tackled block by block and secondly, the walk scores in central Toronto would indicate that Toronto is nothing like Cleveland; it's similar to Chicago.

You're equating beauty with pedestrian friendly. Beauty does make walking more appealing but arguing that Yonge is only 'usable' is a bit odd.

[softee]

The neighbourhood commercial strips outside of downtown in Chicago don't look any more aesthetically pleasing or pedestrian friendly to me than the neighbourhood commercial strips outside of downtown Toronto.

One of Toronto's biggest strengths is the large number of healthy, vibrant commercial strips in the many outlying urban neighbourhoods. People flock to these commercial strips (many of which are geared to specific ethnic tastes and on streetcar or subway lines) to stroll and partake of all the local and often unique shops/restaurants/bars/fruit stands -- even though in some of these neighbourhoods (not all) the buildings are quite shabby looking and are often heavily tagged with graffiti.

Many of these neighbourhoods are also adjacent to each other allowing one to walk for many hours through miles and miles of vibrant, uninterrupted commercial/retail streetfront urbanity. Try and do that in Cleveland!

[Chicago3rd]

Originally Posted by Bailey

Downtown Houston is quietly improving their downtown urban core. They've been doing so, piece by piece, since the start of this century.he new building have to relate to the street and other buildings now.

While Houston's surroundings are impressive in their growths, Houston's center is still growing at a snails pace for a city that is so large. Houston is still in it's urban infancy and many of our older already established urban cities are growing in their central portion faster than Houston.

So yes, Houston is improving...but still lacks that urban feel.

[ithakas]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

when i lived downtown from 2006 - 2014, i walked/biked to the lakefront ALL. THE. FREAKING. TIME.

I grew up in downtown Chicago. Everyone in my family was spending time on the lakefront constantly – I would sometimes be there multiple times a day, between jogging in the morning, biking to Hyde Park, and hanging out with my friends on Northerly Island to drink cheap beer.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by softee

The neighbourhood commercial strips outside of downtown in Chicago don't look any more aesthetically pleasing or pedestrian friendly to me than the neighbourhood commercial strips outside of downtown Toronto.

I don't think this is true. Chicago historically was many times larger than Toronto, so just developed more prewar neighborhood strips in a much larger radius.

I think the closer-in Chicago North/Northwest side commercial strips tend to have significantly stronger prewar bones than those in Old Toronto.

Examples would be:

Wicker Park
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9097...7i13312!8i6656

Lincoln Park
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9313...7i13312!8i6656

Lakeview
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9352...7i13312!8i6656

Toronto isn't like 2016 Cleveland, of course, but it's kind of a Cleveland if it had boomed in the postwar era onward, moreso than a smaller Chicago.

[Zerton]

Originally Posted by ue

Yes. Middle Eastern cities like Dubai, Abu Dhabi, and Doha, along with newer American cities like Dallas, Houston, and Las Vegas, and resort-type cities like Panama City and Benidorm fit well in the strong skylines column.

Then cities with a strong pre-WWII fabric remaining, especially in Europe, but also places like Lima, New Orleans, Boston, Adelaide, Wellington, Jerusalem, Mexico City, Guadalajara, Havana, and Halifax may have alright skylines, but far stronger pedestrian realms. Also occurs in some newer cities like Vancouver and Almere.

Dallas is actually getting much better. the Uptown and Deep Ellum areas are very walkable and the city has great light rail for the US.

[shappy]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't think this is true. Chicago historically was many times larger than Toronto, so just developed more prewar neighborhood strips in a much larger radius.

I think the closer-in Chicago North/Northwest side commercial strips tend to have significantly stronger prewar bones than those in Old Toronto.

Examples would be:

Wicker Park
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9097...7i13312!8i6656

Lincoln Park
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9313...7i13312!8i6656

Lakeview
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9352...7i13312!8i6656

Toronto isn't like 2016 Cleveland, of course, but it's kind of a Cleveland if it had boomed in the postwar era onward, moreso than a smaller Chicago.

There are many attractive commercial strips in Chicago including the fine examples you posted. There are also quite a few in Toronto. I don't see the "significantly stronger" part at all. I just really don't think you know Toronto as well as you seem to think you do.

And poor Cleveland, it's like if you want to insult a city you compare it to Cleveland...

[NorthernDancer]

I don't see how those links Crawford posted have "significantly stronger bones" than any of Toronto's commercial districts. In fact, they don't.