This compare-and-contrast tweet between Toronto's High Park and New York's Central Park was not meant to suggest that New York is a perfect comparable to appropriate (Toronto is not New York), or that foliage isn't important in our urban environments. Instead, it was meant to highlight that:

• The towers north of High Park (and north of Bloor Street) could almost certainly never be built in today's planning environment. The recently built point towers exist because the slab towers were already there.

• This condition of height/density tucked and setback off of main streets is something that you will find across Toronto, as well as in a number of other cities.

• Sometimes it can be rightly argued that this is being done in order to preserve a fine-grained and pedestrian-scaled public realm, which is important. But in other cases, like the one above, it feels like a clear reluctance to accept big-city status and any sort of urban grandeur. Are we still trying to be a Victorian city?

• Equally important in the design of public spaces are the edges and "walls" that frame it. And High Park's edges need work. Why is there almost nowhere to go and hang out on the main edge of Toronto's principal urban park? You have to go up to the Junction for that.

• In general, the land around many of our higher-order transit stations is grossly underutilized. And this is a perfect example of that. What should happen here are some large-scale upzonings.

I was riding my bike on Bloor Street along the north edge of High Park over the weekend. And in between cyclists in spandex yelling at me for seemingly riding the wrong way in the bike lanes, I managed to safely snap this picture:

It was a reminder of that thing we like to do in Toronto where we want lower-rise along our main streets and then we tuck the taller parts somewhere in the back so that we can pretend they are maybe not there. Here's an aerial shot of the situation from Google Maps:

It's a very different condition from what you will find in New York along virtually all edges of Central Park:

Now, New York and Toronto are not the same city. This much is obvious.

But there is a grandeur and degree of urbanity that is present along Central Park that is not present along High Park. And I would argue that this feature isn't exclusive to New York. It can be found in many other cities, including places like Montreal.

I am sure that part of the rationale here on Bloor Street had to do with matching the lower-rise existing context. But we shouldn't forget that the edges of public spaces are oftentimes just as important as the spaces themselves. Sometimes they can be even more important.

So I thought I would put it out to all of you. To stepback or not to stepback. What do you think would be the most appropriate built form along this north edge of High Park? Leave a comment below.

This is a fascinating short video (by Vox) about a former neighborhood in Manhattan known as Seneca Village. Today, its land forms part of Central Park.

Most of us would probably agree that building Central Park was both a good idea and a powerful example of the value of foresight.

But that doesn't mean that the area's pre-park history is something that should be forgotten. (Thanks for sending this along, Jeremiah Shamess.)

If you'd like to learn more about Seneca Village, check out this NY Times opinion piece by Brent Staples. It's called, The Death of the Black Utopia.