I have a weird fascination with death in cities. Simply put, I think cemeteries waste precious real estate on urban
territory and should be reconceptualized as spaces for the celebration of life, rather than mourning of death.

With the North American mindset of ‘grave in perpetuity’, we are stuck in a limbo of constantly burying the dead and writing it up as yet another plot of land to never be touched again. While certain European countries allow for a grave to be released after 15-30 years (after decomposition), our dense, growing cities look for more acreage in suburbs.

That’s a problem.

Think about it. How much foot traffic does your local cemetery get, and how is it currently being used? I’ve visited a handful of my city’s 50+ cemeteries – all green, peaceful areas that experienced little (living) human interaction. With the exception of an occasional dog walker or jogger, cemeteries have become places that scare people away rather than invite them in. While they typically double as city parks, you’ll never really find people throwing frisbees or kids playing among the tombstones. It’s a shame, and understandably so, because while cemeteries carry an immense amount of potential to be wonderful spaces for everyone to appreciate, they are still sacred, respected lands.

Just look at all these cemeteries in Toronto!

I realize that this is a sensitive subject. Because death isn’t sexy and rethinking the norm of burying our dead in a casket is controversial, politicians won’t even think about bringing innovation into this. Too many constituents to potentially offend. It would probably help to emphasize that I’m not advocating for digging up existing graves – I’m interested in rethinking our options for the future.

This cemetery fascination was kickstarted when I heard about Capsula Mundi – a process of planting bodies as seeds to grow trees. The body is placed in an egg-shaped container and buried, awaiting decomposition and growth of a memorial tree. I can imagine this concept growing to replace stone-laden cemeteries with ‘sacred forests’ to be enjoyed by everyone. Working off of this, why not create dedicated memorial parks? Such spaces technically already exist in Toronto but are either named as such for the name recognition of one person, or privately owned (very well-maintained) cemeteries that have restricted access and discourage play. Dense urban centers are constantly striving for green space, so what’s the harm in building cemetery playgrounds? A park bench in memory of John Doe, a tree in memory of Mary Smith, a slide in memory of Rover. Celebration of Life parks can’t be that crazy of an idea!

What about a virtual experience to supplement a physical cemetery? I’m not talking about an online memorial database (which are plentiful). A while ago, I heard about the use of virtual reality to mark memorials. You walk through the cemetery with your phone, having details of this tree or that bench superimposed onto your screen. By doing this, cemeteries can become interactive while losing the traditional intimidating and deteriorating tombstones.

Then there are the handful of options that come with cremation – columbariums, spreading ashes overseas, pressing ashes into gems. Can you imagine columbariums that can actually be enjoyed by people? A museum of sorts, where locals can discover beautiful artisan vessels that hold ashes. Or a conservatory, where each flower is dedicated to loved member of society.

Unlocking the potential of urban cemeteries will require a major cultural shift in how we view death. I think we’re slowly moving in the right direction for environmental reasons, but not quickly enough. A mix of legislation and forward-thinking urban planning is necessary to change things. It’s time to get creative with the future of urban cemeteries.

I attended a panel discussion on Smarter Cities last night. It was an interesting mix of panelists from the university, although lacking representation of private companies and the public sector.

Topics included financial responsibility of developing smart and sustainable neighbourhoods, creative development design (to the sky and in the ground rather than spreading out), collaboration across sectors and municipalities, equitable development for all demographics and the idea of global villages (which was incredibly fascinating and I will need to talk about in a different post).

The quick talks were interesting but the discussion that followed was the event’s highlight. I’m going to focus on two topics: data-based planning and government limitations.

One conversation was around data driven cities. There was disagreement between data-first and people-first development. To my understanding, one opinion was that cities should not develop without hard evidence of potential success and that our planning policies should originate from as much data as we can gather. This correlated with idea that people need to be told what they want, where decision makers must look data and explain to the public what’s good and what isn’t. The opposing view (from the mathematician on the panel) was that city planning should be spearheaded by how people use them – which might often seem illogical and counter to what data suggests. Existing quantitative data is limited by big-picture social issues and often excludes disadvantaged demographics. It is also easy to get caught up with the facts for too much precision; people are attracted to chaos as much as they to order, and there needs to be space for some natural messy urbanism. However, planning based on subjective opinions alone is also frivolous, since human bias can steer development in structureless, confusing directions. In my eyes, the happy medium lies in human-driven and data-supported solutions. Cities need to be worked on bottom-up: instead of throwing data and technology at a city and hoping it works, data products need to be tailored to the city’s specific issues through extensive consultation.

Another recurring theme was the role of the government in building/managing these smart cities. The panel’s disappointment in the risk aversion and lack of innovation in all levels of the government was blatant. The moderator went so far as to say that most of the audience’s young people will not end up working for the government because of creative limitations. Unfortunately, public service workers were not on the panel, but an audience member challenged the panel by explaining he works for the provincial government and works on plenty of innovative and creative projects, regardless of how slow they move. Another (among the many) critique of the government was that it incentivizes competition rather than collaboration, and shuns failure. Instead of Toronto working with other cities, individual cities work separately and often in competition with each other to make the ranks of important lists. To worsen matters, the risk aversion is so strong that cities are afraid to innovate and fail. The finest example of this is Toronto’s notorious pilot projects. Everything must be an extensively studied pilot project before rolling out the ‘real thing’.

All in all, it was an interesting event that sparked substantial conversation. My only disappointment was that it ended too soon and that these conversations will be, as usual, continued with other people and likely not lead to much action.

My neighbourhood has a lot of stigma. It’s known for having the lowest average income and employment rates, is one of the most dense in Toronto, and is often described as ‘dangerous’ (even though it has relatively low crime rates compared to the rest of the city). I reject this definition of Thorncliffe. Given its geography and circumstances, this neighbourhood is actually doing extremely well and has the potential of being one of the most competitive. So, what’s the real story, and how is the city planning to improve Thorncliffe and ‘fix’ the current problems people see? And who’s to say that these are, in fact, problems?

Let me first try to redefine this neighbourhood. For an apartment-dense community, Thorncliffe is nearly engulfed by green space. It is at the heart of the X where the northern creeks meet and continue down as one Don River into the lake. Biking or running along the Don River park, it feels very Toronto-esque to look up at Thorncliffe’s looming high rises while you yourself are surrounded by nature. The area is also surprisingly walkable. I often see journalists describe the neighbourhood as a whatever-you-want-to-call-it desert, but we’ve got plenty to offer. The core of Thorncliffe houses a library, school and large RV Burgess Park.

To the north, you will find the East York Town Center which has everything you need. Grocery, pharmacy, clothing, medical clinics – all, at most, a 10 minute walk from the southmost Thorncliffe building. The mall’s parking lot even doubles as a carnival in the summer and venue for tailgate parties the rest of the year! Further north you’ll be in the office park. I surveyed the area one summer and discovered the unique mix of businesses that included a a planning company, factory bakery outlet, an advertisement agency, and dozens of small mom-and-pop startups. As for transit? You’ve got 2 bus lines that enter the Thorncliffe loop, and at least 3 others that travel along Overlea.

The area is closer to being a rainforest of activity than a desert of anything. The proof can be found in our 3 community gardens, the constant public markets, the kids playing at all times of the day, and so many classes and services that it is difficult to keep track. Thus, while I understand the concern when looking at numbers, I refuse its label of ‘bad neighbourhood’.

So I think I’ve established that it’s a pretty sweet neighbourhood. Now what?

Several developments are underway. There is a Costco currently being built at 0 Thorncliffe which I think I’m excited about. Traffic will likely be a nightmare and the area will become a parking-lot haven, but the availability of cheaper goods and potential (high quality, from what I’ve read) jobs will be a huge positive for locals. There will be so many people visiting the area that hopefully East York Town Centre will be revitalized with energy. Then again, the local businesses are part of what make this area vibrant, so driving them away can seriously hurt our neighbourhood entrepreneurs. Many are arguing that the small businesses won’t be affected, since residents will still be interested in buying smaller quantities of goods for cheap (rather than in bulk), but I bet chain stores will see the opportunity in increased traffic and push their way in.

The old Target in the mall is also currently being renovated and either the plans are quite hush-hush or no one has leased the space yet. I believe, however, that the renovation includes divvying up the large space into smaller stores. I’ve also read that the 2nd floor will be a large community hub for programming and various clinics, but only from unofficial documents. Lots of potential here for the city to inject funds for some much-needed indoor neighbourhood amenities. There is a plan for bike lanes (!!!) to be installed as part of Toronto’s 10-Year Cycling Network Plan. There are many aggressive drivers (taxis) in Thorncliffe that have me question the safety of such a plan, but as with most of Toronto, they will adjust. This is a huge step forward for the area! I’m looking forward to seeing the impact of bike lanes on active transportation in this car-dominated neighbourhood.

As for the buildings themselves, it’s hard to guess what will come next. Despite being purpose-built rentals and having more solid foundations than most of Toronto’s condos, many are aged and worn out. The buildings have a mosaic of property managers (Morguard, Park Property, Briarlane Rentals), so it is difficult to plan for unified change. I would assume this means competition to keep maintenance quality high, but only one out of the 30-some buildings is being invested in with exterior and interior retrofitting of windows, brick and hallway coverings. My guess is that the low-rises will eventually be torn down and replaced by condos to accommodate for the demand that comes with the LRT and Costco.

With all of this said, Thorncliffe’s future is promising… Depending on your perspective. These developments mean neighbourhood progress at the cost of potential gentrification. Rents are slowly rising and most buildings have significant wait lists. I think people are realizing that this is an up-and-coming neighbourhood, and their push in here will be the factor that drives out those who’ve created lives here and cannot afford to move. With that said, a focus on actual housing is critical. It’s wonderful that neighbourhood initiatives have raised civic engagement and revitalized certain areas. It’s not wonderful that many of people are still living with pests, several housemates to a one bedroom, and in apartments that are withering away.

I don’t have a solution. I wish I did. All I can do is attend public meetings and keep involved with new developments, hoping that the city invests appropriately.

I’m Cyntia, a Polish-born Torontonian and die-hard urbanite.

As such, I aim to have this be a blog of all things urban. I am fascinated by cities and love exploring them in person and by map. This is a project primarily for myself, since I want to discover my city and process my findings by sharing everything I can about it. However, I would be ecstatic if my adventures let you see the world in a new way. If they teach you something new, that’s a bonus!

I am a graduate of Urban Studies and GIS, love to climb rocks, travel as frequently as my budget allows, and savour healthy (and delicious) eating.