Toronto Peter Street Condominiums | 129.84m | 40s | CentreCourt | a—A

Well that didn't take long...
It seems odd to me that so many people would want to live in an area packed with bars/clubs and the antics that come with them. But then I assume as soon as all these new residents move in they'll make it their mission to boot the nightlife out of the neighbourhood.
 
Xray_Crystal_Junkie said:
Well that didn't take long...
It seems odd to me that so many people would want to live in an area packed with bars/clubs and the antics that come with them. But then I assume as soon as all these new residents move in they'll make it their mission to boot the nightlife out of the neighbourhood.
Click to expand...

Here's the deal, those of us who live in this part of the city make it alive 24/7. We have our homes here, shop here, go to restaurants, movies and the theatre here. Many of us walk to work - which is typically a short distance away because this is a downtown neighbourhood. Our businesses and services inhabit the the older buildings, and many of our condos house commercial parking for those who must drive to work here. So pardon me if I say that your whining about the loss of what was largely a weekend nighttime business is plain silly. The clubs disappear and what is replacing them is the creation of a vibrant and attractive community that people want to live in.
 
`
peterm02.jpg
 
gristle said:
Here's the deal, those of us who live in this part of the city make it alive 24/7. We have our homes here, shop here, go to restaurants, movies and the theatre here. Many of us walk to work - which is typically a short distance away because this is a downtown neighbourhood. Our businesses and services inhabit the the older buildings, and many of our condos house commercial parking for those who must drive to work here. So pardon me if I say that your whining about the loss of what was largely a weekend nighttime business is plain silly. The clubs disappear and what is replacing them is the creation of a vibrant and attractive community that people want to live in.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was necessarily a bad thing, just found it somewhat odd that this location is seeing so much development. It's akin to people moving next to an airport and complaining about all the planes.
Most clubs/bars down there are open Thursday-Sunday with a few on Mondays and Wednesdays as well. But you are correct, they don't add much to the vibrancy of the neighbourhood most of the time and contribute nothing during the day (except the select few that double as restaurants).
The nightclub business is very profitable though and I don't see the clubs all packing up without stiff resistance. And when it does eventually happen they'll all just pop up somewhere else.
 
That warehouse on the southeast corner is one of my favourite buildings in the area... it's stunning. I hope it never gets touched/ added on to!
 
The nightclub business is very profitable though and I don't see the clubs all packing up without stiff resistance.
Click to expand...

Unless they own the building (which they almost never do), their influence is rather ineffectual. No rent they can offer can compete with a developer's purchasing power. Even if they did own the property, they are purely governed by the greedy quick buck (that's why they are in that business), and will sell.


And when it does eventually happen they'll all just pop up somewhere else.
Click to expand...

The younger crowd found a way to entertain themselves on weekends prior to Clubland, and will find a way again when it is gone. Sticking them all in one tiny district wasn't such a fantastic experiment in the first place.
 
SP!RE said:
That warehouse on the southeast corner is one of my favourite buildings in the area... it's stunning. I hope it never gets touched/ added on to!
Click to expand...


unlikely that it will seeing as how it is a heritage property. plus menkes will be building Noir immediately to the south and the warehouse site is too small as a standalone.
 
freshcutgrass said:
Unless they own the building (which they almost never do), their influence is rather ineffectual. No rent they can offer can compete with a developer's purchasing power. Even if they did own the property, they are purely governed by the greedy quick buck (that's why they are in that business), and will sell.
Click to expand...

Do you mean to suggest every piece, or the vast majority at least, of property (suitable for a club) will be purchased by large developers? I don't see that happening. You can't put a condo on every square metre of the district. There will always be room for the clubs if that's where they choose to locate themselves, it's just the residents will no doubt campaign hard to remove them.

Perhaps coffee shops and dry cleaners to service the new residents could pay higher rent and thus they're indirectly squeezed out, but I'm not so sure about that either.

The younger crowd found a way to entertain themselves on weekends prior to Clubland, and will find a way again when it is gone. Sticking them all in one tiny district wasn't such a fantastic experiment in the first place.
Click to expand...

Most large cities have an area where clubs are more dense. It occurs naturally because owners want to be near other clubs (for several reasons: it's easier to get your brand out and you get spill over from those who hop around to several a night or the line was simply too big at the place they originally had in mind. In essence they go where the people are). If they're booted from here they will undoubtedly surface somewhere else in close proximity to each other.
 
Xray_Crystal_Junkie said:
I didn't say it was necessarily a bad thing, just found it somewhat odd that this location is seeing so much development. It's akin to people moving next to an airport and complaining about all the planes.
Click to expand...

The area is seeing so much development because it is downtown, that's why. It should be obvious.

Also, with reference to an airport, you invoke a bad analogy. An airport is a legally defined and highly regulated space. This downtown neighbourhood isn't clubland. Club operators are not given special dispensation to avoid city or provincial bylaws here. Those club patrons who decide to get drunk, behave like idiots, break stuff, scream, piss, litter and puke everywhere have not been granted a special right to do so based on the location. This area is defined in city planning terms as a mixed-use residential neighbourhood. There will be clubs, but not the same concentration as in the past, and more of them are having strict operating conditions added to their licenses to aid in curbing the excesses. The smart operators will adapt. The stupid operators will be forced out of business - and good riddance to them.
 
I don't have numbers but this district has to have the most number of new units being built (or proposed) right now. It's crazy how dense it is going to be soon and was just thinking aloud that I thought it was odd here (As opposed to say just north of the CBD, south of College between Spadina and Yonge. Still plenty of parking lots and low rise there).

And I think the airport analogy is very fitting. So what if ones regulated? That's inconsequential. In both cases there was something there before new residents moved in, knowing full well the consequences of already having those things there. But fine, if you're going to be picky I'll give the more similar example of frats/sororities in part the Annex. Those have been there for 100+ years but new residents still complain about noise. Nonsensical if you ask me.

The amount of idiocy owed to the clubs has already declined I believe (and as you point out). Maybe I don't have an accurate recollection of the past but it seems like there is a larger police presence now and that has helped.
 
Do you mean to suggest every piece, or the vast majority at least, of property (suitable for a club) will be purchased by large developers? I don't see that happening.
Click to expand...

Well, it's been happening a LOT...and it's just beginning. But you're right...it doesn't account for everything. Many buildings that haven't already been converted to post-n-beam office space...will be. Allied Properties is having a heyday down there.

The ET is becoming what it should...a high density, truly diverse neighbourhood. Night life will no doubt be a part of that, but I think will reflect the nature of the neighbourhood, rather than be taken over by immature suburban kids 3 nights a week.
 
Xray_Crystal_Junkie said:
And I think the airport analogy is very fitting. So what if ones regulated? That's inconsequential. In both cases there was something there before new residents moved in, knowing full well the consequences of already having those things there. But fine, if you're going to be picky I'll give the more similar example of frats/sororities in part the Annex. Those have been there for 100+ years but new residents still complain about noise. Nonsensical if you ask me.

The amount of idiocy owed to the clubs has already declined I believe (and as you point out). Maybe I don't have an accurate recollection of the past but it seems like there is a larger police presence now and that has helped.
Click to expand...

No the analogy is not fitting - at all. The King-Spadina area was zoned as mixed-use residential long before clubs showed up in numbers. There is no special zoning for a "club land," so if operators violate noise by-laws, they violate the same noise by-laws that apply across the city. If they violate their liquor licensing provisions, then they violate the same provisions that apply across the province. There is no built-in legal provision in that area that excuses people from acting like idiots.

As for the Annex, do you seriously believe that residents arrived after the frats and sororities? Do you really believe that the people who have had homes in that area for five, ten, twenty or more years should have to put up with the antics of students who plan to stay for four years? Do you really think that city laws don't apply to university students and that everyone has to just put up with people who decide to act like idiots?

My guess? You must be both a student and a clubber.
 
Why do you keep bringing up zoning? Did I argue that those people should be allowed to break the law? Even the clubs operating within all legal restrictions will be targeted. Prosecute the inconsiderate morons on the street to your hearts content, I certainly do not identify with them.

Um yes that's exactly what I'm saying. Most of those frats and sororities were established in the 1800's and early 1900's. Are you suggesting most residents in the Annex are upwards of 100 years old? (I was never in a frat, nor did I consider joining one).

You keep acting as if I'm advocating for a bunch of lawlessness.

Yes I'm a student (PhD track) and I do occasionally go to bars/clubs. I don't see why my personal life should be of any concern however.
Oh and given the derogatory sense in which you stated that I'm going to guess you're both pretentious and cynical.

EDIT: I'll leave it there as I don't think we're going to progress anywhere (at least no where positive). Chalk it up to difference of opinion.
This argument was a shame, as I often agree with most of what you have to say on here.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top