News   Apr 25, 2024
GTA 2024 BILD Award Finalists Announced — and You Can Vote!
 305     0 
News   Apr 25, 2024
Brightwater Resubmission Proposes Increased Density and Height in Port Credit
 974     3 
News   Apr 25, 2024
Wyse Meter Solutions Encouraging Sustainability Through Submetering Technology
 1K     0 

CityPlace: St. Jamestown in waiting?

vultur:

Furthermore, by preventing prime locations like St. Jamestown from becoming owner occupied dwellings and thus providing more incentive to the residents to improve the aesthetics, safety and condition and the complex, the faux-socialists are really hurting the people they purport to care about the most. Let the free market turn SJT into the biggest affordable housing project in the city and watch the spiral benefits that would ensue.
Click to expand...

The problem is - how would these buildings move from rental to owner occupied dwellings while having a socioeconomic profile that remains lower-income (i.e. those people)?

I for one wouldn't have a problem with partial conversion (either within one building, or across the area as a whole) to condos - but complete conversion doesn't sound like an affordable outcome to me.

AoD
 
Instead of throwing hundreds of millions at a bona fide ghetto in the making like Regent Park throw some subsidies for existing tenants to buy units in the new St. Jamestown MuranBuranLantisVibeVuMetacleSucessPlace CONDO TOWERS (complete with the new SKYVIEW ROOFTOP LOUNGE!) and *presto* instant subsidized housing and urban revitalization. Of course, such common sense quick to implement solutions do little to satiate the City's agenda of self-serving ribbon cutting ceremonies where they delight in throwing so much of our hard earned tax dollars down the drain by ridiculously overspending their way to yet another urban housing project. Plus, the fact that landlords might actually generate a profit from the sale (and trigger a capital gain) is a major no no for the anti-capitalist gang on Queen Street.

Open up the floodgates to rental to condo conversions and what you will find is a double benefit of (more) affordable housing (probably under $225 per square foot vs. $350+ for new condos) and an improvement in the condition of existing rental accommodations. Protections will remain in place for all sitting tenants who will ultimately derive the greatest benefit from a superior (and safer) living environment for the same rental payment.

Or, retain the status quo and let the buildings continue to deteriorate as cheaper rentals attract overcrowding of buildings not originally designed for the populations that currently occupy them.
 
Taking a step back and looking at the big picture... wouldn't CityPlace work much better on the Distillery Lands... and wouldn't the Distillery District work much better on the current CityPlace Lands?

I understand that the Distillery is where it is, but the point is...

CityPlace needs to become a DESTINATION for it to thrive. There needs to be a reason for all of us to want to go there (and cross the barrier of the railyards, spadina, bathurst and the Gardiner).

I really hope the park they're promising becomes something for High Park to envy.
 
CityPlace is more a neighbourhood in the core of the city than a destination. You are right about the separation with Spadina in the middle, however the grocery store will be a centre piece for all of Citypalce and other condos in the area ( Harbour front / element / Soho ) . This will connect it all together. I would however like to see the Skydome park under path opened to the spadina west block. This is work nicely.
 
Urban Shocker said:
Why would trying to turn St James Town into City Place likely be any more successful than trying to block City Place from eventually becoming St. James Town?
Click to expand...
Especially since there's a risk in practice of turning St. James Town into a bunch of French Quarters...
 
Urban Shocker said:
Why would trying to turn St James Town into City Place likely be any more successful than trying to block City Place from eventually becoming St. James Town?
Click to expand...

Somewhere in the middle lies the point of greatest benefit. If the city's planning department had the control over the development that was apparently evident in Vancouver then perhaps the residents of Toronto would have gotten a project to be proud of as opposed to one that served primarily to comfortably line the pockets of a foreign multi-national conglomerate.

Personally, I don't believe that this land was best suited for this kind of development. I would much rather have seen a new, regional, all-weather lifestyle centre with some secondary residential, hotel and office, and some architectural focal point to continue in spirit where the CN Tower left off. This location happens to be positioned at the focus of any Toronto marketing images and to be left with what is at best some mediocre buildings is a major disappointment. Even the much maligned 1KW project, with all its failures, fits perfectly in the landscape and is a wonderful addition to the skyline.
 
I've got only 2 major issues with Cityplace: the dull architecture (so far) and the density--that's right, imo it's not dense enough! (Too much space wasted by puny little podiums, dead concrete and green space. Make the area a solid 40 story streetwall! Instead of 14,000 down there, the area could handle 40,000.)

In addition, which has greater chance of surviving the next 50 years: Cityplace the neighbourhood or the Gardiner and RR corridor? I'm betting on some type of residential format outlasting the RR. Think about it: 20 years from now, CN will be sitting on a gold mine! I see them selling off most of the land to property developers. Why do trains need to go to the (by then condo central) portlands or even Union stn in 2050? The "centre of the universe" could be in Milton by that year!
 
I dont understand why "CityPlace" - meaning the condo area - needs to be a destination. There are pockets all around the city where there is nothing but housing, and they are not being blasted for not being a "destination". People live there, so will always be in the area. There is no need for anyone to travel the depths of the Annex, yet it is just fine. Sure, there is Bloor between Spadina and Bathurst with a lively street presence, but the side streets are nothing but houses. With CityPlace, Front Street and Spadina are right next door and create that "destination". The CN Tower, MTCC, ACC and SkyDome are destinations, and are in fact part of CityPlace (the city designated neighbourhood) Not every inch of this city needs to be somewhere with something interesting for tourists or even locals to go see.
 
^You're right... It doesn't NEED to be anything other than what it is.

But what a wonderful difference it would make to our city if it was.
 
If our side streets were destinations? If every block had a street festival every weekend or every street was lined with restaurants?
 
No, CP is not a dump, though the fact it's hemmed in by the highway and railway does stink a bit. Nonetheless, it's still a great location.

No, STJ isn't as bad as people make it out to be, but I also wouldn't want to be hanging around that area too long. I've friends who live there, and the area's not somewhere I feel too safe in. Plus the construction is nowhere near the standards of CP.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top