The Star: Jarvis St. must change with evolving environs

[Admiral Beez]

I think that probably has something to do with the downtown core having the majority of homeless people?

It's entirely the other way round, IMO. Downtown has the majority of the city's homeless population because that's where the services are. People from all over the province head for downtown when they're down and out because that's where they have to go, as there are no services for them in their own neighborhoods. For example, a lady in my church currently lives in a women's shelter downtown - she originally lived in Niagara on the Lake, had a nice house, job, etc. but when the job and husband left, and she couldn't cover the rent, she ended up homeless, but couldn't find shelter in NOTL, and was told to head to Toronto. I've read that at least 50% of Toronto's shelter users are not from the 416 area.

Ontario should take back control over public housing and emergency shelters, and then put them where the people need them, throughout the GTA. Downtown Toronto has changed, and is changing, and should no longer be seen as dumping ground for shelters. We'll take our fair share, but most should be closed down and re-located to parts of the city or province without their share of shelters.

 

[TKTKTK]

It's entirely the other way round, IMO. Downtown has the majority of the city's homeless population because that's where the services are. People from all over the province head for downtown when they're down and out because that's where they have to go, as there are no services for them in their own neighborhoods. For example, a lady in my church currently lives in a women's shelter downtown - she originally lived in Niagara on the Lake, had a nice house, job, etc. but when the job and husband left, and she couldn't cover the rent, she ended up homeless, but couldn't find shelter in NOTL, and was told to head to Toronto. I've read that at least 50% of Toronto's shelter users are not from the 416 area.

Ontario should take back control over public housing and emergency shelters, and then put them where the people need them, throughout the GTA. Downtown Toronto has changed, and is changing, and should no longer be seen as dumping ground for shelters. We'll take our fair share, but most should be closed down and re-located to parts of the city or province without their share of shelters.

I'm not sure that homeless people move to Toronto because there aren't shelters in their hometowns. I've always understood it that homeless people generally collect to the largest urban areas because it's safest for them at night, warmest, offers a community, and also offer the best opportunities for survival through pan-handling, etc. For instance, I'm not sure that homeless people would move to Brampton if we relocated all the shelters there, they'd just live on the streets of Toronto without the benefit of appropriate social services (which I imagine is how it was before shelters became an essential part of the landscape).

 

[Towered]

Not only that, but it would also make sense to have more shelters outside of downtown where the land value isn't as high.

 

[TKTKTK]

Not only that, but it would also make sense to have more shelters outside of downtown where the land value isn't as high.

I can accept the argument that we should be spreading shelters out around the city better (and increasing the total number of beds while we're at it), but I can't accept the argument that we should move them out of the core because they don't represent proper value to the city. I would say their moral and social value is higher than any future land value.

 

[adma]

The street should be beautified, absolutely, but returning it to the residential street that it hasn't been for nearly a century seems kinda silly. It's not as if there's a surplus of highish-capacity roads running North/South in the area.

Well, who says we can't rationalize the highish-capacity road that exists? And who says it involves a fantasy "residentializing" of the street (which'll probably residentialize more likely through Radio City means than anything)?

 

[Admiral Beez]

I can accept the argument that we should be spreading shelters out around the city better (and increasing the total number of beds while we're at it), but I can't accept the argument that we should move them out of the core because they don't represent proper value to the city. I would say their moral and social value is higher than any future land value.

I'm not saying get rid of all of them, but they've got to be spread out.

 

[Blovertis]

What did Rosedale do to get smeared by Hume? The widening of Jarvis went part-and-parcel with the extension of Mount Pleasant under Bloor in the Forties. That meant South Rosedale was bisected by a sort of prototype of the DVP, further hammering a neighbourhood that had already been dealt a blow by the Depression. Property values did not recover for another forty years.

Since Rosedale is actually well-served by the subway, I would submit that it is more in the interests of residents well to the north to keep Jarvis a thoroughfare.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I just do not understand why it's a bad idea to provide routes for the quick entry and exit of cars into and out of downtown. We can co-exist with cars and urban housing, as we do well in Cabbagetown.

 

[adma]

Since Rosedale is actually well-served by the subway, I would submit that it is more in the interests of residents well to the north to keep Jarvis a thoroughfare.

Who says it wouldn't remain a thoroughfare? It's just a matter of rationalizing away the more awkward speedwayish qualities, the signalled centre lane, above all.

Though it may be telling that the Mount Pleasant part was, from a "graceful traffic engineering" standpoint, better handled than the Jarvis part, i.e. it's got more of that Olmstedian transverse-roadway quality. But hey, it went though the better neighbourhood--Jarvis was already going to seed in the 1940s...

 

[Archivist]

I just do not understand why it's a bad idea to provide routes for the quick entry and exit of cars into and out of downtown. (Jarvis doesn't run downtown, it goes between the water and Rosedale. Jarvis is a bad idea because it resembles a speedway in a heavily populated area). We can co-exist with cars and urban housing, as we do well in Cabbagetown. (Cabbagetown has nothing like Jarvis, anywhere near it).

 

[jmacmillan]

Public Open House

There will be 2nd public open house about the Jarvis Street Streetscape improvement project on Thursday, January 22, 2009 from 6 to 9 pm at Currie Hall, 105 Maitland.

Internet: www.toronto.ca/involved
Facebook Group: Jarvis Streetscape Improvement

 

[TKTKTK]

Who says it wouldn't remain a thoroughfare? It's just a matter of rationalizing away the more awkward speedwayish qualities, the signalled centre lane, above all.

I'm not sure that the signalized centre lane has anything to do with the speed. University has no such thing, and its speeds are about the same as Jarvis.

Though it may be telling that the Mount Pleasant part was, from a "graceful traffic engineering" standpoint, better handled than the Jarvis part, i.e. it's got more of that Olmstedian transverse-roadway quality. But hey, it went though the better neighbourhood--Jarvis was already going to seed in the 1940s...

Mount Pleasant's route gave them more to work with, just like the DVP. Jarvis was already a straight route that was merely widened. I wish we had more roads like Mount Pleasant or the DVP (in form, not function) - but to do that we would have had to work with the ravines more, rather than just fill them in.

 

[Dilla]

I'm not sure that the signalized centre lane has anything to do with the speed. University has no such thing, and its speeds are about the same as Jarvis.

Wat?

Yeah, because University is 4 lanes in either direction. It ain't rocket surgery, if you look at the traffic on Jarvis, whichever lane has the centre, tends to have faster moving traffic.

 

[TKTKTK]

Wat?

Yeah, because University is 4 lanes in either direction. It ain't rocket surgery, if you look at the traffic on Jarvis, whichever lane has the centre, tends to have faster moving traffic.

Well, duh, because the side without the extra lane is mired in traffic.

I was only arguing that the signalized lane isn't, itself, increasing the speed of cars, though it is allowing for greater speeds through greater capacity. I think maintaining that extra lane will become even more important for Jarvis' capacity as the speed of cars traveling on Jarvis is justifiably decreased. I also think the signalized lane adds an interesting additional texture to the city.

 

[jmacmillan]

I live in the area and cycle, walk, or take the TTC. Jarvis is unsafe to cycle because the traffic is often heavy and the vehicles go too fast. Get rid of the centre lane. If it slows traffic, good! That will make it safer. Aesthetically, the street's a mess too. Apart from a few surviving mansions, it's not pleasant to walk, since it now connects the Gardner Expressway to Canada's first inner city highway up Mount Pleasant Rd.

There was strong support for bike lanes at the first public meeting - so much so that the 2nd public meeting planned for the fall was postponed to this week. Kyle Rae apparently believes that cyclists should be content with bike lanes on Sherbourne. I disagree. They should be on all arterial roads - anything less is treating bicycles as a second-class mode of transit.

Not that pedestrians are treated much better, when to cross Jarvis on the south side of Charles Street East, one must detour through 4 walk lights! This is arguably the most hostile intersection in the city for pedestrians. It's a good candidate for a scramble refit.

The last public meeting was packed. It will be an interesting evening!