Toronto Grid Condos | 157.88m | 50s | CentreCourt | IBI Group

[TheKingEast]

Glad to see the East side getting some attention. There are far too many crummy areas that have been neglected for too long. New condos, new rentals and new low income housing should be built there. Development will screw some people over...but it will also help others. Queen East around Jarvis to Parliament is a mess. Much of Sherbourne is a mess. Dundas east of Yonge is a mess. Regent Park is a much better location than it used to be. There were many who wanted it left untouched.

Just walk around Dundas and Sherbourne, Queen and Sherbourne, along Gerrard and tell me the area doesn't need a massive makeover.

 

[Miscreant]

Just walk around Dundas and Sherbourne, Queen and Sherbourne, along Gerrard and tell me the area doesn't need a massive makeover.

But I'm not sure that's what's in dispute here. It's possible to agree that the areas need to be revitalized while rejecting the planned condo-ization as a way of doing that. Note I said 'planned'--perhaps some condos would be a good thing here. But, if I get them, I take it that other posters are arguing that the current plans for revitalization are inadequate because they don't solve the social problems in this area but rather just push them further down the river, to another neighborhood.

That's what I take from wolfewood's post anyways, which I think makes its point well.

Perhaps what we need to keep in mind is that revitalization isn't just a matter of developing condos, but is a matter of developing communities. And I think anyone here would be hard-pressed to say that there's no difference between these two things. If that's right, then, yeah, we can all agree the area is in shambles but disagree that these condos will fix the broader social problems responsible for this.

 

[wolfewood]

But I'm not sure that's what's in dispute here. It's possible to agree that the areas need to be revitalized while rejecting the planned condo-ization as a way of doing that. Note I said 'planned'--perhaps some condos would be a good thing here. But, if I get them, I take it that other posters are arguing that the current plans for revitalization are inadequate because they don't solve the social problems in this area but rather just push them further down the river, to another neighborhood.

That's what I take from wolfewood's post anyways, which I think makes its point well.

Perhaps what we need to keep in mind is that revitalization isn't just a matter of developing condos, but is a matter of developing communities. And I think anyone here would be hard-pressed to say that there's no difference between these two things. If that's right, then, yeah, we can all agree the area is in shambles but disagree that these condos will fix the broader social problems responsible for this.

Exactly. If anything I'd say that simply condofying this neighbourhood will worsen things as the downtown east remains one of the last low income areas within easy access to downtown. The next closest areas are arguably parts of Dundas West, Parkdale and areas east of the Don. So not only are we pushing the problem out without solving it, we're doing so in a way that makes the lives of the people living in this area even harder since they'll not only be forced from their homes (shitty, slum-like conditions they may be at times) but they'll be forced out of a neighbourhood they know and can get help in. Send these people to Parkdale, say, and they lose access to the resources they currently have and must either find new ones there or commute to get that help. Bare minimum that's unfair and, not only does it not solve the problem but it spreads it across the city. I don't mind seeing the downtown east revitalized and made a better, mixed neighbourhood but I don't believe for a second that plopping down a bunch of 45-50 storey condos will do that.

 

[TheKingEast]

But I'm not sure that's what's in dispute here. It's possible to agree that the areas need to be revitalized while rejecting the planned condo-ization as a way of doing that. Note I said 'planned'--perhaps some condos would be a good thing here. But, if I get them, I take it that other posters are arguing that the current plans for revitalization are inadequate because they don't solve the social problems in this area but rather just push them further down the river, to another neighborhood.

That's what I take from wolfewood's post anyways, which I think makes its point well.

Perhaps what we need to keep in mind is that revitalization isn't just a matter of developing condos, but is a matter of developing communities. And I think anyone here would be hard-pressed to say that there's no difference between these two things. If that's right, then, yeah, we can all agree the area is in shambles but disagree that these condos will fix the broader social problems responsible for this.

I think some of the "problems" should be pushed out, though. Can't save everyone.

 

[ksun]

Exactly. If anything I'd say that simply condofying this neighbourhood will worsen things as the downtown east remains one of the last low income areas within easy access to downtown. The next closest areas are arguably parts of Dundas West, Parkdale and areas east of the Don. So not only are we pushing the problem out without solving it, we're doing so in a way that makes the lives of the people living in this area even harder since they'll not only be forced from their homes (shitty, slum-like conditions they may be at times) but they'll be forced out of a neighbourhood they know and can get help in. Send these people to Parkdale, say, and they lose access to the resources they currently have and must either find new ones there or commute to get that help. Bare minimum that's unfair and, not only does it not solve the problem but it spreads it across the city. I don't mind seeing the downtown east revitalized and made a better, mixed neighbourhood but I don't believe for a second that plopping down a bunch of 45-50 storey condos will do that.

when you say nice words like "help" or "resources", you actually mean tax funded benefits provided for free right? And in return, the city and taxpayers get crimes, drug problems and a rundown part of downtown deprived of growth opportunities such as interesting retail, living space for the working people as well as more taxes from development? Sounds like a good deal.

I am with thekingeast. Some of the problems should be pushed somewhere else. Solved? Both you and I know it will never be solved. When and where were such urban issues ever "solved"?

While I agree condos are not the best solution, it is at least 100 times better than what we have now. I will take a sterile Bay st over George st any day. In fact, none of these condos are "planned". They are simply permitted under the current regulation. I would much prefer a centrally planned approach for this area, with specific density and urban form in mind, instead of random projects proposed by different developers who care about profits than anything else, such as beauty, quality, consistency, etc.

 

[Bayer]

I think some of the "problems" should be pushed out, though. Can't save everyone.

Poor people are not problems to be pushed out. I agree that the area needs to be improved, but not at the cost of displacing people who have nowhere else to go. Investment in social housing is much more needed than another set of condo towers.

 

[innsertnamehere]

when you say nice words like "help" or "resources", you actually mean tax funded benefits provided for free right? And in return, the city and taxpayers get crimes, drug problems and a rundown part of downtown deprived of growth opportunities such as interesting retail, living space for the working people as well as more taxes from development? Sounds like a good deal.

lol

 

[ProjectEnd]

when you say nice words like "help" or "resources", you actually mean tax funded benefits provided for free right? And in return, the city and taxpayers get crimes, drug problems and a rundown part of downtown deprived of growth opportunities such as interesting retail, living space for the working people as well as more taxes from development? Sounds like a good deal.

I am with thekingeast. Some of the problems should be pushed somewhere else. Solved? Both you and I know it will never be solved. When and where were such urban issues ever "solved"?

While I agree condos are not the best solution, it is at least 100 times better than what we have now. I will take a sterile Bay st over George st any day. In fact, none of these condos are "planned". They are simply permitted under the current regulation. I would much prefer a centrally planned approach for this area, with specific density and urban form in mind, instead of random projects proposed by different developers who care about profits than anything else, such as beauty, quality, consistency, etc.

Great. You done now?

 

[modernizt]

What's particularly gross about ksun's attitude is how he acts like the challenges that the poor and disenfranchised face are somehow a great inconvenience to him and other "normal" people. Either he is willfully ignorant of the challenges that real people face everyday, or he just lacks empathy altogether. Like I said before, my neighbours in the Dundas and Jarvis neighbourhood were all far better company that he strikes me as.

 

[Forgotten]

What's particularly gross about ksun's attitude is how he acts like the challenges that the poor and disenfranchised face are somehow a great inconvenience to him and other "normal" people. Either he is willfully ignorant of the challenges that real people face everyday, or he just lacks empathy altogether. Like I said before, my neighbours in the Dundas and Jarvis neighbourhood were all far better company that he strikes me as.

World class cities like Shenzhen and Shanghai don't have homeless and poor like this stretch of downtown east. I know this because I have a chinese buddy who is an international student at UofT.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

World class cities like Shenzhen and Shanghai don't have homeless and poor like this stretch of downtown east. I know this because I have a chinese buddy who is an international student at UofT.

Yes, because they're safely cordoned off in some rural backwater town. Now unless you want to restrict freedom of movement in Canada, I'd suggest you look elsewhere (let's put aside why your Chinese buddy came to U of T in the first place).

AoD

 

[grey]

when you say nice words like "help" or "resources", you actually mean tax funded benefits provided for free right? And in return, the city and taxpayers get crimes, drug problems and a rundown part of downtown deprived of growth opportunities such as interesting retail, living space for the working people as well as more taxes from development? Sounds like a good deal.

Rush Limbaugh over here....

 

[ProjectEnd]

World class cities like Shenzhen and Shanghai don't have homeless and poor like this stretch of downtown east. I know this because I have a chinese buddy who is an international student at UofT.

Like the racist with black friends? Or the homophobe with gay friends?

Ignoring of course that your 'buddy' himself comes from a class of Chinese who are wealthy enough to ship their children around the world for a Western education and are thus likely far-removed from the problem of homelessness in China, your use of the term 'world class cities' is its own red herring.

 

[ProjectEnd]

Rush Limbaugh over here....

Birch Barlow...

 

[ksun]

Yes, because they're safely cordoned off in some rural backwater town. Now unless you want to restrict freedom of movement in Canada, I'd suggest you look elsewhere (let's put aside why your Chinese buddy came to U of T in the first place).

AoD

Actually I think China should do more to help the poor - not excessively like Canada does, such as not working but collecting $1500 every month from the government, but something to improve their life.

That being said, it is wrong to say the Chinese have no freedom of movement. Shanghai and Beijing are full of immigrants from all sorts of backwater towns. Since about 10 years, nothing prevents them from moving to larger cities any more, which is why large cities got more and more congested. I moved there, my brother moved there. My retired parents moved there too. Really, nothing prevents people from moving anywhere in the country any more. It is not the 1980s.

That's beyond the point though. The point about this particular project is that the subsidized low income population will continue to be "helped" by the government, just not in central city any more, because market situation determined better use of previous downtown land. I am not sure what "displaced" means - they don't own those properties, and are living there on taxpayers' expense, now they get to decide their preferred location? Sorry, I don't get it. What would you have to complain if your landlord decides to sell his house and asks you to move? Is that unfair? For them, it is like receiving free food from charity but says "no, I don't like chicken, give me AAA beef please". Social housing should still be provided, just in different places, maybe a bit farther away from Yonge/Dundas. I honestly don't see any unfairness in that arrangement. If I were someone on social aid, I wouldn't complain and would still be grateful knowing nobody in the world owes me anything.