News   Apr 26, 2024
 349     0 
News   Apr 26, 2024
 317     0 
News   Apr 26, 2024
 500     0 

671 Yonge Street (@Charles, future redevelopment)

Why is it silly to raise concerns? Every neighbourhood should just allow every development unimpeded and just lay down and let developers give it to us? That's not how good developments are created, nor is it how democracy works.

I have supported many of the towers going up along Yonge Street in theory. (Though their designs and the way they displace private businesses is problematic and needs to be addressed in our city planning).

I fail to see how this is NOT a democratic process.

Developers bought the land. If those small retailers you love so much are thriving making tons of money, they would not have sold it to "greedy and evil" developers to begin with. The developers in term will need city approval, after rounds and rounds of NIMBY protests.

They didn't "displace" private business. Those business couldn't survive at the prime retail location because they failed to offer interesting products and services that can make them profitable and sustainable. Nobody to blame.
 
Businesses don't just disappear because they weren't good enough. If you really believe that, then I assume you think we should replace them all with Wal-Marts? There are LOTS of factors that affect businesses and their survival. The private, local businesses always have a much tougher go of it.

As for the small retailers being greedy... they lease space, they rarely own the space. Retailers are not the ones selling their space to developers, but rather the owners of the buildings they operate from do. So you are entirely off-base in your evaluation of that process.

Also, those NIMBY's? Huge part of the democratic process's best asset. That people from the public are able to give their opinion and challenge developers, whose only goal is to make money. If you think the developer has any other goals remotely close in importance to "make a huge profit", you are joking yourself.
 
Why?

And please don't give me a response that claims that density automatically makes a city more sustainable or more lively. (Because those are extremely naive claims which we see a lot of on UrbanToronto and they are untrue.)

so those four uninteresting stores make the city sustainable and lively? They are struggling because they don't have enough business! Get some reality check. If they make the city lively by being successful retailers, they should afford paying the rent in such prime location, shouldn't they?

I used to live about 3 minutes way from this site for a few years, and never once have I stepped my foot into any of them.
 
so those four uninteresting stores make the city sustainable and lively? They are struggling because they don't have enough business! Get some reality check. If they make the city lively by being successful retailers, they should afford paying the rent in such prime location, shouldn't they?

Your understanding of why businesses thrive or fail is EXTREMELY simplistic. "Shouldn't they?". To answer your question, no, they should not be able to afford that rent. Even the most successful businesses often cannot afford rent. Rents are insanely expensive in a lot of places in this city.

I used to live about 3 minutes way from this site for a few years, and never once have I stepped my foot into any of them.

Great anecdotal story. Unfortunately for you, you don't speak for the entire neighbourhood or city. I lived in this immediate area for a few years, and I frequented businesses on this stretch regularly.

You still didn't answer my question though. Why is "...the added density and living space is totally worth it."?
 
Businesses don't just disappear because they weren't good enough. If you really believe that, then I assume you think we should replace them all with Wal-Marts? There are LOTS of factors that affect businesses and their survival. The private, local businesses always have a much tougher go of it.

As for the small retailers being greedy... they lease space, they rarely own the space. Retailers are not the ones selling their space to developers, but rather the owners of the buildings they operate from do. So you are entirely off-base in your evaluation of that process.

Also, those NIMBY's? Huge part of the democratic process's best asset. That people from the public are able to give their opinion and challenge developers, whose only goal is to make money. If you think the developer has any other goals remotely close in importance to "make a huge profit", you are joking yourself.

1) you are wrong about Walmart. Walmart only caters to price sensitive consumers with mediocre and homogeneous products. People including you and me have all kinds of demand Walmart etc cannot meet.

Why would a small business fail if they sell products Walmart etc doesn't, and something unique and better? People will buy. Don't forget Apple's products always charge a high premium but many consumers still are willing to pay for them, instead of cheaper Huawai cellphones.

On the other hand, if a small retailer sells nothing other than what big chains already sells, just more expensive, what's the point of their existence? When we talk about small retailers, many seem to think they are all independent stores selling interesting products. They aren't. The vast majority of them simply sell equally homogeneous products at a huge premium. I am not sad to see them gone.

2) yes, it is the owner who is selling. But why? because the renters didn't make enough cash flow to justify the location and therefore afford the high rent in such locations. It is the market force, play by the rules. Money always goes to where the profit is, it will NEVER change.

3) I don't deny many residents sincerely care about the future of the entire city, however, more only care about "how does it impact ME" and are unwilling to give up anything for the progress of the city. For example, they would rather have a 2 storey shack or a parking lot in front of their building, rather than any decent building, because it will block their view.
 
so those four uninteresting stores make the city sustainable and lively? They are struggling because they don't have enough business! Get some reality check. If they make the city lively by being successful retailers, they should afford paying the rent in such prime location, shouldn't they?

I used to live about 3 minutes way from this site for a few years, and never once have I stepped my foot into any of them.

None of those businesses are struggling. The payless is a chain with deep pockets, Noah's is a health food store that serves that community well, and Toronto Hemp Company and Vapor Lounge are both well established businesses that serve a niche market. Just because you personally haven't set foot in any of them doesn't mean they are failing. I find your outlook on these matters to be frighteningly narrow-minded.
 
You don't give enough credit to the residents of Toronto. I do agree that there are many people with selfish viewpoints but you are also casting judgments on a LARGE number of people. There are many people like myself who take a measured approach to each new development and like to evaluate it from numerous different perspectives. Shadowing and views are not a big deal to me (whereas there are many NIMBYs who care greatly about them), but there are plenty of different concerns that need to be taken into account before I'll throw my support behind a developer.

As for your comments about businesses: I think you are illustrating many of the problems with unbridled capitalism and the unfortunate effects it can have in cities. The "survival of the fittest" notion can fail people in a big way. You make capitalism sound like some sort of clockwork, flawless system and I have to disagree. I think it needs to be challenged, and I think unchecked development does too. I don't like the capitalist system we have now, and I won't be changing my tune anytime soon. I'm sick of what happens to our cities because developers want (and have to, I realize) make a buck.

Lots of people want change but they don't know how to instigate it or approach it. So we're stuck with this system for now.
 
Yes there are many reasons to be opposed to a project, but currently I see no reason to oppose this one. You very well could be opposed to this when more information comes out, but as this proposal currently exists, there is absolutely no reason to be opposed. But somehow this thread immediately drops into opposition, despite the fact that we know nothing other than the fact that a development is coming to this land. We should never assume anything until information is released. Who knows, maybe Cityzen has bought it and is planning a new landmark building. But pinnacle might have also bought it and will be proposing "success 4". We simply know nothing about this development so far, so I find the immediate opposition to be unwarranted.
 
Yes there are many reasons to be opposed to a project, but currently I see no reason to oppose this one. You very well could be opposed to this when more information comes out, but as this proposal currently exists, there is absolutely no reason to be opposed. But somehow this thread immediately drops into opposition, despite the fact that we know nothing other than the fact that a development is coming to this land. We should never assume anything until information is released. Who knows, maybe Cityzen has bought it and is planning a new landmark building. But pinnacle might have also bought it and will be proposing "success 4". We simply know nothing about this development so far, so I find the immediate opposition to be unwarranted.

I have the exact opposite opinion to you then. A development is guilty until proven innocent in this city. After all the crap we've had foisted on us for the last decade, why would you not be defensive until you are reassured that a quality development is unveiled?

(Quality developments being in the minority.)
 
None of those businesses are struggling. The payless is a chain with deep pockets, Noah's is a health food store that serves that community well, and Toronto Hemp Company and Vapor Lounge are both well established businesses that serve a niche market. Just because you personally haven't set foot in any of them doesn't mean they are failing. I find your outlook on these matters to be frighteningly narrow-minded.

THANK YOU. You put that much better than I did.

Also, balenciaga, before I move along and stop hogging this thread (and before you are added to my Ignore list), you have still yet to explain why:

...the added density and living space is totally worth it.
 
While you may enjoy the concept of guilty until proven innocent, we live in a society in which its justice system's cornerstone is being innocent until proven guilty. And quite frankly, the constant negativity of guilty until proven innocent is something that gets on my nerves. I guess I am just too much of a "glass is half full" kind of guy?

And more density is worth it here because its a block away from the cities two busiest subway lines.
 
Last edited:
While you may enjoy the concept of guilty until proven innocent, we live in a society in which its justice system's cornerstone is being innocent until proven guilty.

When did we start talking about the justice system? That is not related even remotely to this discussion.

We're talking about development, and I am explaining (because you were confused about the opposition to a proposal that hasn't gone public yet) why many of us are on-guard and defensive before we see the proposal. Again, the answer is because we are expecting that it will be another generic design with little thought given to its effect on ground level, the neighbourhood at large and its demographics, and the environment/sustainability.

I guess I am just too much of a "glass is half full" kind of guy?

It's not about being glass-half-empty or glass-half-full so much as being aware of the damage being done with every poorly-conceived new development. You have little reason to feel glass-half-full, or as I feel you are being, naive. Are you aware of the problems with these new towers being constructed in the numbers they are going up in? We're not just talking about architecture and the "cladding" being chosen here. We're talking about huge, permanent impacts on neighbourhoods, the city, and the environment.

I love development, I love the dramatic levels of development we are seeing in this city and I love mid-rise and high-rise residential architecture. But seriously wake up and smell the roses, guys.
 
Last edited:
I started talking about the justice system when you said "guilty until proven innocent", which is term taken directly from the courts.

And what I am trying to say is that we have no idea yet whether this is an ill conceived development yet. Once we do learn whether it is or not, I will happily hop on the bandwagon of opposition if it is indeed ill conceived.
 
Also, balenciaga, before I move along and stop hogging this thread (and before you are added to my Ignore list)

it is so easy to throw labels on others, isn't it? Instead of calling me a troll, you resort of accusing me of "hogging" now. Smart.

before anyone forgets, it is YOU who started this argument by accusing AG for preferring this proposal. And you posted as many posts on this as I did, if not more. Just because I hold a different view, I am the one who is HOGGING the thread now? If you hadn't fire back every time I post something, this thread wouldn't have been hogged in the first place.

Fine. Since I am the less liked guy here, I stop first before being considered hogging again.
 

Back
Top