City Selling Sidewalks, Kyle Rae says Pusateri's is the public

[ShonTron]

The TTC "lay bys" are almost always in the suburbs, and not downtown, and don't block the sidewalk as they are in the grassy boulevard between road and sidewalk. They are not meant to benefit TTC passengers much, they are designed to get the buses out of the way of cars, and then try to merge back in afterwards.

The Victoria Street and Pusateri's lay-bys are not public - they are paid for by the owner of the adjacent property, and your claim that because, theoretically, anyone can walk into Holt's or Pusateri's, they're "for the public". Bull.

 

[Dilla]

Nobody is forced to buy anything in Holts or Pusateri's if they don't want to but anyone can go in. You can be a billionaire in jeans and dirty t-shirt, or someone who buys designer duds at the Goodwill for all the sales staff know.

GuuughghgAAA! Why do you keep telling me anyone can go in there without buying?! Of course I know that, everyone knows that! The fact that you feel compelled to keep mentioning this says a lot, I think. No one in history has ever felt compelled to say "Did you know, they'll let you go into a Taco Bell even if you don't end up buying anything?"

I don't want to drone on about this, but if you're a billionaire wearing a pickle barrel, you still know you're a billionaire. That kind of thing will give you a lot of confidence.
People get self conscious when they're in a place like Holt's and they're dressed poorly, not because it's "cool" and "ironic chic", but because they're actually poor. This will only happen when the look matches the reality. And it's not that the workers at Holts would necessarily be cold, but many people just wouldn't feel comfortable in a place like that, even if they're allowed in without making a purchase (good grief).

At any rate, the Lay-by at the Humming Bird Centre is a gross, this Holt's one will pretty much put the kibosh on a bike lane on Bloor, and takes away sidewalk space, for what? Cars. It's not the end of the world, but it is disappointing, particularly in such an urban, subway serviced area.
And few poor people will ever go into Holt's. You'll never convince me otherwise.

 

[Urban Shocker]

If the people who walk through Pusateri's and Holts or who draw into the lay-by outside Pantages condo aren't the public then who are they?

 

[Dilla]

If the people who walk through Pusateri's and Holts or who draw into the lay-by outside Pantages condo aren't the public then who are they?

They are the public using private property. Private property that was public property until the city sold it to to private interests without asking the public at large (who owned it before) if they wanted to. Now that property will be used to the benefit of a small group of the public who will be serviced by these private interests in order to obtain profits for their private businesses.

amirite?

(note: I am in no way, shape or form against the idea that private business making money. I'm just like gansta rap, telling you the truth about what's going on in the streets. Word.)

 

[Urban Shocker]

No. Anyone can draw into the lay-by at Pusateris and be dropped off without going inside and buying anything - or, for that matter even going inside at all. And in doing so they contribute nothing to the evil capitalists, comrade - in fact they're actually striking a blow for the downtrodden working class, brother. Solidarity!

 

[ShonTron]

Ladies and gentlemen: What has just transpired is a typical "debate" with Urban Shocker, featuring hallmark off-topic shopping discussions, twistings of opponents' arguments (such as twisting the meaning of "public use") and insistence in getting the last word.

 

[Dilla]

No. Anyone can draw into the lay-by at Pusateris and be dropped off without going inside and buying anything - or, for that matter even going inside at all. And in doing so they contribute nothing to the evil capitalists, comrade - in fact they're actually striking a blow for the downtrodden working class, brother. Solidarity!

Yo, G. Prolemz be'n, that now the city don't own dat sh** no 'mo. Ya heard?
Like, city plann'n is suppozed ta be about mak'n it real ease for my homies on dey feet, and on dey bikes and even my homies on da T to da T to da C. Now we's be sell'n off our assests on da cheap, and mak'n it 'mo easy for peeps to be taking they whips (cars) downtown. Weak, dog.

And i really am very, very pro capitalist (i'm even pro free trade, which is not very popular at the moment), so don't think I'm against those out to make money. I'm out to make money, I'm just not very good at it, evidently.

Bottom line - even if anyone (with a car) CAN use these things, was it the best usage of what was, until recently, public land? I would say "hells no". If it's such a damn fine idea for the public at large, why didn't the city (or for that matter, the "public" demand that the city) put these things in themselves?

Also, will these business really valet park your car even if you don't go inside? what's your source on this?

 

[Urban Shocker]

Who says anything about parking? Your driver gets in quick, drops you off, and you're both outta there before Pusateri's can enforce their "gotta buy" policy.

 

[Urban Shocker]

Or, as Kyle Rae says, "Pusateri's asked for it and they paid for it ... that's public use, isn't it?"

 

[Dilla]

"Pusateri's asked for it and they paid for it ... that's public use, isn't it?"

No, it isn't. They bought it, and they're a private business, now it's private land serving the needs of a private company. What could be less public? This would be akin to calling the U.S. medical system, or any private service which is not a completely private club "public".

Who says anything about parking? Your driver gets in quick, drops you off, and you're both outta there before Pusateri's can enforce their "gotta buy" policy.

Woah, woah, woah. Now you're saying it's a public good because passengers can quickly (hurry, before the valet talks to you!) jump out of the car from this space? Seriously, what in the hell are you talking about?

You did not address the following:

If it's such a damn fine idea for the public at large, why didn't the city (or for that matter, the "public" demand that the city) put these things in themselves?

 

[Blovertis]

Like it or not, purveyors of luxury goods have a place in this city. They're responsible for a fair amount of economic activity, they draw tourists and, yes, they're fun -- for the rich and for those poor who want to be rich (they do exist). If the City wants to make it easier for these stores to do business, why should we have a problem with that if pedestrians and bicyclists are not affected?

For the record, I'm not biased toward the high end. If Goodwill wants to have a lay-by, I'm fine with it so long as it does not intrude on pedestrian life.

 

[Dilla]

Of course they have a place in the city, I don't remember saying we should burn them to the ground. I've got no beef with high end stores, I'm only upset with the city for selling off land without consultation for reasons I don't think in the best interests of the city at large. I expect the businesses to do what's best for their business, in this case they did, and fair play to them. It's the city, which is supposed to protect public interest (or maybe even try to find out what the public feels would be best to do with their land; and then as a "pubic servant" when the press asks if your arbitrary choice maybe wasn't a great idea, don't be a flippant asshole about it) which I feel has let us down.

why should we have a problem with that if pedestrians and bicyclists are not affected?

It is my belief that in this instance it will effect pedestrians, and there is no doubt in my mind it will effect bicyclists (read previous posts about how these things cause problems for cyclists and how they will make it much more difficult to add a Bloor bike lane) . Also, it encourages people to drive in the area where all the major subway lines intersect, in the heart of downtown. It's confusing and somewhat depressing for me when I hear the official line from the city toward these matters and then get the exact opposite in reality.

 

[Blovertis]

...and there is no doubt in my mind it will effect bicyclists

I think this point has already been made, but Holt's is a big store. It attracts a lot of people every day, by foot, by train and by car. If there is no lay-by, many drivers will inevitably pull in and stop at the front door to let Granny off, thereby obstructing traffic (and by "traffic", I mean bikes too).

This is not theoretical; this is the way it happens now -- because there is no lay-by.

 

[Dilla]

I think this point has already been made, but Holt's is a big store. It attracts a lot of people every day, by foot, by train and by car. If there is no lay-by, many drivers will inevitably pull in and stop at the front door to let Granny off, thereby obstructing traffic (and by "traffic", I mean bikes too).

This is not theoretical; this is the way it happens now -- because there is no lay-by.

This happens all over the city, constantly. In fact, I can't think of a major street it doesn't happen on. Considering that, how many of these things will be enough?

I'm fine with it so long as it does not intrude on pedestrian life.

I'm not buying this, really. If you don't think it will have an impact on pedestrians and cyclists and Bay and Bloor, I don't see how any lay-by could ever really concern you.

Has this really been a major problem? How has Holt's managed to hold it together all these years without this thing? When Holt's bought that property the parking situation was as it is now, and if they wanted parking at the front they could have bought somewhere else.

Again, was it the best use of city land (which mind you, if the city ever wants back, it will have to buy back, at a lot more than it sold it for. Why didn't they at least lease it, so they could see the effects and change their mind later on if necessary?)?

Can anyone answer this?
"If it's such a damn fine idea for the public at large, why didn't the city (or for that matter, the "public" demand that the city) put these things in themselves?"
Why would the these business pay for a "public good"? Do they get to write off this expense as a charitable donation, then?

 

[Blovertis]

If you don't think it will have an impact on pedestrians and cyclists and Bay and Bloor, I don't see how any lay-by could ever really concern you.

I think lay-bys are justifiable only at "destinations" (subjective as that may be) such as hotels, large department stores etc. At those destinations, the rights of pedestrians and bicyclists should be subordinated. Heresy? Maybe, but I do believe there is a place for automobiles downtown.

Now that you mention it, I don't think the lay-by at Pusateri's is warranted, as it's not a large store for which people would specifically drive downtown.

As for why the City doesn't actively encourage these things, I think it's pretty clear that planners aren't really keen on them in principle but will occasionally make an exception on the merits. Moreover, governments are by their nature reactive -- even on issues officials deem good public policy.

And one shouldn't assume that private interests and the public good are mutually exclusive.