Yet the funny thing you're conveniently overlooking is...the Adam Vaughans and Margie Zeidlers out there aren't inherently uncritical advocates of neo-Victorianism or Krierism or Prince Charlesism or Kunstlerism or whatever. They may be pro-"Victorian", i.e. creatively cherishing the existing historical streetscape where it exists; but that doesn't make them pro-neo-Victorian; indeed, the tenancy of the 401 Richmond Margieopolis is enough to indicate that their natural allegiances are with or accepting of the progressives and avant-gardeists, rather than the reactionaries.
Maybe I am a bit harsh on Vaughan, but this city is overly enamored with its perceived Victorian successes than with how to build the structures of the future, whatever they may be. It is overly reactionary in its glorification of the past as the halcyon of urban design. How else could a tin factory converted into an artist colony be perceived as avant garde? That is pretty much the most cliched stereotype of bohemians.
Anyways, the self congratulatory obsession with Victorianism would be bearable if it just ended there. Instead, it goes further. Its not just that Adam Vaughanists can control what the city looks like, its that they can control who lives there. Who plays there. Who works there. How they travel. If Ossington becomes a lively entertainment area, then it must be stopped because the car shops -paragons of urbanity they are- are being displaced. If 905ers enjoy clubland, it must be wrong because it isn't 'main street' enough. If singles like an area, then there aren't enough families. Below you mention the Duke Cycle block as proof of the progressive credentials of Vaughnists. Yet his ideal replacement for Duke Cycles? Duke Cycles! Its all based on the totally reactionary beatification of 19th century village dynamics, where everyone lived in quaint semidetached shacks, rode quaint trams and Woodbridge didn't exist, as opposed to anything approaching a progressive and forward looking vision for an area based off of real world preferences.
What they're opposed to is urban insensitivity--period. But it's a more nuanced opposition than it appears--indeed, when it comes to the burnt-out Duke's Cycle block, they'd be more likely to advocate a unabashedly contemporary replacement over the faux-Victorian, which'd smack a little too much of the kind of peripheral reactionary BIA parochialism you really ought to be decrying.
Well, correct me if am wrong, but the current plan I am decrying is a product of the BIA parochialism you are referring to, is it not? In any case, I am not of the opinion that Toronto is fragile enough to need the sensitivity of politicians, especially not Adam Vaughan. Its not a delicate flower that will welt at the first touch of change.
And, honestly, Whoaccio--with your constant patronizing reference to the streetcars as "trams", you sound exactly like the kind of insensitive chip-on-the-shoulder urban jerk that's the perfect alibi for the AVaughans and Margies to keep pushing...
They are trams... look at a dictionary. Its not my fault that just about the entire world calls street railways trams. Might as well call me an 'insensitive chip on the shoulder urban jerk' for calling soccer football or subway metro. I don't find the term patronizing and neither does the rest of the world. Even tram promoters call trams trams, because they are trams.
Anyways, isn't this forum supposed to have guidelines about just insulting others? Its not exactly like my feelings are hurt, but it is boring to constantly be called a jerk or clod or whatever for disagreeing with you, and then be accused of having a chip on my shoulder to boot considering every argument you make is predicated on how you are innately smarter than all others.
