News   Apr 19, 2024
 1.6K     0 
News   Apr 19, 2024
 822     3 
News   Apr 19, 2024
 1.3K     3 

Riverside

RJ's popularity would make it much more busier than some Italian eatery/restaurant.
sure an Italian restaurant will have wine, etc but the volume of people will be more with RJ.

I never said people would drive to a Jamaican restaurant and walk to an Italian one.
what I did say is that RJ's popularity will have higher traffic (both pedestrian and vehicular) than il Ponte.

most Italian food I've had smelled of garlic, maybe some seafood.
Jamaican food could have curry, cumin, tamarind and other pungent spices.




RJ hours (add at least another hour for clean up, etc.)
MONDAY-WEDNESDAY 11:30 am - 11pm
THURSDAY 11:30 am - 12 am
FRIDAY 11:30 am- 1:00 am
​SATURDAY 1 pm - 1:00 am
SUNDAY 3 pm - 10:00 pm

RJ's popularity would make it much busier than some Italian eatery/restaurant.

I personally don't see a difference between the two. There could potentially be noise and smell issues with any restaurant. The residents made a huge stink about RJ and then welcomed IP with open arms. There's more beneath the surface.
 
I personally don't see a difference between the two. There could potentially be noise and smell issues with any restaurant. The residents made a huge stink about RJ and then welcomed IP with open arms. There's more beneath the surface.

I'd imagine there's probably also an "out with the old, in with the new" sentiment coming from the newer residents to the area. A lot of them are here because of the promise of gentrification. RJ doesn't really offer that. (that's assuming there's something to this other than thinly-veiled racism)
 
I'm interested to hear why you see The Real Jerk as being incompatible with gentrification but consider an Italian eatery to be fine... I don't get it. What exactly do you mean by the phrase "the promise of gentrification?"

In my experience, gentrification brings some welcome things but it also tends to introduce waves of bland, predictable, not terribly sexy stuff - the inevitable chain eateries and coffee merchants, that sort of thing - elements which remind me of safe, homogenous, corporate sterility - stuff which doesn't in and of itself really make for a great neighbourhood.
 
I wouldn't want any restaurant in my building. The risk of pests is way too high. Delivery trucks make noise and block access. Garbage ends up being piled up at night curbside or in laneways -- and then the garbage trucks come. Food odor is also an issue, although I would rather have an Italian place than any place that specializes in meat -- whether it's burgers or souvlakis or jerk chicken. There's something about all that grease that hangs in the air.
And the Anti-Urban Post of the Year Award goes to...
 
Last edited:
I'm interested to hear why you see The Real Jerk as being incompatible with gentrification but consider an Italian eatery to be fine... I don't get it. What exactly do you mean by the phrase "the promise of gentrification?"

In my experience, gentrification brings some welcome things but it also tends to introduce waves of bland, predictable, not terribly sexy stuff - the inevitable chain eateries and coffee merchants, that sort of thing - elements which remind me of safe, homogenous, corporate sterility - stuff which doesn't in and of itself really make for a great neighbourhood.

That's sort of exactly what i've experienced... Living in the area I see a lot of new residents expecting the place to become a lot more, uh, sanitized in the coming years. Not necessarily corporate, or chains, but certainly a little more sterile. After having lived near sherbourne for years (and east vancouver for years before then), you start to see the same mindset over and over again. Things look like they're picking up in an area, people move in immediately, then start to get uppity when the real jerks of the world (something that was a fixture in that neighbourhood long before they were) tries to reclaim a stake. I guess it's just really nimbyism, but in this sense it's sort of weirdly reversed because of the Jerk having lost its original spot.

(edit: maybe i should have said "the expectation of gentrification"...)
 
Last edited:
OK, thanks for the clarification.

If memory serves, the Real Jerk has moved twice now. Its old spot was further east, near Greenwood, I think. Then it moved to Broadview and Queen.... an intersection that's been changing a lot lately and will barely be recognizeable in a decade's time, I imagine.

I'm all for gentrification as long as it also means cool indie shops, restos and bars that can co-exist with the inevitable chain blandness. Alas, the chains tend to have better staying power, especially when it comes to landlords who want to reap maximum profits from a suddenly hot neighbourhood vibe.
 
And the Anti-Urban Post of the Year Award goes to...

It's hardly "anti-urban" (whatever that means. pro-rural?). To be fair to Ex-Montreal Girl, I wouldn't necessarily want to live above a restaurant either. I know a lot of life-long downtowners who would say the same thing. That isn't the same thing as believing that residents should be entitled to block restaurants from opening. Far from it. I don't think residents who bought condos on a well-known restaurant strip had realistic expectations when they claimed, disingenuously, that they didn't realize that there would be a restaurant downstairs. But I think it is fair for someone who is looking to buy a condo, or to rent an apartment, to not take a unit because there is a restaurant downstairs or a unit large enough to accommodate a restaurant, for the reasons EMG set out. It doesn't make them anti-urban or anti-restaurant.
 
Last edited:
RJ's popularity would make it much more busier than some Italian eatery/restaurant.
sure an Italian restaurant will have wine, etc but the volume of people will be more with RJ.

I never said people would drive to a Jamaican restaurant and walk to an Italian one.
what I did say is that RJ's popularity will have higher traffic (both pedestrian and vehicular) than il Ponte.

most Italian food I've had smelled of garlic, maybe some seafood.
Jamaican food could have curry, cumin, tamarind and other pungent spices.




RJ hours (add at least another hour for clean up, etc.)
MONDAY-WEDNESDAY 11:30 am - 11pm
THURSDAY 11:30 am - 12 am
FRIDAY 11:30 am- 1:00 am
​SATURDAY 1 pm - 1:00 am
SUNDAY 3 pm - 10:00 pm

RJ's popularity would make it much busier than some Italian eatery/restaurant.

That's a whole lot of unsubstantiated assumptions there. Really unconvincing.
 
It's hardly "anti-urban" (whatever that means. pro-rural?). To be fair to Ex-Montreal Girl, I wouldn't necessarily want to live above a restaurant either. I know a lot of life-long downtowners who would say the same thing. That isn't the same thing as believing that residents should be entitled to block restaurants from opening. Far from it. I don't residents who bought condos on a well-known restaurant strip had realistic expectations when they claimed, disingenuously, that they didn't realize that there would be a restaurant downstairs. But I think it is fair for someone who is looking to buy a condo, or to rent an apartment, to not take a unit because there is a restaurant downstairs or a unit large enough to accommodate a restaurant, for the reasons EMG set out. It doesn't make them anti-urban or anti-restaurant.

The thing about not wanting to live above a resto, or a space large enough to accommodate one, is that it's likely going to be tougher and tougher to avoid that kind of scenario. All the officially-approved densification happening in the core entails the construction of mid-rise residential buildings with ground-floor retail - which of course is going to have a fairly significant percentage of food-related businesses - grocery shops, delis, pubs and restos.

I respect people not wanting to live above such establishments - just pointing out the fact that other people living in that very context will be increasingly common in this city.
 
The thing about not wanting to live above a resto, or a space large enough to accommodate one, is that it's likely going to be tougher and tougher to avoid that kind of scenario. All the officially-approved densification happening in the core entails the construction of mid-rise residential buildings with ground-floor retail - which of course is going to have a fairly significant percentage of food-related businesses - grocery shops, delis, pubs and restos.

I respect people not wanting to live above such establishments - just pointing out the fact that other people living in that very context will be increasingly common in this city.

There are lots of apartments in this City that are not on commercial corridors. Not all that hard, other than the usual difficulties of renting/buying a unit in this city, to avoid restaurants. I've lived in high-rise, mid-rise and low-rise apartment buildings, all in the core and none of which had any significant retail/commercial space at grade.

If a tenant/buyer wants to live on Queen Street or the Danforth or King Street or some other commercial thoroughfare, then yes, I would agree with you. Which is why the behaviour of those condo owners on Queen East was so ridiculous.
 
I'm all for gentrification as long as it also means cool indie shops, restos and bars that can co-exist with the inevitable chain blandness. Alas, the chains tend to have better staying power, especially when it comes to landlords who want to reap maximum profits from a suddenly hot neighbourhood vibe.

Yes to this.
 
I used to live in 55 Lombard when it had a Thai restaurant on the ground floor. Very convenient for sure, but the kitchen exhaust vented on the roof right beside the swimming pool. It was noisy and smelled like Thai food, obviously.
 
Yeah, it's a real issue. Proper ventilation is certainly crucial. Hadn't thought of odours so much as I was thinking about roaches and vermin - even the most upscale places can be a real horrorshow behind the scenes.
 

Back
Top