News   Apr 26, 2024
Sustainability Month: ReHousing — A Multiplex How-To Guide Explores What’s Possible in the Yellowbelt
 657     3 
News   Apr 26, 2024
Mattamy's Soleil and Mile & Creek Condos in Milton’s Flourishing Landscape
 232     0 
News   Apr 26, 2024
Galleria on the Park Soon to Welcome First Residents of Masterplanned Community
 714     0 

Royal Oak Inn (376 Dundas East @ Ontario St, 3s) COMPLETE

balenciaga said:
because a highrise condo will provide living space for those who want to live downown, while a motel, mostly catered to low budget young travellers and probably prostitutes, has the potential to make the area even worse.

The land is small, yes. but the land for RCMP condo is tiny too. If 30 storey is still too tall, a 15 storey condo or apartment with some ethnic restaurant is a good idea too. The last thing I want to see is a motel, or a Tim Horton's. Dundas and Sherbourne needs to revitalize, and building a motel 6 just means we want to keep the area poor.

What does motel mean again? it stands for motor-hotel. Doesn't really sound very compatible to downtown.
Click to expand...

Are you sure they can fit parking?
 
At this point, "Motel 6" is more of a universally familiar corporate brand, so parking's not an absolute must (unless they'd have some deal w/a nearby lot/garage/whatever for motor travellers). Then again, would Motel 6 have separately-branded "urban concept" accomodation, I wonder...
 
I realize they don't need parking, I was just questioning the silly "Motor hotel" logic. Furthermore, you can say you don't want poor student travellers in your neighbourhood for whatever reason (surely though they have better places to be then the Motel 6, i.e. hostels or friends' couches). But I'm not sure you can say it's because you want "mixed income neighbourhood". Are travellers really included in that formulation?
 
balenciaga said:
nothing wrong, but it has the potential of making an unstable area less stable.
We want mixed income neighbourhoods, right? So keep attracting poor people to an already poor area is not exactly the best way to achieve that.
Click to expand...

When most of us read "low budget young travellers", we think of students and backpackers and hostellers--i.e. the "future rich" rather than the flophouse crowd.
 
Architectural considerations aside, I'm also a bit concerned that this will turn into the kind of sleazy motel that 650 Bay used to be. Just what market are they targeting here?
 
I think this is just a sign of a growing city and tourist destination. We've just built a # of 4 and 5 star hotels so why not some 2 star establishments. It's not only the rich that are visiting Toronto. It flew under the radar but another nearby building was recently converted to a hotel. It was on Jarvis between Dundas and Shuter I think. The east side of Yonge is ideal for 2 and 3 star establishments because of the cheaper real estate and proximity to downtown. We'll probably see more of them.
 
Ramako said:
Architectural considerations aside, I'm also a bit concerned that this will turn into the kind of sleazy motel that 650 Bay used to be. Just what market are they targeting here?
Click to expand...

Motel 6 goes after the "budget conscious" traveller. As a (quite large) chain they would have certain standards that they would not let the place slip below. I can't see there being anything to worry about. The earlier comment re: attracting more poor people to an already poor area is a complete misunderstanding of what's proposed here.

42
 
interchange42 said:
Motel 6 goes after the "budget conscious" traveller. As a (quite large) chain they would have certain standards that they would not let the place slip below. I can't see there being anything to worry about. The earlier comment re: attracting more poor people to an already poor area is a complete misunderstanding of what's proposed here.
Click to expand...
Generally that's true. I've stayed in Motel 6s before, but those were off US Interstates and not in urban areas. Motel 6's standards are not high class, but they are (from my experience years ago) clean and quiet.

There are instances though when hotel chains don't offer this basic level of standards, or are very inconsistent. Days Inn (which can be very hit or miss) and Ramada come to mind, but Howard Johnson signs are generally the mark of a good place to avoid - like the Rosetown Inn at Kennedy and Queen in Brampton, which despite a superficial clean-up and a chain affiliation remains a shelter hotel for the smart traveler to avoid.
 
Then this can only be a good thing (again, with architectural considerations aside). This indicates a increase in travel to Toronto, and will bring travellers to the area thereby bolstering all local businesses.
 
And re the existing building, whatever its shape today, it does seem to have gone through a "70s renewal" phase, i.e. back in the early-to-high Cabbagetown-renewal days when anything mansarded and Victorian was prized by the sandblast crowd. Then again, so was the Reynolds Block...
 
I don't see anything wrong with having a few discount hotels/motels in downtown Toronto. I've stayed at Motel 6 in the USA a number of times and I've never had a problem. I've never seen drug dealers or prostitutes at a Motel 6. I've never even seen young people there. It seems to be a place that attracts middle aged couples and truck drivers. (on the highway) They have these hotels in just about every major city in the USA and it is a huge corporate chain, so I am sure they won't be offering lunch time specials for horny businessmen. lol
 
Discount hotels are a benefit to the city and there will always be a need for them. On the other side of things, A web savvy traveler coming up from the US may think they've found themselves a bargain with a centrally located hotel in big, clean, safe Toronto only to find themselves at Ontario and Dundas. This may not be the best contribution to tourism for our city.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top