Toronto Broadview Hotel | 28.65m | 7s | Streetcar | ERA Architects

I personally would not have used the word "sleaze", but let's be fair to the author. That building was not known primarily as a "home for the poor" - it was known as a strip club. I'm sure most of the world would be surprised to know that there were affordable rooms for rent on the floors above, or just never gave it any thought. So, let's have some degree of good faith, and not assume that he was referring to the previous upstairs tenants as sleaze.

As for the strip club itself, I have no doubt many would find it objectionable to refer to any of the staff (whether on-stage or off) or clientele as sleazy. It's a legal business, after all, and in particular, regardless of what one thinks of the strippers and the men who enjoy watching them, it's unclear why the person who mops the floors after closing (as an example) should be referred to as sleaze. But I also have no doubt that many people think a strip club does, in fact, reek of sleaze, whether or not they would also attach the label to the people who work and frequent the place with the same label. Many people who think that strip clubs take advantage of women would have no problems calling the facilities, and the people who own them, sleazy.

So, while reasonable people might debate whether sleaze was an appropriate word to use in this context, I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that author was referring to people in affordable housing. I also don't think it's reasonable to suggest that he wants more hipster coffee, cupcake and dog spa joints. Frankly, that's jumping to the same uninformed conclusions (he's a hipster! he's a shill!) that one is complaining he jumped to (it's all sleazy!).
 
Forgotten said:
It says a lot about the author when he labels a workplace/home for the poor as "sleaze" because if there's one thing a hipster neighbourhood needs it's more boutique coffee shops. I'm surprised he ain't shilling for more cupcake takeout places or appointment-only dog spas.
Click to expand...

So, let me get this straight... it's politically incorrect now to refer to a flophouse/peeler bar as sleazy? Thanks, note to self then.
 
Forgotten said:
It says a lot about the author when he labels a workplace/home for the poor as "sleaze" because if there's one thing a hipster neighbourhood needs it's more boutique coffee shops. I'm surprised he ain't shilling for more cupcake takeout places or appointment-only dog spas.
Click to expand...

Interesting you chose to engaging in some crypto-labelling and stereotyping of your own. In any case, this thread is about the project, not social commentary on what an author on another site said. Besides, if you *really* want to get down to it, the developer is exercising property rights - and I am sure the second coming will be proposing on council to snap it up with city funds and turn it into a city operated housing for the poor, right?

AoD
 
Last edited:
Chris Bateman is one of my favourite Toronto based writers. He's written so many great historical articles on Toronto. Him calling a strip club sleazy won't change that.
 
My goodness, how we agonize over this. Neither the dancers, owners, or patrons could care less whether we call the place sleezy. This is such a "Canadian" debate - not that other countries aren't as Canadian as we are...
 
Skeezix said:
I personally would not have used the word "sleaze", but let's be fair to the author. That building was not known primarily as a "home for the poor" - it was known as a strip club. I'm sure most of the world would be surprised to know that there were affordable rooms for rent on the floors above, or just never gave it any thought. So, let's have some degree of good faith, and not assume that he was referring to the previous upstairs tenants as sleaze.

As for the strip club itself, I have no doubt many would find it objectionable to refer to any of the staff (whether on-stage or off) or clientele as sleazy. It's a legal business, after all, and in particular, regardless of what one thinks of the strippers and the men who enjoy watching them, it's unclear why the person who mops the floors after closing (as an example) should be referred to as sleaze. But I also have no doubt that many people think a strip club does, in fact, reek of sleaze, whether or not they would also attach the label to the people who work and frequent the place with the same label. Many people who think that strip clubs take advantage of women would have no problems calling the facilities, and the people who own them, sleazy.

So, while reasonable people might debate whether sleaze was an appropriate word to use in this context, I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that author was referring to people in affordable housing. I also don't think it's reasonable to suggest that he wants more hipster coffee, cupcake and dog spa joints. Frankly, that's jumping to the same uninformed conclusions (he's a hipster! he's a shill!) that one is complaining he jumped to (it's all sleazy!).
Click to expand...

Okay let's give him the benefit of a doubt. He's talking about the business being sleazy. He's talking about the environment being sleazy. He's not insinuating anything about the people gainfully employed by said business or anything about the clients of said business.

AlvinofDiaspar said:
Interesting you chose to engaging in some crypto-labelling and stereotyping of your own. In any case, this thread is about the project, not social commentary on what an author on another site said. Besides, if you *really* want to get down to it, the developer is exercising property rights - and I am sure the second coming will be proposing on council to snap it up with city funds and turn it into a city operated housing for the poor, right?

AoD
Click to expand...

I'm all for exercising ones property rights. I just find it odd that the proposed businesses are lauded by those at places like BlogTO. There, as here, and places like Spacing, it's a common theme to hear enlightened urbanists complain about homogenous communities and neighbourhoods where the stores are the same two or three types of businesses yet people seem delighted at the prospect of more me-too-type businesses popping up at the Broadview Hotel to replace unique businesses like the ones that used to exist on site. Once it's gone, it's not coming back and the city loses more of its heritage.
 
Geez I've been waiting years for that dump to close and the building and the neighbourhood IMPROVE and the building be RESTORED to its former glory AND be a pleasant corner for ALL of us to enjoy.
 
Forgotten said:
I'm all for exercising ones property rights. I just find it odd that the proposed businesses are lauded by those at places like BlogTO. There, as here, and places like Spacing, it's a common theme to hear enlightened urbanists complain about homogenous communities and neighbourhoods where the stores are the same two or three types of businesses yet people seem delighted at the prospect of more me-too-type businesses popping up at the Broadview Hotel to replace unique businesses like the ones that used to exist on site. Once it's gone, it's not coming back and the city loses more of its heritage.
Click to expand...

The original business in question couldn't even maintain the property properly - to the point that it was structurally at risk. Whether one agrees with the type of retail/business that will end up in the restored building is one thing - all can celebrate that this building won't have to be condemned. That is "the point".

AoD
 
Forgotten said:
Once it's gone, it's not coming back and the city loses more of its heritage.
Click to expand...

If we're talking heritage, why not restore the building to its actual origins? Who knows, maybe there really are soap companies looking for office space.

There's no doubt that there are true dynasties in this city: businesses with which we really identify, that deserve official acknowledgment, if not protection from going under. Honest Ed's, Eaton's, Sam the Record Man come to mind, among many more I'm sure. But Jilly's? Really?

I'm pretty stoked about this adaptive reuse of a "classic" Toronto building. Looks like the physical heritage components will be preserved nicely, at least.
 
Tewder said:
So, let me get this straight... it's politically incorrect now to refer to a flophouse/peeler bar as sleazy? Thanks, note to self then.
Click to expand...

Complaining about "political correctness" is extremely gauche these days, Tewder.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top