DiManno is something of a rarity as a columnist in that her views lack an ideological coherence, which makes her more like the average person. But she is firmly in the camp of people who do not like change, though she presumably would deny that. Of course, there can be good change or bad change, but my impression as a reader is that for DiManno change bears a very heavy onus to prove its value.
But if Toronto still works as a place to live and work, it’s due to the durability of neighbourhoods that have retained their street-level grid and their retail high streets and their small businesses.
I think this is wrong. I like these neighbourhoods, I live in one. However, it is notable that the renaissance of these neighbourhoods over the past 10-15 years has occurred concurrently with the rise in condos. The appeal of living in the City (with the now dramatic difference in housing prices between the City and suburbs) has been significantly increased by the influx of young people living in condos in the core because that drives the good retail, restaurants, events, etc. The neighbourhoods DiManno talks about are now out of the financial reach of a large number of people except for basement or one-floor rentals, of which there are fewer.
The stretch of King St. that Mirvish covets to revolutionize — transmogrify — has already been largely mutilated by rampant redevelopment, with their glassy-eyed facades and space-muscling dimensions, so at odds with what had been a high-funk essence of one-up, one-down restaurants and clubs and stores. The Hyatt Regency is a posh carpetbagger, the TIFF Bell Lightbox an undistinguished block hog, and Metro Hall a useless white elephant with no redeeming architectural quality. Only the south side of King, between University Ave. and John St., still feels vibrant and eclectic. Once Mirvish’s colossi rise overbearingly on the north side, how long before the south side withers? Keep in mind that Yonge St. south of Dundas St. never recovered from construction of the Eaton Centre.
Now she shows she doesn't even know the area she is writing about. King Street was never one-up one-down restaurants and clubs, it was Mirvish's theatres and restaurants, restaurant row, and a bunch of parking lots. The club district has been changed, and one could debate whether we are better off with a neighbourhood with residents vs. a derelict warehouse area with clubs popular primarily with people between the ages of 18 and 25, but this development is not in the club district.
All of Hyatt, TIFF and Metro Hall, regardless of their architecutural merit (I do despise the Hyatt, but a "posh carpetbagger"? Does she think all hotels are carpetbaggers? Does she think the rooms should be free?), were built on parking lots.
Guess what is revitalizing Yonge Street south of Dundas. Condos!
The south side of King between University and John contains: (1) one of the City's uglier office buildings, which at street level houses Canada Blood Services and Randstad (recruitment firm); (2) a church; (3) Roy Thomson Hall, set back from the street; (4) David Pecault Square and the previously impugned Metro Hall (there's a greek restaurant in there). Really, this is what she likes? Does she even read these things over before they get posted? I don't think any of the vibrance and eclecticism of this fascinating stretch will wither because of the Gehry project.
