Toronto Garrison Point | 118.56m | 35s | Cityzen | Hariri Pontarini

416ForLife said:
What neighbourhood will ordinance triangle be part of:

Fort York
Liberty Village
King West Village

I've seen the ordinance triangle be referenced as each of these above at various times depending on which map you look it. As far as I know, this should fall within the boundary of King West Village.... it's a more prestigious and sought after neighbourhood name.... but what's in a name really
Click to expand...
Ordnance Triangle could be its own neighbourhood, especially given how dense it is.
 
RZ12 said:
I wouldn't call anything King West. West of Niagara but that's just my opinion.
Click to expand...
The neighbourhood *is* Niagara and that encompasses all of Liberty Village, west to Bathhurst, south to the water front (lake shore), and north to Queen (official from city of Toornto). Liberty Village and King West Village are not "official" neighbourhoods, so informally, it will eventually get a neighbourhood name? Fort York, King West Village, Garrison Greek, Liberty Village, could all be used......

King West village is that are
 
I think people may begin to find Liberty Village and Niagara neighbourhoods to become superfluous once this development, the developments along Wellington and Niagara, and the Garrison Crossing bridge are all completed.
 
Toronto's hyperfocus on neighbourhood names and boundaries is very weird to me as a new resident. I really don't think it matters all that much in the grand scheme of things.
 
In a city changing so quickly I suspect it's an attempt to latch on to something that's constant and can ground us. As exciting as rapid change can be it can also make one feel uprooted. Large swaths of the city are unrecognizable from 1-2 generations ago and parts of the city's culture are in decline/already dead. No one's quite sure what kind of city we'll get when the dust finally settles but hopefully neighbourhood names won't vanish too.
 
isaidso said:
In a city changing so quickly I suspect it's an attempt to latch on to something that's constant and can ground us. As exciting as rapid change can be it can also make one feel uprooted. Large swaths of the city are unrecognizable from 1-2 generations ago and parts of the city's culture are in decline/already dead. No one's quite sure what kind of city we'll get when the dust finally settles but hopefully neighbourhood names won't vanish too.
Click to expand...
Do you mind expanding on which areas of the city that culture is declining/already dead? From my perspective, I see culture blooming and evolving in an exciting way. For example, Regent Park, Canary Park, The Junction, St. Lawrence, CityPlace (finally starting to see this area come to life in a good way), etc.
 
Last edited:
I think a lot of people feel that culture is dying, but In reality they’re just growing up and the city is changing to accommodate new expectations. Young people these days aren’t into what young people were in the 80s and 90s. It doesn’t mean the city is worse off - it means the city is leaving adolescence and entering adulthood.
 
The statement above regarding culture and change is all good and well, but might I offer that some neighbourhoods are quite literally demographically dying. A lot of old established neighbourhoods like the Annex (if you ever notice, all the schools in the area are filled with kids who are dropped off by their parents from other parts of the city, not locals), and many Yellowbelt neighbourhoods across the city have lost population.
 
WislaHD said:
The statement above regarding culture and change is all good and well, but might I offer that some neighbourhoods are quite literally demographically dying. A lot of old established neighbourhoods like the Annex (if you ever notice, all the schools in the area are filled with kids who are dropped off by their parents from other parts of the city, not locals), and many Yellowbelt neighbourhoods across the city have lost population.
Click to expand...

Perhaps some clarification of the 'demographically dying' might be appropriate. Superficially it could imply that a given community might be in material decline - socially, economically or whatever. However there is no question that many established areas of the City - those which are not currently seeing intensification developments - are continuing to experience the combination of aging and shrinking populations.

In the areas of the city currently experiencing declining populations that I am familiar with - it is single family detached or semi-detached housing which were developed in the 1920's (post WW I) on through the 1960's. Many smaller houses in the 1,200 through 2,000 square foot range contained families with typically three, four or more children. Generations passed, and while many houses have been recycled to new families, the average family size is now much smaller - families with three children are now within the City, and four or more virtually unheard of. On the other hand, much of the existing housing stock is occupied by elderly couples or singles - widows or widowers. Even our property tax policies incent older residents to stay in their houses through tax abatements, rather than encouraging them to move into condominium type residences.

I would consider this as part of the ongoing transition of communities, until over time and a number of generations, the age mix of their residents will gradually stabilize. Not quite 'literally demographically dying'.
 
DavidCapizzano said:
Toronto's hyperfocus on neighbourhood names and boundaries is very weird to me as a new resident. I really don't think it matters all that much in the grand scheme of things.
Click to expand...
ADRM said:
It's funny, I've been sort of struck by how much less of a thing it is here than in the last two places I've lived (NYC and London, UK).
Click to expand...
Agreed with ADRM, it's nothing here like in other places, one of them being out west. Years ago when I was at MapArt, our map of Calgary was being used by that city's real estate board as their official map, and we came to hear that a woman who had bought a house through a realtor advertised as being in one neighbourhood, found out via our map that the boundary between that 'hood and where she bought was down the middle of her street. On the wrong side of the street, she sued the real estate agent for having misrepresented where her house was. I never heard the outcome, but had I been the judge I would have thrown the case out and sentenced her to 10 years of volunteering in a soup kitchen: that level of status-seeking is asinine and of no help to anyone.

The Ordnance Triangle, just across the street from Liberty Village, will clearly be seen as part of LV, and not as an extension of the Niagara neighbourhood to the north from which it is separated by a rail corridor. Trying to connect the Ordnance Triangle to Niagara is grasping.

42
 
Could even be for prestige. Not that it matters to me personally, but for example, would you rather be considered to be in "Upper Jarvis" or "Yorkville" if you lived bordering Bloor and Jarvis. Enough said....
Including it in a neighbourhood when considering that neighbourhoods property values is one aspect.
 
Last edited:
Well, if you've bought here, welcome to (greater) Liberty Village. Embrace it and make it a better place!

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top