Toronto Paintbox | ?m | 26s | Daniels | Diamond Schmitt

I'm liking the contrast in brick that has gone up so far

74o4VTW.jpg
 
Not sure how I feel about that pinkish brick color. They've done a good job with the designs of the other TCHC buildings in the area but not so sure about this one. I'll reserve final judgement to when the building is complete. Apparently there are some units in here that have 4 and 5 bedrooms. Holy cow!
 
That's one of those shots where I'm not sure whether I'm seeing pinkish brick, or orangish, or yellowish… but in the end it's not gray. And it's great to see the rough textured courses too.

So, whatever colour it is exactly, what the hell could possibly be wrong with it? We are getting variety and texture here, on a building with back to basics modernism with its retro 50s-60s futurist styling. What's to complain about?!

42
 
Last edited:
It's the way the sun is shining on the building - the brick is dark brown
 
Even if it didn't turn out well, I'd still be doing my own round of applause over here for that textured brick; we need more variety in this city and there are all sorts of interesting types of masonry and pre-cast that provide a more substantial feeling to a building.
 
I saw the brick here a few days ago and it's a combination of beige and brown. It actually looks pretty good. I like the contrast and I love the fact that it's not another grey building. It gives me hope that maybe the tide is turning. I'm not a fan of bland beige but I'll gladly take it over more grey. Anyway, I'm hopeful that good things are coming.
 
Really cool effect in the evening sun tonight

ZirPgGP.jpg
 
It looks like the kind of brick used on 905 churches and community centres in the 90s. That's not a slight--it's just an interesting kind of brick that hasn't been used much in recent years.
 
While the buildings going up in this area are above average. I can't help but wonder what this area will turn into in the upcoming years. Regent Park had many bad seeds who were either locked up or "moved" during the "revitalization". Which is all fine and dandy. The thing is that those bad seeds are now coming back. I've spoken to some people who deal with issues directly in this area and some of the things I heard are concerning. The population is expected to double here and I'm not sure if that's a good or bad thing. I really hope the good things that have been done here don't go down the shitter!
 
TheKingEast said:
While the buildings going up in this area are above average. I can't help but wonder what this area will turn into in the upcoming years. Regent Park had many bad seeds who were either locked up or "moved" during the "revitalization". Which is all fine and dandy. The thing is that those bad seeds are now coming back. I've spoken to some people who deal with issues directly in this area and some of the things I heard are concerning. The population is expected to double here and I'm not sure if that's a good or bad thing. I really hope the good things that have been done here don't go down the shitter!
Click to expand...

Where is the proof of this?
 
My concern is more with social services, which are the only way to prevent from "planting" bad seeds, if we must call them that. (Increased police presence and "weeding out" of particular people instills fear in the community and has very limited preventive effect over the long term.)

And have no doubt about it, many new residents have already been fighting against particular services in the area that are very important to the urban poor. It's great to mix different income levels and demographics from a social and urban planning point of view, but it also pits political wills against each other and will result in some ugly battles to push certain demographics out of the area. Which is sad, because with effective social services, a healthy, safe, diverse, mixed-income neighbourhood is very tangible and possible.

(I'll just sit here quietly and wait to have tomatoes thrown at me. But please, before you make a rebuttal, consider where you get your information from and what your particular bias may be.)
 
Last edited:
ChesterCopperpot said:
Where is the proof of this?
Click to expand...

I don't have any actual proof of this. But I can tell you, there have been a number of things that have happened that go unreported. Not saying it's a warzone, it's still a lot better than it used to be. It's going to take a long time to clear out the bad seeds IMO. There's a long history of gang violence in RP. I don't see shiny new condos and a few trinkets changing any of that... I'm hopeful, though.
 
modern™ said:
My concern is more with social services, which are the only way to prevent from "planting" bad seeds, if we must call them that. (Increased police presence and "weeding out" of particular people instills fear in the community and has very limited preventive effect over the long term.)

And have no doubt about it, many new residents have already been fighting against particular services in the area that are very important to the urban poor. It's great to mix different income levels and demographics from a social and urban planning point of view, but it also pits political wills against each other and will result in some ugly battles to push certain demographics out of the area. Which is sad, because with effective social services, a healthy, safe, diverse, mixed-income neighbourhood is very tangible and possible.

(I'll just sit here quietly and wait to have tomatoes thrown at me. But please, before you make a rebuttal, consider where you get your information from and what your particular bias may be.)
Click to expand...

What are some services that the new residents are fighting against? I agree with you BTW. These kinds of initiatives are very tricky because they can create a lot of tension between the haves and the have nots. I'm not sure if diversity can be force fed. It just happens. These revitalizations may try a little too hard sometimes.
 
Some of the things that have been fought off in recent memory include a methadone clinic, a "wet shelter" (shelter where alcohol use is allowed, which is sometimes the only way to reach particular people in the transient/homeless population), among others. The area has plenty of 'urban poor' and they won't just magically do better because the area now has middle-class residents. I spoke to a guy from OCAP who has done plenty of work for them for years and he is concerned at how attitudes toward the area's current residents are changing. He's seeing times get worse for the urban poor in the area, not better. He would argue that the point is gentrification; and his point is valid. Many people support the mixed-income neighbourhood model and the introduction of middle-income market housing into low-income neighbourhoods. But how many people would support doing the opposite in their neighbourhood, or the introduction of low-income housing into Rosedale, for example?

Again, I love mixed-income neighbourhoods. Diversity in our neighbourhoods are needed. But we need to look at it from various angles and ask how we can make the area better for everyone there, not just the new middle-class residents.


TheKingEast said:
I'm not sure if diversity can be force fed. It just happens.
Click to expand...

I agree it can't be force-fed. But it doesn't "just happen". It requires education/informing people, getting them on board with a system that serves everybody well, and ultimately showing people that it works! It's important to bring people of different income levels into contact with each other to reduce stigma and create mutual understanding and respect. It's not a solution to just have people move into a condo in a mixed-income neighbourhood and pat themselves on the back as though they are somehow doing a charitable act.

Anyways, I don't want to derail the thread. If anyone is interested, PM me and we can discuss!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top