Toronto The Mercer | 111.55m | 33s | Beaverhall | BBB

The area bordered by University/Queen/Lakefront/Bathurst should become a superdense, interesting nabe within 25 years: looking forward to it! Maybe they'll have street cars running on Adelaide in one direction and Richmond in the other? Anyhow, Toronto grows up...finally:)
 
I don't think you've got a good read on Councillor Vaughan. He certainly is in favour of reducing the number of clubs the KSSP area, and so are his constituents (see urbandreamer's comment about whether the clubgoers from Mississauga are part of Vaughan's constituency).
Click to expand...

Is that what his constituents think? Who says? Adam Vaughan? I'm horribly embarrassed to have Adam Vaughan as my councillor. His efforts to shut down College Street. His efforts to shut down the Entertainment District. Why the hell would you move into the neighbourhood if you're allergic to young people going out? Most of those clubs really aren't my scene, but I completely respect their right to exist. With Adam Vaughan, it's all about these "Our kind of people" code-words, and that just sickens me. If this were coming from a right-winger, there'd be an uproar. You just knew I was going to wade into this one.

Some of these projects look pretty good. The one on the Joker site is ridiculous, but Mercer across from the Jefferson condo (or whatever it's called these days) is a good spot. I'm more interested to see if the parking lot at Mercer and Peter will ever get developed. Instead, they're just tearing down everything on all the already-developed lots at the intersection.
 
unimaginative2 said:
Is that what his constituents think? Who says? Adam Vaughan?
Click to expand...

The constituents who are vocal members of the KSRA and the other RAs seem to agree. Many of them are right wingers who support Adam because he facilitates their input in the develoment process and the process of reducing the number of clubs.

unimaginative2 said:
His efforts to shut down the Entertainment District. Why the hell would you move into the neighbourhood if you're allergic to young people going out? Most of those clubs really aren't my scene, but I completely respect their right to exist. With Adam Vaughan, it's all about these "Our kind of people" code-words, and that just sickens me. If this were coming from a right-winger, there'd be an uproar. You just knew I was going to wade into this one.
Click to expand...

We've been around this issue before, I know, but I don't think Vaughan's comments about the "culture of lawlessness" (and similar sentiments) are meant as an indictment of everyone who goes to clubs in the Entertainment District. Now, among the residents' association people there are some seriously closed-minded reactionaries. Some of the sh!it that comes out of their mouths is truly ridiculous (on Tuesday night I heard one person claim that "every single incident of violence in the club district is perpetrated by a 905er"). I agree that Vaughan seems to coddle such people, and that's a bit of a problem, because if the area were cleansed of everyone but those people, it would become dull and blue-haired (in the bad conservative way).

But if you look at the bigger picture, you'll see that Vaughan is trying to make sure that the area's transition is properly managed. He wants "fewer clubs", not "zero clubs". He wants visitors who don't piss all over the place and hit one another with bottles. He wants well-designed buildings. He wants families and he wants to make sure that people of moderate economic means won't be forced out. He wants a shelter that is a respected member of the community. He wants residents' associations to work with local businesses and the city works department to coordinate things like streetscape inprovements.

Ultimately, I see Vaughan responding to the demands of his constituents, but also leading them through an education process that seems to have broken some of their NIMBYist tendencies.
 
What Vaughan is also trying to do is to increase the amount of dialogue between developers and the community, well before any application is made to the City. He is all for development, as are alot of people in his Ward, they just want it done well with commentary amongst all the players. He would like to see more intensification as it will increase the City's tax base, while also spending less time (and money) going to the OMB.

He told me the idea of Section 37 money going towards subsidizing 3-bedroom units, which is a great idea, I just don't think it will be too effective. The price will be great for a family, but what if Flipper gets hold of the units first and sells them at or just below market value? Then essentially the profits are just turned over to said Flipper and the community receives very little benefits, if any
 
voxpopulicosmicum said:
The constituents who are vocal members of the KSRA and the other RAs seem to agree. Many of them are right wingers who support Adam because he facilitates their input in the develoment process and the process of reducing the number of clubs.
Click to expand...

Yeah, exactly the kind of people who can put him in the mayor's chair. Vocal members of residents' associations are hardly representative of the sentiments of the general population. If we listened to them, we'd never have built the AGO.

We've been around this issue before, I know, but I don't think Vaughan's comments about the "culture of lawlessness" (and similar sentiments) are meant as an indictment of everyone who goes to clubs in the Entertainment District. Now, among the residents' association people there are some seriously closed-minded reactionaries. Some of the sh!it that comes out of their mouths is truly ridiculous (on Tuesday night I heard one person claim that "every single incident of violence in the club district is perpetrated by a 905er"). I agree that Vaughan seems to coddle such people, and that's a bit of a problem, because if the area were cleansed of everyone but those people, it would become dull and blue-haired (in the bad conservative way).

But if you look at the bigger picture, you'll see that Vaughan is trying to make sure that the area's transition is properly managed. He wants "fewer clubs", not "zero clubs". He wants visitors who don't piss all over the place and hit one another with bottles. He wants well-designed buildings. He wants families and he wants to make sure that people of moderate economic means won't be forced out. He wants a shelter that is a respected member of the community. He wants residents' associations to work with local businesses and the city works department to coordinate things like streetscape inprovements.

Ultimately, I see Vaughan responding to the demands of his constituents, but also leading them through an education process that seems to have broken some of their NIMBYist tendencies.
Click to expand...

I definitely respect what you have to say, but I do disagree. I don't see him responding to his constituents' demands, I see him pandering to them and indeed encouraging them. It's his issue and he's latched onto it. He's nothing if not a brilliant politician and publicity-seeker, and what'll get more support than a reactionary against long-haired (oops, now it's greasy-haired) loutish youths?

He spouts lines all the time about "905ers" causing all the problems. He uses code words to create an us vs. them mentality. And don't even get me started on his campaign to stamp out dancing on College Street.

Have you ever actually seen people pissing all over the place and smashing each other with beer bottles? Obviously shit happens in a place with thousands of people drinking, but I live in the neighbourhood and I'm there all the time. I just pretty much never see that kind of stuff, and I've never seen serious violence.
 
squeek_c.jpg
 
Should sell easily to Metro Hall worker types. Does the old brick building really have to go? Hotel Germain gets some (much needed) new potential patrons (relatives of the condo owners.) Then there's that passé Rain across the street. Another nice little street that deserves to have funky little restaurants--retail@base I hope!
 
voxpopulicosmicum said:
I signed up for the Councillor's e-mail list through his office. Try e-mailing Councillor_Vaughan@toronto.ca and asking to be added to the mailing list. I have to warn you, though, the updates aren't limited to development proposals.
Click to expand...
Thanks so much. I will!

BTW, I've just started an Entertainment District thread in the Neighbourhood Node section where people can take their discussion about the future of the district. Let's try to save these P&C threads for the actual developments in question (although I realize there will be some spill-over).
 
I hope this won't have much affect on the king street restaurants along this stretch. I know one of the big draws with some of these restaurants are the outdoor patios and having a large condo blocking all the sunlight might cause some harm.

I wonder if the city might lower this condo based on shadows onto King St.
 
I agree with Jaye. The section along King street between Peter and John is a wonderful strip in our city and let's hope nothing around it affects it.

I am also embarrassed to have Adam Vaughan as my city councilor.
 
Cabeman - your overhead satellite shot makes me think that it would better to have the point tower at the west end of this project. With it on the east there will be a point of congestion building-wise, with Metro Hall directly to the east, the Jefferson directly to the south, and the Festival Tower across the King Street low rises to the north. Move this tower to the west side, and you create a pocket of light in the middle of these buildings, and more distant (and private) views for everyone.

42
 
This condo development, and any development along John Street, just adds to the need for John St to get an overhaul.

I thought that John Street would have been the perfect place for the Canadian Walk of Fame, which currently stretches along King St, but will eventually be going into the park bound by the 3 Metro Hall buildings.

If the Walk of Fame stretched along John Street, it would connect Front Street (base of the CN Tower/MTCC), the CBC, Roy Thompson Hall, Bell Lightbox, the Princess of Wales Theatre, King Street Restaurants, Festival Hall (now RioCan Hall.... home to Scotiabank movie Theatre), ChumCity Building (what is is going to be called now? Just CHUM?), Queen Street West and then eventually up to Grange Park and the AGO. I dont think there could be a better stretch of road to place the Walk of Fame along. Instead, we are putting those stars in an under-used park. If it were along John Street, it would hit a major tourist attraction (CN Tower), convention space, 2 tv networks, restaurants, a movie theatre, a popular musical theatre, home to TIFF, a symphony hall, an art gallery, shopping etc etc. How much more "entertainment" can you get?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top