Toronto Lower Don Lands Redevelopment | ?m | ?s | Waterfront Toronto

Why do we need another observation deck when we have the CN Tower and especially in the Portlands area, shocking really and I can't believe there is not more uproar over this and to replace the Ferris Wheel. Just when I think we are moving forward we move 2 steps back.
 
Dinamo5 said:
Is this article an April Fools joke? View attachment 553325
Click to expand...

Nah it's legit, you can tell by the Skydome's proximity to the water and how Southcore juts out into the harbour. I'm not sure why they felt the need to shop out the islands though, maybe they were assuming a rise in lake levels due to climate change...

Seriously , the more you look at it...
 
  • Like
Reactions: PL1
daptive said:
They always go all out for April Fools and post joke stories all year round
Click to expand...
I always assumed that the erroneous info all year was just BlogTO being sloppy. It had not occurred to me that they were just celebrating April's Fool every few days :-> We learn something new every day.....
 
hawc said:
You'd force them to lease it to the colonists? What if they don't want to lease it, what if they just want to keep it for themselves cause it's theirs?
Click to expand...
mcbg1 said:
If we acknowledge it’s their land, it’s their land and they can do what they want with it. So let’s just issue superficial statements to look like we care and do what we want with stolen land instead.
Click to expand...
From traditional indigenous viewpoints, it is inherently problematic for anyone to "own" land, indigenous or not. From their original perspective, nature cannot be owned by anyone, as it does not belong to anyone. Humans are simply a part of nature and have a responsibility to act as stewards to protect it. It was the act of colonization, along with the forced exchange of rights, that parcels of nature became a thing to be owned at all. Indigenous people started to fight to "own" land in order to protect it, and thus came the idea that it was stolen at all.

It's not to say that we aren't on stolen land, we are. But even if we were to give all the land back to the indigenous people, it wouldn't fix the massive gap in understanding that exists. But none of this fits within our current understandings of Eurocentric governance, legality, ownership, resource extraction, and social structures.

If we really respected indigenous people, we wouldn't simply give their land back, we'd structure our governance ideals around respecting nature and our place within it. We'd fight to dramatically expand the amount and size of protected parks, limit our dependence on unsustainable resources, and act to fix the generational oppression of indigenous people the government has created (i.e. education, housing, and clean water).
 
evandyk said:
I heard that there's an infestation of more-than-usual swans this year. I did see them swimming at Sugar Beach a week or two ago, which is fairly rare. Is this something that's happening?
Click to expand...
I’ll never forget the joy of stumbling upon and visiting an egg filled nest in the Don, only to discover that they oil the eggs to suffocate baby swans before hatching, because mute swans are an invasive species. That was… a ride.
 
I found this fun! The lrt median has started to sprout and will be full on green in a few days adding another layer to this great development! Taken 5 April.

IMG_9706.jpeg

IMG_9707.jpeg
IMG_9708.jpeg
IMG_9709.jpeg
IMG_9710.jpeg
IMG_9713.jpeg
IMG_9714.jpeg
IMG_9715.jpeg
IMG_9718.jpeg
IMG_9719.jpeg
IMG_9731.jpeg
IMG_9732.jpeg
 
FastidiousHack said:
From traditional indigenous viewpoints, it is inherently problematic for anyone to "own" land, indigenous or not. From their original perspective, nature cannot be owned by anyone, as it does not belong to anyone. Humans are simply a part of nature and have a responsibility to act as stewards to protect it. It was the act of colonization, along with the forced exchange of rights, that parcels of nature became a thing to be owned at all. Indigenous people started to fight to "own" land in order to protect it, and thus came the idea that it was stolen at all.

It's not to say that we aren't on stolen land, we are. But even if we were to give all the land back to the indigenous people, it wouldn't fix the massive gap in understanding that exists. But none of this fits within our current understandings of Eurocentric governance, legality, ownership, resource extraction, and social structures.

If we really respected indigenous people, we wouldn't simply give their land back, we'd structure our governance ideals around respecting nature and our place within it. We'd fight to dramatically expand the amount and size of protected parks, limit our dependence on unsustainable resources, and act to fix the generational oppression of indigenous people the government has created (i.e. education, housing, and clean water).
Click to expand...
Views on land ownership have more to do with how complex a society is rather than some unique cultural quality that needs to be worshipped as the ultimate truth

indigenous societies in South America were far more complex, they had land ownership and a ridged class system with nobility, royalty, warriors, peasants, and slaves. Examples of any indigenous society south of Mexico completely to undermine the "no land ownership" myth. If they had been left alone, they would have eventually developed land ownership

Obviously, the society we currently live in is far more complex than pre-agrarian North American indigenous societies and any conversation about revering it is silly

all land in Toronto is either private or belongs to the King in the name of the public
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top