UNO3003
New Member
It's not jealousy. This idea didn't receive an adequate response. The traditional neighbourhoods that you mention have substantial concentrations of stores and businesses, and also a high density of people. People come from around the city and sometimes even from other cities to visit these places for different reasons, be it the shopping, retail, culture, food, or just to explore. The built form comprises well over a century of interesting buildings in diverse styles. The sidewalks are often full of people. Cultural works may be produced as well as good food and design. These neighbourhoods have a mix of working class and middle class people. There is some poverty, and sometimes you may see some buildings or infrastructure that isn't in the best of shape. (Certainly not streets full of homeless people like your hyperbole. It should be also be noted at this point that Cityplace will age too and have public housing.) In defending Cityplace, don't denigrate these great neighbourhoods, even if it's just "superficially". They aren't even close to ghettos.
The people writing for these publications often know the vibrant traditional neighbourhoods best and see their merits right away. Jane Jacobs has been very influential in Toronto with her work defending these kinds of neighbourhoods. And when visiting other cities for tourism, it's places like these that people love to find in cities. The popular traditional neighbourhoods can provide a certain joie de vivre if you enjoy what they have to offer. Some neighbourhoods are more working class in character and may have many recent immigrants, but they remain successful area. Some immigrants start business, people buy homes and slowly improve them, the public transit is decent, and the streets are filled with people at various times of the day discouraging crime.
Cityplace is different, and writers might not know what to make of it. It's mostly vertical. Its potential for diverse uses like businesses and residential in the same spaces seems more ambiguous, and it's not on one of the traditional corridors which link many neighbourhoods like the major streets in Toronto. Similar mass housing projects have had varying levels of success. These aren't points of criticism of Cityplace; they're just facts. They may be used in erroneous and sensationalistic claims by people who don't know what to say about something so different than what they've loved and grown accustomed to. To say it's jealousy and then to denigrate these great old neighbourhoods is misguided and foolish.
I love those neighbourhoods and am also sceptical about the doomsayers when it comes to Cityplace. Just continue to point out criticisms based on faulty reasoning or which aren't based on anything concrete. Noting the diversity in Cityplace and the efforts for better retail is good. Cityplace needs to be fashioned in a way that reaches out to the tastemakers who swear by the traditional nabes. Amenities like an annual street festival, farmer's markets, charity events, and getting the streetcar line built may be effective in ending the disconnect and anchoring the area in the city's culture in a positive way. Make the naysayers' hearts melt. The public art alone isn't going to cut it.
The point was not to mock those areas. As I note, "I love those areas...". I am also a fan of Jane Jacobs. I feel my point has been mis-interpretated. I have lived/visited in a lot of those areas and absolutely enjoyed them. Personally, I dont believe any area in Toronto is a ghetto at all. I am not the kind of person who goes around denigrating areas as ghetto at all. It just happens to be this article's focus. I love most areas of this city, even "Parkdale", "Regent Park" etc. I do not even consider anywhere in Toronto "bad areas". In fact, I have frequently had intense arguements with friends, making the precise opposite arguement - that Toronto has no "real" ghettos.
But I was trying to articulate (which is difficult), that if the attention to "ghetto-ization" were the same and more practical, plenty of those areas would recieve worse or just as negative reviews. CityPlace is so scrutinized that there used to be a site called "Cityplace-ghetto" where "dog-poop"or any signs of vandalism (minor vandalism) was given entire articles. My point was if all these other areas in Toronto were given that level of scrutiny that CP recieves, they would all be deemed "ghetto". My point was that this is more about picking on the percieved "big guy" (or the area that screwed up Toronto's skyline) as opposed to picking on the perceieved "underdogs" or the "small guy". I feel that this Toronto habit of picking on CP - the "big guy" - is just getting more and more disproportionate to the reality. Music-wise, for an anology, it strikes me as the equivalent to how reviewers will rip apart an average album by a very popular artist but elevate the average album by some unknown independent artist. That is all fine and dandy, I tend towards independent artists anyways but it just gets out of hand when we start to actually take it as seriously as this is getting. Criticizing somewhere because it is the most popular, the most high-profile area is not necessarily accurate. Id argue with CP that this is the case. CP has problems, sure, but to me, they have been insanely exagerrated by the article for sensationalist purposes. The article is not very balanced either as it does not show the "other side" of the arguement.
Let me give an example: In my CP building, they widened the driveway leading into my garage ramp by 2 feet to make it easier for two cars to pass each other when entering or exiting the garage. To me, living in multiple condos in Toronto and New York - not a big deal. In fact, I have lived in a much more expensive building with less of a luxury of this kind in New York. In my experience, newer buildings often make changes as residents move in and realize that certain infrastructure is inadequate, so changes are made. I feel new buildings do infra-structure changes like this all the time. In fact, my experience in Manhattan, a change like that would be only driven by a very higher-end wealthy residential building. To me, this is a minor change which I would argue that in any other nieghborhood would be just dismissed - no attention at all from the public - but guess what? There was a whole news segment regarding this on CTV at the time. I couldnt even believe it. They had a reporter come to our building and do an entire segment on how Concord is running into problems with their condo residents. They used the 2-feet being added to widen a ramp for the garage, as an example of this. The extra 2-feet for the ramp was not even necessary or needed. It was just a preference championed by our board.
Dont get it twisted. I dont think of CityPlace as a perfect area or the envy of Toronto by any means. Im not saying everyone is jealous in brutal or literal terms. The area has alot of problems especially if one is a perfectionist. It is not my number-one place to live. But I have always found that the biggest criticism of the area comes from people who live in areas which if held to the same magnified-glass, they would have just as many issues or more revealed.
All the needs for CityPlace you list are true. Absolutely. But realize some of the people quoted in that article are just vehemently anti-CityPlace. Like David Flemming, just hates the area. It doesnt matter if there was a great mixed community there or not, he would be writing negative articles about CityPlace. Adam Vaughan has worked against CP interests often. Destination retail has always been wanted by Concord but the city has rejected it
because they are afraid of more traffic problems for Spadina and the Gardiner.
In my frank opinion, CityPlace is not the best neighborhood in Toronto nor the worst one. I think Concord deserves some credit for trying to do something with the area, even if it is not perfect. It is not the best area by any means, the park is cheesy if you ask me and some parts of it are badly designed. In the years to come, I dont think CP will be some super upscale area nor impoverished like a ghetto. The problem is the development is just getting so much attention, like TMZ following around Lady Gaga, that they are starting to develop distorted future projections for the area because of minut observations. At the end of the day, media attention is a nuisance right now but inevitably, it will end up improving the area and help pave the way for the developments everyone wants here - more retail, more diversity etc.
Last edited: