H
Hydrogen
Guest
Same here. I think too much came too fast for young Adam.
|
|
|
The Star: Is it closing time for the Matador?
- Thread starter junctionist
- Start date
Same here. I think too much came too fast for young Adam.
RJR123
Active Member
Here is the stock email response I received from Giambrone:
Hello, and thanks again for contacting me about the Toronto Parking Authority's (TPA) plan to purchase the site of the Matador (466 Dovercourt Road) for an off-street parking facility. Many people have commented on the proposal, and I want to give an update on where things stand at the moment.
Given the concerns that have been expressed about using the site for parking, I am working to determine what else might be possible at this location, and will be happy to update you as things develop. I have contacted the TPA and the owners of the Matador to find out the facts and to see what opportunities exist for a compromise or for other alternatives. I have also contacted the City's Heritage Division to ask them to assess whether the Matador qualifies for heritage protection under the Ontario Heritage Act. I would be happy to support an alternative to the TPA's proposal if it were viable and appropriate for the site.
So that everyone can be fully informed, here are the facts as known to me so far:
The Matador is a favourite night-spot for a number of Torontonians. It has a rich cultural history, having hosted many music icons over the years. Although it has a business license to operate as a restaurant, it is best known as an after-hours country dance club open only on weekends.
The TPA is an independent agency of the City. The TPA buys and sells properties adjacent to major streets fairly often, if a need has been identified and a business case is made that the facility will be profitable. The TPA is a self-funding organization, and its capital purchases are not paid for out of the City's budget. More information on the TPA can be found at www.greenp.com.
In this case, the TPA, as well as some local businesses and residents, have identified a parking need in the area and the TPA has developed a business plan for their proposed new parking facility. When approached by the TPA, the owners of the Matador expressed a desire to sell the property, although there has not been any agreement on the purchase price. In cases like these, City Council can authorize expropriation of the property, which includes a process for having a binding fair price determined by a neutral third-party assessor based on market value.
City Council has unanimously authorized the TPA to begin the expropriation process if they are unable to reach an agreement with the owners of the Matador. That does not mean the property is being expropriated; it simply means that the TPA can begin the expropriation process if necessary. It also does not rule out a willingly negotiated sale, or prevent other sales of the property for other uses.
To date, I am not aware of any parties other than the TPA that have an expressed an interest in acquiring the Matador. If members of the community know of any organizations or individuals who might be interested in purchasing the property for a use that will be of greater community benefit than the TPA's proposed parking lot, please encourage them to contact my office, or the owners of the Matador directly, as soon as possible.
In the meantime, I will continue to work on finding a solution to this issue and I will provide the community with regular updates as more information becomes available.
Yours truly,
Adam Giambrone
Toronto City Councillor
Ward 18---Davenport
Chair, Toronto Transit Commission
Hello, and thanks again for contacting me about the Toronto Parking Authority's (TPA) plan to purchase the site of the Matador (466 Dovercourt Road) for an off-street parking facility. Many people have commented on the proposal, and I want to give an update on where things stand at the moment.
Given the concerns that have been expressed about using the site for parking, I am working to determine what else might be possible at this location, and will be happy to update you as things develop. I have contacted the TPA and the owners of the Matador to find out the facts and to see what opportunities exist for a compromise or for other alternatives. I have also contacted the City's Heritage Division to ask them to assess whether the Matador qualifies for heritage protection under the Ontario Heritage Act. I would be happy to support an alternative to the TPA's proposal if it were viable and appropriate for the site.
So that everyone can be fully informed, here are the facts as known to me so far:
The Matador is a favourite night-spot for a number of Torontonians. It has a rich cultural history, having hosted many music icons over the years. Although it has a business license to operate as a restaurant, it is best known as an after-hours country dance club open only on weekends.
The TPA is an independent agency of the City. The TPA buys and sells properties adjacent to major streets fairly often, if a need has been identified and a business case is made that the facility will be profitable. The TPA is a self-funding organization, and its capital purchases are not paid for out of the City's budget. More information on the TPA can be found at www.greenp.com.
In this case, the TPA, as well as some local businesses and residents, have identified a parking need in the area and the TPA has developed a business plan for their proposed new parking facility. When approached by the TPA, the owners of the Matador expressed a desire to sell the property, although there has not been any agreement on the purchase price. In cases like these, City Council can authorize expropriation of the property, which includes a process for having a binding fair price determined by a neutral third-party assessor based on market value.
City Council has unanimously authorized the TPA to begin the expropriation process if they are unable to reach an agreement with the owners of the Matador. That does not mean the property is being expropriated; it simply means that the TPA can begin the expropriation process if necessary. It also does not rule out a willingly negotiated sale, or prevent other sales of the property for other uses.
To date, I am not aware of any parties other than the TPA that have an expressed an interest in acquiring the Matador. If members of the community know of any organizations or individuals who might be interested in purchasing the property for a use that will be of greater community benefit than the TPA's proposed parking lot, please encourage them to contact my office, or the owners of the Matador directly, as soon as possible.
In the meantime, I will continue to work on finding a solution to this issue and I will provide the community with regular updates as more information becomes available.
Yours truly,
Adam Giambrone
Toronto City Councillor
Ward 18---Davenport
Chair, Toronto Transit Commission
adma
Superstar
TrickyRicky
Senior Member
After reading people's comments I actually have the desire to post a pseudo contrarian argument as I am rather ambivalent to the proposal. For the record I live and work in the area and have even been to the Matador on a few occasions. First, if the owners want to sell that is there business and frankly local residents and business will not lament the loss because the property is generally considered a bit of urban blight by locals. The parking argument is actually not without legitimacy. Most of our successful commercial strips are back-stopped by small green P city and private lots that actually enhance the diversity of activities and flow of people and goods available to merchants and users of all types. To deny this is to fail to understand the real mechanics of how our city streets function. It could be argued that this area of College is still deficient in this kind of parking. Why does this matter? The area is currently undergoing a major transformation as Little Italy shifts Westward and the business and overall street activity rise as a result. I actually find it fascinating because it, along with some areas of Queen street are some of the only places where compatible scale street densification is occuring. What I mean by "compatible scale" densification is individual property owners increasing density using the existing or semi-existing lot boundaries (such as converting a 2 storey building into a 4 storey building). This is in contrast to increasing density through block-busting lot assembly where mid to highrise buildings replace an existing functioning retail strip fundamentally altering the dynamic of the street. So here we have an area that is undergoing a retail transition and increasing its built density that wants to replicate the successful formula existing throughout the downtown of having some rear lane public parking backstopping it. I fail to see this as problematic or symptomatic of anti-urban tendencies.
dowlingm
Senior Member
Tricky, I see your point but I'd prefer parking to not enter/exit on the main street since it removes frontage.
This is a streetcar street so ideally more service would be the answer but an agency like TPA does not exist except to perpetuate itself. All existing off-street TPA lots should be sold or leased to the private sector and TPA restricted to managing on-street parking. If the city wants a lot in a certain area it should expropriate it and have a private operator tender to operate it.
This would result in a large capital windfall which should be used solely for the construction of new or additional transit infrastructure (i.e. not tarting up subway stations to look like King Tut's harem)
This is a streetcar street so ideally more service would be the answer but an agency like TPA does not exist except to perpetuate itself. All existing off-street TPA lots should be sold or leased to the private sector and TPA restricted to managing on-street parking. If the city wants a lot in a certain area it should expropriate it and have a private operator tender to operate it.
This would result in a large capital windfall which should be used solely for the construction of new or additional transit infrastructure (i.e. not tarting up subway stations to look like King Tut's harem)
Towered
Superstar
A rare worthy NIMBY cause seems to have prevailed. Apparently this afternoon's public meeting at City Hall was a raucous affair in which the councillors came under heavy fire. It still angers me however that such an asinine idea was ever even considered.
JOHN BARBER
Globe and Mail, October 16, 2007
Councillor Adam Giambrone would rather talk about his recent junket to France, where he goggled at gold-plated infrastructure in his capacity as a "future leader" of la Francophonie, than the dubious future of a clapped-out booze can in his downtown ward.
On his desk there is a stack of brochures, folders and CDs documenting the marvels he beheld in France, each item fixed with a sticky note directing it to the attention of this or that local bureaucrat. Just as the TTC's young chairman once dreamed of creating a new ferry service in the midst of a fiscal crisis, today he dreams of a French-style payroll tax to fund heavy rail. On such subjects Mr. Giambrone waxes smooth and easy.
But when he comes down to Earth - particularly that part of it occupied by the Matador Club, which once served country music to late-night boozehounds - the words stop up.
What he tries to get across is that he no longer wants the Toronto Parking Authority to expropriate the club and replace it with a handful of parking stalls. But he doesn't want to say why: because the sudden appearance of a "Save the Matador" campaign, ably organized by an ambitious political opponent, caught him in the act of doing just that.
"We're not," he began, speaking of himself in the plural, comme d'habitude, then trailing off and rephrasing.
"We didn't watch, umm ..."
Trying again: "We weren't, uhh ..." Another pause, then: "To be honest with you, we didn't give it a lot of thought."
But now we must. Downtown gadfly Simon Wookey, who ran against Mr. Giambrone in the last municipal election, has assembled what he called "a large group of angry people" to harangue the parking authority at its meeting today. The hipsters are up in arms.
"How can we take a club so storied and so symbolic and turn it into a parking lot?" Mr. Wookey asked. "It flies in the face of everything we're trying to do in the city."
More than that, it exposes a highly dubious use of the powers of expropriation, which the parking authority wields with city permission. Fable is one thing, according to Mr. Wookey, "but a parking lot is hard to argue as a public good." And how is it, he asked, that 45 councillors could unanimously approve such an outrage without one note of protest?
Councillor Kyle Rae, who sits on the parking authority board and opposed the Matador expropriation there - though not when the issue came to council - hopes to kill the proceedings behind closed doors this morning. He also hopes, perhaps vainly, to hold demonstrators at bay until the deed is done.
"I think the board needs to rethink," he said. "I don't think we need to be yelled at to do that."
Even the local Business Improvement Area, which first prompted Mr. Giambrone into action, has backed away from the idea, according to Mr. Rae. Why it got as far as it did, he added, is a mystery. "We don't go to this form of land acquisition without impetus," he said.
But it's clearly going no further with the ward councillor now opposed. "It clearly seems unacceptable to have a parking lot," Mr. Giambrone said. "We've expressed that we're not supportive of tearing [it] down."
Now that nobody can blame the sub-royal we at city hall for the demise of the Matador, it will likely continue its decline into oblivion unmolested. There hasn't been music there for years, and "after hours" is a diminishing time frame of interest only to an unsavoury hard core. Now the owners can sell quietly to a developer without the embarrassment of documenting their business losses at an expropriation hearing.
"The Matador isn't what it was, and it won't be what it is," the Magus of Ward 18 pronounced.
With a weave and a dodge, it's back to the clouds.
JOHN BARBER
Globe and Mail, October 16, 2007
Councillor Adam Giambrone would rather talk about his recent junket to France, where he goggled at gold-plated infrastructure in his capacity as a "future leader" of la Francophonie, than the dubious future of a clapped-out booze can in his downtown ward.
On his desk there is a stack of brochures, folders and CDs documenting the marvels he beheld in France, each item fixed with a sticky note directing it to the attention of this or that local bureaucrat. Just as the TTC's young chairman once dreamed of creating a new ferry service in the midst of a fiscal crisis, today he dreams of a French-style payroll tax to fund heavy rail. On such subjects Mr. Giambrone waxes smooth and easy.
But when he comes down to Earth - particularly that part of it occupied by the Matador Club, which once served country music to late-night boozehounds - the words stop up.
What he tries to get across is that he no longer wants the Toronto Parking Authority to expropriate the club and replace it with a handful of parking stalls. But he doesn't want to say why: because the sudden appearance of a "Save the Matador" campaign, ably organized by an ambitious political opponent, caught him in the act of doing just that.
"We're not," he began, speaking of himself in the plural, comme d'habitude, then trailing off and rephrasing.
"We didn't watch, umm ..."
Trying again: "We weren't, uhh ..." Another pause, then: "To be honest with you, we didn't give it a lot of thought."
But now we must. Downtown gadfly Simon Wookey, who ran against Mr. Giambrone in the last municipal election, has assembled what he called "a large group of angry people" to harangue the parking authority at its meeting today. The hipsters are up in arms.
"How can we take a club so storied and so symbolic and turn it into a parking lot?" Mr. Wookey asked. "It flies in the face of everything we're trying to do in the city."
More than that, it exposes a highly dubious use of the powers of expropriation, which the parking authority wields with city permission. Fable is one thing, according to Mr. Wookey, "but a parking lot is hard to argue as a public good." And how is it, he asked, that 45 councillors could unanimously approve such an outrage without one note of protest?
Councillor Kyle Rae, who sits on the parking authority board and opposed the Matador expropriation there - though not when the issue came to council - hopes to kill the proceedings behind closed doors this morning. He also hopes, perhaps vainly, to hold demonstrators at bay until the deed is done.
"I think the board needs to rethink," he said. "I don't think we need to be yelled at to do that."
Even the local Business Improvement Area, which first prompted Mr. Giambrone into action, has backed away from the idea, according to Mr. Rae. Why it got as far as it did, he added, is a mystery. "We don't go to this form of land acquisition without impetus," he said.
But it's clearly going no further with the ward councillor now opposed. "It clearly seems unacceptable to have a parking lot," Mr. Giambrone said. "We've expressed that we're not supportive of tearing [it] down."
Now that nobody can blame the sub-royal we at city hall for the demise of the Matador, it will likely continue its decline into oblivion unmolested. There hasn't been music there for years, and "after hours" is a diminishing time frame of interest only to an unsavoury hard core. Now the owners can sell quietly to a developer without the embarrassment of documenting their business losses at an expropriation hearing.
"The Matador isn't what it was, and it won't be what it is," the Magus of Ward 18 pronounced.
With a weave and a dodge, it's back to the clouds.
spaced
Active Member
Parking authority backs away from plan to pave over nightclub
JEFF GRAY
October 17, 2007
Supporters of the Matador - a west-end after-hours club that in its glory days hosted Leonard Cohen, Blue Rodeo and Stompin' Tom Connors - applauded yesterday as the board of the Toronto Parking Authority quickly reversed a decision to expropriate the property to make way for a parking lot.
Among the group of about 40 protesters wearing "Save the Matador" buttons who crammed into the normally sedate meeting room was Toronto writer Michael Ondaatje, who said it was "crazy" and "an absurdity" to flatten the local landmark.
"I think it's a cultural centre. It should be a historical location that should be preserved, and not turned into a parking lot," Mr. Ondaatje said.
Just minutes after the meeting began, the board, on a motion from Councillor Kyle Rae, reopened and then scrapped the idea. Parking authority chairman George Soulis explained to the assembled protesters that the threat of expropriation was being removed: "You're free to stay if you like. But effectively, the controversy's over."
But the party mood was short-lived, as Matador supporters soon got into a shouting match with George Ruivo, a local resident who owns a College Street stereo store that backs onto the Matador. Mr. Ruivo confronted the crowd after the vote, complaining the club was a noisy illegal drinking spot that should be shut down.
"I'd like to ask, how many of you people that saved the Matador actually live on the street? This is nothing but a booze can, okay?" Mr. Ruivo said, holding a petition of 41 names calling for an end to the place. "You guys got nowhere else to drink?"
He said his children have found needles in the parking lot, and called the club a "menace to society."
Outside the meeting room, he was confronted by Save the Matador organizer Erella Ganon, who said she had an on-line Facebook petition with 1,400 names calling for the Matador to be saved.
Mr. Ruivo was unmoved: "It's a booze can. Say it for what it is, mam. What do you go and do? Drink water? Oh my God. People walk out of there crawling."
The parking authority's reversal came after the local councillor, Adam Giambrone (Ward 18, Davenport), flipped his position in the face of pressure from the campaign, which was partly organized by local resident Simon Wookey, who ran against him for his council seat last fall. Mr. Wookey accused the city of trying to railroad the club's 79-year-old owner, Ann Dunn.
Last month, Mr. Giambrone and other councillors voted in favour of continuing toward expropriating the property - on Dovercourt Road, north of College Street - sparking the controversy. But yesterday he wrote a letter to the parking authority saying he now opposed the idea, although he still supports calls from local businesses for new parking lots in the area. He did not attend yesterday's meeting, but sent an executive assistant.
Charmaine Dunn, the Matador's manager and the owner's daughter, said yesterday she still needed to talk to her lawyer to see what happens next.
"It's stunning news. It's remarkable that they're actually listening to people," she said.
She would not say if the family would eventually sell the place to someone else, such as a property developer. And she would not say when or if the Matador, which she said has been closed since the controversy erupted, would reopen.
But she added that she hoped to try to at least host a special event for the Tibetan community in honour of a visit by the Dalai Lama later this month.
globeandmail.com
JEFF GRAY
October 17, 2007
Supporters of the Matador - a west-end after-hours club that in its glory days hosted Leonard Cohen, Blue Rodeo and Stompin' Tom Connors - applauded yesterday as the board of the Toronto Parking Authority quickly reversed a decision to expropriate the property to make way for a parking lot.
Among the group of about 40 protesters wearing "Save the Matador" buttons who crammed into the normally sedate meeting room was Toronto writer Michael Ondaatje, who said it was "crazy" and "an absurdity" to flatten the local landmark.
"I think it's a cultural centre. It should be a historical location that should be preserved, and not turned into a parking lot," Mr. Ondaatje said.
Just minutes after the meeting began, the board, on a motion from Councillor Kyle Rae, reopened and then scrapped the idea. Parking authority chairman George Soulis explained to the assembled protesters that the threat of expropriation was being removed: "You're free to stay if you like. But effectively, the controversy's over."
But the party mood was short-lived, as Matador supporters soon got into a shouting match with George Ruivo, a local resident who owns a College Street stereo store that backs onto the Matador. Mr. Ruivo confronted the crowd after the vote, complaining the club was a noisy illegal drinking spot that should be shut down.
"I'd like to ask, how many of you people that saved the Matador actually live on the street? This is nothing but a booze can, okay?" Mr. Ruivo said, holding a petition of 41 names calling for an end to the place. "You guys got nowhere else to drink?"
He said his children have found needles in the parking lot, and called the club a "menace to society."
Outside the meeting room, he was confronted by Save the Matador organizer Erella Ganon, who said she had an on-line Facebook petition with 1,400 names calling for the Matador to be saved.
Mr. Ruivo was unmoved: "It's a booze can. Say it for what it is, mam. What do you go and do? Drink water? Oh my God. People walk out of there crawling."
The parking authority's reversal came after the local councillor, Adam Giambrone (Ward 18, Davenport), flipped his position in the face of pressure from the campaign, which was partly organized by local resident Simon Wookey, who ran against him for his council seat last fall. Mr. Wookey accused the city of trying to railroad the club's 79-year-old owner, Ann Dunn.
Last month, Mr. Giambrone and other councillors voted in favour of continuing toward expropriating the property - on Dovercourt Road, north of College Street - sparking the controversy. But yesterday he wrote a letter to the parking authority saying he now opposed the idea, although he still supports calls from local businesses for new parking lots in the area. He did not attend yesterday's meeting, but sent an executive assistant.
Charmaine Dunn, the Matador's manager and the owner's daughter, said yesterday she still needed to talk to her lawyer to see what happens next.
"It's stunning news. It's remarkable that they're actually listening to people," she said.
She would not say if the family would eventually sell the place to someone else, such as a property developer. And she would not say when or if the Matador, which she said has been closed since the controversy erupted, would reopen.
But she added that she hoped to try to at least host a special event for the Tibetan community in honour of a visit by the Dalai Lama later this month.
globeandmail.com
dt_toronto_geek
Superstar
THE MATADOR CLUB LIVES ON
TheStar.com
Paradise: 1; parking lot: 0
Parking authority bows to pressure, backs away from plan to expropriate after-hours hot spot
Oct 17, 2007 04:30 AM
John Spears
CITY HALL BUREAU
It took the Toronto Parking Authority about a minute yesterday to cancel plans to expropriate the Matador Club, reversing its decision to tear down the venerable, late-night club for a parking lot on Dovercourt Rd. at College St.
The reversal came without debate after 40 supporters of the Matador – including literary titan Michael Ondaatje – crowded into a City Hall committee room.
And it came after local Councillor Adam Giambrone wrote to say he doesn't support the expropriation – though he agrees businesses in the area need new parking space.
But it won't be at the Matador.
The news delighted owners Ann Dunn and her daughter Charmaine. They had turned down an offer from the parking authority to buy the club for $800,000, which they considered grossly inadequate.
"We're considering throwing a party now," Charmaine Dunn.
"It's kind of mind-boggling. But it's wonderful, all the support from my friends and artists that have come out to say, `Hey, this place is important to the city.'"
Ondaatje described the expropriation as "crazy."
"I've been there," he said of the club. "There are too few locations like that left in Toronto that are still very active and are also of great historical importance."
Not everyone was happy, however.
Forty-one local residents and business owners had signed a petition asking the city to get rid of the club. Its after-hours activities, they said, result in loud music until 5 a.m.
And though the club doesn't have a liquor licence, they said, drunk patrons are a frequent problem.
Neary resident George Ruivo – who owns a stereo shop abutting the Matador – was incensed at the quick reversal yesterday.
Ruivo – who said there had been no notice given that the authority would reconsider its decision – was the only opponent of the club at the meeting. He tried to speak up, but the authority had already called off the expropriation before he could protest.
Outside the meeting, Ruivo argued long and loud with the Matador supporters, calling the club "a menace to society."
"It's a bad place. I've been there for 20 years. ... Do you know how many needles we've found? Vandalism to my car? It's a booze can, see it for what it is."
TheStar.com
Paradise: 1; parking lot: 0
Parking authority bows to pressure, backs away from plan to expropriate after-hours hot spot
Oct 17, 2007 04:30 AM
John Spears
CITY HALL BUREAU
It took the Toronto Parking Authority about a minute yesterday to cancel plans to expropriate the Matador Club, reversing its decision to tear down the venerable, late-night club for a parking lot on Dovercourt Rd. at College St.
The reversal came without debate after 40 supporters of the Matador – including literary titan Michael Ondaatje – crowded into a City Hall committee room.
And it came after local Councillor Adam Giambrone wrote to say he doesn't support the expropriation – though he agrees businesses in the area need new parking space.
But it won't be at the Matador.
The news delighted owners Ann Dunn and her daughter Charmaine. They had turned down an offer from the parking authority to buy the club for $800,000, which they considered grossly inadequate.
"We're considering throwing a party now," Charmaine Dunn.
"It's kind of mind-boggling. But it's wonderful, all the support from my friends and artists that have come out to say, `Hey, this place is important to the city.'"
Ondaatje described the expropriation as "crazy."
"I've been there," he said of the club. "There are too few locations like that left in Toronto that are still very active and are also of great historical importance."
Not everyone was happy, however.
Forty-one local residents and business owners had signed a petition asking the city to get rid of the club. Its after-hours activities, they said, result in loud music until 5 a.m.
And though the club doesn't have a liquor licence, they said, drunk patrons are a frequent problem.
Neary resident George Ruivo – who owns a stereo shop abutting the Matador – was incensed at the quick reversal yesterday.
Ruivo – who said there had been no notice given that the authority would reconsider its decision – was the only opponent of the club at the meeting. He tried to speak up, but the authority had already called off the expropriation before he could protest.
Outside the meeting, Ruivo argued long and loud with the Matador supporters, calling the club "a menace to society."
"It's a bad place. I've been there for 20 years. ... Do you know how many needles we've found? Vandalism to my car? It's a booze can, see it for what it is."
adma
Superstar
Well...I told ya so.
Also interesting to see this George Ruivo character as representative of the "anti-Matador" forces...
Also interesting to see this George Ruivo character as representative of the "anti-Matador" forces...
H
Hydrogen
Guest
Just as an aside, Giambrone can be a bit weird on these issues sometimes. He sees a need for extra parking for this area, buy saw to it that Lansdowne got thinned out below Bloor so as to reduce street parking for locals.
No wonder some people think Ruprecht is a better "councillor" than young Adam.
No wonder some people think Ruprecht is a better "councillor" than young Adam.
Tuscani01
Senior Member
Ruprecht has a bunch of other things to clear up before I start thinking that.
H
Hydrogen
Guest
^Such as?
Ruprecht was an alderman some years back.
Ruprecht was an alderman some years back.
JasonParis
Moderator
AlbertC
Superstar
Famed Matador might never reopen as venue operators grow tired of endless fight for music
https://www.thestar.com/entertainme...rs-grow-tired-of-endless-fight-for-music.html
https://www.thestar.com/entertainme...rs-grow-tired-of-endless-fight-for-music.html