Toronto 245 Queen Street East | 94.3m | 25s | ONE Properties | Graziani + Corazza

I can imagine the issues we're discussing are going to be an issue especially when/if relief line planning becomes more of a reality. There will continue to be pressure on this area. It would be beneficial to actually plan the area for this instead of the site by site efforts that the city mostly undertakes. Not sure this will ever happen though.

I know Councillor Wong-Tam has been working a long time on George St and all the shelters in this area. It is true this area houses more of them than any other part of the city. There are services here for low income individuals and iirc a longer term plan has been set in place that will keep much of them here.

In any case, this is city living and this neighbourhood will have deeply mixed incomes. The city is going to have to find a way to balance this.
 
I got a few shots of the Richmond Street frontage of this site earlier today:

DSC09565.jpg
DSC09568.jpg
DSC09573.jpg
DSC09574.jpg


42
 

Attachments

  • DSC09565.jpg
    DSC09565.jpg
    239.7 KB · Views: 2,254
  • DSC09568.jpg
    DSC09568.jpg
    267.7 KB · Views: 2,226
  • DSC09573.jpg
    DSC09573.jpg
    183.6 KB · Views: 2,215
  • DSC09574.jpg
    DSC09574.jpg
    284.2 KB · Views: 2,211
I have to say all this talk about "dislocation of poor people" that makes some people feel so noble about themselves is often unnecessary if not annoying, not because the related social issues are not important, but because there is a complete lack of evidence showing poor people will be displaced, not to mention how many. If such information does become available, then we are talk about it and show how many you care about humanity all you want, but before that, let's talk about the project itself. All this knee jerk reaction of "what about the poor people" is really not what this forum is really about. The name of this sub-forum is "building", not "social injustice". We may discuss it, but first that's not the focus, and second, wait until there is information regarding social injustice. Plus, it will always be the same thing "oh, it is so unfair to relocate the most vulnerable" etc etc with absolutely nothing new.

This particular project is the best thing that ever happens to the Moss Park area, and instead of being happy about the improvement, we instinctively think "it is bad for the poor"? Maybe having so many poor people crowded in one small pocket of the city is not a good thing to start with? I'd rather have them scattered around the city. Moss Park should change and deserves a better look.
 
Last edited:
I have to say I find your own habitual stances on associated social issues pertaining to urban development in Toronto (in a nutshell, they're apparently utterly irrelevant, and that's final) to be exasperating and annoying, but I do try to refrain from pointing that out. Alas, you make it very difficult.
 
ksun said:
I have to say all this talk about "dislocation of poor people" that makes some people feel so noble about themselves is often unnecessary if not annoying, not because the related social issues are not important, but because there is a complete lack of evidence showing poor people will be displaced, not to mention how many. If such information does become available, then we are talk about it and show how many you care about humanity all you want, but before that, let's talk about the project itself. All this knee jerk reaction of "what about the poor people" is really not what this forum is really about. The name of this sub-forum is "building", not "social injustice". We may discuss it, but first that's not the focus, and second, wait until there is information regarding social injustice. Plus, it will always be the same thing "oh, it is so unfair to relocate the most vulnerable" etc etc with absolutely nothing new.

This particular project is the best thing that ever happens to the Moss Park area, and instead of being happy about the improvement, we instinctively think "it is bad for the poor"? Maybe having so many poor people crowded in one small pocket of the city is not a good thing to start with? I'd rather have them scattered around the city. Moss Park should change and deserves a better look.
Click to expand...

There's actually tons of evidence that gentrification results in poor people being removed from an area and that programs like the Regent Park redevelopment are government-sponsored gentrification but I won't waste my time debating you because that's a fool's errand. I only want to call out the most grossly inaccurate statement you made (of many) to make sure no one is confused as to how wrong you are on that point.
 
ksun said:
I have to say all this talk about "dislocation of poor people" that makes some people feel so noble about themselves is often unnecessary if not annoying, not because the related social issues are not important, but because there is a complete lack of evidence showing poor people will be displaced, not to mention how many. If such information does become available, then we are talk about it and show how many you care about humanity all you want, but before that, let's talk about the project itself. All this knee jerk reaction of "what about the poor people" is really not what this forum is really about. The name of this sub-forum is "building", not "social injustice". We may discuss it, but first that's not the focus, and second, wait until there is information regarding social injustice. Plus, it will always be the same thing "oh, it is so unfair to relocate the most vulnerable" etc etc with absolutely nothing new.

This particular project is the best thing that ever happens to the Moss Park area, and instead of being happy about the improvement, we instinctively think "it is bad for the poor"? Maybe having so many poor people crowded in one small pocket of the city is not a good thing to start with? I'd rather have them scattered around the city. Moss Park should change and deserves a better look.
Click to expand...

Since when did you become a mod, telling us what we can and cannot talk about? This site is not just about the buildings but also about urban planning and the ramifications of development. Just because you have no interest in social issues and the effects of development on neighbourhoods, it doesn't mean others feel the same way.

I care about architecture, urban design and how the new buildings effect everyone, including the poor who live in the area. I think this is the right forum to discuss such things. And yes, of course new developments will have a great effect on everyone in this neighbourhood, whether they be middle-class or poor. I'm sure rental rates on apartments and homes will rise dramatically once new developments go up here.
 
ksun said:
This particular project is the best thing that ever happens to the Moss Park area, and instead of being happy about the improvement, we instinctively think "it is bad for the poor"?
Click to expand...
Discussion about how a project interacts with its surrounding neighbourhood is fundamental to this forum and city building in general. It reflects favourably on us as a society when we duly consider the social ramifications of development:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/29/w...air-transforms-into-a-model-of-inclusion.html

Ignoring housing affordability and social inclusion doesn't make the problems go away, and your characterization of these issues is very telling.
 
Last edited:
Interesting points raised.

Remember the UT masses were (and probably still are) simultaneously misty eyed and forum raging about Stollery Stone and cookie cutter White Wearhouses.

I have to wonder if the lack of bloodthirst over the deliberate destruction of a heritage (old) building here is because the area--in the minds of a lot UT regulars--is "rundown" and in need of some TLC and urban renewal that presumably only modern gentrification could provide.

The tacit extension of a free pass to WAM is quite a contrast to what was happening in the rich areas like King St West or fringe Yorkville. Where nothing illegal happened I might add.
 
Forgotten said:
The tacit extension of a free pass to WAM is quite a contrast to what was happening in the rich areas like King St West or fringe Yorkville. Where nothing illegal happened I might add.
Click to expand...

Wait, did I miss something? What about this proposal is illegal?
 
I remember that. Was a while ago. Are you sure WAM was the owner at the time? We do know Mizrahi was behind the Stollery's.
 
Last edited:
My understanding was that this particular lot was acquired from the people who did the demolition. I'd be really interested to know for sure though.
 
maestro said:
I remember that. Was a while ago. Are you sure WAM was the owner at the time? We do know Mizrahi was behind the Stollery's.
Click to expand...

That's not the point. Even if we accept the idea WAM wasn't actually behind it, do we really think numbered Ontario corporation 348213481 would have been able to get the value that it did out of the property had those illegal acts not occurred? Of course not.

That is why I suggested changing the law to ban any new permits from being granted to current and future owners in perpetuity should there be illegal actions on heritage properties such as the ones that happened at 245 Queen Street East. If we're serious about heritage protection the ROI action:reward matrix needs to be changed. I could even be convinced to grant powers of expropriation in cases of deliberate neglect.

The Mizrahi situation is not remotely similar. He applied for and received the proper permits from the authorities at the City of Toronto. It was 100% legal and moral within the bounds of the law.
 
They actually plan to demolish these warehouses instead of that car dealership or a smaller building? Those are some of the few old big-city buildings inner-city Toronto has.

A building like Stollerey's at Yonge and Bloor though? Go for it.
 
Toronto has many medium rise warehouse type buildings. Nearly everyone has been converted to office space. The car dealership is part of the development as well.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top