Toronto CityPlace: Canoe Landing Community Centre & Schools | 15.85m | 3s | City of Toronto | ZAS Architects
- Thread starter ProjectEnd
- Start date
Torontovibe
Senior Member
That just blows my mind! What terrible planning. It's almost like they want to force people to get in their cars to drive to the nearest variety store, coffee shop or dry cleaners. In a large high density site like that, it's just really bad urban planning. No wonder the first phase of City Place is so bad. Developers need to be watched very closely. The city has failed us again.
GrinTO
Active Member
Block 31
There is 1 commercial unit in the base of N Tower available (with a large patio area) but I heard that they wanted a ridiculous rental rate for the space.
I had originally thought Luna and Parade would have retail but was amazed as building went on and it was all condos. At least Sobeys is here now.
There is 1 commercial unit in the base of N Tower available (with a large patio area) but I heard that they wanted a ridiculous rental rate for the space.
I had originally thought Luna and Parade would have retail but was amazed as building went on and it was all condos. At least Sobeys is here now.
grey
Senior Member
Why does every street need to have retail? Will people seriously jump in their cars and pay for street parking when they could just walk a couple of blocks up to King Street or even down to Queens Quay to enjoy such amenities? In fact, aren't the very coffee shops and dry cleaners you mentioned available right at Front Street and on Bremner east of Spadina (which you claim to be the "bad" phase of City Place (presumably because they lack such retail (though they don't)))?
I'm not saying that City Place isn't a poor exercise in urban planning, but this isn't the reason why.
Last edited:
ProjectEnd
Superstar
/\ Philip Michael Thomas comes out of hiding to hit the nail on the head.
Xenosblitz
Active Member
It seems like people have problems with the 9' ceilings since they do not get them themselves in their own privately owned units. They also have a problem with the height of the building. Why don't people who have problems email their local politician to ask if the building can have 8' ceilings, thus, lowering the height of the building, eliminating a "luxuary" they have a problem with, all without reducing the much needed housing needed to take care of our poor?
People need to compromise. But I get the jealousy about the 9' ceilings. I can't afford those myself. But at the same time, if they build 9' ceilings for needy people, I have no problems with it. Those people could use a luxuary here and there. I don't think they are use to having much.
Mongo
Senior Member
This reminds me of a study (forgot when I heard of it) where people were offered the choice of getting $500 with their neighbors getting $1000, or getting $400 with their neighbors getting nothing. A significant fraction chose the $400, apparently out of a desire to get one over the neighbors.
This seems to be the same dynamic I am seeing on this thread. How DARE these low-income people get to live in the same conditions -- or (gasp) even better ones -- as what I shelled out my hard-earned money for? Note that whether this TCHC development is built or not, the complainers have paid the same amount for their own units, there is no financial impact on them personally. (There is no concrete evidence that this project will have any effect on resale values. Not to mention that affordable housing was planned from the start.)
You can probably tell that I have no sympathy at all for the NIMBY attitudes (and that is what they are) on this issue.
This seems to be the same dynamic I am seeing on this thread. How DARE these low-income people get to live in the same conditions -- or (gasp) even better ones -- as what I shelled out my hard-earned money for? Note that whether this TCHC development is built or not, the complainers have paid the same amount for their own units, there is no financial impact on them personally. (There is no concrete evidence that this project will have any effect on resale values. Not to mention that affordable housing was planned from the start.)
You can probably tell that I have no sympathy at all for the NIMBY attitudes (and that is what they are) on this issue.
GrinTO
Active Member
Cityplace
I actually live in cityplace, i'm not just an Investor, the crap you wrote is BS. nothing is near here try living here in the winter and simply going to a restaurant without freezing your ass off. Queens quay has very limited facilities or front St is not much better. This development is an example of how not to build a modern community! It's aimed at one segment of investors and that what its appeals too.
I actually live in cityplace, i'm not just an Investor, the crap you wrote is BS. nothing is near here try living here in the winter and simply going to a restaurant without freezing your ass off. Queens quay has very limited facilities or front St is not much better. This development is an example of how not to build a modern community! It's aimed at one segment of investors and that what its appeals too.
khris
Senior Member
Cityplace is a very poor community so far. A community needs restaurants, not just banks. Sure you could walk, but you shouldn't have to walk outside your community when you live downtown.
grey
Senior Member
I happen to live just north of CityPlace, so I do know what I'm talking about. The retail down there isn't terrific by any means, but it's there. I just don't think there needs to be King West calibre retail lining the Copeland park.
Off the top of my head, here's a non-exhaustive list of retail I can identify within two minutes or less walking distance from Bremner & Spadina, even if you're fat:
- two convenience stores
- two coffee shops
- a grocery store
- two salons
- a crap rib & wing place
- shoppers drug mart
- a video store
- two sushi restaurants, one of them particularly great (Guirei at Dan Leckie Way)
- a bunch of bank branches
- when Bremner is finished, a killer brewery with great retail hours all week
Last edited:
maestro
Senior Member
Every building in the city should be mixed use regardless if there aren't enough tenants to fill all the retail spaces
Rangostar
New Member
I actually don't mind having poor people mixed with high/Middle income and that was not my main focus of complaint.
It is having luxurious condo built higher and better than "your" paid condo. tell me you will not be bitter. If you are not bitter then you are just lying. It's human nature. Ask your self, if it was you, after pay high price and mortgage, knowing that across the street other are pay less and better view, how would you feel.
Poor people are just like all of us, as long as they are not criminals then i treat them like everyone else. It's the logic of Government making luxurious condo for the poor that bothers me. They can use the money to make better TTC system to enrich the city expansions. They can move the building so it is less intrusive to the cityplace owners and the park but still having their own great view and building.
Seriously, 42 floor is really luxurious for them. 30 floors is more understandable. and com' on , 9 foot ceiling! why not lower it and have extra floor for more occupancy.
Rangostar
New Member
See, you work hard, you love your neighborhood, if anything that may potentially ruin your current standard of living that your family worked hard for all your lives, will you be trying to reject this. I Love hard working people, they deserve what they worked for. see where I am going with this. same here, worked hard at school make a good decent living, just want a good view when i come home to relax, now it might all go down the drain, especially worst when the one that is blocking you is a cheaper building.
and the building is finance by my tax dollar...
khris
Senior Member
Floor count should not have anything to do with luxuriousness.
tkip
Active Member
Missed entirely....
My point was missed entirely. Someone on this board clearly has a low income bias and doesn't want them around where they live.
I was attempting to point out that since my family was poor and we moved into the upper beaches, with their logic, people knowing we were poor then had a right to protest us living beside them.
Not once did I say we still weren't poor while living in a middle class neighborhood. It was a struggle. My mother had to work insane hours and rent out rooms to make ends meet. It was brutal.
My brother and I never could afford higher education because we had to start working to help out with the bills.
The poster clearly has something against low income people and insists on suggesting that they're somehow lazy and responsible for their poor status and thus deserving of the hostility for daring to live in their neighborhood.
If my tax dollars help lift other families out of their situation and add to the middle class instead of seeing over half their income go to shelter and food, then that's fine with me. I don't have a problem with this. We don't live in a level playing field society where every one has equal opportunity and it's their fault for being poor.
This is pure bullshit.
Some people don't like poor people, period. It's so much easier to vilify them and make the argument that with hard work, you make something of yourself and if this doesn't happen? Then you simply didn't want it enough.
I have no patience for individuals with this mindset and who claim that low income people shouldn't expect anything of decent quality to ever be offered to them.
Why offer hope? It's obviously overrated and undeserved.
My point was missed entirely. Someone on this board clearly has a low income bias and doesn't want them around where they live.
I was attempting to point out that since my family was poor and we moved into the upper beaches, with their logic, people knowing we were poor then had a right to protest us living beside them.
Not once did I say we still weren't poor while living in a middle class neighborhood. It was a struggle. My mother had to work insane hours and rent out rooms to make ends meet. It was brutal.
My brother and I never could afford higher education because we had to start working to help out with the bills.
The poster clearly has something against low income people and insists on suggesting that they're somehow lazy and responsible for their poor status and thus deserving of the hostility for daring to live in their neighborhood.
If my tax dollars help lift other families out of their situation and add to the middle class instead of seeing over half their income go to shelter and food, then that's fine with me. I don't have a problem with this. We don't live in a level playing field society where every one has equal opportunity and it's their fault for being poor.
This is pure bullshit.
Some people don't like poor people, period. It's so much easier to vilify them and make the argument that with hard work, you make something of yourself and if this doesn't happen? Then you simply didn't want it enough.
I have no patience for individuals with this mindset and who claim that low income people shouldn't expect anything of decent quality to ever be offered to them.
Why offer hope? It's obviously overrated and undeserved.
Last edited: