Toronto Social at Church + Dundas | 164.89m | 52s | Pemberton | RAW Design

very , very true , the 2 facades that were salvageable , were not kept ,and should have been ...but then the bylaws that should be protecting them should be updated , . though due to to the apathy of councillor that would rather coddle crackheads instead of demanding livable hoods , should again be blamed , .... and again the people who officially run the city have never demanded chicago , and somewhat manhattan standards of design
 
  • Like
Reactions: bjl
doublestandard said:
. though due to to the apathy of councillor that would rather coddle crackheads instead of demanding livable hoods , should again be blamed , ....
Click to expand...

Hey, just because Toronto City Council likes to party doesn’t mean that it doesn’t care about livable hoods:


Oh wait..you were talking about poor, powerless people who use drugs. Never mind.

Any chance we can ease off the rhetoric In this thread?
 
Just for the record, the buildings that used to stand on this corner were two and three storeys, not one and two storeys. I find people often downgrade the stature of old buildings like these to make it seem more justifiable to have them be demolished.
 
doublestandard said:
very , very true , the 2 facades that were salvageable , were not kept ,and should have been ...but then the bylaws that should be protecting them should be updated , . though due to to the apathy of councillor that would rather coddle crackheads instead of demanding livable hoods , should again be blamed , .... and again the people who officially run the city have never demanded chicago , and somewhat manhattan standards of design
Click to expand...

Funny you mentioned Chicago. The block after block of bland (parking) podiums containing the same chain stores over and over is the reason for my concerns with the direction development like this is taking Toronto. We are becoming more and more like Chicago without the storied architectural history to rest on.
 
Softee said:
Just for the record, the buildings that used to stand on this corner were two and three storeys, not one and two storeys. I find people often downgrade the stature of old buildings like these to make it seem more justifiable to have them be demolished.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, my bad, that extra one storey really makes the difference.
 
Urban Toronto will always be a place where people will rejoice if any project is built, no matter how dull it might be, what businesses or residents might be displaced, or how poorly it meets the street, as long as it’s TALL!

Who cares if Tacos 101 is replaced by Taco Bell after all?
 
bilked said:
Oh wait..you were talking about poor, powerless people who use drugs.
Click to expand...

The only powerless people in this neighbourhood are the ones who pay property tax. We've already been told by our councillor that 'a few violent or sexual assaults are just the fabric of the neighbourhood'.
 
bjl said:
The only powerless people in this neighbourhood are the ones who pay property tax. We've already been told by our councillor that 'a few violent or sexual assaults are just the fabric of the neighbourhood'.
Click to expand...

No Toronto City councilor has ever said "'a few violent or sexual assaults are just the fabric of the neighbourhood". If that's what you heard, that is your issue. It's baseless and defamatory rhetoric that contributes nothing to the what might have been an interesting debate about land use on this site, but which has now been hijacked by the flush-it-down-the-toilet crowd.
 
"If that's what you heard, that is your issue. "

if that's what you chose to believe, that's your issue.
You don't have to live in reality with the rest of us....be careful you don't fall off your high horse, you might get hurt.
 
ShonTron said:
Urban Toronto will always be a place where people will rejoice if any project is built, no matter how dull it might be, what businesses or residents might be displaced, or how poorly it meets the street, as long as it’s TALL!

Who cares if Tacos 101 is replaced by Taco Bell after all?
Click to expand...
What would you like to do about it? Subsidize Tacos 101?
 
bjl said:
https://www.kristynwongtam.ca/sisstatement
Click to expand...

I read the press release. It obviously doesn’t say “'a few violent or sexual assaults are just the fabric of the neighbourhood" which is what you ascribed to her using quote marks.

And none of that has anything to do with this thread.

I think most forumers would agree that adding much-needed housing to a centrally-located site with good access to transit, amenities, offices and schools is a good thing. I think most forumers would also agree that the loss of a vibrant, if worn, retail strip with established local businesses is a bad thing.

The parameters of the debate then seem to be whether the intensified land use at this site is worth the loss of the retail strip and, if so, whether there are or ought to be any requirements imposed that could mitigate against the loss of the original character of the retail strip that’s now being demolished. There is plenty of room to find common ground here and also plenty of room for reasonable people to disagree.

If you want to have a discussion about “crackheads” and social cleansing, please do it somewhere else.
 
Last edited:
At the risk of sounding like we`re beating a dead horse, I have to throw in my 2cents. I can`t believe that our standards are so low that we consider this "character". I'm all for preservation and revitalization of aging structures but come on, there is very little potential for these shacks to contribute to Toronto's identity in any renovated form. We can make a case for long-lost, salvageable buildings in so many other redevelopments across the city but this isn't one of them.
1542509731747.png
1542509731747.png
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top