If by "still living with" you mean "Still doing" then yes I agree. However instead of mowing down neighbourhoods and then rebuilding like the Borg, the city is allowing developers to do whole neighbourhoods AS IF they mowed down an existing one.
For example City Place and the upcoming West Don Lands. Developers forget to design in a Main Street for shopping in these neighbourhoods. These areas such as St.James Town or Regent Park decay because they were not grown organically. Nor did they factor in a grocery store, Post office , movie theatre or any other amenities to make the village vibrant.
I see no difference in City Place and St. James Town, despite the superficial appearance and the illusion of quality at CP.
Everyone: Excellent picture looking E of the Bloor/Danforth area noting the TTC Castle Frank station area and viaduct with the uncovered slots
down below and the Prince Albert Viaduct over the Don River valley...Did St.Jamestown and the so-called "blockbusting" replace a low-income slum area and were the residents replaced minorities like what was done in many US cities in the 60s era?
What was that parallel street(if there was one)that the B/D Subway was built under cut/cover?
Traynor St James Town are rental buildings. When rent control came into being the one owner cut back on things like maintenance. That's why they declined. The many owners at the various CityPlace buildings will never allow that. Big difference.
It was built using cut and cover techniques to the north of Danforth. Isn't that one thing we should have learned to continue to do subway construction today?
No way we should cut and cover again. The cost is prohibitive, the disruption insane, and it would force hundreds if not thousands out of there neighbourhoods. Thousands of homes were bought and torn down to build the Bloor Danforth line. Considering the outrage that the TTC is facing in its attempt to build second exits by taking a couple of homes I doubt it would survive the outrage of taking hundreds for a cut and cover subway.
Traynor St James Town are rental buildings. When rent control came into being the one owner cut back on things like maintenance. That's why they declined. The many owners at the various CityPlace buildings will never allow that. Big difference.
When St.James Town was deigned, planned and built there was no such thing as Condominium Residences in Canada yet. That came into being in the late 60's early 70's. It was the mid-sixties version of starter-level condominiums.
St.James was planned as a hip, urban place for young professionals with no, or few children yet. Sound familiar? It was supposed to be the sophisticated, city dweller's habitat but short sightedness, poor planning and lack of amenities shifted the overall plan and it became derelict.
Obviously Condo owners won't let the exact same decay happen, but unless these areas are developed more organically or with "Little Villages" design, the value for resale will never grow to its full potential and they will become less desirable areas, with low levels of owner's pride remaining. And we all know where that spiral will lead.
It is not an exact parallel, but the similarities are evident.