[dt_toronto_geek]

Point of fact, a great space above Woody's (Sailor actually) where Priape used to be has been sitting empty for at least two years. Another example is a huge space one level down below Juice Box (and Il Fornello) which has also been empty since the health food store pulled out a few years ago. I don't know what the rent is but if I owned those buildings I'd be actively negotiating a reasonable rent for a good tenant to fill those units.

 

[kkgg7]

You have missed or ignored the aspect of risk. It is totally wrong that all property owners demand the maximum amount the market will pay at some sort of equilibrium point. The fact that you bring up a property sale scenario as a relevant example shows you have no idea what you are talking about. Many landlords actively offer below market rents, to remove risk of income loss. Many will ask for well above market rents because they expect the risk of even prolonged income loss to be offset by astronomical returns on capital or some crazy tenant will come and offer even more money if they just wait another month, taking a level if risk akin to gambling, and that is the situation on Church Street. And it is openly acknowledged by the landlords and tenants. Anyone can see this with their own eyes, here or anywhere else in an y location in the world, where rental properties sit vacant for months or years in even the absolute most desirable locations because of excess risk taking. It really is plain old greed.

if "greed" is defined as what you said, then it doesn't seem to be a bad thing at all. Taking more risks in expecting higher return, what's wrong with that? I don't know why those owners should be blamed. An owner has the right to expect whatever rent he wants. It is their property. You can't expect a private property owner to care more about Church st business more than his own profit. That would be called stupidity.

 

[LordWanker]

if "greed" is defined as what you said, then it doesn't seem to be a bad thing at all. Taking more risks in expecting higher return, what's wrong with that? I don't know why those owners should be blamed. An owner has the right to expect whatever rent he wants. It is their property. You can't expect a private property owner to care more about Church st business more than his own profit. That would be called stupidity.

Well that can be defined as stupidity as well. As you said the landlord can do whatever he wants but if he or she prefers to have the property sit vacant while holding out for the perceived market-value rent, that said property may remain empty for a long time ( e.g. the commercial strip along Gerrard near Coxwell ). If enough landlords pull this stunt for a long-enough duration, the allure of the neighbourhood would certainly go down instead of up.

 

[adma]

If we apply kkgg7 logic to residential rather than commercial circumstances, then a private property owner should have every right to tear down something for a gross eyesore-on-the-block McMansion because for him/her to care about neighbourhood context, decorum, etc would be "stupidity".

 

[canmark]

Toronto Star: Is the Gay Village a victim of its own success?

But the Fetish Fair controversy is a proxy battle in a larger tug of war. At the heart of that fight is this question: What is the role of the city’s Gay Village in tolerant 2012?

Pearce worries that the Church-Wellesley neighbourhood, by becoming more palatable to outsiders in a well-intentioned attempt to de-stigmatize homosexuality, is wading so far mainstream as to abandon anyone who might make the average Torontonian squirm.

“The gay community really wants to fit in,†says Pearce. “I don’t think that’s wrong, because we got lots of really great rights. But we’ve sort of left the other side of it†— fetishists, leather daddies, gender non-conformists — “behind.â€

Ironically, the BIA says it’s also grappling with being left behind. As outlying neighbourhoods become ever-more welcoming for same-sex couples, gay Torontonians — and their money — are leaving the Village.

“There’s competitive pressure,†says Devine. “The Village is no longer the centre of gay life in Toronto the way it once was.â€

And as BIA manager David Wootton told Xtra in March: â€Man cannot live on queer dollars alone.â€

 

[taal]

I think we get an article like the above at least once a year (for the last 5 or so).

 

[mgl]

Where can I buy Montreal style bagels in the village now that Reither's Fine Foods is closed? I know Epicure and Cabbagetown Organics carry them, but they're a bit of a hike before breakfast.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

I think we get an article like the above at least once a year (for the last 5 or so).

Further back than that! When the Alexus condo opened at Alexander & Church (1999?) a story came out about gentrification of the Church Wellesley Village titled "There Goes the Neighbourhood"....

 

[Tewder]

... though there's probably more than just 'gentrification' at play when it comes to shifing patterns in the Church/Wellesley area.

 

[cdr108]

... though there's probably more than just 'gentrification' at play when it comes to shifing patterns in the Church/Wellesley area.

it's definitely more ... the fact is church street is only 1 block east of the Yonge line and IMO anything up to Jarvis (at least) will be eventually be densified where possible.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

"The Vic Pub" coming in May to the CW Village. I was hoping it was the old Village Rainbow site, but it appears not -

http://www.thevicpubtoronto.ca/

 

[Tewder]

The fact that 'pubs', hamburger joints and otherwise mainstream ventures seem to be pushing out many of the businesses that once defined the 'gay village' as we knew it is telling. How long can places like Woody's or Priape etc hang on?

 

[cdr108]

The fact that 'pubs', hamburger joints and otherwise mainstream ventures seem to be pushing out many of the businesses that once defined the 'gay village' as we knew it is telling. How long can places like Woody's or Priape etc hang on?

well in this case it's not pushing out anything but replacing an existing food services business from the looks of the location.
besides, i hear many here complain about the lack of good quality food establishments in the area, so hopefully this will be a better one.

 

[kkgg7]

it's definitely more ... the fact is church street is only 1 block east of the Yonge line and IMO anything up to Jarvis (at least) will be eventually be densified where possible.

Exactly. Considering the location and its desirability, it will happen for certain. Multiple condo proposals have been put forward on Church from King to Bloor as far as I know. More people will move in and the area will experience changes. It will be unrealistic to expect the village to remain its low rise quaint neighbourhood status quo.

My guess is the village might gradually have to move eastward, as rent cost will definitely keep rising at Church/Wellesley, maybe to Sherboune and further.
If we look at other cities, most gay villages are not located in the busiest downtown area - Montreal, Chicago, New York, San Francisco, LA etc.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

Exactly. Considering the location and its desirability, it will happen for certain. Multiple condo proposals have been put forward on Church from King to Bloor as far as I know. More people will move in and the area will experience changes. It will be unrealistic to expect the village to remain its low rise quaint neighbourhood status quo.

My guess is the village might gradually have to move eastward, as rent cost will definitely keep rising at Church/Wellesley, maybe to Sherboune and further.
If we look at other cities, most gay villages are not located in the busiest downtown area - Montreal, Chicago, New York, San Francisco, LA etc.

Once the Downtown Planning Framework is in place what you suggest won't happen. Further, Yonge, Church and Jarvis are being worked on as designed historical streets so that further helps to keep these areas low-rise/mid-rise and most importantly, protects the heritage in the area.