News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 9.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.4K     0 

^man, you'd love miketoronto if he were still around.

The comparisons to 1989 is pretty pointless considering how business is conducted has dramatically changed and specifically, 1989 being the peak of an uncontrolled frenzy of big bucks spending until the whammies hit us for most of the early ninties.

1% a year population growth is also pretty gosh darn good for our population base and lack of virgin land.


I have come across his post and agree mostly with him.

The comparison is not with 1989 it is with the last twenty years. The losses that occurred in Toronto were not pathogenomic of a wholesale change in the types of industries that were viable here. The fact that the types of businesses that were diminishing here (416) were increasing a stones throw away, point to a failing unique to Toronto on a local scale.

Between 2000 and 2006, slightly over 14 million s.f. of office space has been developed across the GTA with the overwhelming majority (90%) taking place in suburbs. Mississauga itself, while being less than half the size of Toronto, had five times the amount as Toronto.

The issue facing Toronto is not about the change in how business is conducted. It is about how it is treated locally. That is what the city can control.

As to 1% growth being considered good, consider that between 2001 and 2006 the city grew a only by 18% of what it had projected. 22,529 acutal vs. 131,966 projected.
 
Just because miketoronto said it and he's unpopular here doesn't make it automatically wrong.

There's absolutely no question that, despite significant regional job growth, there has been a massive shift in employment from the 416 to the 905, and from downtown office buildings to suburban office parks. This has a number of possible causes. Likely near the top were the many obstacles that downtown councillors led by Jack Layton placed in the way of new downtown office construction. Taxes also surely played a major role. A more subtle but equally important cause likely was fear of bank mergers emptying out a downtown tower and putting a chill on new office development, foreign takeovers eliminating Toronto headquarters, and the preference of high-growth sectors like high tech for more suburban locations.
 
Just joined and it would appear I don't yet have new thread rights,so excuse my intrusion on this thread, I only want to make sure those who oppose the proposed behemoth (and those who don't but want an enjoyable evening and stimulating conversation), are aware of the fundraiser to be held at Dora Keogh on June 13 and 14.

See http://cherrybeachdogs.com/ for info.

Hope to see you there!
 
The lure of Leslieville

Don't think I've seen this posted..

leslievillewoes.jpg


The Lure of Leslieville

By Dave McGinn, National Post


It is a prediction that has been making the rounds for years now: Eventually, Queen Street East will become the new Queen West. No one seems to know when this change will happen, and east-end residents are quite happy with the Queen Street they have, thank you very much. But with several condominium and loft projects either completed or currently underway, there is no doubt that Queen East is on the verge of a radical transformation.


“It has the potential to be better than Queen Street West,†says Brad Lamb, president of Brad J. Lamb Realty Inc. and Lamb Development Corp.

Both companies are playing a major role in the development of Queen East, especially in Leslieville.


However, these projects aren’t likely to radically alter the landscape of Queen East in the way condominium developments are poised to drastically change Queen West in the area near Gladstone Avenue. Thanks to zoning restrictions, condo projects in Leslieville can’t exceed nine storeys.


Most of the projects that have recently been completed in the area barely rise above the tree canopy, and the majority stand at least a block north or south of Queen Street.


Nor have the condo developments on Queen East precipitated any outcry to match Leslieville’s resistance to a proposal to build a big-box retail plaza, including a Wal-Mart, on the Toronto Film Studios site. While many storefronts in Leslieville display a poster reading “No Big Box in Leslieville,†there is no such similar opposition to condo and loft development.


And condo development is well underway. Relatively cheaper land in Leslieville has lured developers hoping to capitalize on its up-and-coming status. The Broadview Lofts, Queen City Vinegar Co. Lofts and several small-scale infill projects have all been completed in the past several years.


“Now that we’ve proven Queen East, we have the biggest developers calling and saying, ‘We’re interested in buying some land in Leslieville. We want to get a big site in Leslieville, do a few hundred units.’ I’m like, ‘Get in line now, guys,’ †Mr. Lamb says.


Indeed, the boom shows no sign of stopping. As industry has moved out or city council has rezoned it out of the area, condo developers market their projects with nods to the workplaces that once employed the locals. New condos include The Leslieville Lofts, Edge Lofts, Work Lofts, Printing Factory, Garment Factory and the Flat Iron Lofts.


Mr. Lamb estimates these projects, as well as those likely to begin in the near future, will see 4, 000 new residents just in and around the intersection of Queen Street East and Carlaw Avenue within five years.


That many new people in the area — most of them young professionals — will surely drive gentrification, Mr. Lamb says.


“What condominiums do is they add to the number of bodies on the street, which adds to the number of visits to the door of your retail environment,†he says.


Matthew Taylor, co-owner of Mercury Espresso Bar in Leslieville, a sunny spot with mismatched furniture and powerful coffee, welcomes the influx of people to the neighbourhood.


“It can only be good for business,†he says. “Most of the people who are moving here are moving here because they like the neighbourhood. It’s all about the local business.â€


Still, he says, over-gentrification could be a concern for businesses in Leslieville.


“I have a niche market, and it’s not really going to be affected by places like the Gap or H&M, or any of those other kind of places that could end up here. But at the same time, I don’t want to see that here either. I like the idea of Leslieville being that independent-business neighbourhood.â€


The gentrification has already begun.


Walk down Queen Street east of Broadview Avenue and there are signs of gentrification everywhere: new bars such as Rasputin, The Comrade, Pic Nic Wine Bar and Prohibition, and new restaurants such as Table 18 and Soma. All are recent Leslieville additions.


But there are plenty of boarded-up storefronts to be seen as well, and the neighbourhood has a quiet feel to it that is more Saturday afternoon than Saturday night.


Yet condominium development is often a driving force of gentrification, says Robert Levit, director of the Master of Urban Design program at the University of Toronto’s Daniels Faculty of Architecture, Landscape and Design.


“If you take the model of certain other neighbourhoods, like the changes in King West and around Niagara Street, it seems that it is in fact the condos that are driving the transformation of the area,†he says.


Developers say they don’t want to see their projects overwhelm Queen East.


“Our buildings push the community as your amenity,†says Alie Warren, vice-president of sales and marketing for Streetcar Developments, builders of Edge Lofts, a six-storey building with 66 units just east of the Don River.


“We don’t have swimming pools and lounges and all of that. Keeping it in the community and really drawing people into the area we’re developing is really important.â€


Yet while developers push Queen East as a hot new up-and-coming neighbourhood, the area remains a tougher sell than its west-end counterpart.


“In the collective unconscious of the residents of Toronto, it’s still a lesser-valued, not-as-good area as the west side,†says Yossi Kaplan, a real estate agent who specializes in downtown condos and lofts.


However, the development of the West Don Lands — 10 hectares of parks and 6,000 units of housing on the edge of Leslieville — will greatly improve the appeal of the area in homebuyers’ eyes, Mr. Levit says.


“Instead of having a post-industrial wasteland between downtown and the new Queen East developments, you’re actually going to have some remarkable amenities,†he says.


Mr. Lamb says Queen East’s relaxed vibe makes it an attractive proposition.


“What’s going to happen on Queen Street East, it’s inevitable: The Gapâs going to be on Queen Street East in 10 years,†Mr. Lamb says. “But that’s all part of the gentrification of an area that is of lower income and lower value right now.â€
 
Lamb's talking his book

Since he's got his fingers in most of the new projects, he's definitely got a lot to gain by pumping Leslieville.

I think that 'Riverside' is quietly being put to bed as a separate district. Almost all of the progress cited here is not actually in the Leslieville-signed part of South Riverdale, but rather what used to be known as Riverside. My wife and her fellow merchants are OK with that, though -- Leslieville is definitely the 'cool' label, so they're happy to stretch it along Queen East right to Broadview.

Lots of room for another 20 years of improvement before this is a new Magnificent Mile, let's just say...
 
A couple of random Leslieville thoughts...

Went to Eddy Levesque's for Summerlicious this week -- they're basically doing a prix fixe of their favorites from menus past. Well worth the extra ten bucks (they're doing a $35 menu, not $25 like other joints).

And did anyone else see that ad for some car in the G&M magazine this week? It could have been an ad for Tango Palace, and not for the car! I can't even remember the brand, but the coffeehouse looked great!
 
I don't think you can say that the shift has occured from the city to the suburbs completely. Most of the growth has to do with the fact it's easier to get a better return in the suburbs when the population is growing. The point still remains, that there is only about 40 million SF of office space in the western suburbs, about 30 million in the northern (including most of scarborough), and next to nothing in pickering/ajax/whitby. combine this with the 145 million SF downtown and environs, and more than 2 million SF still under construction.

The best way to judge is by vacancy and rental rates, and those rates are significantly lower and higher in the city than in the suburbs, respectively. Similarly, same reason why prime office space at yonge/eglinton is about 40% cheaper than in the core: more difficult to get to for commuters compared to downtown.

I'm not saying that there isn't still office growth in the suburbs, but I don't think at all there's a shift for businesses out into the suburbs instead of the city. Just look at Telus: they thought it was more valuable to have all their employees in a new expensive building in the financial core than spread out 6-7 buildings across the city
 
Congrats on Flashpoint!

I must admit that the fact that a not-yet-aired Canadian action series has a Wikipedia site made me laugh aloud. Good luck, and I'll be watching for it.

Man -- Ms. Morgenstern has gone in a completely different direction from her turns as the ingenue for TfT...

I saw that Flashpoint had a huge debut -- congratulations to the Studio District citoyens involved! Here's hoping it gets picked up by both sides of the border for their fall lineups -- no reason it shouldn't with a #1 blowout start.
 
As a Leslieville resident, I for one would look forward to the opportunity to have a wider variety of retail shopping that didn't require me to head up to Eglinton Ave. or accross the Gardiner to the Sherway area. I'm not sure if the folks who are complaining about this "car-centric" development have given thought to the impact of the area residents (Beaches, Leslieville, Riverdale) piling into their cars when they need to shop at a big-box type store.

I know a few people (including my next door neighbour) who operate small business in the area and in an ideal world, it would be great if I could by all my goods from them, but that is just not realistic. The truth of the matter is that these "big box" stores do serve the public need for wider selection and lower prices - not everyone in the city can afford to shop at these boutique shops.

It would also be nice to see the eyesore that is Eastern Avenue looking less like an abandoned war zone. I use Eastern every day to drive my wife to her office downtown and can only imagine how nice it would be to see clean, appealing development along this strip. I'm not sure what type of high-paying businesses the opponents of this development think this area will attract, but if I was searching for an area to relocate, this would be one of the last places I'd want to be. Not only is the area unappealing to the eye, there are few if any services (restaurants and shops) for the employees of these imaginary employers to make the area tolerable to work in.

I work near the airport and I can say that it is a miserable experience to have to hop in my car to get to any type of service, from restaurants, banks and shops. If anything, having the Smart Centre development in this area (which actually takes up a rather small net percentage of overall employment land) will make the area more appealing for the high-paying businesses to re-locate to.
 
SmartCentre

As time progresses and interest wanes or we just give up and SmartCentre gets the go-ahead, my thoughts turn to how we might make best of the situation. I agree that Eastern Ave is an unappealing street. I live around the corner and I use it frequently. But however rundown it may be I find it far more appealing than the vast, treeless, scorching/freezing parking lots at Loblaws, Burger King, Tim Horton's, etc. "Clean, appealing development" is certainly the way to go but development by defintition very rarely means "appealing" unless the City forces the developer to make it so. I would accept the development only and I mean ONLY if the developer met these conditions:

(A) if the parking spaces are surface, then they have to plant X number of trees, e.g., one tree for every four parking spaces... minimum. And they have to be planted throughout the lot, so that cars park underneath, creating shade, alleviating the heat retention of the concrete, providing a more pleasing environment, etc. They could not just line the perimeter of the lot with trees;

(B) if the parking goes underground, the developer must put in a park for the entire space that would have been used for ground-level parking. The underground parking could be under the retail building itself or under the park area. And it can't just be grass. It needs to be well-treed green space and park area with benches, flowerbeds, water fountains, etc., and The develloper is required to maintain it under supervision of the City (meaning they can't let it go to pot);

(C) in either event,the developer must put in a green roof accessible to the public. It can be used as educational gardens, whatever, but it must a green roof

(D) the building itself must be of the highest environmentally sustainable LEED rating...

(E) the development must be of mixed use (commercial/residential/public) and

(F) traffic is allowed to enter/exit only from/to Lakeshore.

This city has to have more imagination....
 
As a Leslieville resident, I for one would look forward to the opportunity to have a wider variety of retail shopping that didn't require me to head up to Eglinton Ave. or accross the Gardiner to the Sherway area. I'm not sure if the folks who are complaining about this "car-centric" development have given thought to the impact of the area residents (Beaches, Leslieville, Riverdale) piling into their cars when they need to shop at a big-box type store.

I know a few people (including my next door neighbour) who operate small business in the area and in an ideal world, it would be great if I could by all my goods from them, but that is just not realistic. The truth of the matter is that these "big box" stores do serve the public need for wider selection and lower prices - not everyone in the city can afford to shop at these boutique shops.

It would also be nice to see the eyesore that is Eastern Avenue looking less like an abandoned war zone. I use Eastern every day to drive my wife to her office downtown and can only imagine how nice it would be to see clean, appealing development along this strip. I'm not sure what type of high-paying businesses the opponents of this development think this area will attract, but if I was searching for an area to relocate, this would be one of the last places I'd want to be. Not only is the area unappealing to the eye, there are few if any services (restaurants and shops) for the employees of these imaginary employers to make the area tolerable to work in.

I work near the airport and I can say that it is a miserable experience to have to hop in my car to get to any type of service, from restaurants, banks and shops. If anything, having the Smart Centre development in this area (which actually takes up a rather small net percentage of overall employment land) will make the area more appealing for the high-paying businesses to re-locate to.


GASP! SHHHHHH! You're not allowed to have this opinon! No one in Leslieville or the Beaches has a car! Shame on you! You should take your bicycle to Home Depot and load up. Downtown is for people, not cars! :rolleyes:

The real question is: where are people like you when this zoning process is being shoved down our throats?

I live on Jarvis and drive all the way to Eglinton/Warden to go shopping.

According to Pam and Kyle: we don't count.
 
As time progresses and interest wanes or we just give up and SmartCentre gets the go-ahead, my thoughts turn to how we might make best of the situation. I agree that Eastern Ave is an unappealing street. I live around the corner and I use it frequently. But however rundown it may be I find it far more appealing than the vast, treeless, scorching/freezing parking lots at Loblaws, Burger King, Tim Horton's, etc. "Clean, appealing development" is certainly the way to go but development by defintition very rarely means "appealing" unless the City forces the developer to make it so. I would accept the development only and I mean ONLY if the developer met these conditions:

(A) if the parking spaces are surface, then they have to plant X number of trees, e.g., one tree for every four parking spaces... minimum. And they have to be planted throughout the lot, so that cars park underneath, creating shade, alleviating the heat retention of the concrete, providing a more pleasing environment, etc. They could not just line the perimeter of the lot with trees;

(B) if the parking goes underground, the developer must put in a park for the entire space that would have been used for ground-level parking. The underground parking could be under the retail building itself or under the park area. And it can't just be grass. It needs to be well-treed green space and park area with benches, flowerbeds, water fountains, etc., and The develloper is required to maintain it under supervision of the City (meaning they can't let it go to pot);

(C) in either event,the developer must put in a green roof accessible to the public. It can be used as educational gardens, whatever, but it must a green roof

(D) the building itself must be of the highest environmentally sustainable LEED rating...

(E) the development must be of mixed use (commercial/residential/public) and

(F) traffic is allowed to enter/exit only from/to Lakeshore.

This city has to have more imagination....

Also, the stores (on the first level of low-rise mixed use buildings) must front the street with only a wide, tree-shaded sidewalk between the stores and the street. And metered parking in back out of sight, not in front.
 

Back
Top