|
|
|
- Thread starter jozl
- Start date
jozl
Active Member
Downtown Queen St. East is an immensely complex problem. In many ways it is the result of the mismanagement of several crucial issues that need to be addressed. The most obvious, because they are so visible, are the homeless shelters. We have all become aware that warehousing people that are in need into "designated areas" is a recipe for failure. It has not worked anywhere. Successful mixed income neighborhoods such as Crombie Park along the Esplanade and the recent dismantling of Regent Park are two examples of what has now become the preferred method of dealing with social housing. It's an integrated approach that filters purpose into the broader urban fabric and is essentially ghetto proof. Homeless shelters, particularly mens' shelters, are the last holdout of the old way of thinking. Men are herded into giant warehouses then thrown out on the street in the morning where they loiter all day. This is not a good system and the results are obvious. Call me naive but I think that shelters that provide pleasing (ie beautiful), cloistered areas can have a healing effect. Dumping men that are often feeling a sense of hopelessness on the street is a non starter. It's not good for anyone. The architecture of churches once offered a source of beauty and peace, albeit with ulterior motives, for many indigent people but those days are now gone. Replaced with utilitarian urban refuge camps that are repulsive inside and out. The plethora of shelters along Queen East have got to go but it's a political minefield that no politician wants to deal with. Nothing will happen until everyone agrees that the system we now have is broken and needs to be fixed.
Moss Park is another state sponsored, low income warehouse. It needs a Regent Park style make over. Seamless mixed income housing with a healthy commercial component all integrated into the street grid.
The armoury is a federal holding and, perhaps, is a good metaphor for the Federal Government's attitude to municipalities. It turns its back on the neighborhood, is fenced off and ugly. It effectively kills an entire city block. The Feds should move it to Downsview or somewhere, anywhere else. Keeping it on super valuable downtown real estate is unacceptable. It is perhaps the easiest part of Queen East to fix because WE OWN IT. The feds should give it to the city. The city could sell it and use the proceeds to help fix (ie dismantle) Moss Park.
Finally, the private sector. The parking lot at Queen E and Mutual. I've lost count of the number of proposed projects that were slated for this huge parcel of land over the last thirty years. If the owners want to sit on the land and use it as a parking lot until the value goes up there should be a time limit placed on that type of speculative inactivity. After all, the owners aren't doing anything to add value to the area. They're dragging their feet hoping someone else will improve the area so they can cash in. The city should increase the property taxes on the lot every year it sits vacant. We can't have land owners hold the city hostage while they feed the speculative bubble. It's no more apparent than it is at Mutual and Queen. I would tax them to death.
So, Queen East is a real basket of problems, if solved, could provide answers to some of our biggest urban problems. I doubt that the private sector alone is willing or able to improve this part of downtown. The city needs to make the first move and get all the stakeholders involved.
Moss Park is another state sponsored, low income warehouse. It needs a Regent Park style make over. Seamless mixed income housing with a healthy commercial component all integrated into the street grid.
The armoury is a federal holding and, perhaps, is a good metaphor for the Federal Government's attitude to municipalities. It turns its back on the neighborhood, is fenced off and ugly. It effectively kills an entire city block. The Feds should move it to Downsview or somewhere, anywhere else. Keeping it on super valuable downtown real estate is unacceptable. It is perhaps the easiest part of Queen East to fix because WE OWN IT. The feds should give it to the city. The city could sell it and use the proceeds to help fix (ie dismantle) Moss Park.
Finally, the private sector. The parking lot at Queen E and Mutual. I've lost count of the number of proposed projects that were slated for this huge parcel of land over the last thirty years. If the owners want to sit on the land and use it as a parking lot until the value goes up there should be a time limit placed on that type of speculative inactivity. After all, the owners aren't doing anything to add value to the area. They're dragging their feet hoping someone else will improve the area so they can cash in. The city should increase the property taxes on the lot every year it sits vacant. We can't have land owners hold the city hostage while they feed the speculative bubble. It's no more apparent than it is at Mutual and Queen. I would tax them to death.
So, Queen East is a real basket of problems, if solved, could provide answers to some of our biggest urban problems. I doubt that the private sector alone is willing or able to improve this part of downtown. The city needs to make the first move and get all the stakeholders involved.
Last edited:
Dan416
Senior Member
In regards to the armory, wouldn't the federal government want to sell highly valuable downtown land that they don't really need?
3Dementia
Senior Member
Dear 3Dementia......what are you hinting at??
You know. There's some "traction" as they say.
ham
New Member
intersting article about the failed korman development
Why was Kormann House never built?
Moss Park’s revitalization was once focused around a project boosted by Toronto condo king Brad Lamb. Nearly five years later, it stands as one of the city’s biggest real estate failures.
BY: Jacob Rutka
If there was a contest held to determine which downtown intersection was most in need of revitalization, Queen and Sherbourne would be an easy frontrunner. On its four corners, starting at the northwest and working clockwise, you have the edges of Moss Park; a small convenience mart with barred windows; a faded yellow low-rise building that houses a fried chicken joint called Krispy’s (previously it was a Popeyes Chicken & Seafood); and, finally, 134 Sherbourne St. (also known as 229 Queen St. E., pictured above), a vacant, century old, three-storey building that’s been boarded up and abandoned for the better part of a decade.
Heading north from the intersection, there’s a Salvation Army, some old apartment buildings, and a Dollarama. Go south just a block, and you’ll see new condo developments and restored historical buildings. Walk east and you’ll stumble into an area sometimes referred to as Toronto’s skid row, and if you head back towards Yonge you’ll find an increasing number of boutique storefronts and office buildings in old warehouses. In other words, it’s an intersection of disparities, and one that’s badly in need of a facelift.
Nearly seven years ago, there were plans to rejuvenate the area. A company called KC Developments sought to turn the old heritage building at the southwest corner of Queen and Sherbourne into a 10-storey, mixed-use residential building, with 60 condo units and retail on the ground floor, keeping the historical façade intact, of course. The name given to the new development was the Kormann House, a nod to the history of the building, which was originally built in the summer of 1897 as a hotel operated by a man named Frantz J. Kormann.
A document from the City of Toronto states the Kormann House’s heritage attributes as being archetypal of a “late 19th-century hotel anchoring the corner of a prominent intersection.†KC Developments seemingly felt the building had the ability to anchor a future development, as the company worked at drafting plans for the site—and rezoning to allow greater density—for years before an application was officially presented to the city in August 2006. And the name attached to it was none other than Brad Lamb, Toronto’s king of condo sales.
Lamb set up a sales centre, advertising the future condo as a place for young, first-time homeowners. “We were doing really well with it—I had my people promoting and marketing the building, and we had about 50 per cent of it sold,†says Lamb in a recent interview. The area’s residents, as well as an exceedingly interested online community, hoped that the condo development might revitalize not just the intersection—which, up until that point, was best known for a Coffee Time location where the owner was arrested and charged with selling crack January 2008—but also the area as a whole. Nearly five years down the road, however, Kormann House still sits vacant and boarded up.
So what exactly happened? According Stav Adivi—manager at KC Developments’ successor company, Portfolio Management and Development—it was simply too expensive to fix up and maintain the old heritage building and, since the margins were so low, they decided to sell. Lamb, however, tells a different story.
“KC Developments is an Israeli company that got their start buying large numbers of condominiums from developers, packaging them and selling them as a managed product in Israel,†says Lamb. Kormann House was meant to be their first foray into the world of development and Lamb, who says he put the full weight of his credibility behind the project in order to help it sell, put KC in contact with a construction company. In a June 2008 article in The Globe and Mail, reporter Sydnia Yu wrote about the big changes coming to the area thanks to the Kormann House development, and optimistically stated that the project would be finished in two years.
Yet construction never got off the ground. “I heard through the grapevine that KC Developments was trying to sell the development to a third party,†says Lamb, who then pushed for a meeting to confront KC’s top brass about their intentions with Kormann House. “I asked them for a 100 per cent guarantee that they were going to build the development once it was sold, and they couldn’t give me that guarantee, so I had to pull all my sales people and we were done with it.â€
For a while, the online community tried to figure what was happening with the property. Matt Elliott, City Hall columnist for Metro Toronto, was one of those who took an active interest. “I lived nearby and I’m kind of nerdy about how urban spaces evolve,†he says in an email. “My sense was, with development both moving up Sherbourne from Lake Shore and coming down a bit from Bloor, transformation at Queen and Sherbourne (and even Dundas and Sherbourne) [was] inevitable.†Once the domain for the Kormann House website expired in early 2009, however, it became obvious that no new building was going up there anytime soon.
So what’s next for Kormann House? In mid-2010, Lamb developed an interest in the site once again, thinking he could take the property off of KC Developments’ hands, and use his development company to build an apartment complex. Problem was, it had been sold three months earlier. During the previous year, it was on the market for $2.97 million, and it was eventually purchased for $1.5 million by Bloorston Farms Ltd. and Yaorland Developments Ltd. Little to no information exists about Bloorston or Yaorland online but, according to the real-estate agent who brokered the deal (and who wishes to remain anonymous), the new owners are a private family who have aspirations to develop the site in the future.
Lamb, however, isn’t very hopeful. “That’s not an easy corner,†he says. “At the time, we first started selling [the Kormann House units], the market was strong, and it was still tough. Nowadays, investors, who are the ones that get condos built through sales, are hibernating.†David Fleming, a real-estate agent, blogger, and columnist for The Grid, cites similar concerns, saying in an email, “As we move out of a red-hot market where anything and everything sells, developers will have to be far more selective with the projects they undertake.â€
In other words, don’t hold your breath for a new Kormann House development to materialize. Willie Macrae, a city planner who was involved in KC Developments’ plans for Kormann House, has confirmed that it looks like the new owners are going to hold the property for now. “It’s unfortunate, because we [at the City] are really putting some effort into rejuvenating the area—we did a streetscape improvement nearby on Britain Street, with new planters, and new sidewalks, and the Honda dealership [a half-block ast of Kormann House, on Queen] has recently sold, so we’re gonna see some development there. I wouldn’t say the intersection is dead, but I guess at this point, the market speaks for itself.â€
Why was Kormann House never built?
Moss Park’s revitalization was once focused around a project boosted by Toronto condo king Brad Lamb. Nearly five years later, it stands as one of the city’s biggest real estate failures.
BY: Jacob Rutka
If there was a contest held to determine which downtown intersection was most in need of revitalization, Queen and Sherbourne would be an easy frontrunner. On its four corners, starting at the northwest and working clockwise, you have the edges of Moss Park; a small convenience mart with barred windows; a faded yellow low-rise building that houses a fried chicken joint called Krispy’s (previously it was a Popeyes Chicken & Seafood); and, finally, 134 Sherbourne St. (also known as 229 Queen St. E., pictured above), a vacant, century old, three-storey building that’s been boarded up and abandoned for the better part of a decade.
Heading north from the intersection, there’s a Salvation Army, some old apartment buildings, and a Dollarama. Go south just a block, and you’ll see new condo developments and restored historical buildings. Walk east and you’ll stumble into an area sometimes referred to as Toronto’s skid row, and if you head back towards Yonge you’ll find an increasing number of boutique storefronts and office buildings in old warehouses. In other words, it’s an intersection of disparities, and one that’s badly in need of a facelift.
Nearly seven years ago, there were plans to rejuvenate the area. A company called KC Developments sought to turn the old heritage building at the southwest corner of Queen and Sherbourne into a 10-storey, mixed-use residential building, with 60 condo units and retail on the ground floor, keeping the historical façade intact, of course. The name given to the new development was the Kormann House, a nod to the history of the building, which was originally built in the summer of 1897 as a hotel operated by a man named Frantz J. Kormann.
A document from the City of Toronto states the Kormann House’s heritage attributes as being archetypal of a “late 19th-century hotel anchoring the corner of a prominent intersection.†KC Developments seemingly felt the building had the ability to anchor a future development, as the company worked at drafting plans for the site—and rezoning to allow greater density—for years before an application was officially presented to the city in August 2006. And the name attached to it was none other than Brad Lamb, Toronto’s king of condo sales.
Lamb set up a sales centre, advertising the future condo as a place for young, first-time homeowners. “We were doing really well with it—I had my people promoting and marketing the building, and we had about 50 per cent of it sold,†says Lamb in a recent interview. The area’s residents, as well as an exceedingly interested online community, hoped that the condo development might revitalize not just the intersection—which, up until that point, was best known for a Coffee Time location where the owner was arrested and charged with selling crack January 2008—but also the area as a whole. Nearly five years down the road, however, Kormann House still sits vacant and boarded up.
So what exactly happened? According Stav Adivi—manager at KC Developments’ successor company, Portfolio Management and Development—it was simply too expensive to fix up and maintain the old heritage building and, since the margins were so low, they decided to sell. Lamb, however, tells a different story.
“KC Developments is an Israeli company that got their start buying large numbers of condominiums from developers, packaging them and selling them as a managed product in Israel,†says Lamb. Kormann House was meant to be their first foray into the world of development and Lamb, who says he put the full weight of his credibility behind the project in order to help it sell, put KC in contact with a construction company. In a June 2008 article in The Globe and Mail, reporter Sydnia Yu wrote about the big changes coming to the area thanks to the Kormann House development, and optimistically stated that the project would be finished in two years.
Yet construction never got off the ground. “I heard through the grapevine that KC Developments was trying to sell the development to a third party,†says Lamb, who then pushed for a meeting to confront KC’s top brass about their intentions with Kormann House. “I asked them for a 100 per cent guarantee that they were going to build the development once it was sold, and they couldn’t give me that guarantee, so I had to pull all my sales people and we were done with it.â€
For a while, the online community tried to figure what was happening with the property. Matt Elliott, City Hall columnist for Metro Toronto, was one of those who took an active interest. “I lived nearby and I’m kind of nerdy about how urban spaces evolve,†he says in an email. “My sense was, with development both moving up Sherbourne from Lake Shore and coming down a bit from Bloor, transformation at Queen and Sherbourne (and even Dundas and Sherbourne) [was] inevitable.†Once the domain for the Kormann House website expired in early 2009, however, it became obvious that no new building was going up there anytime soon.
So what’s next for Kormann House? In mid-2010, Lamb developed an interest in the site once again, thinking he could take the property off of KC Developments’ hands, and use his development company to build an apartment complex. Problem was, it had been sold three months earlier. During the previous year, it was on the market for $2.97 million, and it was eventually purchased for $1.5 million by Bloorston Farms Ltd. and Yaorland Developments Ltd. Little to no information exists about Bloorston or Yaorland online but, according to the real-estate agent who brokered the deal (and who wishes to remain anonymous), the new owners are a private family who have aspirations to develop the site in the future.
Lamb, however, isn’t very hopeful. “That’s not an easy corner,†he says. “At the time, we first started selling [the Kormann House units], the market was strong, and it was still tough. Nowadays, investors, who are the ones that get condos built through sales, are hibernating.†David Fleming, a real-estate agent, blogger, and columnist for The Grid, cites similar concerns, saying in an email, “As we move out of a red-hot market where anything and everything sells, developers will have to be far more selective with the projects they undertake.â€
In other words, don’t hold your breath for a new Kormann House development to materialize. Willie Macrae, a city planner who was involved in KC Developments’ plans for Kormann House, has confirmed that it looks like the new owners are going to hold the property for now. “It’s unfortunate, because we [at the City] are really putting some effort into rejuvenating the area—we did a streetscape improvement nearby on Britain Street, with new planters, and new sidewalks, and the Honda dealership [a half-block ast of Kormann House, on Queen] has recently sold, so we’re gonna see some development there. I wouldn’t say the intersection is dead, but I guess at this point, the market speaks for itself.â€
doug
Active Member
After the opening weekend, a sign went up on the building stating that 75% of the suites had been sold....I didn't bother to go to the sales office after this because I figured the best ones were gone.
I think they lied and shot themselves in the foot.
I think they lied and shot themselves in the foot.
qwerty1
New Member
...and there is the nub of the problem. It is much easier - from a POLITICAL point of view - to either a) mix social housing in with market rate housing at the point of construction or b) drop market rate housing into the ghetto rather than c) trying to spread social housing across the city by dropping new and replacement housing in assorted established hoods. As a result, unless a) land values go through the roof and b) governments need to sell the land to raise revenue there is always going to be a very high concentration of social housing and associated services in the area. This in turn will likely mean that the area will always be somewhat, whatever you want to call it.
The status quo is politically safe. You engage in cosmetic changes on the margin without fundamentally addressing anything.
Last edited:
balenciaga
Banned
that's the price you pay for democracy. They do whatever is safe for their political career, instead of what is the best.
If anything the city should simply relocated some of the shelters elsewhere, to be more evenly spread out. Any area can deal one or two social housing without jeopadizing the overall attractiveness. Queen East has too many, and no matter what nice words we put there, most people don't want to live near jobless, homeless men who do nothing but wander on the streets all day.
agoraflaneur
Active Member
Seriously? Yeah, because in autocratic countries the government always does what is best for the people instead of what is best for themselves and their friends. No thought of political career or how to extract bribes and money from a situation at all.
Look, I don't know your personal situation, but most of my friends from China are here because not only does the government not look out for them, it tramples on them. Example: a friend from Wuzhou told me a few weeks ago that his father's house was expropriated by the government for half of its value (not even counting the value it would have had thirty years or fifty years from now). He was a member of the upper middle class. The government told him that his house on the hillside was "ugly" and would make wake for "a more peaceful and harmonious environment in the city." Not only that, but you obviously haven't traveled in China (other than to the shiny modern areas) or other autocratic state: there are ghettos all over the place (even in Singapore as you so eloquently pointed out to me) - there aren't shelters bucolically spaced in vibrant neighbourhoods. (Let's not even talk about the Great Leap Forward - have you heard of it? You would have to get around the Great Firewall and relearn everything the government taught Chinese people in school to learn about the millions dead and the reversal of economic growth perhaps).
Democracy isn't always best, to be sure. It is frustrating to take into account the interests of most people. We have differing opinions. Most people don't want shelters in their neighbourhoods. I disagree with that and think we should spread them out. So people need to be convinced that it would be good for them.
Last edited:
Lenser
Senior Member
The problem with that belief is the underlying notion of a taxpayer-funded government having the gall to tell their citizenry what's best for them and acting in kind. Some people find it maddeningly Orwellian, some are a shade less paranoid but no less mistrustful. But it's not exactly uncommon to dislike government bodies that treat anyone but the wealthiest and most influential as pawns of the state. Just how do you go about convincing people that homeless shelters in their own respective neighbourhoods would be a good thing - doing so in an effective manner? Personally I see it as a multi-layered government bureaucracy, armed with good intentions which are, however, often blunted by typical bungling procedure.
balenciaga
Banned
Not to make this a political debate, I myself just find modern democracy less and less attractive.
You are right that the Chinese government trample people's rights in many ways, but being an authoritarian government, it also enables it to do a lot of good things much much more efficiently, such as the light speed construction of highspeed trains and subways between and in many of its large cities. Unlike here in Toronto, we talk about plans after plans but just couldn't get our actions together. In the end, right, we didn't do anything bad, but little good is done either because they care more about votes than the city.
Of course I am not saying China's system is better, it is highly corrupted in many ways, but we can't deny that it does have its strength and our multi-party democracy has its serious drawback. If we had a strong meritocratic government who don't care about nymbys and focus solely on the future of the city, our DRL/Eglinton Crosstown would have been completely 10 years ago, instead we keep waiting and waiting because every few years the new government has a different idea, and nobody wants to offend anybody, so doing nothing seems to be the safest, just like what we do to the Gardiner, just do small patch work, leave the big mess to the next government.
The story your friend told you is very very suspicious. It used to be the case maybe 10-20 years ago, but nowadays, usually the case is the government offers more than the fair value for their properties, and most of the "nail property" owners refuse to move because they get increasingly greedy and want to take it as an opportunity to become super rich overnight. Trust me, it happens everyday. It is really not an evil government versus innocent people story, far from that black and white. The Chinese government, although still highly dirty, has become a lot better than before. Western media usually only prefers writing about bad things about China, and we should always read them with a grain of salt.
As to shelters, I, like you, don't mind if there is a shelter nearby. But the fact is most people don't. Is there any shelters in Rosedale or Forest Hill? God no. Those people will do all they can to prevent that from happening; in a democracy like ours, one problem is the rich almost always have a more powerful voice, which is why we don't see any shelters near the rich neighbourhoods. For Christ's sake they have the power of prevent a subway or freeway to be constructed anywhere near where they live. They don't ordinary working people to have easy access to their exclusive homes, and our policy accommodates that.
agoraflaneur
Active Member
It wasn't western media, it was my friend telling me his story of one of the reasons why he and his family left China. "Highly suspect," indeed. Why is he here? You know I would love you to say that to his father's face - you would see what "suspect" really is.
I do believe that it happened at least 10 years ago, however, if not longer. Not that it makes his father any better off today (he left China, so it makes China worse off, too). Of course the Chinese government is getting better - but that only means they are getting more democratic. Again, though, this expropriation was not done to build infrastructure, but only to supposedly improve the look of the city of the hills and lakes, Wuzhou.
In any event, China's high speed prowess is nice, but it hardly compares with a country like Spain, which over the last 10 to 15 years has built the second longest system in the world after China (only just now though). Spain is a democracy.
Unlike North America, Spain has a consensus of opinion that rail lines are good and that subways are good.They have less than half the entire population of Guangdong (over 100 million) at only 45 million with a country many times the size. Why is China so impressive again? It should have at least 20 times more high speed rails than the next country, if not MORE.
North America just doesn't have the same culture yet - Americans perfected the industrial production of cars and made it part of their national identity, while the railroad stayed part of the European identity. North Americans saw it as the past. Obsolete. Something poor people did to get around. So we have to change that.
Overall, you just don't have a point. Look for a LOT more protests in China over development (you think that disaster in Dalian didn't affect my friend's family's opinion of development? Of course, that story might be "suspect" to you, too, who knows).
I do believe that it happened at least 10 years ago, however, if not longer. Not that it makes his father any better off today (he left China, so it makes China worse off, too). Of course the Chinese government is getting better - but that only means they are getting more democratic. Again, though, this expropriation was not done to build infrastructure, but only to supposedly improve the look of the city of the hills and lakes, Wuzhou.
In any event, China's high speed prowess is nice, but it hardly compares with a country like Spain, which over the last 10 to 15 years has built the second longest system in the world after China (only just now though). Spain is a democracy.
Unlike North America, Spain has a consensus of opinion that rail lines are good and that subways are good.They have less than half the entire population of Guangdong (over 100 million) at only 45 million with a country many times the size. Why is China so impressive again? It should have at least 20 times more high speed rails than the next country, if not MORE.
North America just doesn't have the same culture yet - Americans perfected the industrial production of cars and made it part of their national identity, while the railroad stayed part of the European identity. North Americans saw it as the past. Obsolete. Something poor people did to get around. So we have to change that.
Overall, you just don't have a point. Look for a LOT more protests in China over development (you think that disaster in Dalian didn't affect my friend's family's opinion of development? Of course, that story might be "suspect" to you, too, who knows).
Last edited:
balenciaga
Banned
While in terms of high speed rail, you admit that North America just doesn't have the same culture yet, why can't admit the fact that in terms of democracy, China doesn't have the same culture yet either, in the same way?
I agree Spain's HSR is very impressive but It didn't take them 10-15 years to get where they are. The started their line 1 in the 1980s.
The Beijing-Guangzhou high speed train was just completed a week ago. It is 2300 km and took 7 years to construct. In comparison, the entire Spanish high speed rail is 2665 km, and took many more years to construct. In Toronto, our 19 km Eglinton Crosstown LRT will take 10 years to finish. And you still think what China achieved is not impressive?
In Shanghai, they had their first subway line in 1995, totalling about 10 km. Today, 17 years later, they have 12 lines and an operating route length of over 434 kilometres.
In Beijing, they had the first line in 1971, now they have 16, with a system of 442km.
In Toronto, we had our first line in 1954, now we have 2.5 lines totally about 30km.
And you still think what China did was not impressive?
You may criticize a lot of things about China. But to deny the impressive advancement they have made in terms of infrastructure, that's irrational and only means nothing China does will ever please you (just because it is not a "democracy"). To you, it seems simply not being a "democracy" just make all the progress meaningless and everything should be just brushed off. Only what happens in democracies counts.
The dilemma is, even with good democracy, how many PM/premier/mayor we think have done a great job and voters absolutely made the right choice voting for them? A pretty low percentage.
sorry, too much digress... I don't hate democracy, I just hate the fact that our elected politicians don't have the guts to do anything to improve Queen East. I hope for the best, but don't count on it.
adma
Superstar
"Good impressive", or "bad impressive"?
Look, I get the picture. You like China because they're not scared of "taking out the trash" by tearing down 3-story streets on behalf of 30 storeys. It may not be so-called "democratic", but...they do it. But what you *don't* seem to realize is the reality that a lot of enlightened Western urban observers would gladly preemptively take the trash over its replacement--and especially with the "means of disposal" under consideration. IOW they'd rather export, uh, Western-style "obstructionism" to China, than import China-style "progress" to the West.
Ultimately, you might as well be some goof proudly claiming that the overloaded McMansion you just built in Forest Hill is more "impressive"--i.e. modern, fully equipped, etc etc etc--than the Eden Smith or Sproatt & Rolph hulk you torn down to build it...
agoraflaneur
Active Member
Look, Japan did it, Korea did it, England did it, France did it - whatever, building subways isn't difficult IF the desire is there.
The first subway was built over 100 years ago - now THAT is impressive. But anyway, I still say (and have said many times) that China's growth is impressive by any standard. Good for them. Can't hope for anything but it to continue.
Nonetheless, Shanghai and Beijing get massive monies poured into them from the rest of a country of over 1.3 Billion (that's right - all of Canada is not even a decimal point in that figure).
When every city with more than a few million people in China has fantastic rapid transit I will be sufficiently "impressed" for you.
You speak only of a small elite portion of the country. I urge you to go outside these cities, as I did for 2 months traveling around China last year - where I saw massive traffic jams, inadequate infrastructure, crowding, delays, old equipment etc. etc. etc.
I saw lots of great stuff too, I am just saying you cannot judge a whole country with a 2% sample size.
Have to be impressed by the country-wide build out of the high speed line - let's just hope it isn't a white elephant like Shanghai's MagLev (by which I was of course impressed - loved riding it, like a carnival - but of course it will never be repaid by the fares and can't even reach anywhere near its top speed, while the extension was canceled and it is a stub of its intended self: it is simply "look at me, I am better than other people because of my expensive toy"). The country-wide high speed system took on 600 Billion USD of debt already, who knows if it will be financially successful, much less when the full system is built out and it costs like 2 Trillion.
In the end, I wish we would build lots of subways too, and I cannot fathom why the Eglinton line will take that long to build (I am that guy saying to people I know, "look at Seoul or Madrid or Shanghai!!! Let's get going here!!!! WTF!!!!! Pathetic!!!!)
But again, as with Spain - where yes the first line started in the 80s but most was completed only in the last while, and again their whole country has less than 2 times the population of Shanghai - we need the political will, which simply means we need majority support.
Let's not bicker over this and convince our friends and anyone we can that it would be a good thing.
The first subway was built over 100 years ago - now THAT is impressive. But anyway, I still say (and have said many times) that China's growth is impressive by any standard. Good for them. Can't hope for anything but it to continue.
Nonetheless, Shanghai and Beijing get massive monies poured into them from the rest of a country of over 1.3 Billion (that's right - all of Canada is not even a decimal point in that figure).
When every city with more than a few million people in China has fantastic rapid transit I will be sufficiently "impressed" for you.
You speak only of a small elite portion of the country. I urge you to go outside these cities, as I did for 2 months traveling around China last year - where I saw massive traffic jams, inadequate infrastructure, crowding, delays, old equipment etc. etc. etc.
I saw lots of great stuff too, I am just saying you cannot judge a whole country with a 2% sample size.
Have to be impressed by the country-wide build out of the high speed line - let's just hope it isn't a white elephant like Shanghai's MagLev (by which I was of course impressed - loved riding it, like a carnival - but of course it will never be repaid by the fares and can't even reach anywhere near its top speed, while the extension was canceled and it is a stub of its intended self: it is simply "look at me, I am better than other people because of my expensive toy"). The country-wide high speed system took on 600 Billion USD of debt already, who knows if it will be financially successful, much less when the full system is built out and it costs like 2 Trillion.
In the end, I wish we would build lots of subways too, and I cannot fathom why the Eglinton line will take that long to build (I am that guy saying to people I know, "look at Seoul or Madrid or Shanghai!!! Let's get going here!!!! WTF!!!!! Pathetic!!!!)
But again, as with Spain - where yes the first line started in the 80s but most was completed only in the last while, and again their whole country has less than 2 times the population of Shanghai - we need the political will, which simply means we need majority support.
Let's not bicker over this and convince our friends and anyone we can that it would be a good thing.
Last edited: