- Thread starter Stupidandshallow
- Start date
stjames2queenwest
Senior Member
Philip, Terence and Celine?
jozl
Active Member
Does anyone know if this development includes the old Honda dealership (now Ford) on Riichmond Street? Seems odd, Honda vacated the building a couple years ago so I figured it was due for development but Ford just recently leased the building.
I hope this kickstarts some serious development in the area. It's a blight, within a few minutes walk of some of the most expensive real estate in the country. It's a pretty graphic representation of what happens when people with little means of support (i.e. Income) are warehoused. Instant dead local economy.
I hope this kickstarts some serious development in the area. It's a blight, within a few minutes walk of some of the most expensive real estate in the country. It's a pretty graphic representation of what happens when people with little means of support (i.e. Income) are warehoused. Instant dead local economy.
greenleaf
Senior Member
Blight? This isn't 1961. Should only the wealthy have the right to live here?
TheKingEast
Senior Member
Do you like what has happened to that area? Many stretches of Sherbourne are depressing. Queen and Sherbourne should be cleaned up and I'm not even talking about knocking everything down and replacing with an upscale for the rich. I'm saying, it's time to develop an area that has been left for dead for a long, long time. I look at what happened to Regent Park and think things turned out for the better, no?
greenleaf
Senior Member
There are racial and socio-economic implications when using that term. Yes, the area needs a new coat of paint, literally in many cases. It's still a functional place though.
I think Regent Park is better, but should have had zero displacement during construction and should have added additional subsidized housing instead of simply diluting what was there.
Canadian Chocho
Active Member
This is something that I find is way too often overlooked on UrbanToronto. I like development and I like tall buildings, in fact I like this proposal fro the most part (still wished more of the warehouse than just one facade was retained), but displacing people without any regard as to where they go is going to catch up to us eventually. I understand that places and neighbourhoods change which will require the displacement of many, but to disregard where these people will go and why it matters is lazy city building. Many of these people can't just pack-up and secure a new place easily.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
Regent park does have new units I believe.
Any level of displacement is necessary, you have to demolish first before you can open up sites to build. Something has to make way for the new buildings.. You can minimize displacement by displacing only a small amount of people, putting a tower where they were, and waiting until that tower is done and move more people into it opening up more sites.. but that slows the process down tremendously. The revitalization would probably be half the size it is today.
Any level of displacement is necessary, you have to demolish first before you can open up sites to build. Something has to make way for the new buildings.. You can minimize displacement by displacing only a small amount of people, putting a tower where they were, and waiting until that tower is done and move more people into it opening up more sites.. but that slows the process down tremendously. The revitalization would probably be half the size it is today.
E.B.
Active Member
does anyone know if these buildings will be noticeable on the skyline from the westend? between bathurst to yonge, as that would be the best vantage point to view them from.
greenleaf
Senior Member
Alexandra Park is being redeveloped with zero displacement.
agoraflaneur
Active Member
I believe if there is any location to speak about socio-economic impacts, this is it. On first examination I see two main difficulties: the loss of heritage and the out of context height of the proposal as well as the absence of social housing in the discussion.
Regarding the latter, social housing (or affordable housing) should be a priority throughout the city, not only in one area. The concentration of poverty here is palpable yet serves the interests of none. I too believe Regent Park should have added some more units, but the creation of mixed income zones benefits everyone in my opinion (social procurement in building, jobs at the local businesses like banks and supermarkets that didn't exist previously, new, excellent quality facilities that almost nobody in the city has in their 'hood). At some point fairly soon we should expect Moss Park to get redeveloped, with the large number of parking lots fronting Queen and running up to Shuter being part of the development. That might be a great place to add more affordable housing right here.
As to the development itself, there have already been new builds around this area, so this one won't be ex nihilo (the Sherbourne and Richmond building in particular but also the development along Adelaide, George and Shuter, 88 Queen East, etc.). The area has been gentrifying for the last number of years. But the scale is jarring. It will significantly alter the area and likely set a huge height precedent. However, if a subway is to come through Queen St., I don't know how those of us concerned with heritage retention can reasonably argue to keep all the three storey buildings intact - which is but one of my reasons for preferring a King St. alignment. We need to seriously get our act together as a city to decide the future of a Queen Street that has a subway. More density and height will be required all along Queen as far as I see it. However, I do not see why we shouldn't demand better integration of these heritage structures.
Regarding the latter, social housing (or affordable housing) should be a priority throughout the city, not only in one area. The concentration of poverty here is palpable yet serves the interests of none. I too believe Regent Park should have added some more units, but the creation of mixed income zones benefits everyone in my opinion (social procurement in building, jobs at the local businesses like banks and supermarkets that didn't exist previously, new, excellent quality facilities that almost nobody in the city has in their 'hood). At some point fairly soon we should expect Moss Park to get redeveloped, with the large number of parking lots fronting Queen and running up to Shuter being part of the development. That might be a great place to add more affordable housing right here.
As to the development itself, there have already been new builds around this area, so this one won't be ex nihilo (the Sherbourne and Richmond building in particular but also the development along Adelaide, George and Shuter, 88 Queen East, etc.). The area has been gentrifying for the last number of years. But the scale is jarring. It will significantly alter the area and likely set a huge height precedent. However, if a subway is to come through Queen St., I don't know how those of us concerned with heritage retention can reasonably argue to keep all the three storey buildings intact - which is but one of my reasons for preferring a King St. alignment. We need to seriously get our act together as a city to decide the future of a Queen Street that has a subway. More density and height will be required all along Queen as far as I see it. However, I do not see why we shouldn't demand better integration of these heritage structures.
Stupidandshallow
Active Member
But people are not being displaced here? I'm certain there is a bylaw where all rental units being demolished in a development have to be replaced (see here)... It looks like the developer here is contesting the illegal units... One of the supporting documents should outline the amount of rentals currently in this development that must be replaced.
Unfortunately one of the downsides to a thriving city is gentrification... Which I don't think is necessarily a bad thing. This part of town is such a wasteland... and I'm not referring to the people who frequent it or live there. Richmond St. East is a thoroughfare and not a destination for people. This proposal could change that.
I get the frustration many feel with affordability in this city, but should it chiefly fall on the laps of developers? I don't believe we have inclusionary zoning in Toronto... so, I'm not sure why developers should be tasked with providing affordable housing when they are not obligated to do so at this time... Further, the east side of Toronto has a disproportionate amount of subsidized housing -- it really doesn't need anymore.
Armour
Senior Member
On the topic of displacement -- from Naked Gun 2 1/2:
Frank, we're no good together.
- You only lived for police work.
- You lived for the N-zone layer!
Ozone layer!
You never did understand.
How can you say that when I bought acres of Brazilian jungle,
then had it slashed and burned
to build our dream-house?
You're so insensitive!
Insensitive?! You think it's easy
displacing an entire tribe? You try!
Frank, we're no good together.
- You only lived for police work.
- You lived for the N-zone layer!
Ozone layer!
You never did understand.
How can you say that when I bought acres of Brazilian jungle,
then had it slashed and burned
to build our dream-house?
You're so insensitive!
Insensitive?! You think it's easy
displacing an entire tribe? You try!
Forgotten
Active Member
Nice try but I'm talking about the issue of building permits. Why are we letting crime pay? Companies that deliberately torch protected buildings for gain should be banned from ever receiving permits to build up on the associated properties and that should extend to any future businesses that may purchase said company or their assets. This historic building got in your way so you burn it down? Say hello to an asset that will never appreciate in value.
TheKingEast
Senior Member
Regent Park did need the displacement because some of those people needed to be removed and I'm talking about the many criminals that called RP home. I don't know the numbers on the new subsidized housing but I do like the mix of subsidized and non-subsidized housing.