I'm glad to see this coming to this area. The revitatilzation of downtown east is progressing well. However I do wish they'd build something more complementary to the victorian homes next door, the entire line of which was saved from demolition by the city as part of a heritage plan.
 
LUVIT! said:
This area has barely changed since I moved to Toronto in the 80's.
Click to expand...
Agreed. But the rest of the city has now been (or is slated for) redeveloped or revitalized all in the name of gentrification. So, it's this area's turn.

The square of Queen and Jarvis to Gerrard and Seaton is the last bastion of sketchiness to be cleaned up and reclaimed by middle and upper class working folks. With a waterfront city, with a growing wealth and people not wanting to work or live in the burb's it's an unstoppable tide. First you send in the artists and hipsters, then the gays, then wealthier gays, and then the well-married lulu-moms with their giant strollers and yoga mats.

map_7.jpg
 
This kind of gentrification is actually pretty awful in my opinion. Pushing out low income people who already live in an area just because you find them "sketchy" is a horrible way to run a city. Why does an area need to be "cleaned up and reclaimed" from the people already living there? Surely they have a right to continue living in the area without being priced out (or evicted, in the case of rooming house tenants)? We have provisions for apartment units to be rebuilt and, if I recall correctly, for the previous tenants to have first dibs on the rebuilt units. The city's poor and precarious should have that right too.
 
Yeah... it's an oddly narrow, even clinical idea of progress. Kick out the have-nots and make a shining city for the haves - it's just a brittle illusion of progress.
 
Canadian Chocho said:
Nice that @Admiral Beez just equated sketchiness with income level.
Click to expand...
Not at all. Sketchiness has little to do with income. Regent Park is a great example of people of all incomes living well together with no sense of sketchiness. And yes, I get the point of the 3 cities report.
 
wolfewood said:
This kind of gentrification is actually pretty awful in my opinion. Pushing out low income people who already live in an area just because you find them "sketchy" is a horrible way to run a city. Why does an area need to be "cleaned up and reclaimed" from the people already living there? Surely they have a right to continue living in the area without being priced out (or evicted, in the case of rooming house tenants)? We have provisions for apartment units to be rebuilt and, if I recall correctly, for the previous tenants to have first dibs on the rebuilt units. The city's poor and precarious should have that right too.
Click to expand...
Please do not equate an accurate prognosis with a declaration of support. Regardless of my opinion, gentrification follows the model I described above.
 
Admiral Beez said:
Not at all. Sketchiness has little to do with income. Regent Park is a great example of people of all incomes living well together with no sense of sketchiness. And yes, I get the point of the 3 cities report.
Click to expand...

I think this is the type of living we should all strive for. Regent Park is a great example. Kicked out a lot of the riff raff. Added community centers, schools, aquatics center, soccer field, etc. How is this not better than what it was before? This is the kind of "gentrification" I don't have a problem with.
 
Lenser said:
Yeah... it's an oddly narrow, even clinical idea of progress. Kick out the have-nots and make a shining city for the haves - it's just a brittle illusion of progress.
Click to expand...
That is what happens when Toronto becomes a global city.

The people that would be moving into this neighbourhood are the ones that have been pushed out from other neighbourhoods by wealthy international investors.
 
Lenser said:
Yeah... it's an oddly narrow, even clinical idea of progress. Kick out the have-nots and make a shining city for the haves - it's just a brittle illusion of progress.
Click to expand...

I am happy to see those who regularly pee on the streets or the crazy ones who yell at strangers being pushed out and replaced by bankers, lawyers and teachers. Any day of the year.

It happens in every city no matter what liberal ideologies you believe in, it is always a fact that the have-nots won't be afford to live in desirable central cities. Even Jesus can't change that.
 
TheKingEast said:
I think this is the type of living we should all strive for. Regent Park is a great example. Kicked out a lot of the riff raff. Added community centers, schools, aquatics center, soccer field, etc. How is this not better than what it was before? This is the kind of "gentrification" I don't have a problem with.
Click to expand...

Agree.
Riff raffs should be kicked out and nobody should shed a single drop of tear. gentrificationin most cases is a great thing. Nobody wants to invest and create jobs in a city where downtown looks like hopeless ghettos.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top