picard102 said:
Yes. That Italy does something is an odd reason to decide we are doing something wrong. It's transplanting something from an entirely different culture and geographic realities.


We have squares, but they are largely empty because people aren't looking to hang out in a space that isn't a park or indoors unless there is programing happening.
And the ones that do have people in them, are half park space.
Click to expand...

I really don't understand why you're so dead-set against us being inspired by this type of thing and trying to make our own version of it that works for the way our city is built.

Definitely we can't completely copy paste something from a different built and cultural context onto ours, but we can learn from it and try to build spaces that achieve similar things in a way that works for us. The culture of how people use space also changes over time (and is especially changing now due to the pandemic shifting our relationship with indoor spaces and public space) and I think going a little bit more towards building this type of public space would be a plus for the city and will be ever-more needed as the city grows.

I also disagree with this idea that people don't or wont use them without programming. @North's post above has demonstrated some locations where people very much do use them.

I don't even necessarily think this is the best best place for such a thing and it would have to be done well to be successful, but your opposition against the very idea of spaces like this is and insistence that the city stay the same and not try anything new that could be beneficial to its residents and public life is, well I'll say it myself now, kinda odd to me. It seems to me a bit of a weird thing to fight against, especially since to try out a few things like this wouldn't change the way you already experience the city in any meaningful way. Anyway, I guess I'm not changing your mind.
 
Last edited:
This Park or part of it (the additional lands) are in the budget for development in 2024

$2,115,000 is the budget, including design, I believe.


see p.9

I don't see any separate line item for 464 specifically, has that lot been done? Parks has the most confusing way of layout its Cap-X program, I've been trying to talk them into changing it.........but.....
 
Screen Shot 2022-03-15 at 11.07.15 AM.png
Screen Shot 2022-03-15 at 11.07.27 AM.png
Screen Shot 2022-03-15 at 11.07.38 AM.png
Screen Shot 2022-03-15 at 11.07.48 AM.png
 
interchange42 said:
In the meantime, the City should be looking for places to incorporate long term music venue and rehearsal spaces in redevelopments. The need won't likely have evaporated in 2024.

42
Click to expand...
There was talk of this kind of thing being proposed the Sneaky Dees replacement but unless the City has a carrot they can offer in exchange, it's not going to happen.
 
ProjectEnd said:
There was talk of this kind of thing being proposed the Sneaky Dees replacement but unless the City has a carrot they can offer in exchange, it's not going to happen.
Click to expand...
I was thinking of a City-owned site where the agreement with the developer could require such a space be integrated into a podium, possibly worked in with that building's Section 37 benefits.

42
 
This should just be a permanent music space. They are endangered in this city. Many have closed and it's hard to start new ones with neighbourhoods not liking noise, zoning, and absurdly-high-rent being barriers. We are in need of them far more than parks at this point. Which isn't to say parks aren't good — we need more of them in general and I was a supporter of a park on this site before this idea came along. But building something great and valuable and then destroying it for a park in this location is non-sensical.

(IMO similar situation to Stackt Market. Great, flexible urbanity built as a temporary measure only set to be inevitably destroyed so we can put in a generic park. Even though the temporary use is more rare to find and difficult to build in the city than parks are.)
 
Last edited:
Toronto already has various tools at its disposal it can use to incentivize the creation of more innovative spaces, but instead we choose to incentivize tax breaks and other minor relatively useless benefits. It's really quite a damn shame how inept the bureaucracy is at realizing these things.
 
Would it not make more sense to assist existing venues to remain open? and does everything have to have a racial angle to it? is there existing racial disparities within Toronto's music scene that needed to be addressed?
 
Jacob Lisgar said:
Would it not make more sense to assist existing venues to remain open? and does everything have to have a racial angle to it? is there existing racial disparities within Toronto's music scene that needed to be addressed?
Click to expand...
I dont think one has to come at the cost of the other. The city is using an already existing parcel of land in the period of time before the park of developed. Smart of them to leverage this asset ro kill two birds with one stone.

As for your relatively hyperbolic statement about “everything having a racial angle” this just seems a bit out of touch and not based in fact IMO. There are significant resources out there on google to educate yourself on the racial disparities in the city, even with respect to music and arts spaces.
 
urbanexplorer said:
I dont think one has to come at the cost of the other. The city is using an already existing parcel of land in the period of time before the park of developed. Smart of them to leverage this asset ro kill two birds with one stone.

As for your relatively hyperbolic statement about “everything having a racial angle” this just seems a bit out of touch and not based in fact IMO. There are significant resources out there on google to educate yourself on the racial disparities in the city, even with respect to music and arts spaces.
Click to expand...
Do you have any direct links on racial disparities within music and arts spaces, I just dont even know where to start to look. I just had no clue it's an issue, but am willing to read about it. thanks.
 
Jacob Lisgar said:
Would it not make more sense to assist existing venues to remain open? and does everything have to have a racial angle to it? is there existing racial disparities within Toronto's music scene that needed to be addressed?
Click to expand...
Yes — it is more difficult for non-white and in particular Black artists' shows to get booked at venues. In Toronto and elsewhere. It is a historic cultural trend and is a thing still today and is an unfortunate dynamic. Based on either conscious or subconscious racist trepidation on the kind of crowd different artists or communities would attract, often more police attention on shows with Black artists or predominantly Black audiences or venues, or it just being more difficult for certain communities to book shows due to need for connections with white venue and bar owners/live event companies/spaces/music scenes etc.

Toronto has a world-renown multi-racial music scene, but our venues and the live music scene are still dominated by white artists and networks.

RE: helping other music spaces stay open — that would be great too! But we've already lost so so so many and there is dire need of new ones as well and it's difficult for new ones to be created now due to a lot of community/zoning/rent/COVID/economic pressures.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top