Bayer said:
"Plagued" with homeless shelters? I prefer to believe that the plague is homelessness, not homeless people or the institutions providing them with essential services. Until we solve this problem, those institutions are needed.
Click to expand...

I think you missed the point, he's not saying it is not needed, it's just shouldn't be moved to east of Yonge in the immediate area as this part of town has more than it can handle. It's not good for the homeless either to be surrounded by more homeless.
 
Register123 said:
I think you missed the point, he's not saying it is not needed, it's just shouldn't be moved to east of Yonge in the immediate area as this part of town has more than it can handle. It's not good for the homeless either to be surrounded by more homeless.
Click to expand...

Perhaps so, but the use of a verb like "plagued" is unfortunate and, as is often the case when emotive words are chosen, may reveal troubling underlying attitudes, whatever the "point" being argued.
 
67Cup said:
Perhaps so, but the use of a verb like "plagued" is unfortunate and, as is often the case when emotive words are chosen, may reveal troubling underlying attitudes, whatever the "point" being argued.
Click to expand...

The area is however "plagued", in the sense that there are far more homeless shelters than should have ever been allowed to exist in one area of any city. It is not healthy for the city nor the residents of these shelters - as many studies have shown, the only way to improve the situation for these homeless citizens is to help remove them from their environment and not surrounding them with more unfortunates or mentally ill.
 
Register123 said:
The area is however "plagued", in the sense that there are far more homeless shelters than should have ever been allowed to exist in one area of any city. It is not healthy for the city nor the residents of these shelters - as many studies have shown, the only way to improve the situation for these homeless citizens is to help remove them from their environment and not surrounding them with more unfortunates or mentally ill.
Click to expand...

This would not be practical. Homeless shelters are essentially emergency services, especially in winter. Asking someone with no money or transportation to travel across town because a downtown shelter if full is unrealistic.

If the presence of those shelters makes people uncomfortable or impedes development, so much the better. The problem of homelessness should be as visible as possible until it is solved.
 
Edward Skira said:
So let's put one at Bloor and Bay instead of another at Queen and Sherbourne.
Click to expand...
Ya, let's see how well that community appreciates it. There are far too many concentrated in one part of downtown. That's why the whole eastern part of downtown is awful.
 
Homeless shelters need to be kept small and distributed all over the city, so one neighbourhood doesn't get bombarded. I'd love to see Seaton House closed down.
 
khristopher said:
There are far too many concentrated in one part of downtown. That's why the whole eastern part of downtown is awful.
Click to expand...

I agree that downtown east has a disproportionate amount of shelters and methadone clinics, but I can't agree that the whole of downtown east is awful.
 
Bayer what is practical ? To put them all in one building because it's convenient ? The concept is not difficult as stated above spread them all around town.... Scheesh!
 
Register123 said:
Bayer what is practical ? To put them all in one building because it's convenient ? The concept is not difficult as stated above spread them all around town.... Scheesh!
Click to expand...

Good luck trying to find a neighbourhood that will welcome a new homeless shelter with open arms. I often read here from people who are not too fond of social housing, let alone shelters.

Like it or not, the homeless are citizens just like the rest of us, they enjoy the same right to be here and their lives are far more important than whether a particular neighbourhood looks developed and sanitized enough for those who are offended by the sight of despair and poverty.

Frankly, these days, I am more concerned with having to run the gauntlet of the corporate panhandlers who are proliferating in the downtown core.
 
363 Yonge St (?, 73 + 62s, ?)

http://app.toronto.ca/DevelopmentAp...ion=init&folderRsn=3735334&isCofASearch=false

363 YONGE ST
Ward 27 - Tor & E.York District

Application for a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit the construction of a two tower mixed-use development with heights of 73-storeys to the north and 62-storeys to the south, inclusive of a 9- storey podium containing retail and office uses. A total of 1,106 residential units are proposed, comprised of 107 bachelor, 648 one-bedroom, 241 two-bedroom and 110 three-bedroom, providing a wide range of unit sizes to accommodate and promote a diverse community. A total of 2,212 m2 of indoor amenity space and 909.5 m2 of outdoor amenity space have been provided for the residents of the condominium units, and 911.3 m2 of outdoor amenity space has been provided for the non-residential component of the proposed development. In total, 9,389.0 m2 of retail space, 17,370.8 m2 of office space and 82,474.9 m2 of residential space is proposed on the Site.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
It's the existing building at Yonge-Gerrard all the way to 391 Yonge (Doner Kebab). 2 towers at that height on such a small site?

AoD
Click to expand...

363 is where the Fido is located (next to the waffle place and Zanzibar), so if it goes all the way to Gerrard (the 391 building), this would be a big enough site for two towers.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top