[ksun]

It doesn't go over well when I've tried. People here tend to view gentrification as a universally positive thing without any regard for how it affects the current population of an area, and so there is little room left for discussion, education and debate. Or it is considered off-topic. So I stick to the building at hand.

For this particular pocket of downtown, gentrification on massive scale is definitely a good thing. The current population, you mean those drunkards and drug-addicts who make anyone scared even walking on the streets? They will be fine. Some of them will simply be peeing or slurring at random people elsewhere. They should feel uncomfortable being there instead of average Torontonians feeling uncomfortable in that particular neighbourhood. Shouldn't they change, instead of the whole city being so accommodative to them?

One thing I love about Toronto, compared with San Francisco or Boston is that we build. We allow supply to go where the demand is, and this makes Toronto successful and livable, and to a large extent, affordable. It is thrilling to see so many projects finally happening on Church and Jarvis. The whole idea of mixed-income is one thing, but a large downtown pocket filled with nothing but poverty, drug problems and rundown houses is another. One surely can't expect downtown east to remain like this forever as land in central downtown is becoming increasingly scarce.

If you do, you always have to be ready to wear the NIMBY label.

on the contrary, many argue against such positive change precisely because Jarvis/Dundas is NOT in their backyard.

 

[modernizt]

For this particular pocket of downtown, gentrification on massive scale is definitely a good thing. The current population, you mean those drunkards and drug-addicts who make anyone scared even walking on the streets? They will be fine. Some of them will simply be peeing or slurring at random people elsewhere. They should feel uncomfortable being there instead of average Torontonians feeling uncomfortable in that particular neighbourhood. Shouldn't they change, instead of the whole city being so accommodative to them?

This is the most disgusting thing I've read all week.

I used to live at Dundas and Jarvis, and not one time did any of my neighbours make me as uncomfortable (or disappointed in humanity) as your post just did.

 

[ShonTron]

One thing I love about Toronto, compared with San Francisco or Boston is that we build. We allow supply to go where the demand is, and this makes Toronto successful and livable, and to a large extent, affordable. It is thrilling to see so many projects finally happening on Church and Jarvis. The whole idea of mixed-income is one thing, but a large downtown pocket filled with nothing but poverty, drug problems and rundown houses is another. One surely can't expect downtown east to remain like this forever as land in central downtown is becoming increasingly scarce.

*Nothing* but but poverty, drug problems and rundown houses? Perhaps that describes a single block of George Street, but it is otherwise totally and irresponsibly exaggerating the neighbourhood.

 

[ksun]

This is the most disgusting thing I've read all week.

I used to live at Dundas and Jarvis, and not one time did any of my neighbours make me as uncomfortable (or disappointed in humanity) as your post just did.

I feel strongly because I used to live close by too, on Homewood Ave. The short walk to Yonge/Dundas always made me uncomfortable if I cut through Allen Gardens and take George or Pembroke. So I had to go straight to Yonge st and walk down.

We may feel differently, but the point is that's a very undesirable neighbourhood by most people's standards. And no single neighbourhood should be that undesirable.

*Nothing* but but poverty, drug problems and rundown houses? Perhaps that describes a single block of George Street, but it is otherwise totally and irresponsibly exaggerating the neighbourhood.

yes, it may be only a couple of streets, but bad enough to deter people from being anywhere close to it (many Torontonians still have concerns over going east of Yonge st in that downtown part), and prevent developers from making investments. Now it is happening, against all the odds, and we should be glad about it. As I said, social services should be spread more evenly, and we did a horrible job ruining the entire downtown east between Queen and Carlton.

 

[grey]

For this particular pocket of downtown, gentrification on massive scale is definitely a good thing. The current population, you mean those drunkards and drug-addicts who make anyone scared even walking on the streets? They will be fine. Some of them will simply be peeing or slurring at random people elsewhere. They should feel uncomfortable being there instead of average Torontonians feeling uncomfortable in that particular neighbourhood. Shouldn't they change, instead of the whole city being so accommodative to them?

Yikes, ksun.

 

[Canadian Chocho]

Someone voted for Giuliani!

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

Given this area's proximity to Yonge-Dundas, downtown and institutions like Ryerson, I am not going to complain about some gentrification. I think it will be a good thing so long as the street level is designed well. That is the one part that worries me most.

 

[stjames2queenwest]

Sigh.

My biggest problem with Urban Toronto is that people are too busy talking about the latest skyscraper condo's architecture, not caring about the neighbourhood effects.

I read the article the other day as well. I live a bit north of the area but pass through it quite a lot, and think that redevelopment is definitely good for this area.

It was sad to hear some of the stories of the displaced residents. Really put a face to the flip side of the coin. I think more of a safety net put into place by legislature for situations like that would be an asset continuing on similar paths as we have been. Thankfully it sounded as there was some help out there in helping them find relocations. Its tough. I hope that lady found a place for herself and her cat.

I also noted the mention of KWT who I think they said was unknowing that their was a residency on that property. I'm sure KWT has many concerns and gets pulled in many directions... I feel sympathy for her, but is she is missing all of these issues until they happen maybe she needs to have some more staff or something.

 

[stjames2queenwest]

I do agree with ksun on that part of george street. Its like east hastings, I try to only walk through there if I have my dog with me. But Allan Gardens is another story. I have been through there at all hours of the night and it is not scary these days. Colourful sometimes but not scary. I love Allan gardens.

complete side note. but does anyone know what they have slowly not been doing in the hoarded off section on the mid to east south side? I have been trying to find out for a year now.

 

[innsertnamehere]

sewage work. Apparently it will finish up this summer, and Gerrard street will be repaved as well.

 

[Stupidandshallow]

Dundas between Jarvis and Parliament is pretty rundown and dodgy.

I thought I'd walk along that stretch of Dundas a few weeks ago... Yeah, that was the last time. This random man tried to punch me.

Also, there are definitely a lot of brazen drunks and drug activity around this part of town -- that's not an exaggeration.

It's interesting that this part of town used to be very affluent.

 

[ShonTron]

sewage work. Apparently it will finish up this summer, and Gerrard street will be repaved as well.

Gerrard repaved? It desperately needs it, especially for cyclists using the bike lanes.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Gerrard is easily one of the worst streets in the city right now, next to maybe Sherbourne south of King.


I think all this development is great for the area, quite frankly. The amount of people these buildings will bring will really revive businesses in the area and provide far more people to be walking the streets. The ratio of transient people is a bit too high for most peoples comfort right now.

 

[Miscreant]

I haven't read the Now article, will do soon. But I'm not entirely opposed to gentrification, so long as it's carried out responsibly. Maybe that's an oxymoron to some; I don't know. But I don't fully understand why development cannot coincide with enhanced social services, affordable housing, and an overall rebalancing of the demographics of a particular area.

I mean, yeah, greed, money, lack of political representation--those are the reasons why. But I'm speaking more generally. The challenge isn't intractable, at least not to my mind.

There is something to be said, though, for the thought that it's unclear why an entire pocket of the city shouldn't be developed in favour of accommodating sometimes dangerous, sometimes threatening individuals.

 

[wolfewood]

I haven't read the Now article, will do soon. But I'm not entirely opposed to gentrification, so long as it's carried out responsibly. Maybe that's an oxymoron to some; I don't know. But I don't fully understand why development cannot coincide with enhanced social services, affordable housing, and an overall rebalancing of the demographics of a particular area.

I mean, yeah, greed, money, lack of political representation--those are the reasons why. But I'm speaking more generally. The challenge isn't intractable, at least not to my mind.

There is something to be said, though, for the thought that it's unclear why an entire pocket of the city shouldn't be developed in favour of accommodating sometimes dangerous, sometimes threatening individuals.

I don't believe it's fair to suggest that we shouldn't redevelop the downtown east because of a group of people, nor that they should be categorized as dangerous and threatening. The problem here is that condos aren't a panacea to a city's issues. Condos and new apartments are marketed to very specific groups of people and the people currently living in the downtown east aren't them. There are absolutely ways to control the damaging effects of gentrification but they aren't being used here by the city or developers. Personally I'd far rather see development occur elsewhere until the city implements better social housing policies than see larger numbers of people made homeless when their landlords sell their rooming houses out from underneath them for a developer.

Also, it's worth noting that the east end of the city has large numbers of derelict and abandoned buildings sitting unused until they can be sold for redevelopment. Many of which used to be rooming houses. So not only are new developments screwing over these people but the promise of new development is screwing them too.