interchange42 said:
Cities evolve. Some areas don't change, but stretches along main streets, especially those served by rapid transit, are bound to change. The provincial government has mandated that Toronto intensify, so this is exactly the type of location that makes perfect sense for that.

That said, I don't like seeing lovely old homes come down either, but their owners have a choice of whether or not to sell, and to whom. These properties were assembled over a long period, longer than a decade I think, and not by Daniels. Any developer would jump at the chance to redevelop assembled land like this, Daniels were the ones that got it.

In regards to "it's now only a matter of time before all of the original structures between Keele and High Park Blvd. - perhaps all the way west to Clendenan Ave, are bought up and demolished to make way for similar projects", well, most of the rest of Bloor Street is zoned as a neighbourhood on this stretch. This site had apartment neighbourhood zoning on it. It would not be easy for anything big to be approved in the neighbourhood zones.

42
Click to expand...


I have no issues whatsoever with change in Toronto. In fact, a lot of the time my frustration arises from an unwillingness to change in this city - the absurd fear mongering and small town moral outrage that accompanied the decision to reject a downtown casino for example.

But again, my issue is not with change - but change at the expense of something already present that has value. And to suggest that because "the provincial government has mandated that Toronto intensify" that this somehow bestows instant city-enhancing credibility to a project like this seems to me dubious reasoning. The argument seems to be that because politicians have opened the doors for developers to do this, it is therefore justified and good.

Aren't these the same people who would have seen the Spadina Expressway cut a swath through the Annex? Didn't they want to see the Gardiner potentially bulldoze over the Beaches to connect with Scarborough? Aren't they the same people who wanted to demolish Old City Hall and Union Station in the 70's? If there is one lesson to be learned from past experience in Toronto, it's that every few years a new crop of politicians and developers comes along who are convinced their new ideas are brilliant...only to have the next generation of Torontonians regretting but having to live with what their hubris imposed on us.
 
You're examples aren't even close to comparable.

The homes torn down were nothing special. And the trees weren't integral to the ecosystem of High Park, despite the rattlings of The Star.

Besides, I bet this project will improve the stretch. More pedestrian friendly, engaging street with retail amenities for visitors to the park.
 
Xray_Crystal_Junkie said:
You're examples aren't even close to comparable
Click to expand...
.
Click to expand...

You're making an assertion without demonstrating it. An equivalent response from me would be Yes they are!

The homes torn down were nothing special.
Click to expand...

Another assertion. According to who? That may be your opinion and you are entitled to it - but I think they were special and integral to the old Toronto charm of that stretch of Bloor which in itself has historical, cultural and aesthetic value. So who's right?

And the trees weren't integral to the ecosystem of High Park, despite the rattlings of The Star.
Click to expand...

Couldn't care less about the trees. I didn't talk about them.

Besides, I bet this project will improve the stretch. More pedestrian friendly, engaging street with retail amenities for visitors to the park.
Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting that a project like this could not bring with it some amenities that the area currently lacks. But your use of the expression "I bet" reflects much of the point of my argument: We are allowing a small group of people, motivated primarily by self-interest, to gamble with the collective heritage of the city based on a self-serving hunch that what they are putting in it's place will be better than what was already very nice, contributed to the character of the city, and no one was complaining about.

It seems to me that the logical extension of your argument would be to tear down all of the old buildings in Toronto and replace them.

I just want to add that I'm not an extremist about this sort of thing. I'm not suggesting that every old structure in Toronto must be preserved. I do think however that the process should be weighted in favour of preservation, with the onus on the property developer to demonstrate why a structure isn't worth preserving. After all, you are justifying an approach to this sort of thing in Toronto that seems to be in stark contrast to other major world cities who tend to have much more stringent preservation regulations. So it's not like what is done here is "normal" practice by world standards.
 
Last edited:
Too many of our main streets are lined with one/two storey houses, even in parts of downtown which makes Toronto feel smaller than it is. We need to be intensifying and building higher instead of accommodating all these one and two storey houses.
 
M.Harris said:
I just want to add that I'm not an extremist about this sort of thing. I'm not suggesting that every old structure in Toronto must be preserved. I do think however that the process should be weighted in favour of preservation, with the onus on the property developer to demonstrate why a structure isn't worth preserving. After all, you are justifying an approach to this sort of thing in Toronto that seems to be in stark contrast to other major world cities who tend to have much more stringent preservation regulations. So it's not like what is done here is "normal" practice by world standards.
Click to expand...

And how many of those world class cities have many of their main roads lined with one and two story houses. Even a lot of pockets of our own downtown is lined with these types of buildings which make Toronto feel smaller than it is. Go visit even cities like Montreal and see the types of buildings lining their main streets which in some cases makes Montreal seem bigger than Toronto even though its smaller.
 
Montreal's urban main streets are quite similar: generally 3 storey commercial blocks outside of the central business district with apartments over shops, with some taller postwar infill. Sometimes, their main streets have Victorian rowhouses.
 
Adjei said:
And how many of those world class cities have many of their main roads lined with one and two story houses. Even a lot of pockets of our own downtown is lined with these types of buildings which make Toronto feel smaller than it is. Go visit even cities like Montreal and see the types of buildings lining their main streets which in some cases makes Montreal seem bigger than Toronto even though its smaller.
Click to expand...

You are talking as if there is some imaginary Toronto that should exist - and refusing to appreciate the character of the Toronto that does exist. You say:
Too many of our main streets are lined with one/two storey houses, even in parts of downtown which makes Toronto feel smaller than it is.
Click to expand...
First of all, that's the first time I have ever heard anyone say anything like that - but even assuming it is true, why do you insist on seeing that as a bad thing that must be changed?

What you are talking about is the thing that makes Toronto, Toronto. That's what creates the character of a city! The things that make it unique!

What is it about people in this city and their ability to appreciate and enjoy the idiosyncratic character of a place when they go abroad - but are incapable of appreciating it in their home town? It's a real flaw that seems to be passed down from generation to generation in Toronto. "What we are isn't good! We have to be something else!" This is not a characteristic to be proud of...let alone convince ourselves that it is some kind of virtue.

It's like Montrealers saying "we have too many narrow cobblestone streets hemmed in by old stone buildings down by the river. It would be much more efficient and modern to knock those down to widen the streets and pave them over".

In my experience, people from overseas tend to really like this city. You have to walk around Toronto and try and see it as a visitor - as if you are seeing it as a city you've never been to before. It's the only way to break out of the familiar Toronto in your head and see it as the idiosyncratic, eclectic and interesting place that it is.

As far for this:
And how many of those world class cities have many of their main roads lined with one and two story houses.
Click to expand...

Ever been to Melbourne Australia? Always voted first or second on the Best Cities in the World list. They have many main streets that look very similar to Toronto with one/two story buildings. They also have much stronger heritage building preservation regulations than we have, and as a result they have a far greater stock of original buildings. Gives the city a great deal of character. Nobody seems to question it there.

Face it...there is something wrong with us here.
 
Back on topic please.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top