[innsertnamehere]

Is there not a Walmart at the dufferin mall? I would think that this is too close to that one.

 

[ptbotrmpfn]

I'd take WestBank/BartEngels over Honest Ed or Walmart! And so would 90% of residents.

you know 90% of residence in the area.. good for you. thats popularity. sorry but that was your post regarding topics not to be discussed.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Is there not a Walmart at the dufferin mall? I would think that this is too close to that one.

Well they were planning to build a Walmart a few blocks south in Kensington Market, so I doubt that this would be too close. The distance between Dufferin Mall and Honest Eds and between Dufferin Mall and Kensington Market is almost exactly the same.

 

[buildup]

you know 90% of residence in the area.. good for you. thats popularity. sorry but that was your post regarding topics not to be discussed.

Took the bait. Thank you. So in the absence of any actual data, why would you assume more people would oppose a potentially beautiful development by one of the world's leading architects? We all know there is a noisy segment who scrunch up their face at everything. From my experience these whiners are a noisy minority, and I bet I'm right in this case!

 

[salsa]

People might be sad to see Honest Eds disappear, but I doubt many would welcome Walmart. Besides, densities along most of the Bloor subway line remain very low. This is inefficient and should change.

No, it does not need to change. Bloor street is vibrant and well liked as is.

 

[ndawgg]

Well they were planning to build a Walmart a few blocks south in Kensington Market, so I doubt that this would be too close. The distance between Dufferin Mall and Honest Eds and between Dufferin Mall and Kensington Market is almost exactly the same.

Exactly. They wanted one just down the street but everyone balked at having one in Kensington Market area, so this allows it to NOT be in Kensington, but the same general area, and it's only replacing another (more run down) discount store. And yes, I know everyone wants to keep Honest Ed's because it's kitschy, but it's been sold so SOMETHING is replacing it...and I would like a Wal-Mart. Yes there's Dufferin Mall, and yes I've walked there from Yonge, but it's not actually "walkable". Bathurst is much closer to a walkable distance for people. And there are a lot of people in the core, especially students who can't afford Shoppers Drugmart which is 2 and 3 times the price of Wal-Mart, but just as terrible and corporate. I'd rather pay less if I have to shop at a shitty corporate place.

 

[interchange42]

There's no chance a Wal-Mart will end up here. It's not a Westbank kind of thing, and they are planning a showcase of sensitive urban intensification and adaptation on this site.
42

 

[Torontovibe]

This is downtown, not the suburbs. We don't need suburban stores or that type of development in the core. This needs to be high density and good-looking, so a Walmart or anything like it, is out of the question. I think Duffrin Mall and Gerrard Square are close enough. In fact, I think they are too close but I can deal with that. Keep the core urban and let the suburbs have that ugly, big box crap, if that's what they want.

 

[gabe]

This is downtown, not the suburbs. We don't need suburban stores or that type of development in the core. This needs to be high density and good-looking, so a Walmart or anything like it, is out of the question. I think Duffrin Mall and Gerrard Square are close enough. In fact, I think they are too close but I can deal with that. Keep the core urban and let the suburbs have that ugly, big box crap, if that's what they want.

Suburban stores are all over the downtown. There is obviously demand for them, or they would all be closed.

 

[Lenser]

Good point. If you have big box chains downtown, it's not accurate to call them suburban.... maybe historically that's where they gained a foothold but contemporary times suggests that all sorts of people, including downtowners, will shop at these places. Are they ugly? Yes. But people don't shop at these places because they look great - they're looking for bargains and easy access to a wide range of products and household staples.

 

[Bayer]

No, it does not need to change. Bloor street is vibrant and well liked as is.

I liked Bay and College well enough before the population density quadrupled in a matter of years. There is no justification for having such low density on the Bloor line.

 

[TrickyRicky]

I'm all for architectural excellence and developments that are sensitive to the neighbourhood but the anti-Walmart sentiment here doesn't sit well with me. I'm comfortable in all range of venues from high-brow to low. I don't even like Walmart (because of their product selection) but I do shop there sometimes and I'm not afraid to say so. Would a high-end condo be any better for the neighbourhood than a low-brow big box store? Dollarama across the street is one of the ugliest things you could see but their product buyers are brilliant. I challenge you not to shop at Dollarama even if it smells like a chemical processing plant. That's why I'm a shareholder. How about we drop this urban versus suburban elitism and just ask for better standards from our retailers and developers alike no matter where they are. People want to shop at Dollarama on Bloor but did they have to make it look so ugly?

 

[arvelomcquaig]

Ugh. Walmart shouldn’t exist anywhere, not only downtown. It’s an incredibly harmful chain—it specializes in sweatshop-made disposable junk, it’s actively anti-union, has ruined countless towns throughout North America with its effect on smaller retail—and should be countered whenever possible. If one is economically able to eschew the Walmarts and Dollaramas of the world, one has an ethical responsibility to do so.

Furthermore, the preference for urbanism over suburbanism is not a mere matter of “elitismâ€; in fact, there are many reasons to advocate for and prefer urbanism that have to do with the deleterious effects of suburbanism on the environment, on culture (through geographic alienation), etc. Urbanism is better for people because it doesn’t separate people/areas from each other and force them to use cars to get around. It’s not a matter of arrogance or elitism or snobbery. It’s like saying that a vegetarian is a snob for not wanting to eat meat because it involves animals’ suffering. It’s ethics, not snobbery. Suburbs have caused huge harm to our cities/province/country and we have to reverse suburban sprawl by building dense, public transit-consonant, socially-cohesive communities.

Also: Why is there so much interest in a Walmart being here? It’s currently likely not even a possibility, let alone proposed, and yet people are proclaiming their approval of the prospect?

 

[Lenser]

... there are many reasons to advocate for and prefer urbanism that have to do with the deleterious effects of suburbanism on the environment, on culture (through geographic alienation), etc. Urbanism is better for people because it doesn’t separate people/areas from each other and force them to use cars to get around.

Ummm, urbanism is hardly exempt from the fault lines of classicism and elitist separation of the haves from the have-nots. The two groups simply live in closer promity to eachother than you'd find in the burbs. I'm all for urban boosterism but let's not romanticze downtown - lately there's already enough breathless myth-making going on as it is. As for cars, the suburbs happened because because ordinary people loved cars and loved the kinds of property a decent commute away from work could land you. Relatively speaking, until quite recently no one save fanatics denounced cars as evil. I know it's now fashionable to equate cars with fascists and demented sorts, but the truth is somewhat greyer. And the suburbs don't force people to use cars - people choose their own poisons, period.

As for Walmart, hey, it's great... if you hate unions, that is (different side, same coin). Me, I'd rather shop at Costco. The people who work there seem to get better terms of employment than what you'd find at Walmart. Although both places have about the same aesthetic presence - that is, they're ugly, soulless boxes with harsh lighting baldly illuminating sheer, mountainous stacks of schtuff. Unfortunately, their ugliness alone doesn't mean we get to banish them from the core. Very simply, we live in a society which consumes stuff at a ferocious pace... hence the rise of the big box phenomenon.

All the same, I'd be surprised to see a Walmart arrive at this location. Somehow it just doesn't feel like it would be a likely result. I'd expect more of the usual residential tower blocks with mixed ground-floor retail.

 

[salsa]

I liked Bay and College well enough before the population density quadrupled in a matter of years. There is no justification for having such low density on the Bloor line.

Try comparing Bay & College to the Annex, and tell me which place is more vibrant, attractive, interesting, and likeable. Are you saying that because there's a subway line, Bloor street should be razed and turned into another Bay street, just for the sake of more density? The subway stations are very well used, and the current density is not even that low. This is not North York.