- Thread starter AlvinofDiaspar
- Start date
holographic plastic
Active Member
Only just joined today and already causing drama? Interesting.
kali
Active Member
I love how everyone's totally sidestepping the bigotry in the original post and just dumping on me LOL
I've been following these forums for years and I wasn't going to let that one slide lol
Kenojuak
Active Member
The privileged position of white and wealthy property owners in urban planning is a longstanding, documented and structural barrier to equality. This topic is highly relevant to any planning discussion, including this proposal in part because the letter in question appears to have contributed to the deferral of a Staff-supported Final Report for this project, which means a large amount of new housing, along with significant one-time and ongoing revenues to the City, along with a multi-million dollar cash contribution to affordable housing, all have been delayed and their fate remains unknown.
This kind of NIMBY-driven grinding delay happens over and over again in Toronto and many cities in North America (and maybe elsewhere but I can only speak to Canada and the US) and it is a significant contributor to affordability and housing supply issues. Overcoming NIMBY outrage is a recurring barrier to delivering new housing supply. And hopefully we can all agree that new housing supply of every type is desperately needed in Toronto, the fastest-growing city in North America.
I am not a public servant. However I believe it is the responsibility of every public servant who works in the planning process to be aware of structures of privilege and inequity in the planning system and to work to correct them.
If you are genuinely interested in engaging in this complex and challenging topic , I would suggest the following recent (scholarly, double blind peer-reviewed) article from the journal of record for the planning profession in the United States:
Edward G. Goetz, Rashad A. Williams & Anthony Damiano (2020) Whiteness and Urban Planning, Journal of the American Planning Association, 86:2, 142-156.
Abstract: Problem, research strategy, and findings: The ability of planning to address America’s urban problems of inequality, crime, housing, education, and segregation is hampered by a relative neglect of Whiteness and its role in shaping urban outcomes. We offer a justification for centering Whiteness within urban planning scholarship and practice that would examine its role shaping and perpetuating regional and racial injustices in the American city. The focus of planners, scholars, and public discourse on the “dysfunctions” of communities of color, notably poverty, high levels of segregation, and isolation, diverts attention from the structural systems that produce and reproduce the advantages of affluent and White neighborhoods. Planners and planning scholars frequently invoke a “legacy of injustice” with regard to concentrated poverty and disadvantage but not in regard to neighborhoods of White affluence. One is segregated and problematized and the other is idealized. Takeaway for practice: Planners and planning scholars need to understand the role of Whiteness, in particular White affluence, to assess the potential impacts of planning interventions. Doing so will inform a wider range of planning approaches to problems of racial and spatial equity.
It has a good literature review and a rich references section with further reading.
Oh and by the way...
...calling someone a rich white boomer when they are in fact a rich white boomer is not a racial slur. Your privilege is showing.
BubbleTea
Active Member
I think this thread is good proof that a clapping emoji should be added as a reaction, I don't think just a blue like is doing some of these arguments justice.
Anyways, since some selfish people living in a condo decided that only their condo mattered and deserved to be on the street, we now have an uncertain future for a promising project. Yay?
Edit: In addition, I think it's fair to say that anyone buying a home, whether a precon or not, should put in the tiny bit of effort to research the basics. Also, I think it's completely unreasonable to buy a condo near a major intersection and expect that the surrounding area not be developed. If you don't want to deal with that risk, please go buy a house and a few acres of land surrounding it in the middle of nowhere.
Anyways, since some selfish people living in a condo decided that only their condo mattered and deserved to be on the street, we now have an uncertain future for a promising project. Yay?
Edit: In addition, I think it's fair to say that anyone buying a home, whether a precon or not, should put in the tiny bit of effort to research the basics. Also, I think it's completely unreasonable to buy a condo near a major intersection and expect that the surrounding area not be developed. If you don't want to deal with that risk, please go buy a house and a few acres of land surrounding it in the middle of nowhere.
Last edited:
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
The "LOL" is telling there, as it suggests you don't really believe in anything you are posting outside of the kicks. As it is a trick of the Alt-Facts types to argue their point with language of progressives, when their aim and intention has nothing to do with equality or social justice. While at the same time, being inconsiderate of the experiences of those who are most affected by real bigotry in doing so.
At best, you are not helping anyone here. So just stop please. Thnkx.
kali
Active Member
I see no one can make an argument without racial slurs. I rest my case. Good luck spouting this kind of rhetoric in the real world where people might not be so benign in calling you out.
Given that's speculative at best and outright debunked at worst, no they don't.
I think y'all been lucky that urban planning leans progressive. If you were to spout this rhetoric in a more politically diverse environment representative of Canadians, you would be shunned and rightly so to say the least.
When all else fails, blame the alt-right. Get off the internet my dude.
The fact you think this is a valid argument says everything one needs to know. Your ignorance is showing. And then y'all wonder why there's so much opposition to progressive policies and why right wing populists are elected lolll
Given that's speculative at best and outright debunked at worst, no they don't.
I think y'all been lucky that urban planning leans progressive. If you were to spout this rhetoric in a more politically diverse environment representative of Canadians, you would be shunned and rightly so to say the least.
When all else fails, blame the alt-right. Get off the internet my dude.
The fact you think this is a valid argument says everything one needs to know. Your ignorance is showing. And then y'all wonder why there's so much opposition to progressive policies and why right wing populists are elected lolll
Last edited:
ChesterCopperpot
Senior Member
Bye Karen
kali
Active Member
Have a clap emoji, sir. That's how you make an argument without dragging race into. Simple, really. For the record, I love the look of this condo and hope it goes through.
kotsy
Senior Member
I'm guessing you're one of those people that throw around the word 'ignorant' incorrectly as well.
DrillBit
Active Member
Something is fishy about this letter.
I"d been to some public meetings. Typical NIMBYs arguments are about traffic, noise, overcrowding in schools.
"Ten Delisle is the most interesting building" - that is unusual.
"is not a designated growth area" - this is not widely known term.
Who are these 'silly ignorant NIMBYs' ?
Midtown Urbanist
Superstar
I've grown up and still live in the Midtown area, it is definitely a very diverse community, even the single-detached homes in the neighbourhood are increasingly becoming home to East and South Asian individuals with the financial prowess to purchase a house in Toronto in this day and age.
I've attended dozens of statutory community meetings in the area, and I can say with some certainty that despite the diversity of the neighbourhood (even among the upper class who reside here) the demographics of community meetings are always the same. Entitled, boomer, and white, and hardly an exception in between.
From others I have spoken to, the same phenomenon takes place at community meetings across the city.
The whiteness of those in attendance isn't of course something to hold against them in any capacity, but when the crowd is exclusive white (and old) in a city as diverse as ours, that does in fact scream privilege and I am taking that under consideration as one after another decries the construction of new housing in the neighbourhood.
I've attended dozens of statutory community meetings in the area, and I can say with some certainty that despite the diversity of the neighbourhood (even among the upper class who reside here) the demographics of community meetings are always the same. Entitled, boomer, and white, and hardly an exception in between.
From others I have spoken to, the same phenomenon takes place at community meetings across the city.
The whiteness of those in attendance isn't of course something to hold against them in any capacity, but when the crowd is exclusive white (and old) in a city as diverse as ours, that does in fact scream privilege and I am taking that under consideration as one after another decries the construction of new housing in the neighbourhood.
stjames2queenwest
Senior Member
This thread is entertaining.
salsa
Senior Member
Just curious, why aren't these other demographic groups showing up to these meetings to weigh in as well, instead of just allowing the most privileged crowd to have an exclusive monopoly on local interests?
Midtown Urbanist
Superstar
That is definitely a great question which warrants its own answer, but an even greater question I would ask is why do we even host these public consultations where first, a platform is granted to frustrated, misinformed, if not actually just outright bigoted/hostile people in attendance, second, where City Staff refuse to disclose to the public what they can actually hope to achieve from the consultation, and how feedback will be incorporated into the policy development cycle (the answer of which is it won't, as their feedback either has no tangible policy merit or it occurs too late in the policy development cycle to matter), and third, delays the whole process including the construction of new housing supply during a housing affordability crisis in the city, as well as new jobs, municipal tax and user charge revenues, public realm improvements, and general economic development.
Apologies for the run-on sentence above. My frustration isn't directed at City Staff or community members, but the underlying process. I've attended enough of these community meetings to know this is largely a dog and pony show, played out repeatedly in every neighbourhood in the city, at expense to the taxpayer.