^^^^ I completely agree! CityPlace is not bad in any sense and once it's fully built-out, it'll be at quite decent. The Pinnacle towers also get a bad rep even though it's quite alright on all fronts (design, details, retail on main floor), especially given its location. I know these areas have a higher visible minority (visible majority?) population and combined with many of them perhaps being from the 905 (i.e. they grew up in new suburban homes in Markham, Richmond Hill, etc.), the dislike of the demographic grows even more with the mostly older and not-so-affluent white population of the inner-city nabes. This is kind of similar to some people's perspectives which are along the lines of thinking immigrants either don't work and are on welfare (which is not true) or they 'take away all the jobs of real Canadians' (meaning either way 'immigrants' will get a bad rep). It's surprising how many people hold such a view - even today.

Oh, I know I'm generalizing but sometimes one has to, to prove a point.
 
CITY_LOVER said:
^^^^ I completely agree! CityPlace is not bad in any sense and once it's fully built-out, it'll be at quite decent. The Pinnacle towers also get a bad rep even though it's quite alright on all fronts (design, details, retail on main floor), especially given its location. I know these areas have a higher visible minority (visible majority?) population and combined with many of them perhaps being from the 905 (i.e. they grew up in new suburban homes in Markham, Richmond Hill, etc.), the dislike of the demographic grows even more with the mostly older and not-so-affluent white population of the inner-city nabes. This is kind of similar to some people's perspectives which are along the lines of thinking immigrants either don't work and are on welfare (which is not true) or they 'take away all the jobs of real Canadians' (meaning either way 'immigrants' will get a bad rep). It's surprising how many people hold such a view - even today.

Oh, I know I'm generalizing but sometimes one has to, to prove a point.
Click to expand...

Really? All I see there are white people. It's like an episode of the Hills every time I go there.
 
Oh yay! Another baseless argument about Cityplace and what it will be like in forty years! I'm glad that everyone can see the future so easily, because I really can't.

Also, complaining about St James always has a vaguely "I can't believe how those people live" air to it. Sure, it's not the safest and well-maintained neighbourhood, but it is many people's homes. Casually dismissing it as some sort of hell on Earth is a bit obnoxious and patrician.

And if you think St James is monolithic, you should visit it one day - it's suprisingly more varied, interesting, and friendly than many people on this thread would care to admit.
 
Yeah St Jamestown isn't that bad. It has a library, school, two grocery stores, several smaller businesses (drug stores, variety stores, etc), some decent parks, it's close to downtown, Yorkville, the Don Valley Parks, Riverdale Farm, Parliament Street and there's usually quite a bit of people out and about.
 
Speaking from a personal perspective, I think in general the people at Cityplace (my current residence) seem to be more affluent than my previous neighbourhood (Murano).

Both Murano and Cityplace have a high percentage of renters, but looking at the garage, the renters at Cityplace have more money by far. Walking from the elevator to my car, I pass by a Lamb, Range Rover, Hummer, BMW x 2, and Mercedes x 3. The Murano garage has a few Mercedes and BMWs, but doesn't have as many higher end cars that Cityplace has.

If people think Cityplace is a ghetto in the sense of poor people live there, then the Murano neighbourhood (Bay/College) should also be classified as a ghetto.

I just have to wonder if anybody who criticizes Cityplace has ever lived here, and whether they have lived in the "upscale" areas like Bay/College as a comparison. The demographic isn't much different. I even venture a guess that Cityplace folks earn more money, since people at Cityplace seems to be young professionals vs. Bay/College, where there seems to be more students.
 
Cars aren't an indicator of wealth. People want people to think that they are, but I have known a number of people driving new BMWs but living with their parents. The financing rates on cars is ridiculously low. Even in your own post you state that they are renters... why would they rent if they were wealthy?
 
It's not so much about being wealthy, but about image and being materialistic. People have different priorities and values in life.

Cityplace is modern and centrally located, with lots of great amenities. Rents are reasonably priced, many come with parking which is rare for downtown, and there is lots of inventory to choose from. It's not as bad as many people think and for the most part the residents of Cityplace seem to enjoy living here. I think it is much nicer than what is going up in the east end of Liberty Village, which seems much more suburban and becoming more congested than Cityplace.
 
^^^^ I agree. CityPlace buildings look better than Liberty Village's. The vibe/energy is great in LV, but the buildings are OK at best (in their exterior look) and unfortunately, the newest two buildings to be occupied there (on E Liberty Street) look worse than the three initial buildings (Vibe, Zip and Battery Park). Personal opinion of course....I am hoping the remaining developments in the area are more visually pleasing...

I am also wondering about CityPlace - the latest buildings to go up on Dan Leckie Blvd (can't remember their names) that are in the 40 storey range, I'm wondering if there is a height restriction there (the west edge of CityPlace lands)? Why are they in the 40 storey range and not higher (like 50+)? I strongly feel they would have sold out...
 
CITY_LOVER said:
^^^^ I agree. CityPlace buildings look better than Liberty Village's. The vibe/energy is great in LV, but the buildings are OK at best (in their exterior look) and unfortunately, the newest two buildings to be occupied there (on E Liberty Street) look worse than the three initial buildings (Vibe, Zip and Battery Park). Personal opinion of course....I am hoping the remaining developments in the area are more visually pleasing...

I am also wondering about CityPlace - the latest buildings to go up on Dan Leckie Blvd (can't remember their names) that are in the 40 storey range, I'm wondering if there is a height restriction there (the west edge of CityPlace lands)? Why are they in the 40 storey range and not higher (like 50+)? I strongly feel they would have sold out...
Click to expand...

I'm going to push it farther (and every 10 or 20 pages on a cityplace thread I do): Some of the cityplace buildings are among the best buildings to go up in the GTA throughout the last 10/15 years. But again, from the 2nd floor up.
 
EnviroTO said:
Cars aren't an indicator of wealth. People want people to think that they are, but I have known a number of people driving new BMWs but living with their parents. The financing rates on cars is ridiculously low. Even in your own post you state that they are renters... why would they rent if they were wealthy?
Click to expand...

I never said the cars are owned by the renters (I have no clue if its owners or renters driving the cars). I was making an observation on wealth via the parking lot.

But to clarify a few points I was trying to make, I'm just saying there isn't much difference in the renters at Bay/College vs. the Cityplace crowd. Income wise (one measure of wealth), I even think the Cityplace renters have higher incomes. Yes, they might be financed, but even financed cars need income to support them.

As for the point about wealthy people don't rent, that is not necessarily true. If you don't think real estate is going to appreciate or if your money is tied up elsewhere, you could be renting. To contrast with your BMW driving people living with their parents, I know people with a $100k+ stock portfolio making $100k+ a year renting. That is why I don't think just because people are renters doesn't mean the building is full of poor people.

As long as the renters are relatively affluent and so are the owners, I don't see how Cityplace can become a ghetto (wealth/income metric only). Owners here are mostly asian investors, but these people are the ones with 10 units each and have the ability to hold the units long term for capital appreciation (or perceived capital appreciation). My comparison was that if, on an income/wealth basis, Cityplace is considered a ghetto, then celebrated areas such as Bay/College, Liberty Village, and many other areas in Toronto should be considered a ghetto.

Thus, my personal opinion is that people should not jump to conclusions with Cityplace. Many of the metrics people use for "ghetto" can be applied to other areas in the city.
 
CITY_LOVER said:
^^^^ I agree. CityPlace buildings look better than Liberty Village's. The vibe/energy is great in LV, but the buildings are OK at best (in their exterior look) and unfortunately, the newest two buildings to be occupied there (on E Liberty Street) look worse than the three initial buildings (Vibe, Zip and Battery Park). Personal opinion of course....I am hoping the remaining developments in the area are more visually pleasing...

I am also wondering about CityPlace - the latest buildings to go up on Dan Leckie Blvd (can't remember their names) that are in the 40 storey range, I'm wondering if there is a height restriction there (the west edge of CityPlace lands)? Why are they in the 40 storey range and not higher (like 50+)? I strongly feel they would have sold out...
Click to expand...

Everything about LV is ugly IMO. From the townhouses to the condos to the tiny streets packed with parked cars.
 
taal said:
I'm going to push it farther (and every 10 or 20 pages on a cityplace thread I do): Some of the cityplace buildings are among the best buildings to go up in the GTA throughout the last 10/15 years. But again, from the 2nd floor up.
Click to expand...

Also, add the qualifier "when viewed from the south". Most CityPlace towers have very bland facades on the north side, and they're quite visible with the railway corridor providing open sightlines and as well as wide Spadina Avenue. Montage looks quite awkward from the north, crowned with a big blank wall, but attractive and unique from the south. Perhaps that contributes to the polarized opinions in terms of the designs of the towers.
 
Last edited:
JayBee said:
Everything about LV is ugly IMO. From the townhouses to the condos to the tiny streets packed with parked cars.
Click to expand...
Those townhouses were a huge mistake. That main street should have been lined with mid-rise condos, as well as retail and restaurants. It needs more of a real village feel, as does Cityplace. Both neighbourhoods share similar problems from lack of retail/entertainment, to dull buildings. They both lack a lively central street though their core. Both these neighbourhoods had great potential but left Torontonians feeling disappointed.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top