WiddleBittyKitty said:
He doesn't have a point, but you seem to be scrambling to create one for him. It's just another nonsensical ramble from the navel-gazing jester.
Click to expand...

alklay said:
What were they thinking when they picked the location? I don't know...maybe that its walking distance to most of the best shopping, restaurants, clubs etc in the city? Not to mention being exceptionally close to Skydome and the ACC, the financial district, St. Lawrence market, a few decent concert halls and theatres, etc. But yeah, they should have put this at Hwy 7 and Yonge.
Click to expand...

I'm not defending the Bathurst/Wellington comments, just the comment that the neighbourhood isn't exactly ritzy. Terrible streetscaping, poorly maintained parks, and just a general sense of neglect abounds.

I'm not a hotelier, but my impression of the Ritz brand was that this was supposed to be a place more for the Forest Hill set. I thought these guests were going to be the sort that didn't care if they could walk to a nice restaurant, because they're as likely to take a limo anyway. And for the same reason, I didn't figure the Skydome/ACC was really relevant to this brand because it isn't aimed at the average sports fan that might be in town with the family to catch a game. I'm not saying Yonge and 7 would be better, but I would have thought more along the lines of Yorkville, or maybe even King St. E. Really, of the four big hotels we're getting (Trump/Ritz/FS/Shangri-La), I think this one has the least glamourous location. Again, that might change once things start filling in but right now it's kind of meh.

Of course this also leads to an interesting question: how would you rank the locations in terms of prestige/desireability/glamour? I'd rank them as 1) FS 2) Trump 3) Shangri-La and 4) Ritz, but then that's my opinion
 
Personally, I'd rank them like this for their locations.
1 - Four Seasons
2 - Ritz-Carlton
3 - Shangri-La
4 - Trump Tower Toronto

But if I had to choose one for myself to live in, it'd be like this
1 - Ritz-Carlton
2 - Shangri-La
3 - Four Seasons & Trump Tower Toronto tie for 3rd
 
No offence, but the post is really too asinine to really reply to. I will just ask how the density of theatres, performance spaces, restaurants, clubs and shopping is better on King Street East, than the present Ritz location? Is the Ritz just not close enough to the Toronto Sun building, George Brown College or the glamour of Jarvis and Queen for you?

I just do not understand your postings at all. One would be hard pressed to be in a better location in the city.

(and look, I replied to the post anyhow).
 
Again, it's way to early to judge the location of the Ritz. King west is destined to be the new yorkville, sans retail. So it goes without saying that given the passage of time, this will be the hot 'hood, to be in. Can't judge it right now, but even right now, just walk west of Spadina on King and it seems pretty "high falutin' at least to me. But then, I'm in advertising so I guess it's got some cache there.. ha!

I apologize in advance for my terrible spelling of the french words and of the Norman french words too...!! :( -
 
Last edited:
When you can walk to 3 of the 4 aforementioned hotels within 20 minutes, I don't really think anyone should get so hung up on location. Yes, Toronto is a city of neighbourhoods, but everything downtown is so close and accessible anyway that it's all a moot point.

And UD, there are weirdos living and hanging around everywhere in this city. Bathurst and Wellington has an average, if not lower amount of nut jobs than most areas downtown.
 
Is there way to hit a button or something and not even see urbandreamer comments?
 
urbandreamer said:
I lived at Bathurst and Wellington for many years. It is a shantytown west of Bathurst. Ever walked the alleyways? Seen the characters roaming the area? I am not talking about lofts and condos here, I'm talking about the residents of old Victorian era buildings..
Click to expand...

The operative word is "lived." Clearly, you don't live there now and don't know what you are talking about. That, or you're employing some over-amplified faux Forest Hill snobbiness.
 
Zeiss said:
Is there way to hit a button or something and not even see urbandreamer comments?
Click to expand...

UD is the best why would you want to block him ;)

Am I the only one who finds this extremely entertaining... although it wouldn't suprise me if UD has me blocked already soo ...
I love how worked up everyone gets ... particularly the newer members.

Keep up the good work UD, as always.
 
UD amuses me too, and often I agree with his taste in developments (not always interior design, though). Occasionally I feel the need to contest his comments, however. Keep him in check if you will.
 
whatever said:
Actually, he's got a point. It really isn't a ritzy neighbourhood at the moment. That might start to change once the Lightbox opens, 300 Front takes out that parking lot, and Theatre Park gets approved. Oh, and the RTH expansion would help (looking at a loading dock when you go out the front door doesn't exactly inspire thoughts of glamour).

I'm not saying it's a bad neighbourhood, and I like many of the businesses and restaurants in the area, but you do have to sort of wonder what they were thinking when they picked this particular location
Click to expand...

I rather enjoy the variety of the east-west streets in that part of town - they each have their own character. Last night, after the Sibelius concert let out, King Street was its usual busy self, while south of RTH was a dead zone as usual. Pearl Street to the north has a service street character that I rather enjoy, Front Street to the south has some of the bustle of King with crowds heading to and from the Dome for various sports things. Wellington Street? A bit like York Street in that it feels secondary compared to King, Front, Bay, University, Spadina.
 
I think some people are missing the point about how the type of people living in/visiting the Ritz want to live.

They don't want to be on some busy dense street like king W or queen W.

They don't want to walk out of the building and be surrounded by crowds of joe six packs leaving a leafs or raptors game.

They want to be in a safe area (which the Ritz certainly is), if they choose to they want somewhere interesting to walk to (King W is a 2 minute walk away).

And very importantly they want to have good access to taxi's and limos and preferably be on a street that does not suffer from constant gridlock.

To judge the Ritz's location by many UT members desires to live in intresting, diverse areas (i.e with a lot of lower income people mixed in) is missing the point of what the Ritz is about. And before anyone jumps down my throat about the lower income comment, I would want to live in an area like that as well, but I'm writing this considering the Ritz's client base.

For it's clientelle the Ritz location is excellent
 
Last edited:
Mo-tage said:
I think some people are missing the point about how the type of people living in/visiting the Ritz want to live.

They don't want to be on some busy dense street like king W or queen W.

They don't want to walk out of the building and be surrounded by crowds of joe six packs leaving a leafs or raptors game.

They want to be in a safe area (which the Ritz certainly is), if they choose to they want somewhere interesting to walk to (King W is a 2 minute walk away).

And very importantly they want to have good access to taxi's and limos and preferably be on a street that does not suffer from constant gridlock.

To judge the Ritz's location by many UT members desires to live in intresting, diverse areas (i.e with a lot of lower income people mixed in) is missing the point of what the Ritz is about. And before anyone jumps down my throat about the lower income comment, I would want to live in an area like that as well, but I'm writing this considering the Ritz's client base.

For it's clientelle the Ritz location is excellent
Click to expand...


The current hotel/residence skyscrapers undergoing (Ritz, Four Seasons, Shangri-la, Trump) are spread across the city and offer different atmosphere's in which to be in...

Trump might appeal to rich, wealthy business man who love the "new york density" lifestyle... Also, the area is generally safe as it is the financial core of the city... (also very busy)

Four Seasons is in a much quieter and open atmosphere as its located on the outskirts of downtown (yorkville) it appeals to the "central park" kinda crowd imo...

Shangri-la and the Ritz are somewhat similar as they are both in the entertainment district... however, Shangri-la is on the boderline between the entertainment district and the financial district so it offers a bit more...

I think Shangri-la has the best location of the other 3..... :D:D
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top