[ttk77]

1. WMT caused rural communities' downtowns to have issues. Clearly not a concern for central Toronto.
2. If WMT's customer base are not the same as Kensington's, then it should not be a concern for Kensington, either, right?

And maybe this is slightly more of a shot at progressives, but wouldn't low income activists normally welcome a 'cheap & cheerful' retailer with fresh food within walking distance of Alexandra Park? I'll still go to Jumbo Empanada for my fix despite WMT. I don't think Kensington is threatened, nor is Chinatown.

1. Why is this clearly not the case for downtown Toronto? Sure, it's not going to cause mass retail closures through the core, but that doesn't mean it won't have detrimental impact to local surrounding businesses. To a resident of that local community, I can see it being a concern.

2. I don't see this as two different customer bases. I see this as a fear from Kensington residents and businesses that the customer base will change...that people will stop walking through Kensington a few times a week for their necessities and start doing a weekly car trip to the local Walmart instead.

The multi-cultural aspects of Kensington and Chinatown won't be replicated by Walmart, but will it be able to survive without the foot traffic of people going there for their "daily necessities" as well?

 

[RC8]

Even if Kensington was superficially undisturbed by Walmart's presence, Walmart would still be sucking massive amounts of money out of the local economy that would never find their way back.

Without Walmart there is much more potential for this area to revitalise than with Walmart.

 

[freshcutgrass]

That and the fact that the Wal-Mart wouldn't even be in Kensington Market. Much ado about nothing.

I don't think the typical business of KM will be affected by the nearby presence of a Walmart, any more than the food or cafe businesses of KM are affected by the nearby presence of McDonalds or Starbucks.

Clearly, the most direct local competition will be Honest Eds, and possibly some Chinatown stores selling cheap crap.

What I do expect, is for the KM "community" to put up a fight over anything of this nature...the same as they've done many times before for lesser 'threats". KM represents probably Toronto's most militant urban barometer for things of this nature. How the city gets behind this is important to the future of downtown.

Should we not allow Walmart on Bathurst for the same reason we don't allow Home Depots on the waterfront? I don't think a big box retailer on that old Kromer Radio/parking lot site is going to alter the landscape of that part of Bathurst..if anything, it will make an improvement to the street scene.

 

[spider]

Do the detractors of Walmart on this thread extend the their distaste to all Big Box stores everywhere for the same reasons?
Surely there are some good stores larger than the traditional Mom and Pop operation, if so, what are they?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Big box stores in general (especially those that require large amounts of parking and generate large amounts of car traffic) is a poor physical fit with a tight, finely scaled and intensely urban site such as this one, regardless of the brand of the retailer. It's an issue with siteing. If this proposal (minus the poor architectural quality) cropped up at say the Honest Ed site, it would probably be ok, though likely underutilizing the site.

AoD

 

[TOperson]

The decline of shabby-countercultural places like Kensington Market and the rise of huge corporate retail outlets like Walmart is reflective of the trends in the global economy overall. In particular: 1) increasing economic inequality,and 2) more concentration of wealth and power in a small group. It's not an accident that the decline of the mid-price, mid-quality local/regional department store occurred in lockstep with the decline of the middle class.

We've already let it happen.

 

[ttk77]

Do the detractors of Walmart on this thread extend the their distaste to all Big Box stores everywhere for the same reasons?
Surely there are some good stores larger than the traditional Mom and Pop operation, if so, what are they?

As AoD indicated, it's really location dependent. Walmart isn't all bad. When putting up a new suburban subdivision the quickest way to make sure that it has all the necessities is to add in a Walmart and a Home Depot. In an area with established businesses though, all it's going to do is cannibalize existing retail and suck money out of the community that was previously being invested back into that community by the local business owners. Big box, or at least big business, has a place when a location is under-served by the existing local business community.

 

[the lemur]

So far, the best anyone can come up with (other than 'I don't like Wal-Marts', which is your right but not a reasonable objection to new construction of anything) seems to be 'it's bland' (as opposed to the current grey monolith slowly crumbling??? Really?) and the always-popular 'traffic' (across from the massive Toronto Western?), so basically it sounds like Wal-Mart will be a go.

The traffic that TWH generates is nothing compared to what a more popular destination like a Wal-Mart would create with 300 parking spaces near a T-junction with a transit stop.

 

[the lemur]

Do the detractors of Walmart on this thread extend the their distaste to all Big Box stores everywhere for the same reasons?
Surely there are some good stores larger than the traditional Mom and Pop operation, if so, what are they?

I guess I'm a detractor in the sense that I'm not against Wal-Mart per se, even downtown, but I am opposed to this particular development being at this location.

I'm not opposed to large retailers or big box developments downtown - I think the Canadian Tire/Best Buy at Bay & Dundas is appropriate in scale, well served by transit, parking, etc. But I wouldn't put that, or Home Depot, at Bathurst & Nassau.

The developer of this proposal was interviewed (after a fashion) by Torontoist the other day - he claimed opposition to the proposal rested on a number of misconceptions (including some regarding traffic), but failed to clear up any of them.

 

[Hipster Duck]

The decline of shabby-countercultural places like Kensington Market and the rise of huge corporate retail outlets like Walmart is reflective of the trends in the global economy overall. In particular: 1) increasing economic inequality,and 2) more concentration of wealth and power in a small group. It's not an accident that the decline of the mid-price, mid-quality local/regional department store occurred in lockstep with the decline of the middle class.

We've already let it happen.

I wouldn't say that Kensington Market is declining nor that counter-cultural areas are in short supply in Toronto - or anywhere. Contrary to what people think, I think these places are actually on the rise. It's just that the original observers and commentators got older, and *their* counter-cultural neighbourhoods disappeared as their generation's demand for these places dried up.

I would also be skeptical about how much growing inequality (which I agree is a real phenomenon) contributed to the demise of the department store. While it's true that retail got squeezed out of the middle to the extremes of boutique retailing and low-cost big box retailing, that doesn't mean that the people who shop at big box stores are all poor or the people who shop at boutique-style stores are all rich. I just think that people's preferences- regardless of their incomes - have split between things they indulge in or are connoisseurs of, and things they don't care too much about and are just willing to pay the lowest amount for.

The things that people are willing to indulge in are things that are increasingly found in boutique stores and in places like Kensington market: upscale food, drinks, home furnishings, etc. The things that people just want to buy at low cost are the things that WalMart sells. The two are relatively independent from one another and seemingly not that income-dependent.

 

[TOperson]

Thing is, boutiques, upscale food & drink & home furnishings are NOT counter-cultural, and by definition not cheap. Kensington USED to be cheap and counter-cultural, but all of that is effectively gone. Don't confuse superficialities of style with politics, worldview, etc.

It's not just that people are dividing up their money differently, it's that most people actually have less money, less buying power. Cheap goods from overseas are masking that, because they allow people to have a large quantity of stuff, but less quality. And don't forget how many Canadians are in debt with little to no savings. Poor people generally shop at the cheapest place and don't save up to buy one thing at an upmarket retailer, so they're not the ones supporting that segment of the market.

Anyway, my point is that the Walmart/Kensington issue is a symptom of big political and economic forces, not really a neighbourhood issue. Much like a factory owned by a multinational closing in a town due to free trade agreements - we chose free trade, and that is the result. We chose low wages and cheap imports, so now we're getting a Walmart near Kensington.


Also, this bit:

The two are relatively independent from one another and seemingly not that income-dependent.

Is just dead wrong. One of the FIRST things a retailer looks at when choosing a location is the income of residents in the catchment area. That's why Pusateri's is in Yorkville and Food Basics is in St James Town.

 

[gabe]

I can understand why people shop at Walmart. I get my staples at No Frills because Sobeys and Metro just seem insanely expensive lately. My produce i get at the markets.

 

[Hipster Duck]

It's not just that people are dividing up their money differently, it's that most people actually have less money, less buying power. Cheap goods from overseas are masking that, because they allow people to have a large quantity of stuff, but less quality. And don't forget how many Canadians are in debt with little to no savings. Poor people generally shop at the cheapest place and don't save up to buy one thing at an upmarket retailer, so they're not the ones supporting that segment of the market.

If we ignore housing - which is an elephant in the room, since it is the largest portion of the discretionary household budget, and the fastest growing one, by far - I'd say that a typical household's buying power has increased in the past 30 years. Certainly the proportion of the budget spent on other items, especially food, is going down. Part of this reason is WalMart, or WalMart competitors. If Canadians have racked up debt, I think it's mostly due to housing debt. While there is a large segment of society that has rung up huge credit card debt buying disposable household goods, I don't think that they are going into debt because they are buying the bare necessities - I think these people are indulging in frivolous spending.

 

[TOperson]

If we ignore housing - which is an elephant in the room, since it is the largest portion of the discretionary household budget, and the fastest growing one, by far - I'd say that a typical household's buying power has increased in the past 30 years. Certainly the proportion of the budget spent on other items, especially food, is going down. Part of this reason is WalMart, or WalMart competitors. If Canadians have racked up debt, I think it's mostly due to housing debt. While there is a large segment of society that has rung up huge credit card debt buying disposable household goods, I don't think that they are going into debt because they are buying the bare necessities - I think these people are indulging in frivolous spending.

You can believe whatever you like, but non-mortgage debt has been rising among Canadians for a quite a while now. And it's not due to "frivolous spending", in general, it's due to maintaining the appearance of a middle-class lifestyle with reduced buying power. Note that it is impossible to support a family in a middle-class way on one average income these days. A couple generations ago, that was the norm. If people lived within their means, Canadian society would look a whole lot poorer, because it is. This has been studied to death by economists and other academics. E.g. Rick Wolff and Elizabeth Warren (before her political career). They study the American context, but the trends are very similar here. Or check out the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, they do studies on this stuff.

Don't forget that the cheapness of goods is not due to Walmart and its ilk, it's due to the cheap labour being exploited overseas. Those workers are essentially subsidizing our lifestyles.

 

[Eug]

As cooly shabby as Kensington Market is, it's getting gentrified. That gentrification will continue with or without Wal-Mart. And you know what? I think it's a good thing too. Some of the el crappo stores will die off, but it won't be because of Wal-Mart. It will be because the clientele of Kensington Market won't want to go to Kensington Market to buy crap, esp. when some of that crap already costs more than in Chinatown.