[Dilla]

Or plausibly - ineffectual neighbourhood opposition. "Undesirable" land uses are often located in areas where the neighbourhood doesn't have the capacity to respond.

AoD

Precisely. Remember what happened when they tried to open one in the beaches? All it was was 12 beds, food and overnight shelter for the homeless every Monday night for 10 weeks, and people had a conniption. It ended up going through, but if something like this was proposed around Queen and Sherbourne, who'd even notice?

Shelter Bed numbers.
Ward 27 = 996, Ward 28 = 835, representing 43% of Toronto's total (circa 2003, but i'm sure the numbers are still quite similar). Seeing as Queen and Sherbourne are both part of the boundary between 27 and 28, none of this is surprising.

The rest of Toronto is going to have to start sucking it up and taking some of these beds on.

 

[Dilla]

Some interesting facts here. The paper itself is drivel.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Divid...udy+of+Toronto's+downtown+east...-a0264270016

Some snipptes:

- Toronto regions are divided into 42 wards and Moss Park is in wards 27 and 28. Ward 27 has 970 shelters and ward 28 has 785 (combined total: 1755) (2005 study)

- 20 of the the 42 wards in Toronto have no shelter beds (City of Toronto, Status of Affordable Housing and Shelter Initiatives, June 2006)

 

[taal]

But here's the thing ... the VU condos on Jarvis, are right beside a homeless shelter no ? as in they touch ?

 

[TonyV]

Site assembly might be an issue, esp. on the south side of Queen - and the area (particularly to the north) is pretty much loaded with what might be considered undesirable land uses in the view of investors - Moss Park/Armory, George/Seaton Street Shelters, etc. No analogue of that for the railway lands.

AoD

AoD, I did realize at the time of posting that it's not really a good analogy, but I put the challenge out for some ideas anyway.

I think that if the city ever got serious about changing the tone of this area, in order to bring in a rejuvenation, then the armory and the shelters would have to be moved to another locale. St. Michael's Hospital is seriously butt-ugly, but it will never be moved, and any architects and/or planners would have to be talented enough to work around the thing.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I don't see the Armory as a huge issue (besides, since it's CF property, not much the city can do about that). Nothing much you can do about St. Mikes either - it's only going to get larger, not smaller. More of an issue would be the pletora of shelters in the area, and the Moss Park complex. Relocating even some of the former is easier said than done (like, where would they go?) - I think the best one can hope for is a gradual gentrification of the area, development on the existing empty lots and redevelopment schemes (like the proposed Seaton House redo, maybe something for Moss Park complex as well).

AoD

 

[GraphicMatt]

The Moss Park housing complex definitely needs to come down. It's a bastion of a last-century approach to public housing that clearly doesn't work. A mixed-use development featuring a restoration of the street grid -- reconnecting Seaton, Ontario & Berkeley Streets -- would be a significant boon for the area.

 

[adma]

Nothing much you can do about St. Mikes either - it's only going to get larger, not smaller.

And likely less "butt ugly" in the process as well (unless the Fords rescind planning and design review policy, or something)

 

[kkgg7]

I don't see the Armory as a huge issue (besides, since it's CF property, not much the city can do about that). Nothing much you can do about St. Mikes either - it's only going to get larger, not smaller. More of an issue would be the pletora of shelters in the area, and the Moss Park complex. Relocating even some of the former is easier said than done (like, where would they go?) - I think the best one can hope for is a gradual gentrification of the area, development on the existing empty lots and redevelopment schemes (like the proposed Seaton House redo, maybe something for Moss Park complex as well).

AoD

Where they go? how about somewhere farther away from the downtown core, east of Don River, or west of Dufferin.Toronto will be a much bigger and more expensive city in the future, and to be honest although kind of harsh low income people are not supposed to be able to afford to live so close to downtown, nor the city can afford letting them be. Them being there simply means loss of prime real estate value and tons of business and commercial opportunities. Do you see that many low income people in midtown Manhattan? Or central Paris/London? No.

stop subsidizing those houses by increasing the rent, and provide cheaper housing somewhere else. They will go.

 

[kkgg7]

The Moss Park housing complex definitely needs to come down. It's a bastion of a last-century approach to public housing that clearly doesn't work. A mixed-use development featuring a restoration of the street grid -- reconnecting Seaton, Ontario & Berkeley Streets -- would be a significant boon for the area.

agreed. All those high rises should come down and be replaced with something more market oriented. Just imagine what business opportunities the entire area will attract (Queen Dundas Jarvis Parliament).

Public housing/shelters should be located in the near suburbs with reasonably good public transit, not right in downtown. What potential investors of Toronto will think when 10 minutes walking east of Eaton Center they see hookers, crack dealers and homeless young guys slurring at them?

 

[Torontovibe]

agreed. All those high rises should come down and be replaced with something more market oriented. Just imagine what business opportunities the entire area will attract (Queen Dundas Jarvis Parliament).

Public housing/shelters should be located in the near suburbs with reasonably good public transit, not right in downtown. What potential investors of Toronto will think when 10 minutes walking east of Eaton Center they see hookers, crack dealers and homeless young guys slurring at them?

Ask the people who bought at Vu, Glass, Pace, The Modern or The French Quarter. All of those are right beside shelters and services for homeless people. Obviously it's not standing in the way of development.

 

[taal]

Ask the people who bought at Vu, Glass, Pace, The Modern or The French Quarter. All of those are right beside shelters and services for homeless people. Obviously it's not standing in the way of development.

Way to steal my thunder ...

Anyway, exactly that was my point; Gosh that really seems like a Toronto only thing though ? Have you seen that anywhere else, again VU fronts to a homeless shelter on one side.

 

[kkgg7]

Ask the people who bought at Vu, Glass, Pace, The Modern or The French Quarter. All of those are right beside shelters and services for homeless people. Obviously it's not standing in the way of development.

I am 100% sure those people would prefer if the shelters were not there and they didn't have to see weird acting guys lingering on the street corners all the time looking suspicious. Or let's put it another way, if those shelters were not there, that area would have been developed much faster and better.

 

[Register123]

I'm moving into the Modern early next year, and I am praying that somebody buys the Popeye's chicken and adjacent shack next to it and puts up something nice to offer a little buffer from the corner of Queen and Sherbourne. This has to be the most depressing intersection in Toronto.

 

[Register123]

That being said , I'm sure the area will continue to change. The city should try to facilitate this perhaps by funding new shelters in other wards and fixing up the ones here and maybe reducing their number of beds offered here. The homeless will fair better with this also.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

... to be honest although kind of harsh low income people are not supposed to be able to afford to live so close to downtown, nor the city can afford letting them be.

Really, low income people are not "supposed" to be able to afford to live in downtown? Where did that one come from?

Them being there simply means loss of prime real estate value and tons of business and commercial opportunities.

Actually, those opportunities are being liberated by redevelopment schemes for mixed-income communities.

Do you see that many low income people in midtown Manhattan? Or central Paris/London? No.

Interesting that you should bring up the example of London and Paris - please remind me what the social consequences of sequestering the poor in various ghettos around the city resulted in? It made news the last few months/years. As to the case of Manhattan - look up Lower East Side and its' proximity to Wall Street.

Public housing/shelters should be located in the near suburbs with reasonably good public transit, not right in downtown. What potential investors of Toronto will think when 10 minutes walking east of Eaton Center they see hookers, crack dealers and homeless young guys slurring at them?

Public housing and shelters should be located everywhere, with an eye on acceessbility and mindful overconcentration. Just because there is an area of a city that is less desirable doesn't make the city as a whole unattractive to investors. An interesting that you should mention Eaton Centre - it didn't keep people from going there, did it? Just saying.

AoD