|
Torontoist is a website about Toronto and everything that happens in it. More about us.
Editor-in-Chief: DAVID TOPPING
Publisher: GOTHAMIST
| David Toronto on The Bu(i)ck Stops Here Gauldar on The Bu(i)ck Stops Here StayMaitland on Local Music Sketchbook: The Ryan Driver Quartet owl364 on Building A Nuit To Remember Hamutal Dotan on The End of the World As We Know It? sanchex on The End of the World As We Know It? Stephen Johns on As The Seasons Roll On By pbettany on As The Seasons Roll On By Bias on Building A Nuit To Remember Miles Storey on Televisualist: Shows That Fail and Monorail |
Most Recommended:
Keeps On GOing And GOing And GOing... (16)
But Is It Art? (13)
Nirvana the Band the Show the Interview (12)
Blue Banana You Ho This Is All Your Fault (9)
Street Hassle (8)
Most Commented:
Wal Of Noise (52)
Street Hassle (38)
The Triple Threat (37)
Blue Banana You Ho This Is All Your Fault (36)
The Daily Photoist: September 30, 2008 (30)
Now whose neighborhood is it good for?
(Circle one.)
A) Little 1984
B) Valley of the Architecture Interns
C) Unimatrix Zero
D) West "jumped the shark" West
E) Other _______________________
Then again, the people who plan to redevelop this neighborhood don't even think of it as a neighborhood. They call it a "triangle," so none of our answers matter.
|
jesus - how many posts are you going to put up about this? we get it: you hate it. try not to obsess.
This 'blog' is becoming way too boring.... back to live journal I go....
Cool. I'll just turn a blind eye to everything that happens here, and in five years when the neighborhood bears no resemblance to its former self, there will be no record of it.
Hey, why's blog in quote marks? Last time I checked we hadn't turned into a radio station or newspaper.
I suspect 'it's' because we 'forget' to use emoticons and mention in each post what mood we're in, and the exact song we're listening to while posting.
things change, how long do we have to hold on to the past. so what nothing new is allowed anywhere but mississauga?... i want new buildings, they arnt demolishing ALL of queen west for this... jeeze
things change, how long do we have to hold on to the past. so what nothing new is allowed anywhere but mississauga?... i want new buildings, they arnt demolishing ALL of queen west for this... jeeze
Artists are going to lose their homes and studios. This is a constant reminder.
Change is necessary and inevitable but that does not mean it should not be discussed, nor that it's pain should be ignored.
All of Queen West doesn't need to be demolished for me to care about it. To demolish the part I'm already living in is sufficient.
I agree, Toronto's neighbourhoods have always changed. What's the big deal? Do we really want the triangle to stay the same? It was an industrial area before, should it stay that way even though all the industrial businesses have long since moved to the 905?
No one here is saying anything should stay the same.
An issue can have more than two very obvious sides. There's middle ground to discuss, and it's not necessary to get hung up on change vs. no change.
i agree that there is middle ground to discuss
it just never seems to be discussed when that building pops up on this site. its generally some sort of subjective jab at the design of the building, when that really isn't the problem, or not a major one.
But design and location make up the entire offering of this particular development. If it's not important, why make it the focus of the development itself?
I'd argue that what's being communicated by this design is that ONLY what happens here in the future matters-- that the lives people make for themselves presently in this area are of no consequence and need no consideration or consultation.
But the neighbourhood had an opportunity to voice their opinion when the project was approved.
Yes and no. It's a little more complicated than that in this case.
The development project for the condo itself was approved 4 years ago, for stacked townhouses. But now the developers for the site are looking to get a permit for a tower. (Presumably since other developers in the area also want and might get towers.)
The sales centre itself (on a different piece of property) began construction BEFORE any building permit was secured. Ballsy.
So, discussion and public debate are still relevant. The overall direction and execution of projects in the area can still be positively influenced for the greater good.
Bizarre building . . . I clicked back and, looking at the design, I have to say it is pretty ugly.
Well, that's good. I think if the developer is smart, they'll want to avoid controversy and pissing off the area.
Just curious....Does the greater good mean no towers? Or does it just mean no Alsop towers?
I understand that you don't officially speak for the neighbourhood, Jill, but what's your feeling on this?
you might think its ugly, but thats subjective.. i think the coffee tip is ugly, i think some of the computer stores on the south side of 'queen west' are ugly... at least this new building isnt a grey box with no character (plus this building is also a pigeon house too!)
and getting back to a few comments ago... the flow of gentrification is obvious to any artist moving into a cheap area... i just dont get that some people don't find this obvious and complain when their area starts to change. sure its a pain to move but isnt that growth? we all move or adapt to the flow of economic development...
Sorry-- Xnay on the igeonhousepay. The pigeon didn't make it.
Again, not complaining about change. Just looking at the values of this specific development. I won't demand that you accept what's ugly to you, either. We can both have our way.
Michael,
While there are voices in the neighborhood that will beg for no towers over six stories, I understand the need to build density in the downtown core to prevent sprawl.
I'm not saying "no towers" or even "no Alsop towers."
But I don't think the current development trend is taking the long-term health of the city into enough consideration. I'm not convinced that the area can really support five to six 12-30 story towers in a one block radius and have it not turn slummy once the initial condo-rush is satisfied.
To address your first comment, this developer is not interested in avoiding controversy-- they're hoping to create it, relying on the idea that all publicity is good publicity. They're even using one of my more negative reactions to the building as marketing copy on their web site.
What would make me happy? Little-big things like if the building didnt' GLOW at night, or if the plywood siding wasn't already discolouring, if the paint wasn't chipping, or if the execution of the design bore some of the subtle sensitivity of the details in the original drawings themselves.
Show me this isn't just a one-time cash-grab.
I don't have to like something I may find ugly, but I think I do have to accept it. This is private property we are talking about. If this was a public building that would be a different story. Just as I can't tell anyone else how to dress or what to think, what gives me the right to tell a developer how to design?
well at this moment, i see the value in increasing this city's cultural importance and a part of that is its architecture(granted architecture does fit into a context of its surrounding community, and its connections to development of community).
this building is another being added to the list of new and exciting buidlings which are being built in our city by people willing to take a few risks in creating something against the grain. being an artist myself i see this as a positive impact on an "artist community" and sometimes get a little frustrated when people choose it as a symbol of everything that is going wrong with gentrification. i think the problem should be directed towards the developers and not the actual architecture/design of the building.
mind you i do understand that their are two sides to every story, but it just seems lately its been sort of one sided hate-on towards this building... esp on torontoist
but any discussion is good discussion(and the fact that a building can generate such discussion should be seen as a great building/design)
Everyone has a right to suggest to developers how to design. They call it market research.
And the permit's not done yet. So, it's still a public issue.
Jill, I think all condos, by definition, are a one-time cash-grab. The developer builds a building, sells the units, and disappears.
I'm not going to defend the developer because I think the building is ugly as sin. And I have to live with buildings that glow in my area and despise them for doing so.
I also think your concerns about sustainablity are waranted. However, a condo is never built purely on speculation. Even after approval, the condos must be sold. Just becuase it is approved doesn't mean its inevitable. There have been many condos that never materialized due to lack of sales. If sales do well, then it would confirm demand.
Well, the right to suggest, through market research or letters to the editor, is very different than the right to dictate to a developer as to how a building will look.
It may be a public issue, but since Toronto doesn't have aesthetic standards, I doubt the ugliness of a building can be made an issue. Unless through negotiation. In the past, the city has traded extra height for better design.
Come to think of it, maybe that's their plan to get more floors.
You raise and clarify some good points.
I'm not looking for the right to dictate. Just preserving the right to react.
"Artists are going to lose their homes and studios."
Uhg, is that really the biggest problem with 'redeveloping' this neighbourhood?
With a shortage of suitable affordable housing and work space in the city, yes it is.
Replace "artists" with "people" if it helps you understand the problem better.
Wow. To suggest that someone doesn't "understand the problem" because he or she took issue with you worrying about artists rather than the low income people who have lived in this neighbourhood their entire lives makes it clear that you don't fully understand the problem. Gentrification is a process. Artists are the first wave. The fact that artists need low-rent accommodation and/or work space doesn't alter the fact that they are the first to change the face of low-income neighbourhoods and make them more palatable for the condo developments to come.
This is not the black-and-white issue you make it out to be, and your evaluation of it - and your own role in the "demolition" of the neighbourhood - needs a little more analytical depth.
Jill -- you need to understand that artists started the process of 'redeveloping' this neighbourhood in the first place.
By simply moving into the neighbourhood, you've made it more palatable to other middle-class people -- thereby raising property value and pushing those who are less fortunate and now can't afford their now-higher property taxes/rent out.
So no, I won't replace 'artists' with 'people' because that's not what you said/meant, and that's not what the biggest problem is with this type of development.
Don't tell me what I mean. I've already told you what I mean. What do you know of my station in life or that of my neighbors?
Just to set the record straight, I can no more demolish a neighborhood than I can make it more palatable.
Do you find me terribly palatable? Doesn't look that way to me. Nah. I'm really not that cool. Nor do I have the cash to move bulldozers.
I didn't move to this neighborhood hoping that my fabulousness would transform it. Nor was I on the lookout for a quirky apartment. My old apartment got too expensive, therefore I moved. It didn't feel really middle class or elitist to me. I was sad. Frankly, I'd take the old place back in a heartbeat.
I can't get with you on the idea that because person A has one kind of job and that person B has another kind of job, that one or the other is more entitled to put down roots in a city-- that one is a person, and the other is an agent of gentrification and nothing more.
jill - just curious: did you put up this much of a fight when your last place became too expensive? was there an easy evil target for you then too?
Jill, I don't think this comment section is the place for gentrification 101, but you clearly need to start looking at the bigger picture -- beyond just railing on the easy targets like developers and yuppies and hideous buildings like these.