TRANSIT
• McGuinty, Miller support Pearson-Union rail link [ Globe and Mail ]
• Airport link a ‘priority’ [ Toronto Sun ]
POLITICS
• ‘Yes,’ Miller says; he’ll run again [ Globe and Mail ]
• Not right at home [ Toronto Sun ]
GEORGE BROWN
• George Brown to get new waterfront campus [ Globe and Mail ]
• • $61.5M for campus by lake [ National Post ]
• College campus at lake [ Toronto Sun ]
WOODBINE
• Woodbine offered $120-million tax breaks [ Globe and Mail ]
• Woodbine tax break would cost city $120M [ National Post ]
•
• Headaches from high times [ National Post ]
• • Chinatown takes steps to clean up its image [ CBC.ca ]
•
MISCELLANEOUS
•
15 comments
It’s great that Miller and McGuinty support the Blue22, now if they come come up with a reasonably priced plan and execution that would be something to cheer about.
Please start with a new piece of blank paper. Then ignore ALL staff, historical and political interference.
I live in Beaconsfield Village directly across the street from the Drake Hotel, and I can say I am excited about the flurry of new activity on the street at night. The noise never bothers me and I love that there is vibrant streetlife into the late hours of the evening just out my window.
Jane Jacobs said an excellent public space has many different attractions for many different types of people at all times of the day. My neighbourhood is finally achieving the latter part.
Also, I think there is a factual error in the article: I believe the liquor license for Anti, which was to open above The Social, was (foolishly) denied on public interest grounds.
Implementing a moratorium would be a terrible idea, because it places artificial limits on something that is naturally regulated by demand, and if two or three of the bars in the area close in the next year, will create a vacuum until the moratorium is over.
There seems to be a feeling from store owners that they wouldn’t even be able to get a license if they applied, which is why “Pizza and Pasta House” (on the corner of Northcote) closed so predictably.
Misha and I have discussed this issue many times in the past, and I think we both agree that there are compromises that can be made that do not involve the “nuclear option,” – a moratorium.
Re: Lakefront
More evidence that the current tax climate is prohibitive to development. Only two non residential projects planned for the east lakefront. Both have required either government financing or funding. You would think that a blank slate on a waterfront of a major NA city would be very enticing. Sad!
Glen, patience. Cadillac Fairview and Hines Interests, two companies with primarily non-residential portfolios, are among the bidders for the “Bayside” parcel of land across the park from George Brown’s new location.
Ugh. Kevin seems to think that no planning is good planning. Jane Jacobs also said that you need a variety of businesses, not ones that just operate during the night. The galleries are not heavily trafficked like local retail, and there is little left of a variety of retail on that strip. Its becoming bars bars bars. A moratorium is a good idea so that other parts of the city get bars and attract new people, not to mention repsect the property owners (who have little say what comes into their ‘hood). There are other places nearby that can absorb the so-called demand for bars like on the other side of Dufferin all the way across to Roncesy, or down on King, or into Liberty Village. Places not far off but are in need of just as much revitalization.
Bracken’s response is the attitude that gets the city into fights with businesses and residents: no planning foresight — just some sort of adherence to “market demands.” But he’ll position this as some kind of war of night life too.
Matt,
Cool. Thanks for the link. I will withhold my celebration though. Too often in Toronto “mixed use” is synonymous with condos with “ground floor retail”. Also note that along with the CF bid are Monarch and Fram.
The municipal government should NOT be subsidizing the Woodbine entertainment complex with $120 million in tax breaks. Projects with no public benefit should not receive public subsidy; if they are not profitable without subsidy, they should not be built. That is $120 million that could be spent on better public transit, bike lanes or subsidized housing.
kevin, you come across as the ultimate partisan on this issue, always fighting the good fight for “club culture”.
i still like to go to raves, i live 2 blocks north of the drake, and i can emphatically say that there is more to life (and healthy neighbourhoods) than “bars bars bars” as rhonda aptly puts it.
Hey.
It’s true. Kevin and I have talked about this stuff a lot. And I’d like to talk about it more. I really do think that the best thing for this city would be to find ways to encourage more and better nightlife, while also protecting the interests of residential neighbourhoods. Like Kevin suggests, I think there are ways to pursue both those goals simulaneously, and I’d love to see that happen. It would require a lot more subltely, intelligence, and openness to communication than usually characterizes these conversations in the papers or at city hall, but you never know…
I live right across the street from Kevin. I think it’s really important to acknowledge that there are people in the neighbourhood who, like Kevin, are happy to see more bars. I suspect they are in the minority, though I could be wrong. I’d love to see the city conduct a poll to find out how people in the neighbourhood actually feel.
A couple points and comments.
>Also, I think there is a factual error in the article:
> I believe the liquor license for Anti, which was
> to open above The Social, was (foolishly) denied
> on public interest grounds.
I can see why you might have gotten that impression, but it’s incorrect. I was pretty deeply involved in this application, and I can say with certainty, it never got to the point where the AGCO considered the application.
The owners of the Social chose not to go ahead with the plan for Anti for a number of reasons, which I won’t try to summarize (because whenever I’ve tried, they end up feeling I’ve misrepresented them). I think there was a chance that, had they gone ahead with the application, they might have encountered some obstacles related to municipal zoning. But they were not denied by the AGCO. (And I think no-one involved directly with the issue ever thought for a second that they would be).
> Implementing a moratorium would be a terrible idea, because it places
> artificial limits on something that is naturally regulated by demand,
This talk about “natural†and “artificial†comes up a lot. It’s a sort of free-market-absolutist language I find a little troubling. I don’t think it’s fair to say that the interests residents are somehow less “natural†than the interests of business. Is strikes me that the “natural†way for a city to run is a way that encourages a give-and-take between multiple forces, business being one among several.
> and if two or three of the bars in the area close
> in the next year, will create
> a vacuum until the moratorium is over.
The idea of the temporary moratorium is to put a hold on things, while people can investigate better solutions, like the kinds of smarter agreements Kevin and I have talked about.
> Jane Jacobs said an excellent public space
> has many different attractions
> for many different types of people at all times
> of the day.
> My neighbourhood is finally achieving the latter
> part.
I agree that it’s great to see mixed use. And, for that reason, it’s really good for neighbourhoods to have a bar or two. But West Queen West has far passed that point.
On Queen from Dovercourt to Dufferin, there are something like 10 bars now on four short blocks.
In that same area, there are not any bookstores, groceries, newsstands, bike shops, record stores, shoe stores, video-rental stores, computer stores, or bakeries, to name just a few other kinds of possible businesses from which an area might benefit.
Surely you can’t be saying that the way promote mixed use is to add more bars to the area.
> There seems to be a feeling from store owners that they wouldn’t even be
> able to get a license if they applied,
Really? There have been about a dozen applications for liquor licences (new and expanded) in the area in the past five years. Every single one of them has been granted. (Seriously. I have them in a file here. I can show you). What leads you to think that store owners have this mistaken belief?
> Misha and I have discussed this issue many times in the
> past, and I think we both agree that there are compromises
> that can be made
This is the important point, and where Kevin and I agree 100%. I think it sucks that all the existing processes promote us-versus-them thinking, and make it really hard to actually work out useful solutions, both on the micro level, and at the big-picture level. I’d really love to see the city and the AGCO work with residents and businesses to try and find real solutions. That may just be dream….
Sorry for the long post… I think about this stuff a lot.
THe Drake and Gladstone have brought a lot of noise and traffic to an area that is primarily residential. In fact its starting to spill over and ruin Parkdale.
Cant we keep the squares in the ” club district” or on Yonge Street?
(yoiks – only once I hit “post” did I see how long that post actually is. Pleas send my apologies to the Internet).
Whenever I hear some Queen Steetster say “the squares” I start to think the party saying such a thing are the “losers.” Way to make your case.
Andrew,
Maybe the city should spend the $120 million for transit to get to the jobs that would have been at Woodbine.
Seriously, the $120 million will not be there to give back unless it is paid in the first place. It is a refund, not a grant. Without the development there will be no tax revenue. Over the course of twenty years, the cost to the city of providing services will still be far below the net tax revenue that the city will receive.
You raise an interesting argument in that “if they are not profitable without subsidy, they should not be built”. If you applied this notion to all tax classes the only thing that would get built in Toronto would be non residential.
Late to the party. Misha, really appreciated your thoughtful remarks.
I tend to be on the pro-bar side. The issue isn’t too many bars, it’s not enough other stuff (retail etc.) and a moratorium on licences isn’t going to change that.
It’s not as if the bars displaced previously existing “bookstores, groceries, newsstands, bike shops, record stores, shoe stores, video-rental stores, computer stores, or bakeries”. Hopefully increased residential density in the area will create a customer base for these kinds of business.
I think part of the issue is landowners charging exorbitant rents for commercial space. Apparently this is part of the reason that bloor & lansdowne is such a wasteland, for example. Perhaps business property taxes need to be rejigged to offer an incentive for new retail business starts in areas where usage isn’t mixed enough.
Blarg,
I was mostly responding to Kevin’s statement about the importance of mixed use- just saying that if you support the goal of mixed use, you have to recognize that more bars in an area that already has many bars isn’t a step toward diversity.
I agree. You can’t just wish newsstands and bakeries into existence. A moratorium on bars won’t automatically force anyone to open a bike shop. Those were just examples of other kinds of businesses that one might see in a more mixed-use neighbourhood. More residential density will definitely help. But surely placing a limit on one kind of business would tip the balances at least a bit toward other kinds.
I guess a question I have for the pro-bar folks is:
Should there be *any* regulations on how bars can impact neighbourhoods? Any regulation on how many bars or seats can be in an area? It is okay to assume that if you live anywhere except sleepy purely residential street, someone can open a 200-person bar patio, open till 2:00 am, outside your bedroom window? Does the presence of your bedroom window affect their right to open that 200-person patio? Does it matter if it’s 40 bedrroom windows rather than just one? Should neighbours have any input into all this? I don’t mean these as rhetorical questions- I don’t think the answers are obvious (though I know my own opinions). I’m curious what people think. And I’d like to see regulations that reflect what people think, and that are clear, to make life easier for both bar owners and for neighbours. I don’t think we have that at all now…