I walked by a house on Rusholme the other day that had a sign on the yard that read " you have 24 hours to return all of the plants you have stolen. If you do not return them all of the neighbors will be gathering on your lawn because we know who you are!"
The site was very contaminated with PCB, was a beautiful building for sure. I was involved in preparing pricing for the site remediations. I felt bad submitting my price for demolition, but knew that when we cleaned up the contaminated soil and groundwater beneath, it was for a good reason. Unfortunately due to past practices, alot of the surrounding land/groundwater is highly contaminated. This means more of these historic buildings will come down to allow for the removal of the contaminants below. From bad comes good I suppose.
We were notified by the location manager for the movie that the old lot was purcahsed by a company called Somerset Homes.
There are a few companies that go by that name online but it looks like there is one that works in the area and does custom built townhomes.
They said that they will be filming in and around the storage facility, and there there will be at least one explosion this week. It is some sort of sci fi themed TV show.
Walking along the WTRP, I spoke (through the fence) to a guy milling about in the Glidden field with a take-out coffee in his hand - and yep, it's a film crew... He didn't say what the production is, but he said it's "a fairly large project." They're doing some filming in and around the Glidden property, he said, but will continue its lease of the field until the end of year - even if it's just a place to keep their picture vehicles/ props/ etc.
It's tough to make eveyone happy but it's like someone posted before. The people who are against it will show up to the meetings and voice their opinion. The pros will just sit back and wait for it to be built. I wonder what the builder plans now.
How come the Junction Triangle Rail Committee, which works with the Clean Train Coalition and with Mike Sullivan was not invited or asked to speak considering that they would have more detail on the local aspects than Mike may have ? They are listed on this website so they are not hard to find especially since they just had 4 successful weeks of music in local parks and have attended every Metrolinx meeting (never seen the people running this event at ANY MX public consultation.The meet and greet at Boo's sounds more like a community based event than this one.
If you are concerned about the MX situation and want to get involved there is an active group, since day 1, representing the concerns of JT so contact them to get the lowdown and get involved.
Another new business has come to the Junction Triangle. Ada Tattoo is marking its Grand Opening at 1555 Dupont (Perth & Dupont). Independent tattoo artist Lius brings his special skills to the hood from Bali. You can visit the store to checkout his designs or go online at www.adatatu.info for more details. The store is open Tuesday to Saturday from 12:30 - 8 p.m.
yes, the design was one of the best I have seen in TO and beyond, I was initially excited to see change happen on that intersection, and better yet a very interesting GREEN, showpiece of a building, I too have heard from many people who hated it ONLY because they didn't like the design or similar, boring is the Bebloor & ugly is the Crossroads, this would have been much better appearance and a needed lift for the areas skyline.
It is the same thing that hold even the best be it: ideas, innovations, corporations, gov't or what ever, - peoples high resistance to change, if it ain't broke don't fix it, leave well enough alone
forget about beautification, betterment, common sense etc
I understand the issue of the height and the setbacks and all that, but perhaps TODAY this section of Bloor is an Avenue but what will it be as TO continues to emerge..? not to mention it is a major transit hub (TTC/GO) one of the few where they intersect and a transit hub that is waiting to happen as more people move away from cars. Not to mention the cross roads with two of Canada's most recognized streets......, the thought that the owners of the PriceChopper/SDM plot were also watching this development to plan their own is precisely the point I am making, lack of vision ... they built that suburban style complex just a few years ago which should have been some type of low/mid or maybe even highrise containing those services below, for them to think about it now only means they will destroy something that is only a few years old, which will likely end up in a landfill or dump, poisoning the environment to build what they should have done 7-8yrs ago...
To me considering what services already exist on that intersection, and the fact that the city is growing quickly - which is a good thing, we as tax payers should also be trying to find cost efficient ways to welcome our new citywide neighbours who will also benefit from the services that have already consumed our tax dollars or our fare increases (TTC), instead of spending billions more to fund rapid transit serving suburban areas we are intensifying TODAY while contributing to more sprawl and consumption of green space.
We have areas like this that should be intensified because the services (TTC/GO/Bike trail etc) are there, they will not cost millions - billions to make more planned density and the need to fund rapid transit to serve the new residents (like the huge humber bay/south Etobicoke or Sherway Gardens areas etc).
We have some gifted & talented designers out there, why make it easier for them to develop in wide open areas like the ones mentioned, then scratch our heads trying to decide where the money will come to bring services to the new residents who will occupy them.
Versus, we have already funded those services in specific areas (sometimes underutilized) and yet make it difficult for the developers who wish to develop in those very areas to get the green light,
further, these developers are also helping us to maximize, monetize and fully utilize our publicly funded investments (TTC/GO/WTRP) before we have to invest more elsewhere, we are doing it to our selves
These are just my thoughts about what is wrong with those who are short sighted with good development and what is wrong with the City Planners, the intersection of Dundas & Bloor is not an Avenue it is a Centre, a West Toronto Centre with amenities, it will qualify as such if people would see it as such
I live on the other side of the bridge and my building was notified that a film crew will be filming in the area this upcoming Monday from about 4am to noon.
Yeah, so much goes wrong at that intersection. A few of my own observations:
No right turns on red allowed from Symington to Bloor. I think this is justified, as the sight lines are poor, and traffic often speeds through here quickly. However, people often turn here anyway, and I've seen pedestrians almost get hit by motorists in a hurry. Also...some people don't see the "No right turn on red signs" and honk at other motorists who are obeying the law.
Motorists making the right turn from Sterling onto Bloor, only to stop in the middle of the intersection because they think they have to wait for the Bloor St. red light to change.
Sterling has only one lane at the intersection. To be used for left turns to Bloor, the right-left manouver to Symington, and right turns onto Bloor. The right side of Sterling is painted to tell people not to drive there, but people ignore it. So it can create conflicts between people going up to Symington from the illegal right "lane" versus people turning right from the left side of the road (sounds confusing, eh?). The sign directing traffic doesn't seem to help so much. View it here on Google Streetview.
Some people seem to treat this stretch of Bloor as a speedway between Dundas and Lansdowne.
Doesn't help that people park illegally on the road in front of the day care, clogging things up even more.
Or even worse, the people who park on the sidewalks in front of the daycare and auto body shops so that pedestrians can't safely walk by.
More good news re 1540 Bloor Street (The Giraffe Building). The OMB upholds the earlier ruling.
In a letter addressed to our City Solicitors, the Executive Vice Chair of the OMB refused the request for a review of the OMB decision dated March 9, 2010. The March decision refused the re-zoning request to permit a 27 storey building on the site at the north west corner of Bloor Street West and Dundas Street West intersection. Accordingly, the OMB decision remains in force and effect.
This OMB Decision and letter of July 30, 2010 are in accord with the Council direction on this matter, which directed the City Solicitor and appropriate staff to attend the Ontario Municipal Board hearing of the owner’s appeal, to oppose the current applications and to advise that Board that City Council’s position is that any redevelopment of the site at 1540 Bloor Street West must comply with the zoning by-law implementing the Bloor-Dundas Avenue Study.
This is indeed a step in the right direction. There are some legal procedures that our Solicitors and the Developer need to resolve, my office will keep you posted along the way.
Attached is a copy of the decision for your reference: OMB 2010-07- 30
Yeah, I wonder if it's re-testing as well. It's just the camping trailers and BBQ that have peaked my curiosity. My dog sure misses the impromptu park..
There are no building permits issued for the site (search here). Maybe they're just testing soil again? Or trimming the weeds, or doing other repairs? :)
Does anyone know what is happening at the remediated field at 370 Wallace? There are quite a few vehicles parked there right now, including trailers etc. Has the remediation been completed and is this now going to be yet another construction site?
It looks like you are replying to Ken Woods note where he is talking about sharing the road - not the sidewalk. As population density of the city increases it is very likely there will be more of this so Ken is making a valid point about an issue that is likely to continue to be relevant over the next few years. Funny how there are no diatribes about cars on the sidewalks. They often stop on the sidewalk so they would block strollers. Yesterday one hoped onto the sidewalk to get around another car and drove at full speed for nearly a block. You seem to think cyclists are biased, but don't see the danger of cars.
Car drivers are serving their convenience. Cyclists need to be mindful of their safety. You might not sympathize, but they are forced to by their situation. So this concern will persist weather you like it or not, you might do well to understand it.
Oh, the well thought out argument line was one of the funniest lines I've read in a while - thank you.
Do the words "sense of entitlement" mean anything to you cyclists who care primarily about yourselves and your convenience, and believe the city by-laws are farcical and shouldn't apply to you? There are a few cyclists who do walk their bikes on the sidewalks and through crosswalks at traffic lights, and stop for red lights. From what I've observed, they are in the minority.
Pedestrianism is the most basic mode of transit. Before there were wheels, there were pedestrians. We were here before cars and bikes. But we're the most vulnerable. The bicycle is a relatively recent invention; there's no reason that people using such vehicles should displace or inconvenience pedestrians (and their dogs that they're walking, and their tiny children who are fledgling pedestrians and could easily be hurt, even by a slow-moving bike). Bicycles shouldn't be ridden on the sidewalk AT ANY SPEED, unless by children who haven't yet learned to navigate in traffic.
Cyclists who say that pedestrians must share with them are showing their true colours; they think themselves superior because they're using the most convenient, fastest method of low-cost transportation. If they're doing so LAWFULLY, good for them. I'm all for it. If they do so unlawfully and expect pedestrians to defer to them, they can take their sense of entitlement and shove it up their inner tubes. If they would exchange that sense of entitlement for a sense of decency and fairness, I wouldn't bother with these screeds (to which cyclists like this one respond with self-serving responses disguised as well-thought-out arguments).
And cyclists don't have only the choice of driving a car or being on a bike. They can walk or take public transit. If they don't consider those options good enough, then maybe they really do think they're entitled to their speed and convenience, and that they shouldn't have to slog along like these dullards who put up with the cruddiness of other TTC riders or go plodding along the sidewalks like zombies. Like, wow, those people are so lame! Don't they know that people who ride bikes are gods, with ripped bods and superior cardiovascular systems, razor-sharp brains and lightning reflexes -- a race of superior beings, in fact?
Well, sorry, as a sidewalk plodder who knows it's too dangerous to ride a bike in the city and only does so in the country, way up north where there's hardly any traffic. I'd have to say I don't consider you superior at all. YOU make pedestrians out to be the selfish ones -- how self-serving is that?
When the City of Toronto drops the bylaw, THEN pedestrians will be legally obligated to share sidewalks with you. But right now, even though the bylaw is rarely enforced and is probably no deterrent anyway, they are not, and don't tell them they are. People with a sense of entitlement always do try to justify their boorishness by means of manipulation. That's what you did in your post, and that's what I've heard from cyclists time and again.
I think it really should stay as a JT site, despite the fact that we all might have interesting photos from "the outside". Love this idea, and looking forward to contributing!
-cc
Yeah, there's definitely plenty of photogenic material outside of our strict railway boundaries, or fuzzier personal neighbourhood boundaries.
The goal of the JT group is to get photos of the neighbourhood, and this can include pics from photographers who don't live here. I think a reasonable goal for a different group would be the opposite: to showcase the work of local photographers, on a wide variety of subjects. There are certainly many excellent local photographers.
Actually, you can find some other excellent non-JT stuff by looking through the JT photo group and then browsing the contributors' other photo albums.
But still, I'd like to keep the JT group filled with JT-specific photos, with maybe a little bit of fuzziness around the edges.
Well, I've certainly got pictures from within the tracks but some of the fuzzy ones are artistic and beautiful. When I do go to High Park these days I seldom take my camera. But many people there do have cameras, so I would guess a good number of people around here would find some artistic stimulation in various nearby places.
On the other hand, if you are getting many pictures from people outside of the community you might not be interested in all their shots - that's understandable.
No big deal, but if it gets you a larger group of local (amateur / less experienced) photographers it might be worth thinking about being flexible. I ran a community photo site for a while and ended up posting many photos that would have been deleted if they were mine just because I wanted to encourage people.
Just moved into the neighborhood and have been excited about how quickly the lofts are going up. I can't wait to see what businesses move in.
I walked by a house on Rusholme the other day that had a sign on the yard that read " you have 24 hours to return all of the plants you have stolen. If you do not return them all of the neighbors will be gathering on your lawn because we know who you are!"
The site was very contaminated with PCB, was a beautiful building for sure. I was involved in preparing pricing for the site remediations. I felt bad submitting my price for demolition, but knew that when we cleaned up the contaminated soil and groundwater beneath, it was for a good reason. Unfortunately due to past practices, alot of the surrounding land/groundwater is highly contaminated. This means more of these historic buildings will come down to allow for the removal of the contaminants below. From bad comes good I suppose.
We were notified by the location manager for the movie that the old lot was purcahsed by a company called Somerset Homes.
There are a few companies that go by that name online but it looks like there is one that works in the area and does custom built townhomes.
They said that they will be filming in and around the storage facility, and there there will be at least one explosion this week. It is some sort of sci fi themed TV show.
Walking along the WTRP, I spoke (through the fence) to a guy milling about in the Glidden field with a take-out coffee in his hand - and yep, it's a film crew... He didn't say what the production is, but he said it's "a fairly large project." They're doing some filming in and around the Glidden property, he said, but will continue its lease of the field until the end of year - even if it's just a place to keep their picture vehicles/ props/ etc.
That's the gossip, anyway...
It's tough to make eveyone happy but it's like someone posted before. The people who are against it will show up to the meetings and voice their opinion. The pros will just sit back and wait for it to be built. I wonder what the builder plans now.
How come the Junction Triangle Rail Committee, which works with the Clean Train Coalition and with Mike Sullivan was not invited or asked to speak considering that they would have more detail on the local aspects than Mike may have ? They are listed on this website so they are not hard to find especially since they just had 4 successful weeks of music in local parks and have attended every Metrolinx meeting (never seen the people running this event at ANY MX public consultation.The meet and greet at Boo's sounds more like a community based event than this one.
If you are concerned about the MX situation and want to get involved there is an active group, since day 1, representing the concerns of JT so contact them to get the lowdown and get involved.
Again, why were locals not invited?
Another new business has come to the Junction Triangle. Ada Tattoo is marking its Grand Opening at 1555 Dupont (Perth & Dupont). Independent tattoo artist Lius brings his special skills to the hood from Bali. You can visit the store to checkout his designs or go online at www.adatatu.info for more details. The store is open Tuesday to Saturday from 12:30 - 8 p.m.
yes, the design was one of the best I have seen in TO and beyond, I was initially excited to see change happen on that intersection, and better yet a very interesting GREEN, showpiece of a building, I too have heard from many people who hated it ONLY because they didn't like the design or similar, boring is the Bebloor & ugly is the Crossroads, this would have been much better appearance and a needed lift for the areas skyline.
It is the same thing that hold even the best be it: ideas, innovations, corporations, gov't or what ever, - peoples high resistance to change, if it ain't broke don't fix it, leave well enough alone
forget about beautification, betterment, common sense etc
I understand the issue of the height and the setbacks and all that, but perhaps TODAY this section of Bloor is an Avenue but what will it be as TO continues to emerge..? not to mention it is a major transit hub (TTC/GO) one of the few where they intersect and a transit hub that is waiting to happen as more people move away from cars. Not to mention the cross roads with two of Canada's most recognized streets......, the thought that the owners of the PriceChopper/SDM plot were also watching this development to plan their own is precisely the point I am making, lack of vision ... they built that suburban style complex just a few years ago which should have been some type of low/mid or maybe even highrise containing those services below, for them to think about it now only means they will destroy something that is only a few years old, which will likely end up in a landfill or dump, poisoning the environment to build what they should have done 7-8yrs ago...
To me considering what services already exist on that intersection, and the fact that the city is growing quickly - which is a good thing, we as tax payers should also be trying to find cost efficient ways to welcome our new citywide neighbours who will also benefit from the services that have already consumed our tax dollars or our fare increases (TTC), instead of spending billions more to fund rapid transit serving suburban areas we are intensifying TODAY while contributing to more sprawl and consumption of green space.
We have areas like this that should be intensified because the services (TTC/GO/Bike trail etc) are there, they will not cost millions - billions to make more planned density and the need to fund rapid transit to serve the new residents (like the huge humber bay/south Etobicoke or Sherway Gardens areas etc).
We have some gifted & talented designers out there, why make it easier for them to develop in wide open areas like the ones mentioned, then scratch our heads trying to decide where the money will come to bring services to the new residents who will occupy them.
Versus, we have already funded those services in specific areas (sometimes underutilized) and yet make it difficult for the developers who wish to develop in those very areas to get the green light,
further, these developers are also helping us to maximize, monetize and fully utilize our publicly funded investments (TTC/GO/WTRP) before we have to invest more elsewhere, we are doing it to our selves
These are just my thoughts about what is wrong with those who are short sighted with good development and what is wrong with the City Planners, the intersection of Dundas & Bloor is not an Avenue it is a Centre, a West Toronto Centre with amenities, it will qualify as such if people would see it as such
In the 70's it was worse as there was no light or any controls. Citizens rallied for a light after a child was killed crossing bloor at that corner.
The design was awesome. It was the access that was the only real issue. All the other complaints were really about people not liking change.
I live on the other side of the bridge and my building was notified that a film crew will be filming in the area this upcoming Monday from about 4am to noon.
Yeah, so much goes wrong at that intersection. A few of my own observations:
Looks like a movie crew to me.
Hopefully Girafe comes back with a new design.
Ward 14 Councillor Gord Perks just posted an updated to his website:
Yeah, I wonder if it's re-testing as well. It's just the camping trailers and BBQ that have peaked my curiosity. My dog sure misses the impromptu park..
Interesting. Wonder what's up there?
Remediation was completed about a year ago.
There are no building permits issued for the site (search here). Maybe they're just testing soil again? Or trimming the weeds, or doing other repairs? :)
Does anyone know what is happening at the remediated field at 370 Wallace? There are quite a few vehicles parked there right now, including trailers etc. Has the remediation been completed and is this now going to be yet another construction site?
It looks like you are replying to Ken Woods note where he is talking about sharing the road - not the sidewalk. As population density of the city increases it is very likely there will be more of this so Ken is making a valid point about an issue that is likely to continue to be relevant over the next few years. Funny how there are no diatribes about cars on the sidewalks. They often stop on the sidewalk so they would block strollers. Yesterday one hoped onto the sidewalk to get around another car and drove at full speed for nearly a block. You seem to think cyclists are biased, but don't see the danger of cars.
Car drivers are serving their convenience. Cyclists need to be mindful of their safety. You might not sympathize, but they are forced to by their situation. So this concern will persist weather you like it or not, you might do well to understand it.
Oh, the well thought out argument line was one of the funniest lines I've read in a while - thank you.
Do the words "sense of entitlement" mean anything to you cyclists who care primarily about yourselves and your convenience, and believe the city by-laws are farcical and shouldn't apply to you? There are a few cyclists who do walk their bikes on the sidewalks and through crosswalks at traffic lights, and stop for red lights. From what I've observed, they are in the minority.
Pedestrianism is the most basic mode of transit. Before there were wheels, there were pedestrians. We were here before cars and bikes. But we're the most vulnerable. The bicycle is a relatively recent invention; there's no reason that people using such vehicles should displace or inconvenience pedestrians (and their dogs that they're walking, and their tiny children who are fledgling pedestrians and could easily be hurt, even by a slow-moving bike). Bicycles shouldn't be ridden on the sidewalk AT ANY SPEED, unless by children who haven't yet learned to navigate in traffic.
Cyclists who say that pedestrians must share with them are showing their true colours; they think themselves superior because they're using the most convenient, fastest method of low-cost transportation. If they're doing so LAWFULLY, good for them. I'm all for it. If they do so unlawfully and expect pedestrians to defer to them, they can take their sense of entitlement and shove it up their inner tubes. If they would exchange that sense of entitlement for a sense of decency and fairness, I wouldn't bother with these screeds (to which cyclists like this one respond with self-serving responses disguised as well-thought-out arguments).
And cyclists don't have only the choice of driving a car or being on a bike. They can walk or take public transit. If they don't consider those options good enough, then maybe they really do think they're entitled to their speed and convenience, and that they shouldn't have to slog along like these dullards who put up with the cruddiness of other TTC riders or go plodding along the sidewalks like zombies. Like, wow, those people are so lame! Don't they know that people who ride bikes are gods, with ripped bods and superior cardiovascular systems, razor-sharp brains and lightning reflexes -- a race of superior beings, in fact?
Well, sorry, as a sidewalk plodder who knows it's too dangerous to ride a bike in the city and only does so in the country, way up north where there's hardly any traffic. I'd have to say I don't consider you superior at all. YOU make pedestrians out to be the selfish ones -- how self-serving is that?
When the City of Toronto drops the bylaw, THEN pedestrians will be legally obligated to share sidewalks with you. But right now, even though the bylaw is rarely enforced and is probably no deterrent anyway, they are not, and don't tell them they are. People with a sense of entitlement always do try to justify their boorishness by means of manipulation. That's what you did in your post, and that's what I've heard from cyclists time and again.
You're full of it, and you're wrong.
I think it really should stay as a JT site, despite the fact that we all might have interesting photos from "the outside". Love this idea, and looking forward to contributing!
-cc
Yeah, there's definitely plenty of photogenic material outside of our strict railway boundaries, or fuzzier personal neighbourhood boundaries.
The goal of the JT group is to get photos of the neighbourhood, and this can include pics from photographers who don't live here. I think a reasonable goal for a different group would be the opposite: to showcase the work of local photographers, on a wide variety of subjects. There are certainly many excellent local photographers.
Actually, you can find some other excellent non-JT stuff by looking through the JT photo group and then browsing the contributors' other photo albums.
But still, I'd like to keep the JT group filled with JT-specific photos, with maybe a little bit of fuzziness around the edges.
Well, I've certainly got pictures from within the tracks but some of the fuzzy ones are artistic and beautiful. When I do go to High Park these days I seldom take my camera. But many people there do have cameras, so I would guess a good number of people around here would find some artistic stimulation in various nearby places.
On the other hand, if you are getting many pictures from people outside of the community you might not be interested in all their shots - that's understandable.
No big deal, but if it gets you a larger group of local (amateur / less experienced) photographers it might be worth thinking about being flexible. I ran a community photo site for a while and ended up posting many photos that would have been deleted if they were mine just because I wanted to encourage people.