|
THE FUTURE OF NIGHTLIFE IS AT STAKE! Come to the Debate Tonight! Time to show Adam Vaughan the door! (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Shaya007 |
| quote: | Originally posted by VDub
..... I geeve... |
Ok chitalian! LOL! |
|
|
| VDub |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shaya007
Ok chitalian! LOL! |
1/16th Sicilian baby!!! |
|
|
| Shaya007 |
| quote: | Originally posted by VDub
1/16th Sicilian baby!!! |
bahahahaahahaha!
I'm 1/100000000000000000 GOD |
|
|
| The Potter |
Judging by the level of vilification, the entertainment zone is as dirty as a red-light district, yet you would never see these surburbanites move in amongst some brothels!
I can understand the logic of creating an entertainment zone. In theory, if the clubs are kept together, it limits any potential nuisance and noise disturbance to a smaller area, and is easier to police. Once again, in theory, since an entertainment zone should not really encompass large residential dwellings, complaints can be kept to a minimum. This seems to be a win-win situation; however, the theory falls flat on its arse when condos are built in an entertainment zone. My heart does not bleed for people who then settle in the area, and their greivances carry less weight.
I do not mind the entertainment zone getting broken up through residents buying up land and being free to use it however they desire; however, this freedom needs to cut both ways: if you are going to disperse clubs around a city, club promoters should then also be free to buy up land for underground venues in residential areas; however, for the very reasons outlined above, in support of an entertainment zone, any nimbyism would then be justified.
Adam Vaughan's ilk need to rectify these inconsistencies, come up with a coherent policy and stop flip-flopping. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| adam vaughan and his ilk need to be shown the door on monday plain and simple |
|
|
| gilboman |
| quote: | Originally posted by The Potter
Judging by the level of vilification, the entertainment zone is as dirty as a red-light district, yet you would never see these surburbanites move in amongst some brothels!
I can understand the logic of creating an entertainment zone. In theory, if the clubs are kept together, it limits any potential nuisance and noise disturbance to a smaller area, and is easier to police. Once again, in theory, since an entertainment zone should not really encompass large residential dwellings, complaints can be kept to a minimum. This seems to be a win-win situation; however, the theory falls flat on its arse when condos are built in an entertainment zone. My heart does not bleed for people who then settle in the area, and their greivances carry less weight.
I do not mind the entertainment zone getting broken up through residents buying up land and being free to use it however they desire; however, this freedom needs to cut both ways: if you are going to disperse clubs around a city, club promoters should then also be free to buy up land for underground venues in residential areas; however, for the very reasons outlined above, in support of an entertainment zone, any nimbyism would then be justified.
Adam Vaughan's ilk need to rectify these inconsistencies, come up with a coherent policy and stop flip-flopping. |
what you have, is 0 understanding of is urban planning or zoning.
The city is not turning the entertainment zone into residentials, it's the developers and that entails people who want to, yet they don't want the entertainment zone and its aftermaths near their new diggs. As citizens, who live within the area, they have every right to demand changes, and the entrenched clubs are grandfathered, but as soon as they leave, thats it.
this is just simple gentrification, and developers have to apply for a rezoning when they purchase a property which has to be approved by council before it can be used for residential.
So promotoers or anybody is free to buy residential properties and then try to apply to rezone it for a club..but goodluck with that lol |
|
|
| The Potter |
| quote: | Originally posted by gilboman
what you have, is 0 understanding of is urban planning or zoning.
The city is not turning the entertainment zone into residentials, it's the developers and that entails people who want to, yet they don't want the entertainment zone and its aftermaths near their new diggs. As citizens, who live within the area, they have every right to demand changes, and the entrenched clubs are grandfathered, but as soon as they leave, thats it.
this is just simple gentrification, and developers have to apply for a rezoning when they purchase a property which has to be approved by council before it can be used for residential.
So promotoers or anybody is free to buy residential properties and then try to apply to rezone it for a club..but goodluck with that lol |
The joke is on you, fella, as what you have, is zero undersanding of the simple argument that I presented, as after criticising my points, you then go onto to re-iterate exactly what I was saying. It is this distinct lack of comprehension that prevents council from enacting a coherent policy on the entertainment zone - e.g., you wrote that council is not turning the zone into a residential area; however, since you then go onto contradict yourself by saying that the purchase of a property has to be approved by the authorities, you seem to have the same flip-flopping disease as council; additionally, if it is a pure case of market economics that council wants to advocate, I wrote that if property developers can buy land, it should cut both ways, and promoters should be able to open clubs in residential areas; however, you would then have understandable complaints from the locals...which is precisely why the win-win option of an entertainment zone should be advocated by council. |
|
|
| gilboman |
| quote: | Originally posted by The Potter
The joke is on you, fella, as what you have, is zero undersanding of the simple argument that I presented, as after criticising my points, you then go onto to re-iterate exactly what I was saying. It is this distinct lack of comprehension that prevents council from enacting a coherent policy on the entertainment zone - e.g., you wrote that council is not turning the zone into a residential area; however, since you then go onto contradict yourself by saying that the purchase of a property has to be approved by the authorities, you seem to have the same flip-flopping disease as council; additionally, if it is a pure case of market economics that council wants to advocate, I wrote that if property developers can buy land, it should cut both ways, and promoters should be able to open clubs in residential areas; however, you would then have understandable complaints from the locals...which is precisely why the win-win option of an entertainment zone should be advocated by council. |
it's idiots who understand nothing that is the problem, how can you criticize something you have no understanding of?
LOL first of all, council merely approves/disapproves the zoning amendments, it is the developers who bring forward the amendments, there is no flip flopping.
And promoters can buy land and get a club going, but they will always lose to developers because they have much deeper pockets. A piece of land in downtown will always generate 1000x more money as a residential condo than a club that at best operates maybe 3 nights a week.
Simply put, people want condos more than clubs, and it's not the government's fault thats what market forces dictate. Things change, especially neighborhoods, its simplistic and just plain wrong to blame the city for what economic forces dictate. If people or market forces wanted clubs in downtown in the status quo format, that's what would prevail, because the city can only zone land, they don't actually build anything. It's developers who build things based on their percieved market demand.
If it's more profitable to put in a club than a condo, no matter the wish of council, the condos won't go there because there is no economic case for it. This isn't simcity, zoning is just one aspect of it, the main driving force is the market/developers and its clearly condos>clubs |
|
|
| slingshot |
The level of pretentiousness and ignorance that a lot of older generation Torontonians display makes me pretty sick sometimes. The whole "only the 905er's come to club district yada yada yada" argument is such a simple, ignorant, and arguably baseless case. It's looking at an absolute. If it weren't for coming into the city at a young age and experiencing that aspect of the city, I wouldn't be living in Toronto today. It's a like a " the kids, this is an adult city now" type of argument. Once these jaded s get older, the double standard enters the realm of social policy discussion. I don't think a lot of these people who support this even have a clue as to how the residual affects of these decisions will play out over the years to come. It's an incredibly short-sighted and inward looking approach to policy. "Knee-jerk" would probably be the most elegant way to describe it.
Sometimes (most times) people forget where it is that they come from, and what it is that happened in their lives that created their present day social state. It's quite sad to see people completely lose sight of the social fabric that allowed them to live the lifestyles they live today. It's very American actually. |
|
|
| Goashem |
| quote: | Originally posted by slingshot
The level of pretentiousness and ignorance that a lot of older generation Torontonians display makes me pretty sick sometimes. The whole "only the 905er's come to club district yada yada yada" argument is such a simple, ignorant, and arguably baseless case. It's looking at an absolute. If it weren't for coming into the city at a young age and experiencing that aspect of the city, I wouldn't be living in Toronto today. It's a like a " the kids, this is an adult city now" type of argument. Once these jaded s get older, the double standard enters the realm of social policy discussion. I don't think a lot of these people who support this even have a clue as to how the residual affects of these decisions will play out over the years to come. It's an incredibly short-sighted and inward looking approach to policy. "Knee-jerk" would probably be the most elegant way to describe it.
Sometimes (most times) people forget where it is that they come from, and what it is that happened in their lives that created their present day social state. It's quite sad to see people completely lose sight of the social fabric that allowed them to live the lifestyles they live today. It's very American actually. |
your post makes me wish tranceaddict had a "like" button |
|
|
| The Potter |
| quote: | Originally posted by gilboman
it's idiots who understand nothing that is the problem, how can you criticize something you have no understanding of?
LOL first of all, council merely approves/disapproves the zoning amendments, it is the developers who bring forward the amendments, there is no flip flopping.
And promoters can buy land and get a club going, but they will always lose to developers because they have much deeper pockets. A piece of land in downtown will always generate 1000x more money as a residential condo than a club that at best operates maybe 3 nights a week.
Simply put, people want condos more than clubs, and it's not the government's fault thats what market forces dictate. Things change, especially neighborhoods, its simplistic and just plain wrong to blame the city for what economic forces dictate. If people or market forces wanted clubs in downtown in the status quo format, that's what would prevail, because the city can only zone land, they don't actually build anything. It's developers who build things based on their percieved market demand.
If it's more profitable to put in a club than a condo, no matter the wish of council, the condos won't go there because there is no economic case for it. This isn't simcity, zoning is just one aspect of it, the main driving force is the market/developers and its clearly condos>clubs |
You still do not get my argument, do you? Here's hoping that I am lucky on my 3rd and final attempt: Firstly, if council has the power to approve/diaspprove, then of course they have the final say. This is precisely the point at which room for a sensible, thoughtful and coherent policy should exist, so there is the potential for knee-jerk flip-flopping to occur. Secondly, not only is the potential there, but inconsitencies do in fact exist, and there is little joined-up thinking, as council cannot seem to decide whether to:
(a) approve development on the basis on market forces (you seem to be suggesting that money should trump all other factors) and afford clubs the opportunity to disperse to all areas of the city (in which case, if a wealthy promoter puts in the highest bid for some land in a residential area, he/she should be able to open a club); or
b) approve development on the basis of trying to minimise disruption to residents, whilst still having a thriving nightlife that is worthy of an international city such as Toronto (other cities seem to manage it, without resorting to such draconian by-laws), by supporting a separate entertainment zone.
The 3rd option of closing down all nightclubs is never going to happen, as long as people have the urge to party. Therfore, since I also appreciate the rights of residents (I certainly wouldn't want a ing club to open up in my neghbourhood!), the win-win and most pareto optimal resolution, and the one that fairly balances the rights of the main stakeholders, is for a separate entertainment zone, as otherwise these conflicts will continue to arise. |
|
|
| The Potter |
| quote: | Originally posted by slingshot
The level of pretentiousness and ignorance that a lot of older generation Torontonians display makes me pretty sick sometimes. The whole "only the 905er's come to club district yada yada yada" argument is such a simple, ignorant, and arguably baseless case. It's looking at an absolute. If it weren't for coming into the city at a young age and experiencing that aspect of the city, I wouldn't be living in Toronto today. It's a like a " the kids, this is an adult city now" type of argument. Once these jaded s get older, the double standard enters the realm of social policy discussion. I don't think a lot of these people who support this even have a clue as to how the residual affects of these decisions will play out over the years to come. It's an incredibly short-sighted and inward looking approach to policy. "Knee-jerk" would probably be the most elegant way to describe it.
Sometimes (most times) people forget where it is that they come from, and what it is that happened in their lives that created their present day social state. It's quite sad to see people completely lose sight of the social fabric that allowed them to live the lifestyles they live today. It's very American actually. |
The biggest irony is that some/most of the these scrooges were part of the Woodstock generation. Now that they have had their fun, woe betide future generations who just want a similar outlet for their youthful exuberance :rolleyes: |
|
|
|
|
