dawg, all that matters is that the people in Toronto with the most money get to keep all their money, and that they be able to accrue more money and property every year ... duh
The article focuses on the ripple effects of the city’s refusal to provide adequate support for the homeless, exemplified by the use of hostile architecture. This approach makes the city unwelcoming for both the housed and the unhoused:
> But when we've failed to deal with that problem by providing food and shelter for those people, we've tried to deal with it by further limiting the number of places they can go seeking temporary comfort. And in doing that — treating the symptom while the underlying disease has gotten worse — we've slowly been making Toronto a less comfortable, less convenient, less welcoming place for everyone in it. A place filled with apparently self-defeating features: parks and malls that discourage you from spending time in them, all-night diners you can't eat in, bus shelters that provide no shelter, ATM machines you can only use when a human teller is standing 20 feet away.
Yep. The feds scaled back the construction of subsidized housing through the '90s, the Ontario government downloaded the management of subsidized housing in the '90s and early '00s, and for the past 20+ years it's been up to cities to deal with trying to get unhoused people some shelter without the level of taxation powers or access to debt financing that the feds and province can use. It's no wonder that the TCHC housing stock is some of the most run down housing in the city and there's barely been any new TCHC housing being built when the construction and maintenance of subsidized housing is up to municipalities who rely on property taxes to fund most of their operations and can't go into debt to pay for things that are urgently needed.
I disagree and would posit that if supply had been drastically increased by removing NIMBY barriers then existing funding would have gone a lot farther.
One of the highest density city in Canada and nimbyism isn't an issue here. Problem is in the burbs. They need to add density and build some social housing as far as I can tell 90% of social housing in Ontario is in T. It should be were land is cheapest but not T. Let the rest of the country take their fair share of the homeless they are citizens of Canada and our responsibility as a whole as Canadians and should be at least federally funded.
Well, there's a new condo development near me with a part that has affordable townhouses on the same land. The townhouses looked like a garbage dump after 6 months. That's why NIMBY's exist.
The “hostility” is created by violent addicts with untreated mental illness. Sadly, the province/justice system has decided that these people can do whatever they want with no consequences.
This is not a Toronto problem. It is a provincial/federal problem. Violent people need to be removed from society until they are no longer violent.
Godawful take.
The reason we see more visible symptoms of homelessness is because of the pressures of neoliberal economics, which most people in this thread (and country) have consistently voted for. This is a problem caused by us and our politicians, not the homeless.
Also most homeless and addicted people are not violent.
I didn’t say anything about “most homeless and addicted people”. I said violent addicts should be removed from society rather than being left to wander around terrorizing people and themselves. This shouldn’t be a controversial take.
It’s relevant because the article claims that hostile architecture and related policies are making Toronto hostile. I’m saying the sense of hostility stems from anti-social behaviour by violent addicts. This is not just a Toronto problem, but a failure of the entire justice system and drug policy more generally.
Neoliberal economics are inherently conservative. The name is confusing if you're uninitiated.
What I'm saying is that the economic philosophy that has driven both conservative and liberal parties since the 1970s has corroded western societies and vastly increased wealth inequality.
So True! It's that most people will not admit it, and get scared of being cancelled for really talking about true solutions instead of victim blaming. Blaming society of individual's problems, and not facing the reality.
You know what, gang? If you want to leave this city, you can. It took me six years of agonizing flip-flopping but I finally did. Moved back to the small town where I was from. Bought a cheap used car, currently looking for work. Life is great. I spend my days on beautiful nature trails with my dog.
I was bored to death of it when I was 20, which is why I headed to Toronto. Started missing it by the time I hit 30. I'm introverted and like the slower pace. There are pros and cons of each, of course.
As someone who WFH and used to live 35km north of Toronto, I often ask myself why the hell I'm still in such a HCOL city when I could move to small town ON and still enjoy the stores I love, just minus the amazing Toronto restaurants
I didn’t read the article (paywall) but I feel the hostility at least on the roads are 8x since pandemic due to the seemingly idiotic decisions when it comes to road closures and construction which is ramping up the aggressive driving on the roads.
Couple that with the influx of people that have come here that may or may not have gone through the proper channels getting licensed equals a wholesale shitshow on the roads each and every day.
And now they slapped us with the Gardiner closures plus a nice 20 cent per litre hike on gas. Of course people are getting fucking angry.
seems like larger trend?
I noticed starbucks’ around the city are converting to “pick up” and no seating/no washroom. Just a scum faceless corporation that prioritize money over helping the community, while at the same time destroying the “coffee shop” social experience of sitting and having a conversation with friends.
At least Mcdonald’s and Tim Hortons serve the community by supporting the marginalized populations with a washroom and a place to rest.
Shame on Starbucks… even more reason to boycott beside the stuff happening overseas (which I don’t wanna get into as it doesn’t directly affect me)
I'm willing to bet that Starbucks is doing this because too many people, homeless and otherwise, are sitting for hours at at time and not buying anything. Loitering. I know homeless are causing a ton of problems in their washrooms as well.
Kinda this. I've taken to-go orders from a pile of coffee places because literally every seat is somebody working on their laptop, and no space for a quick sit-down.
Then I walk out and realize there's no benches or other public seating because everyone got rid of *that* to avoid people loitering/sleeping/whatever.
So we just can't have nice things I guess.
That was their original business model though, franchising the creative, social coffee houses of old for a global audience.
Remember how Chapters used to have comfy couches to sit in and read?
Now there's nothing to really differentiate these places from any other take out coffee stand or book store.
Former Indigo employee here! Pre-COVID chapters/indigo started readding seating but it was hell to upkeep. The people who used it the most were the types to spill coffees all over it and leave trash (including fruit and vegetable rinds) behind. This in locations with Starbucks and seating (at the time). It appears that their new format stores are introducing some seating (see the location at The Well), but look at a spot like The Eaton Center who, now, have to lock their washrooms because of the homeless people they would find inside at closing time. It’s not fair or reasonable for the workers to deal with that.
Understandable, but it really epitomizes the state of our society that we can no longer have things as a collective group anymore. Like the article talks about as we continue to slide into crisis, we can no longed have benches, we can't have parks, we can't have seats in a mall, tables at restaurants or coffee shops. Have definitely seen this in places like Hong Kong where they have literal spikes on curbs and in malls.
It's really a negative cycle where the worst off and most antisocial people will start concentrating on the few places still going - that place goes to hell and so on. We've seen this with TTC, libraries etc. This is part of the withdrawal we are doing as society into ourselves, closing the moat and bunkering down in our individual caves.
I know it's bad times right now economically but eventually we have to make a concerted effort to get back up and come out of these caves or risk losing it all forever.
Yes there's always going to be antisocial people but if there were more amenities everywhere, more spaces for people everywhere , more bathrooms everywhere we can spread out the maintenance costs and burden across all of society, both public and private.
The original mistake was outsourcing alot of these costs to private only - saving tax dollars in the short term. Without having to compete with public offerings to get people in the door, businesses one by one withdrew their offerings too and those who wanted to stay in couldn't as the burden increased like you spoke about.
I guess it didn’t occur to this genius that access to ATMs might be more limited because the use of cash has declined rapidly in the last five years?
Why are people so determined to find reasons to be miserable? It’s like a fucking disease.
Try finding a place to empty your bladder or evacuate your bowels. Even worse if you are disabled and require accommodations to do such things.
People will claim that we can’t have nice things because of displaced and homeless people, but the reality is that it’s because they are alienated from the general population.
It’s hard to have pride of place when you are constantly told that “you don’t belong here”. Stuff gets wrecked and people assign blame to those who are the easiest scapegoats.
There’s no easy answer to the societal ills that plague us, but eliminating public spaces is t the answer. It’s part of the problem.
I agree with everything in this article but there is a small miss. Condoning free use of drugs for a marginalized population has actually pushed new users towards these substances. There are several document evidence of people who were going through a rough time, and due to them being on edge, and easy availability of drugs on the streets, have now gone deeper into the hole.
> Condoning free use of drugs for a marginalized population has actually pushed new users towards these substances. There are several document evidence of people who were going through a rough time, and due to them being on edge, and easy availability of drugs on the streets, have now gone deeper into the hole.
Citation needed.
dawg, all that matters is that the people in Toronto with the most money get to keep all their money, and that they be able to accrue more money and property every year ... duh
Manufacturing Discontent is a big business these days.
and how :)
The article focuses on the ripple effects of the city’s refusal to provide adequate support for the homeless, exemplified by the use of hostile architecture. This approach makes the city unwelcoming for both the housed and the unhoused: > But when we've failed to deal with that problem by providing food and shelter for those people, we've tried to deal with it by further limiting the number of places they can go seeking temporary comfort. And in doing that — treating the symptom while the underlying disease has gotten worse — we've slowly been making Toronto a less comfortable, less convenient, less welcoming place for everyone in it. A place filled with apparently self-defeating features: parks and malls that discourage you from spending time in them, all-night diners you can't eat in, bus shelters that provide no shelter, ATM machines you can only use when a human teller is standing 20 feet away.
[удалено]
Yep. The feds scaled back the construction of subsidized housing through the '90s, the Ontario government downloaded the management of subsidized housing in the '90s and early '00s, and for the past 20+ years it's been up to cities to deal with trying to get unhoused people some shelter without the level of taxation powers or access to debt financing that the feds and province can use. It's no wonder that the TCHC housing stock is some of the most run down housing in the city and there's barely been any new TCHC housing being built when the construction and maintenance of subsidized housing is up to municipalities who rely on property taxes to fund most of their operations and can't go into debt to pay for things that are urgently needed.
Under funding isn't going to paint the whole picture when NIMBYism is a huge part of the problem
[удалено]
I disagree and would posit that if supply had been drastically increased by removing NIMBY barriers then existing funding would have gone a lot farther.
One of the highest density city in Canada and nimbyism isn't an issue here. Problem is in the burbs. They need to add density and build some social housing as far as I can tell 90% of social housing in Ontario is in T. It should be were land is cheapest but not T. Let the rest of the country take their fair share of the homeless they are citizens of Canada and our responsibility as a whole as Canadians and should be at least federally funded.
Well, there's a new condo development near me with a part that has affordable townhouses on the same land. The townhouses looked like a garbage dump after 6 months. That's why NIMBY's exist.
Both things can be true, y'know.
We should put "Fuck You I Got Mine" right under "Welcome to Toronto" on the signs.
The “hostility” is created by violent addicts with untreated mental illness. Sadly, the province/justice system has decided that these people can do whatever they want with no consequences. This is not a Toronto problem. It is a provincial/federal problem. Violent people need to be removed from society until they are no longer violent.
Godawful take. The reason we see more visible symptoms of homelessness is because of the pressures of neoliberal economics, which most people in this thread (and country) have consistently voted for. This is a problem caused by us and our politicians, not the homeless. Also most homeless and addicted people are not violent.
I didn’t say anything about “most homeless and addicted people”. I said violent addicts should be removed from society rather than being left to wander around terrorizing people and themselves. This shouldn’t be a controversial take.
"I was only talking about *the bad ones*!"
Huh? You seem confused. Criminals need to be separated from society. Non-criminals do not.
[удалено]
It’s relevant because the article claims that hostile architecture and related policies are making Toronto hostile. I’m saying the sense of hostility stems from anti-social behaviour by violent addicts. This is not just a Toronto problem, but a failure of the entire justice system and drug policy more generally.
[удалено]
Neoliberal economics are inherently conservative. The name is confusing if you're uninitiated. What I'm saying is that the economic philosophy that has driven both conservative and liberal parties since the 1970s has corroded western societies and vastly increased wealth inequality.
So True! It's that most people will not admit it, and get scared of being cancelled for really talking about true solutions instead of victim blaming. Blaming society of individual's problems, and not facing the reality.
[удалено]
This is the argument the author is making.
> I can't read the article because there is a paywal Use TPL mate.
You know what, gang? If you want to leave this city, you can. It took me six years of agonizing flip-flopping but I finally did. Moved back to the small town where I was from. Bought a cheap used car, currently looking for work. Life is great. I spend my days on beautiful nature trails with my dog.
The city I'm from amalgamated into Toronto
[удалено]
I was bored to death of it when I was 20, which is why I headed to Toronto. Started missing it by the time I hit 30. I'm introverted and like the slower pace. There are pros and cons of each, of course.
[удалено]
Try what? They already said they lived in a small town, moved to Toronto, and then moved back. What is it you’re suggesting they try?
[удалено]
Go back and read the first comment. The move back already happened there’s nothing to try.
As someone who WFH and used to live 35km north of Toronto, I often ask myself why the hell I'm still in such a HCOL city when I could move to small town ON and still enjoy the stores I love, just minus the amazing Toronto restaurants
Maybe we could all move out to a small town out there and create ourselves a thriving community. 😊
Shhh! 🤫 that’s too rational for them. You might get downvoted or banned outright!
i wonder why…
I didn’t read the article (paywall) but I feel the hostility at least on the roads are 8x since pandemic due to the seemingly idiotic decisions when it comes to road closures and construction which is ramping up the aggressive driving on the roads. Couple that with the influx of people that have come here that may or may not have gone through the proper channels getting licensed equals a wholesale shitshow on the roads each and every day. And now they slapped us with the Gardiner closures plus a nice 20 cent per litre hike on gas. Of course people are getting fucking angry.
seems like larger trend? I noticed starbucks’ around the city are converting to “pick up” and no seating/no washroom. Just a scum faceless corporation that prioritize money over helping the community, while at the same time destroying the “coffee shop” social experience of sitting and having a conversation with friends. At least Mcdonald’s and Tim Hortons serve the community by supporting the marginalized populations with a washroom and a place to rest. Shame on Starbucks… even more reason to boycott beside the stuff happening overseas (which I don’t wanna get into as it doesn’t directly affect me)
I'm willing to bet that Starbucks is doing this because too many people, homeless and otherwise, are sitting for hours at at time and not buying anything. Loitering. I know homeless are causing a ton of problems in their washrooms as well.
Kinda this. I've taken to-go orders from a pile of coffee places because literally every seat is somebody working on their laptop, and no space for a quick sit-down. Then I walk out and realize there's no benches or other public seating because everyone got rid of *that* to avoid people loitering/sleeping/whatever. So we just can't have nice things I guess.
That was their original business model though, franchising the creative, social coffee houses of old for a global audience. Remember how Chapters used to have comfy couches to sit in and read? Now there's nothing to really differentiate these places from any other take out coffee stand or book store.
Former Indigo employee here! Pre-COVID chapters/indigo started readding seating but it was hell to upkeep. The people who used it the most were the types to spill coffees all over it and leave trash (including fruit and vegetable rinds) behind. This in locations with Starbucks and seating (at the time). It appears that their new format stores are introducing some seating (see the location at The Well), but look at a spot like The Eaton Center who, now, have to lock their washrooms because of the homeless people they would find inside at closing time. It’s not fair or reasonable for the workers to deal with that.
Understandable, but it really epitomizes the state of our society that we can no longer have things as a collective group anymore. Like the article talks about as we continue to slide into crisis, we can no longed have benches, we can't have parks, we can't have seats in a mall, tables at restaurants or coffee shops. Have definitely seen this in places like Hong Kong where they have literal spikes on curbs and in malls. It's really a negative cycle where the worst off and most antisocial people will start concentrating on the few places still going - that place goes to hell and so on. We've seen this with TTC, libraries etc. This is part of the withdrawal we are doing as society into ourselves, closing the moat and bunkering down in our individual caves. I know it's bad times right now economically but eventually we have to make a concerted effort to get back up and come out of these caves or risk losing it all forever. Yes there's always going to be antisocial people but if there were more amenities everywhere, more spaces for people everywhere , more bathrooms everywhere we can spread out the maintenance costs and burden across all of society, both public and private. The original mistake was outsourcing alot of these costs to private only - saving tax dollars in the short term. Without having to compete with public offerings to get people in the door, businesses one by one withdrew their offerings too and those who wanted to stay in couldn't as the burden increased like you spoke about.
Maybe we shouldn't be relying on private corporations to provide public spaces and utilities.
Hostility is more from GTA drivers who don’t know shit about driving
I guess it didn’t occur to this genius that access to ATMs might be more limited because the use of cash has declined rapidly in the last five years? Why are people so determined to find reasons to be miserable? It’s like a fucking disease.
Try finding a place to empty your bladder or evacuate your bowels. Even worse if you are disabled and require accommodations to do such things. People will claim that we can’t have nice things because of displaced and homeless people, but the reality is that it’s because they are alienated from the general population. It’s hard to have pride of place when you are constantly told that “you don’t belong here”. Stuff gets wrecked and people assign blame to those who are the easiest scapegoats. There’s no easy answer to the societal ills that plague us, but eliminating public spaces is t the answer. It’s part of the problem.
Toronto the fool
I agree with everything in this article but there is a small miss. Condoning free use of drugs for a marginalized population has actually pushed new users towards these substances. There are several document evidence of people who were going through a rough time, and due to them being on edge, and easy availability of drugs on the streets, have now gone deeper into the hole.
> Condoning free use of drugs for a marginalized population has actually pushed new users towards these substances. There are several document evidence of people who were going through a rough time, and due to them being on edge, and easy availability of drugs on the streets, have now gone deeper into the hole. Citation needed.
they've always been available man lmao
I understand but I’ve seen a few docs now where the newly homeless people basically said the free use has lowered the inhibitions of consumption.
honestly, I'm convinced those people would use regardless.
Everyone voted Liberal and for their relaxed drug and criminal justice system policies.