A Tower to be built in Old East?

• In Shaw (an Historically Gentrified Blog): Who cares about the starving artists

• Free Williamsburg: How to stave out gentrification guilt

• A-Infos: Can freak bohemians avoid becoming pawns in the capitalist ethnic cleansing game?

• Salon.com: I'm the Enemy!

• The Onion: Sometimes I Feel Like I'm The Only One Trying To Gentrify This Neighborhood

All these articles come from the U.S, where I think gentrification takes on much stronger ethnic and racial connotations then it does on Dundas EOA and the surrounding neighbourhood here in London. However, one thing these articles do reflect is the early stages of gentrification, the signs developers and real-estate speculators look for when they invest in an 'up and coming neighbourhood', the tell tale signs that we've all seen in the Old East over the past several years. If we read closely, I'm sure many of us will see a bit of ourselves in the 'Urban Pioneers', 'Bohemians' and 'Hipsters' that make a neighbourhood attractive to next wave of gentrification: the yuppies and the developers. The face of gentrification coming to a neighbourhood isn't just a white face. It's a young liberal face, a young radical face, a young artist's face and a students face, amoungt many others. These new towers in the along Dundas aren't the start of gentrification of the Old East, that snowball has been rolling down the hill for years. We gave that snow ball a push when we started moving to, working in and holding our art shows, post-rock shows and organising EOA and it's fringes. It's a strange irony that grassroots efforts to enrich and strengthen a neighbourhood or a scene attract the gaze of developers sniffing out potential profits... Well maybe not, I guess it's the nature of the beast to co-op anything in the pursuit of profit. Dose that mean the best way to protect a neighbourhood from gentrification is to give up on it and just let it decay? Or that efforts to make a promote culture and neighbourhood more liveable are counter-productive? Not really, I don't think so anyway... I just think it's important to recognise that we all bare some responsibility for the gentrification of the East Village. Hopefully we'll come to that realisation before EOA loses it's grit-appeal and we pull up stakes and head for SoHo...

-30-
Mike.
"Debout les damnés de l'Université."
-=There is no Cabal, Long live the Cabal=-
My Photos

I think the above suggestions for amendments to the proposed Site Plan are reasonable with one exception: the percentage of affordable housing units should be based on current demand for such units within the city of London rather than some random or ideal number. I'm not sure whether the city actually knows how many units would be needed based on current demand or what the demand even is (i.e. how many people are looking for affordable apartment units).

I would also add that this type of infill project should not be completely shunned by the progressive community. The bottom line is that growth and investment are going to occur in London and only the most offensive projects can elicit enough community outrage to be rejected altogether. Therefore, citizens concerned with how the city develops should focus their efforts on preventing truly outrageous projects like the 'Smart!Centre' in North London (Hyde Park and Fanshawe Road) and upcoming projects such as the proposed Wal-Mart for Southwest London (yikes!) and the grotesque suburban developments of Sifton, Hampton, and Reid Heritage Homes on the outskirts of every corner of the city.

To me, these projects represent the greatest threats to the health of the city in terms of pollution (through their flagrant promotion of automobile dependency, resource consumption and waste), increased stormwater runoff (through the concreting-over of forests and green fields), creating a culture of elitism and exclusion (through the incorporation of MASSIVE brick walls that enclose suburban communities), and eroding the city's treecover, vegetation, and food sources by buying up and destroying valuable agricultural land.

This is not to say that Old East residents should not demand that various amenities and affordable units be included in the 600-unit apartment complex. In my view, these are reasonable demands that should be satisfied and respected by the city and the developer. But I do believe that there are much larger projects going on throughout the city that - in the long term - will have much graver impacts on Londoners than gentrification. In effect what I am saying is that gentrification of any sort should be opposed and minimized as much as possible with regard to inner-city, infill projects. But these projects are infinitely more sustainable - in terms of density, access to transit, and utilization of existing municipal services - than ANYTHING being built on the the outskirts of the city.

Perhaps we should consider supporting walkable and accessible infill projects that minimize displacement while rigidly opposing sprawl-like developments that contribute to climate change, deteriorate the city's air quality, promote further automobile dependency, destroy surrounding agricultural land, and foster a culture of ignorance, consumption, waste and exclusion.

Chuck wanted me to let everyone know that she received a notice regarding a zoning amendment required for the
development and the public has an opportunity to respond to this by April
30, 2008. 
This would be a good place to start. 
There will also be a
public meeting to attend when the zoning request is reviewed, but the
date is yet to be established. 
She has a copy of the zoning amendment
request, if folks would like a copy or they can go down to city hall
and go to the planning division on the 6th floor and request for the
info there.  The zoning amendment number is 'File Z-7519'.

 -r.

wow... literally in our backyard.
-r.