Off Off Topic: Cool Toronto People's Thread

[Zach6668 513]

Chris I think there is a slight difference between Hamilton and Toronto downtown. While I commend you in taking the TTC while living on the Danforth, I don't use TTC and many of my neighbours don't either.

 

TTC sucks.

 

Yeah, Toronto activists were able to stop the construction of the myriad of inner ring and radial highways that were planned in the 50s and 60s and maintain the downtown's core functions in Toronto.

[MapleLeafpoker 1,462]

Im just curious, when you guys say downtown core, what part of the city are you referring to? I might have missed it,but outside of Serge, I haven't seen anyone define these terms, ie core/downtown, with geographical boundaries.

 

I see downtown core as:

East of the DVP

West of Bathurst

South of Bloor

 

Are we including places like Liberty Village/Beaches/Summerhill in these discussions?

I'm not.

[gruven 530]

Im just curious, when you guys say downtown core, what part of the city are you referring to? I might have missed it,but outside of Serge, I haven't seen anyone define these terms, ie core/downtown, with geographical boundaries.

 

I see downtown core as:

East of the DVP

West of Bathurst

South of Bloor

 

Are we including places like Liberty Village/Beaches/Summerhill in these discussions?

I'm not.

The official definition of core is broad view to Dufferin, the lake to bloor. Yes, liberty village is included. Summerhill and beaches are not.

[Babying 613]

I know my neighbours all drive. The street is empty in the morning and crowded after 5 pm. Don't forget we have street parking with parking permits.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

I know my neighbours all drive. The street is empty in the morning and crowded after 5 pm. Don't forget we have street parking with parking permits.

 

so the people with cars drive them.

 

There's a reason that housing is more expensive close to subway lines and that's because people want to live close to them in order to use the subway.

 

The TTC is far from perfect but the subway lines we do have other than being congested at peak times are really good. I'll often park at someplace like Yorkdale or Fairview Mall and subway downtown depending on where I'm going.

[Zach6668 513]

Yorkdale was only built with the promise (and construction) of the Spadina Expressway, lol. Kinda funny tidbit, especially since they only ended up building to Lawrence (later to Eglinton through some random technicality).

 

Anywho, done my paper! 3,188 words... bah, I went over the limit. Going to sleep, then proofread tomorrow and hopefully get an A+. I can barely see straight right now. Good morning Bob, Good night Zach.

[mrdannyg 274]

I was looking for an article I read recently about kids being too sheltered nowadays, but I can't find it. Something along the lines of like, how it's so much different than when we were kids. Like, playtime was just us going outside with our bike or hockey stick, etc, be back when the streetlights come on and now it's like the kids have to be constantly supervised, etc. It also alluded to parents not letting their kids walk to school. A lot of this is how we designed the cities, we prioritized traffic over people, we made neighbourhoods dangerous for everyone, really. I'm not particularly interested in getting into a parenting debate I'm significantly ill-equipped for, but I found it interesting nonetheless.

 

I think this can be a very interesting debate. As a new parent, I can say unequivocally that a ood part of kids not being able to play, etc, is a general social march against 'letting kids be kids'. It may seem odd, since you'd think that more responsibilities would encourage more independent play, but it isn't really like that. When people don't let a group of 8-year olds play without supervision, it isn't because they're worried about someone swooping in on the min a white van or them getting shot at, it's what kind of trouble they can get themselves into. I'm not saying that is a bad thing necessarily.

 

But if you think deeper on it, the structure of neighbourhoods has a real effect. Where I grew up, there was little street traffic sure, but other qualities as well, such as a big park and ravine nearby, thin roads, more non-commuters (students, old people) in the neighbourhood, etc. All those things make it safer to let kids play out front of their house, or in the street, or walk to their friends' houses without direct supervision. If you take out the ravine for a big condo building, take out the park for more roads, widen the roads and make the neighbourhood more friendly towards commuters, it just becomes less safe to let your kids out. I have some cousins who live in my old neighbourhood and on my last visit, my aunt asked me to walk the 12-year old to her friends house a couple blocks away. I thought it was silly, since I made the same walk to school and friends houses every day when I was years younger...but now some of the houses are replaced by condos, the roads are wider, and the driveways are all empty during the day...that 'neighbourhood supervision' aspect is largely gone.

 

Im just curious, when you guys say downtown core, what part of the city are you referring to? I might have missed it,but outside of Serge, I haven't seen anyone define these terms, ie core/downtown, with geographical boundaries.

 

I see downtown core as:

East of the DVP

West of Bathurst

South of Bloor

 

Are we including places like Liberty Village/Beaches/Summerhill in these discussions?

I'm not.

 

I agree with this, with another pocket surrounding the Jewish area right around Bayview and York Mills of course where the real ballers live.

[gruven 530]

There's been a lot of debate about making things 'too safe'. I can't find the article right now, but I know that the director of playgrounds in the UK deliberately set about to make playgrounds a little more adventurous so that kids can learn risk aversion as a thinking concept as opposed to having all risk removed, and the first time they find out falling hurts, it's from a dangerous height instead of a manageable one.

I think exposing kids to small amounts of risk teaches them to identify it and avoid it themselves. Here's an interesting article on playgrounds.... http://rethinkingchildhood.com/2012/03/07/playground-safety/

[FCP Bob 1,312]

To head off allergies, expose your kids to pets and dirt early. Really

 

 

When I was a kid nobody had nut allergies and today it seems half of any primary school will die if a kid brings a PB and J to school

[digitalmonkey 929]

I refuse to buy antibacterial dish soap.

[MapleLeafpoker 1,462]

To head off allergies, expose your kids to pets and dirt early. Really

 

When I was a kid nobody had nut allergies and today it seems half of any primary school will die if a kid brings a PB and J to school

 

Personally, I dont think thats because of factors to do with how they are growing up or what they need to be exposed to, I think it has to do with the toxins that are out there, and in all of us. Not based on any facts, just personal opinion.

 

The level of "pollution", for lack of a better word, is much higher now than it was when we were kids.

 

Id love to see a study done on toxin levels in kids in the 60's-70's vs the levels that are seen today.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Personally, I dont think thats because of factors to do with how they are growing up or what they need to be exposed to, I think it has to do with the toxins that are out there, and in all of us. Not based on any facts, just personal opinion.

 

The level of "pollution", for lack of a better word, is much higher now than it was when we were kids.

 

Id love to see a study done on toxin levels in kids in the 60's-70's vs the levels that are seen today.

 

There are actually far less toxins in the environment today in N American than there was in the 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's

[MapleLeafpoker 1,462]

There are actually far less toxins in the environment today in N American than there was in the 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's

 

Really? What are you basing this on?

So your saying we had less pollution and toxicity in the 50's, in the air, in the soil, in our foods?

 

I'm no expert but I don't know where your getting this from, doesnt seem to make much sense to me based on what we eat, what we breathe.

[serge 904]

Really? What are you basing this on?

So your saying we had less pollution and toxicity in the 50's, in the air, in the soil, in our foods?

 

I'm no expert but I don't know where your getting this from, doesnt seem to make much sense to me based on what we eat, what we breathe.

 

The only think I can think of is that back then smoking was prevalent everywhere...

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Really? What are you basing this on?

So your saying we had less pollution and toxicity in the 50's, in the air, in the soil, in our foods?

 

I'm no expert but I don't know where your getting this from, doesnt seem to make much sense to me based on what we eat, what we breathe.

 

It's not even close that in the 50's things were far worse. Our current standards for pollution and other contaminants are far tougher than they were in the past.

 

Lead exposure is a prime example. In the past there was lead in paint and in gas. Lead exposure is really really bad for developing children.

 

In Ontario we are no longer burning coal. The amount of pollution a current car produces is a fraction of what cars did 50 years ago.

 

Industry can't just dump chemicals in the water supply like they could in the past.

[MapleLeafpoker 1,462]

It's not even close that in the 50's things were far worse. Our current standards for pollution and other contaminants are far tougher than they were in the past.

Lead exposure is a prime example. In the past there was lead in paint and in gas. Lead exposure is really really bad for developing children.

In Ontario we are no longer burning coal. The amount of pollution a current car produces is a fraction of what cars did 50 years ago.

Industry can't just dump chemicals in the water supply like they could in the past.

 

And you dont think the amount of cars, people, the expansion of industry, modified foods, steroids in animals, and so many other factors....has had a greater effect than tightening of laws?

I humbly, and greatly, disagree with you sir that it was much much worse in the 50's.

[iBeaver 409]

I can bieve pollution wise it's better now but I think the good industry is worse than it was then.

 

 

I'll probably be to lazy to search for evidence if my claims.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Measurable things like air and water pollution are far less today than they were in the past here in Ontario.

 

PCB's, Asbestos are among lots of things that have been outlawed.

 

Heavy industry in Ontario is a lot less than it was as well. No more steel in Hamilton as an example.

[iBeaver 409]

Interesting pics of cities in 1940 and today. Def more pollution then AINEC

 

http://www.buzzfeed.com/kevintang/stunning-photos-of-pittsburghs-air-pollution-in-the-1940s?s=mobile

[FCP Bob 1,312]

And you dont think the amount of cars, people, the expansion of industry, modified foods, steroids in animals, and so many other factors....has had a greater effect than tightening of laws?

I humbly, and greatly, disagree with you sir that it was much much worse in the 50's.

 

I think your points about the food supply are the ones with the most traction. We can't be sure of the effects of some of the changes in how our food is produced.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

• 
   
   
  Abu Al-Baik ‏@M_Ullah 30m
  All this technology is making us antisocial. Before everyone used to talk to each other. pic.twitter.com/7Uy0SYvNHT
   
  
  

[Zach6668 513]

Ha.

[Fenxis 99]

I think your points about the food supply are the ones with the most traction. We can't be sure of the effects of some of the changes in how our food is produced.

 

GMO?

[FCP Bob 1,312]

GMO?

 

Genetically modified food doesn't concern me that much. For me it's more things like pesticide residue on fruits and vegetables and the crap that they are feeding livestock

[Zach6668 513]

Good thing I only eat frozen dinners and Lipton sidekicks!