Tuesday, September 2, 2014Light Rain Shower 24°C
City

Bar Bans, By-Laws and the End of Ossington

Posted by Rick McGinnis / October 23, 2009

Ossington BylawThere's an interesting - and potentially frightening - experiment happening on Lower Ossington right now, and how it turns out could affect how you shop and eat and party for years to come. It's been five months now since Ward 19 councillor and deputy mayor Joe Pantalone dropped a surprise interim control bylaw on the street - a "bar ban" that stopped any eateries and drinkeries from opening while a study was undertaken on where the street was going.

At a public meeting last week, the results of the study were revealed, and among the recommendations is an ongoing ban on patios in backyard spaces of restaurants and cafes and a limit on the potential size of restaurants, among other regulations. From here, the proposed new by-law will go to Toronto and East York community council on November 10, and then to the City of Toronto council meeting at the end of November. "I would fully expect it to be approved," Pantalone tells me.

Ossington Bylaw"They didn't offer any facts," says Pol Cristo-Williams, owner of Sweaty Betty's, a bar at Queen and Ossington that had its hip credentials buffed when Drew Barrymore ditched her own film fest party to hang there. "There are no facts. I don't know why they're calling it a study - all they're doing is copying the College Street by-laws, and College Street is a mess, it's a dying neighbourhood. After they prove that they've screwed up College Street, they're going to screw up Queen West and Ossington."

Cristo-Williams has a lot of complaints about the city's treatment of bar and restaurant owners, most of them centred on masses of red tape, a lack of transparency in dealing with city regulations and by-laws, and the confusing language of city zoning, such as the fact that there's no designation for bars at all. Most of all, though, he's angered by the way Ossington is being turned into a petri dish, whose new by-law, once approved, will probably have an effect on a new city-wide harmonized by-law that Pantalone says he favours, if only for the sake of simplification.

"I think confusion creates more delays and problems," Pantalone tells me. "People, by thinking they're going to open a restaurant easily and open a rear patio easily ... You may open a restaurant not knowing that, thinking it's easy, and then - surprise, surprise! If you have clarity you're better off as a businessman because you remove the unknown."

Ossington BylawWhen Toronto amalgamated in 1998, the varying by-laws of six municipalities were welded together, and the harmonized by-law will finally deal with that, Pantalone says, though he adds that he's not in favour of a potential new regulation requiring every restaurant to provide parking spaces - a demand he admits is completely unrealistic in his dense, cramped downtown riding and on a street like Ossington in particular. He supports everything else in the Ossington study, however, but adds that if someone wants to apply for a rear patio, they can always go to the committee of adjustment for a variance.

Cristo-Williams isn't so optimistic, and says that he's had second thoughts about opening another business on Ossington when the by-law will effectively freeze the street in place as it was in spring of this year. "The businesses that are here will probably do fine, new businesses probably won't move in, and you can't survive without patios as a restaurant, so everybody's going to go down Dundas and to Bloor and Lansdowne. I wouldn't be surprised if they put a by-law in there - 'Oh look - it's going to grow, let's kill it first.'"
Ossington Bylaw

Discussion

55 Comments

scott d / October 23, 2009 at 10:08 am
user-pic
I can tell you that some gallery owners who were there before the bar craze are planning on moving as rents have started to skyrocket because of the bar business. I dont have anything against bars but for many day time businesses the boom has done nothing for them, just increased rent and in some cases led to many smashed windows. I drink on Ossington but I would hate to see all the other cultural or small non-bar shops close.
jack / October 23, 2009 at 10:30 am
user-pic
and this is helping the economy?
gr1 / October 23, 2009 at 10:31 am
user-pic
darn, now we might have to walk further down queen.
cocoa / October 23, 2009 at 11:14 am
user-pic
So Pantalone's obviously not being pushed by monied business interests...could it be that he's representing the wishes of his constituents?
Ratpick / October 23, 2009 at 11:15 am
user-pic
You can't sustain WALKABLE downtown neighbourhoods on bars and galleries only. A neighbourhood needs hardware stores, tailors, dental offices, liquor stores, et cetera.

The amenities of civilized life are important. These growing bar ghettoes push all that essential stuff out. Taking a closer look at the Ossington case is totally worthwhile.

Follow me on FacePants replying to a comment from scott d / October 23, 2009 at 11:19 am
user-pic

why the secrecy? which galleries are you referring to?

Maybe they aren't selling enough large overpriced wrought iron black bug-like things. That would have less to do with Joe Pants than a lack of demand for art that few people want.
Reality Check / October 23, 2009 at 11:32 am
user-pic
Of course Pantalone is representing some of his constituents - classic NIMBYism. It's the idiocy of allowing each Ward to have a councillor who can ban development on the premise that it's better off elsewhere.

As much as I like Stintz, her election was a horrible thing for the city demonstrating that being a responsible, reasonable person on planning will lose you your seat. Acting like a tit as Pants, Vaughan, and Giambrone do keeps you in office.

Hell the councilor representing Sherway area opposed the condos going up, even though it's a bleak, industrial/retail area and transit hub. A few locals didn't like it so the councilor opposes and hopes to hell to lose at OMB.

We need unified bylaws that are the most permissive possible, to eliminate interim control orders, and to remove development veto from Ward scum. Get politicians to bring the facts of life to residents - you live in a city, you expressly moved to an area that was commercial, deal with it. These people are crying now that Ossington is safe and not a hangout for mafia types? It's as stupid as the people whining about the Annex being loud - 60 year olds were running bus trips to the Brunny when they were in university, but it's a shocking new development?
Soren / October 23, 2009 at 11:51 am
user-pic
Pol is an unreliable narrator with a noisy bar. The bylaw won't freeze Ossington from development, merely restrict restaurant floor size and force patios to the front.

The late-night noise from Sweaty Betty's back patio is astounding, not to mention his patrons pissing and puking wherever they choose. Sadly, this bylaw won't effect this patio, but it'll prevent Pol Pot from ruining other people's quality of life.

Bubba / October 23, 2009 at 11:56 am
user-pic
Just another nail in the coffin of the downtown core dieing off.

Where big american box stores are okay, but small businesses owned by
canadians are being driven away!
Chris replying to a comment from Bubba / October 23, 2009 at 12:00 pm
user-pic
Um, can I see this evidence of the downtown core "dieing off"? (sic)
Amy / October 23, 2009 at 12:06 pm
user-pic
The bylaw's goal is to prevent Ossington's really large spaces like Hesco and the storage place from turning into Richmond St. clubs. Not a bad idea considering Ossington is bordered by a school and hospital. The people in the neighborhood benefitting from bars are bar owners like Pol, who is thinking about his profits and not community.
Stew / October 23, 2009 at 12:09 pm
user-pic
I think they are just trying to prevent large night clubs from opening on this strip. My bet would be that they may end up opening on Dundas, west of Ossington.
jamesmallon / October 23, 2009 at 12:16 pm
user-pic
In Tokyo, there seems to be almost no zoning by commercial, or residential use, but people are smart enough to understand that by major transit points, or already popular areas, that there will be more noise, and more that is interesting, as well as higher property values. In Toronto, the local property owners get this kind of free-form city building squashed, because they cannot be patient with anything that does not reflect their petit bourgeois sensibilities.

Hmmm... Might this have something to do with why Toronto is so spread out a car is needed, and is deathly boring compared to more vibrant cities?
Leon / October 23, 2009 at 12:23 pm
user-pic
I went to Ossington last weekend and thought it was a dead street... if anything there aren't enough businesses including bars there
christa replying to a comment from Leon / October 23, 2009 at 01:42 pm
user-pic
i agree! i live in the neighbourhood, and i would love to see more businesses opening up around on ossington.

i don't understand why joe pants is being so complicated. why not just put a ban on opening bars and nightclubs and leave it at that? right now, ossington has the potential to be a wonderful restaurant scene. delux, union, pizzeria libretto, foxley.... these are all classy, top notch restaurants in my opinion. why make the restaurants suffer? would joe rather go back to the days when there were frequent shootings on ossington, and the majority of the shops were run down karaoke bars and pool halls?
Philip / October 23, 2009 at 01:56 pm
user-pic
Does anyone commenting here actually live on Ossington? Well, I do. And I live beside a ufcking night club and I can tell you that the neighborhood, albeit "cool" and "hip" and good for foodies, sucks due to the influx of the types of people wanting to open bars and restos (and night clubs under the guise of a bar or resto -- this is a fact). This may be only my opinion, but I feel the business/restaurant owners have absolutely no respect for the residence or the 'hood and are not trying to build a viable community. It's a cash grab. They'll be gone as soon as the crowds (both out of towners and locals) find another 'hood to ransack or get sick of the food. Then what's going to happen to Ossington? We're going to go back to the crime ridden neighborhood of the 90's? I feel the 'hood needs a good cross section of other types of businesses to sustain it. I love the Bar Ban.
Zed / October 23, 2009 at 01:59 pm
user-pic
If there was some originality in the bars opening, then it might be a fun place to hang. But, like College St, you walk into one, you've seem them all. Cookie-cutter small businesses that aren't original, and just copying the one next door to capitalize while it lasts. Ossington is on it's last legs, unless the 905'ers keep it going a few more months.
Philip replying to a comment from Philip / October 23, 2009 at 02:00 pm
user-pic
I should add, its the NEW business/restaurant owners that have absolutely no respect for the residence or the 'hood... That's my addendum.
Misha / October 23, 2009 at 02:01 pm
user-pic
jamesmilton - I don't know about Tokyo, but I do know that lots of other big cities around the world (New York, London, Berlin, Chigaco, LA and others) have regulations meant to prevent areas from being over-saturated with bars, and Toronto does not have any such regulations. You can read about this at: http://bit.ly/3dzLxv

I’ve been really involved with residents around West Queen West who are concerned about bar density in our area, and have been working with the city to try and contain it. Despite being on what most people might see as the “opposite” side of the issue from Pol, I actually agree with most of his points: the municipal (and provincial) processes are really unclear, and create confusion for everyone. One of the biggest obstacles to a solution, as he points out, is the fact that, as far as municipal regulations are concerned, there are no “bars” in the city, just restaurants. (And some “entertainment facilities” in a very few carefully-zoned areas).

Because of the kinds of problems that Pol points out, the solutions that get imposed end up not serving anyone’s interests well – often creating tough restrictions on businesses, in ways that don’t actually address the concerns of residents.

This problem seems to keep happening in different neighbhourhoods. I hope the city can step up and find solutions that are based on the real concerns that people have, and that they can look to other cities as examples for solutions. Thus far, their responses have been pretty disappointing.



rs / October 23, 2009 at 02:25 pm
user-pic
My understanding, from the summer community meeting re: the ossington moratorium, is that the root of the problem lay with past (non)policing of the pre-existing street laws which had already dictated that bars/nightclubs were not allowed on the street(!). The bars of today were opened opened on the basis that they were restaurants, even though they often truly operate as bars. I have no problem with these bars, but the city should have never let them open, like it or not, based on the fact that they are not truly restaurants. Since these establishments were opening under the veil of a restaurant, the moratorium has unfortunately been extended to curb restaurants...and that's a shame for the neighborhood. Apparently there was a cafe/bakery set to open across from levack and now it can't because it's classified as a restaurant. Seems ridiculous.

my apologies if I don't have some of the legal language correct, but in a nutshell, that's what's going on. I would welcome any corrections or clarifications. Anyways, can someone just open up a quality grocery/fruit & vegetable stand around here?
small town with a small minds / October 23, 2009 at 02:59 pm
user-pic
And THIS is why Toronto will never be a world class city.

It can't even get its act together to provide guidelines for proper/reasonable growth of a single street.

The street needs businesses that attract people traffic during the day. People who already live on the street are either going to have to get used to the increased noise or move.


anon i miss replying to a comment from cocoa / October 23, 2009 at 03:13 pm
user-pic
and by his "constituents" you of course mean pizzeria libretto right?
Fruit stands? / October 23, 2009 at 03:16 pm
user-pic
I still don't understand the obsession with fruit stands in this Ossington debate. Is it just one guy who keeps asking for a fruit stand over and over?

Fruit stands: on Dundas 40 feet east of Ossington; on Dundas at Lakeview; on Dundas at Dovercourt; on Queen at Shaw; and of course several major fruit markets at College and Shaw. M&M (Dundas and Dovercourt) even delivers! Fruit! To your door!
Misha replying to a comment from rs / October 23, 2009 at 03:16 pm
user-pic
rs on,

The thing is, as far at the regulatory framework in Toronto is concerned, there are no bars in Toronto. Pretty much any place that you might think of as a bar is probably licenced as a restaurant. As the article mentions - there is no such designation as "bar" in Toronto.

That's why you get ridiculous "solutions" like this one - neighbours feel there are too many bars in the area, so the city bans all restaurants.

A big first step toward useful solutions would be for the city to introduce regulations that recognize that there are bars in the city, and that bars and restaurants need to be regulated differently. (A good regulation woudl also recognize that bar/restaurant isn't an either/or proposition. Lots of places operate as both, and would need to be regulted as both).

Again - lots of cities have regulations that usefully distinguish the activities of bars from the activities of restaurants. It would be useful to have such regulations here.



Jesse / October 23, 2009 at 03:43 pm
user-pic
Misleading headline and article.

The proposed bylaw does not ban restaurant/bars on Ossington.
Cocoa the Wonderful / October 23, 2009 at 04:25 pm
user-pic
LET IT BE KNOWN that I am creating a new law in the nature of Godwin's law.

This law - to be called Cocoa's Law - is concisely stated as follows:

"Cocoa's Law

Section 1: As a discussion about Toronto grows longer, the probability that the phrase 'world class' will be uttered approaches 1.

Section 2: A whiny appeal to an unknowable and meaningless standard is fucking stupid and anyone who engages in such behaviour is a dinkus"

Penalties will be determined through a committee process. I hope that all dinkus's can be banned. This is harsh, but we need to send a message.
small town with a small minds replying to a comment from Cocoa the Wonderful / October 23, 2009 at 04:37 pm
user-pic
Your sad little attempt at humour doesn't change the fact that this city doesn't have its development act together like other cities around the world.

That you can't even imagine what criteria would be relevant to such a comparison tells me all I need to know about how much you could contribute to the discussion: f*ck all.
bittles / October 23, 2009 at 04:43 pm
user-pic
this board deletes comments with profanity?
wow, grow up, if its not directed at someone I think we are all grown up enough to handle a swear word.
cocoa the benevolent replying to a comment from small town with a small minds / October 23, 2009 at 04:44 pm
user-pic
Please go back to Orillia.
small town with a small minds replying to a comment from cocoa the benevolent / October 23, 2009 at 04:46 pm
user-pic
Come back to the table when you have a clue and your skinny jeans are a little less tight.
rs replying to a comment from Fruit stands? / October 23, 2009 at 04:50 pm
user-pic
I'm glad to see there's other pinning for a fruit stand...I didn't know this was a trend!!

I didn't want to get into it because it's somewhat off topic, but I'm not a big fan of the produce on Dundas, especially M&M. This 'fruit stand' doesn't need to be on ossington, but regardless I'm surprised that entrepreneurs aren't using the appeal of ossington to take advantage of what seems to be a big opportunity in serving the non bar/restaurant needs of a huge residential community. Daytime footsteps are obviously an issue, and I imagine rent is making things prohibitive for many, but to anyone considering doing something a bit different in the area to serve the needs of the locals, if you build it they will come.
Jack replying to a comment from cocoa / October 23, 2009 at 05:10 pm
user-pic
Many of the small restaurant and business owners on Ossington are his constituents, and they remember what Ossington Ave. was like 5 years ago...not pretty! Stop letting the complainers dictate policy. It's absolutely ridiculous to think you can live in a inner City neighborhood and it will be quiet, seriously folks wake up!
John / October 23, 2009 at 05:21 pm
user-pic
The author of this article is manufacturing drama.

THERE IS NO PROPOSED BY-LAW TO BAN RESTOS/BARS ON OSSINGTON
rick mcginnis replying to a comment from John / October 23, 2009 at 05:24 pm
user-pic
No, John, there isn't a ban on bars or restaurants on Ossington, in full caps or not. But for the duration of the study period, while the "interim control bylaw" enacted by councillor Pantalone was in effect, no new bars or restaurants could be opened on Ossington. Thus, a "bar ban." I hope that clears things up for you. And please - no shouting.
Jack replying to a comment from Philip / October 23, 2009 at 05:29 pm
user-pic
Yes I do live on Ossington Avenue, above a retail space. I also happen to own a small restaurant on Queen Street East much like the restaurants on Ossington. What Phillip seems to suffer from is the delusion that these small business owners are raking in the bucks. Do you have any idea what the profit margins in a small restaurant are? Well let me educate you, after paying all of the various taxes, salaries, insurance, rent, utilities etc. ect. barely nothing. Most people in the restaurant business love food, entertaining and making people happy. I feel sorry for you Phillip you seem very sad.
mondayjane / October 23, 2009 at 05:30 pm
user-pic
I think diversity is important - I like Ossington as it is (although I stopped going for drinks on the strip early this year, finding the evolving clientele entirely insufferable). But I love the various and charming shops and galleries. <br><br>

The scene on that street blew up very quickly, and perhaps some modicum of boundary is important to ensure that it doesn't end up a disaster like the Club District.
Sarah / October 23, 2009 at 06:00 pm
user-pic
John and Jesse, the headline is referring to the moratorium/ban on NEW bars and restaurants (and cafes and aforementioned fruit stands) on Ossington that went into effect several months ago. Any business that hadn't applied for the related permits and licenses before this went into effect is too late. Hence, the content of the entire first paragraph of this article. Did you guys miss this news 5 months ago?

As a homeowner on Ossington very close to the "strip" south of Dundas, I can tell you that yes, it is loud, but no, I'm not surprised. Sure, it's annoying when disrespectful drunks rip the tulips out of my garden at 2 AM, and no, I don't really enjoy having to walk past skanks in miniscule clothing and their greasy boyfriends while passing Jezebel on my way home, but hey, I signed up for this because I bought this place after Oss started to gentrify. But, as much as my hangouts have shifted towards the Garrison on Dundas to avoid the crowds of douchebags, the issue isn't just about controlling the "905er" influx after dark, or the noise from patios. It's about transforming this neighbourhood in the right way. Bars and restaurants alone cannot support the people who live here.
June / October 23, 2009 at 06:57 pm
user-pic
I lived in London, UK where often pubs were situated right in the middle of residential neighbourhoods. There was a cut-off time of 11pm that people were allowed to sit on the patio until and then pub owners would politely ask everyone to move indoors to respect their neighbours' right to peace and quiet in the evening. I think Ossington could benefit from something like that, and I also think that some of the bar owners should show a little more consideration and politeness regarding their residential neighbours. Why antagonize your nearest potential customers?
Sam / October 23, 2009 at 08:55 pm
user-pic
Poorly written article causing much confusion. The ban is temporary and when the moratorium ends the by-law will permit new restaurants, just smaller and with front patios instead of back. Seems reasonable.
rick mcginnis replying to a comment from Sam / October 23, 2009 at 09:08 pm
user-pic
Sorry, Sam, but that's exactly what I wrote.
John / October 23, 2009 at 09:37 pm
user-pic
I just think it's sad that before the bars were there Ossington was a wasteland of drug dealers and crazies (Queen/Ossington) and Strip/Social clubs (Ossington/Dundas). I've lived in the hood for 20 years and it's never been better. So what that there are 100s of people on weekend evenings. It's great. If you don't like it move. It's a simple as that. Nothing stays the same. It gets better or worse. Deal with it.
Martin replying to a comment from scott d / October 23, 2009 at 10:03 pm
user-pic
My initial reaction to the interim control was that it was small town thinking, but your perspective is valid and one I hadn't considered. Thanks.
J-Dawg / October 24, 2009 at 09:19 am
user-pic
Stay out of the Junction.
kathy replying to a comment from rs / October 24, 2009 at 11:37 am
user-pic
no one is going to be able to open up a fruit stand on the street due to the high rents in the area demanded by scummy landlords. this is why get real cafe just closed - apparently the landlord increased rent by 30%. unless you own the building on ossington, or have a long term lease, they only way you can make any money here is by selling alcohol. this is not going to be changed by the new by-law.

i have heard that there are sections of new york that have spacing regulations that permits X number of specific type of businesses within certain distance. ex. maximum 5 bars, maximum 5 retail etc. this kind of regulation would ensure diversity on the street. seems like a good idea to me.
hbr replying to a comment from kathy / October 24, 2009 at 11:53 am
user-pic
I agree,the prices on Ossington are ridiculous....A few years I was pricing that burned out shell of a building and the owner wanted something ridiculous like 800 grand for something that'll cost over 400 g to make useable....It's a nice street but not all that...the math is all wrong
Jack replying to a comment from kathy / October 24, 2009 at 02:53 pm
user-pic
FYI, Get Real closed because they were in arrears with rent.
a / October 24, 2009 at 03:23 pm
user-pic
If this was just a bar-ban, then I would be OK with this. This ban, however, also targets restaurants. As someone stated above, the restaurant business is not easy and the average profit for restaurants in Ontario is 3.5% which is not a lot of money compared to the amount of work that is involved. The harder it gets for me to do business on Ossington the closer I get to packing it in and moving to a more welcoming neighborhood.
640k replying to a comment from Reality Check / October 25, 2009 at 01:05 am
user-pic
Do we need uniform bylaws though? What if we get them wrong? Then the whole city will suffer. Much better to come up with a uniform framework and let different districts apply them as they desire, so long as they do so in a clear and transparent way. Variety is more likely to give robustness against unforeseen consequences or changing conditions.
Bobby replying to a comment from gr1 / October 26, 2009 at 03:44 pm
user-pic
LOL Parkdale is beginning to look scrumptious.
arearesident / October 27, 2009 at 09:26 am
user-pic
The new proposed bylaw's prohibition on back patios offers a good balance between business and residential concerns. Commercial enterprises, including restaurants/bars, have a right to be on Ossington, but they cannot be permitted to force themselves into the residences back yards. Business owners have to recognize the limitations of the space they lease-- it's only prudent. There needs to be variety in the establishments offered on Ossington --bars are not the only viable business options.
breck mcfarlane replying to a comment from Misha / October 31, 2009 at 09:51 pm
user-pic
thank you,Misha,

How many have actually read the moratorium, or the recommendations of the "study" (no facts presented)? The moratorium disallows the opening of ALL food related business, which are seen by Joe as "gateway" enrty points to obtaining a liquor license. That helps destroy the natural flow of development, which could have the effect of crippling the daytime business it purports to support. With respect to the definition of a bar or restaurant, the City steadfastly refuses to deal with the difficult issues, preferring to stamp carbon copy restrictive "bandaid" solutions on any vibrant area that might emerge.
30 years ago, someone said Toronto was a "city of neighbourhoods" and forever since, NIMBYism has held the fascia. None of us like the mob scene bar-closing scenario, and we all want to see vibrant daytime activity on our local main streets, but City Council and the planning Department have got to start being more accomodating to (small) business, more imaginative, AND more urbane in their thinking if Toronto is to develop into a vibrant place. The proposed by-law recommends disallowing ANY entertainment within a restaurant on Ossington. All restaurants are allowed a small entatainment area. if you want a strip full of 905ers, that's a good way to start. As for parking, Ossington probably has the highest percentage of pedestrian and bicycle riding clientele in town, but very few places to lock up.
John / November 2, 2009 at 10:36 am
user-pic
The interim control bylaw refers to some Ossington planning study that was recommended in 2004. What ever happened to this? Also, is there a link to an electronic copy of the proposed bylaw?

The worst part of this whole process is the adversarial way Pantalone has managed relations between businesses and residents. Businesses have been portrayed as purely predatory, and no effort has been made to encourage direct communications between groups. Instead Pantalone has assumed control over the entire process, with nothing happening without first kissing his ring.

Ossington is changing from an industrial area to a commercial/residential area. Fruit stands? Where? Next to the auto body shop or the self-storage place? First, Ossington needs steady daytime foot traffic. A bakery or a lunchtime/breakfast cafe would help here, but Pantalone shut those down too. Insane!

And the dumbest, DUMBEST idea is the parking requirement. Although Pantalone says he opposes this particular provision, the fact that the planner actually proposed it indicates the quality of thought underlying the proposed bylaw. The best way to encourage more area visitors with cars would be to promise more parking. Scrap the whole thing and start again, preferably under the stewardship of a new councillor.

Bottom line: the new restaurants are not displacing fruit stands. They are building the conditions that MIGHT make fruit stands possible in the future, unless this precious entrepreneurial activity is quashed. I understand the complaints about nuisances, but this is how streets develop, grow and ultimately improve. And the community is not helpless, regardless of what Pantalone wants you to think. The best way for the neighbourhood to reclaim ownership of this process is to disregard the top-down self-interested posturing of has-been politicians, and establish direct relationships with the new businesses. Talk to them! Show them that the community will support businesses that serve and respect the neighbourhood. Resist blanket bans, but instead make patio and liquor licenses conditional on good relations with neighbours. Ask them to open for lunch or even breakfast! Ask the City for bike parking!

And above all, don't take Ossington's moment in the sun for granted. The neighbourhood has a rare opportunity to create a complete street, with a nice mix of businesses supporting the community. Growing pains are unpleasant, but growth is preferable to stagnancy. If the entrepreneurs are chased away, there is no reason to think they will return.

CM Parkdale / May 2, 2010 at 02:40 pm
user-pic
Sadly, while Parkdale may be "starting to look scrunptious" from a party perspective, it looks far less appealing as a place to live. We are now facing the same issues as Ossington. Both owners and the municipality are to blame. The former for not thinking of the impact their establishment may have on quality of life and the latter for not providing guidelines to ensure this occurs.
Conor Brown / May 2, 2010 at 06:40 pm
user-pic
So what exactly is the problem with Parkdale? Are residents unwelcoming to the new businesses? I'm looking to live around there next September as I'm always there because of the Wrongbar and such.
cm parkdale / May 2, 2010 at 09:38 pm
user-pic
Hi Conor, it depends on persprective. Parkdale is lots of fun and a far cry from where it was 15 years ago, in a good way! Problem is many of us (like it or not) have 9-5 type jobs and that means we don't have the luxury of living a club style life. By preference I'm a night owl, by necessity not. The crowd from 12-3:30 am don't care. That means party folks yelling and sometimes arguing nearby while others us on a less fortunate schedule try to sleep. Can't say I enjoy having folks piss on the front doorstep either (which believe me does happen). Ideally I'd love to hear we've found a happy medium so everyone could enjoy the fun!

Add a Comment

Other Cities: Montreal