Out Cole
Doin' It All for the Cookie
Pages to Fold
Introducing Ask Torontoist
A Trash Bin Quandary
Things That Are Only Tenuously Related, Starring the Post
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.usComments (54) [rss]
Post a comment (Comment Policy)
TIP US OFF
Most Popular
Out Cole (36)
Doin' It All for the Cookie (27)
Strike Watch: Day Sixteen (21)
Pages to Fold (21)
Martin Streek is Dead (19)
Modest Mouse (18)
"Pulp Fiction" Takes Its Sweet Time (15)- My Dumps, My Dumps, My Dumps (15)
Historicist: Boyhood, Summers, and the City (15)
Vintage Toronto Ads: Where Young Moderns Get Wrecked (15)
Look at the last line of text in that article.
Portage La Prairie is in Manitoba--not Winnipeg.
Typical of CanWest--not reliable for facts.
Not reliable, period.
I thought the cannibalism thing was just a broken-telephone thing. What?
Stop! Hammertime!
"Typical of CanWest"
Typical of Jane and Finch. The area is a right off.
Getting the location wrong is typical of Jane and Finch? In what possible way does that make sense?
No, I guess I wasn't clear enough. I was just saying that this article fulfilled more than one person's expectations.
The neighbourhood is still mostly populated by Italian home-owners, Pickletoes. What are you saying about them?
The Post e-mailed me a few minutes after this article went up to tell me they'd removed the last lines of their article. Such spoilsports...
Jane and Finch is a right off?
Is that the opposite of being left out?
I'm enjoying the subtly, yet tastefully rotated screen capture. Classy.
Andrew: I'm saying that they live in a terrible neighborhood which obviously could not have gotten so bad without either their direct action or complacency.
Svend: Yeah they sure are left out in terms of police presence.
PickleToes: what is your area of expertise or education? Seriously, I'm going somewhere with this.
That's rather personal, but if you must know I'm a philosophy undergrad at U of T.
Thanks, and fair enough. Stick to philosophy.
Meanwhile, I'll stick to urban studies as an undergrad at the UofT.
So, where were you going with the question? Or was the "Stick to philosophy" comment something you included to subtly tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about?
Tell me what you know about the historical planning decisions for that segment of town and why it was built up the way it was. As a bonus, correlate this development ethos at the time it occurred with the economic demographics that clustered there and has been prevalent over the past generation.
I'd love to hear it. I'm all ears. </donnie_darko>
Hah. You know I can't answer all of that. But why is the history of the area relevant to dealing with existing crime? I'll ultimately defer to your superior knowledge in this area, but it seems to me that while urban studies is great for designing neighborhoods and explaining development rationales, combating crime that has or is occurring becomes a criminological and legal issue.
Because, as any historian would politely explain, one can really only understand the present at the time when one begins to understand its past.
Further, the correlation between urban affairs and crim (criminology) are quite established. You should start with the approachable, brilliant book, The Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs. One can really only begin to grasp why crime concentrates and aggregates in specific areas when they step back and see how spacing was planned, designed, implemented, and since maintained by the property owners, the transportation engineers, and city planners.
Jane and Finch, for one, was never nearby the governing centres of the former boroughs of Etobicoke, North York, or Toronto. It was a masterplanned project with expressways in mind. It was out of sight and out of mind, beyond the reach of fixed-rail mass transit (I discussed the relationship between prosperous development and fixed-rail planning in the "Inverted Neighbourhood" discussion a couple of weeks ago).
It was designed during an era when the belief to curtail social woes and to get lower income citizens away from older, "cramped" city living was to build -- much of it public housing -- using the "Garden Cities" approach, but modified under the then-assumption that everyone would adopt driving cars. This meant having everything spread out and creating, relatively speaking, excessive green space between high-rise properties. There was not a concerted planning forethought to consider mixed-use commercial-retail development integrated with residential development. Shopping strips were later built, but only as an afterthought (and only with car users in mind).
The high-rise apartments were built to house people and not much else -- not to establish neighbourhoods or neighbourly relations in any sort of self-evolving sense. The space between high rises is great for territorialism and turf claims. And when functionally severed from the remainder of the city's transportation infrastructure, the area isolates and loses connection with the fabric of the city where this kind of planning went differently. I mean, who'd wanna live in isolation and urban exile, cramped with others in a build who are also enduring the same? If you've got money, you'd never move to such a hellish idea designed by a bunch of old men in a backroom in the 1950s which they'd never fathom themselves or their families actually residing.
Supply and demand, kiddo. Aggregate the poorest. The wealthier will leave early (or just avoid from the inception), while the poorest will take it to heart and believe that they're stuck there for life. Meanwhile, if developers don't see fixed rail coming to the area, and their market demographic research don't see profitability in major retailing developments, those developments will situate pretty much anywhere else which do meet these criteria.
Welcome to the feedback loop. If Jane/Finch is your first residence area in Canada, then it doesn't paint an idyllic picture for the future. And if you're growing up there and this is all you know, then it's small surprise that you're gonna feel resigned before you've a chance to think about the possibility of something much better -- if you ever had much hope to begin with. And most won't see much improvement, either.
That's just one angle to it, PickleToes. These circumstances don't just happen in a vacuum. But if all one examines is the present, then a vacuum it'll appear.
"Fighting" acute crime, given the above, is remedial and reactive in its implementation. By its very function of responding to the effect, law enforcement and the judicial system are not designed to identify root cause to curtail the triggers for that crime. They're only tasked with issuing punitive and correctional band-aids.
"No passenger intervened"
Given the context of the story, passengers stop woman bashing driver's brains in, is that supposed to be a condemnation?
This little debate between accozzaglia and PickleToes reminds me of the fight between matt damon and the long haird guy in the bar in Good Will Hunting. I like it, keep going.
Typical of Jane and Finch. The area is a right off.(sic)
-PickleToes
[4] | 08/18/08 07:26PM
Maybe you could use your half-finished philosphy degree to tell us where it says the perpetrator comes from the Jane and FInch area.
Sorry, but I gotta jump in here on the philosophy vs urban planning degree debate. First off, it's fantastic! By the time you guys get to grad school you're lucky if your piss-and-vinegar isn't severely diluted. Rock it, guys, and write down everything you think.
If you're taking philosophy, you 'should' (if I can pull a moral card) really have learned on the first day that you don't know a goddamn thing. "Philosophy," as it's known to the western world, has grappled with the basic questions of "Who are we?" and "How do we want to live?" for nearly 3000 years (I'm thinking Heraclitus and Parmenides as the 'start' - contentious as that is!). There are a million answers to these questions, but things are far from resolved. You're not the first undergrad (and I'm not the first post-grad!). In any case, it always amazes me how so many bright undergrads are opposed to learning. I mean, why would you go to school - let alone take philosophy! - if you thought you had it all figured it out? This is your chance to read all the stuff that supports your thoughts, but also to encounter some giant minds that think otherwise. Even if you don't agree with these 'otherwises,' you should at least know why you don't.
And, mister 'urban planner,' you need philosophy more than anything! How are you 'planning' for people to live? What distinguishes Jacobs from, say, Le Corbusier? I'd argue its competing concepts of who we are and how we ought to live... And those pesky 'post-structuralists' will give you shit for even assuming that you have a right to plan anything! Experts...bah!
So many orthographical and typographical errors in one place... PickleToes, a froshomoric philosophy undergrad I hope; I'm ashamed of you nonetheless. Both for your gross linguistic incompetence and the subtle wiff I caught of the classic normative reactionary political tendencies so often roused in latent mossbacks by any articulation of the words 'Jane' and 'Finch' on a relativistic spectrum of proximity dependent on the astuteness of said dinosaur, a level of astuteness which is a priori fairly limited as pertains to 'reactionary' or 'dinosaur'.
I want to take an urban studies course now though, accozzaglia. Did you write all that after racing to finish an essay on automobile dependency and then promptly ingesting dangerous levels of methamphetamines, or something akin to such? Surely a staid whiz kid wouldn't put in that kind of word count for a petty debate with a total right off...
?
oohhhhh damn, beat me to the meta-comment punch!
If anyone's interested, the Post has a follow-up interview with two of the women who fought off the woman with the hammer:
Awesome.sorry, but accozzaglia's response to PickleToes up there is analogous to swatting a fly with a full swing of a baseball bat.
all right, we get it, you're smarter than him. impressive!
I love what you're doing, David and, apparently, from the speed at which they took down that last sentence people are listening. keep the fear mongers and 'journalists' at these rags accountable for that which they spew! maybe some day papers won't have to use crap like this to make their papers marketable but until then, keep it up, I am loving this part of Torontoist.
Mattkn and others: Journalists — even reporters at the Post — are people, and people make errors in judgement. Also, when those errors (or decisions with which you don't agree) are made, it's not necessarily part of some large corporate agenda. In fact, it almost never is.
(Large media corporations indeed control our newspapers, but they do it ham-fistedly, certainly not to the detail of influencing particular sentences in a reporter's copy.)
... and yes, I speak from very direct experience.
Whats scary to me is that after reading so many, shall we say, "interesting" comments made by Pickletoes we find out he's a Philosophy student...
Oh, and who got the over/under on accozzaglia's ( control+C, control +P!) length of time in thier argument before they quoted Jane Jacobs...?
Just kidding..thanks for the debate guys...
@mister j/23:
"And, mister 'urban planner,' you need philosophy more than anything! How are you 'planning' for people to live? What distinguishes Jacobs from, say, Le Corbusier?"
Well, two things: first, it's not "mister", mister. Second, how am I "planning"? I'm not certain whether planning is up my alley, though design or theory might be. With the detached OMB to constantly deal with, being a planner seems like a grim prospect. I have a lot of questions to ask first. Were I to go into planning, how would I try to approach this? Holistically. I listen to and watch the city carefully. I compare against the other cities I've lived and visited. I look at data, as well as existing theory. All of this gets taken into consideration. What I can say is that panacea solutions simply ... aren't. And it's OK to say "I don't know", too.
Jane and Le Corbusier? He was a controlling little prick who hated the idea that anyone would question him (don't question the self-appointed expert! hahaha), working from gut assumption rather than sound observation and theory. Jane, had she lived at the same time he did, would have probably made him live in a nice, homely bungalow on Palmerston Blvd, surrounded by gardens, sculptures, and trinkets on every wall (made by her grandkids). He would have gone insane, and CAMH would've had to pick him up for long-term observation. Then Rapp Optical would have bought his round, tortoise shall frames (which aren't needed in padded rooms!) and resold them to a hipster for bank.
@archimago/24:
"I want to take an urban studies course now though, accozzaglia. Did you write all that after racing to finish an essay on automobile dependency and then promptly ingesting dangerous levels of methamphetamines, or something akin to such? Surely a staid whiz kid wouldn't put in that kind of word count for a petty debate with a total right off...
?"
Hahaha. No. I just want the PickleToes of the world to put out or shut up. I like a good trolling when it presents (Logan Aube!), but these pesky grade four-level spitwads from the back row are just growing tiresome. And if you're really, actually serious about urban studies, the UofT have GGR124 and INI235. Those are excellent starting points.
* * *
To the rest: I'm sorry about hijacking the thread using the core-dump tack I took with PickleToes (swinging a bat on a fly). And yet, I cannot get out of my mind that song, "The Bug", by Mary Chapin-Carpenter (and Dire Straits), as written by Mark Knopfler. :)
There's a good, solid side of me that tells me not to get into this, but...
(w)ri(gh)ting off a neighbourhood? On what grounds, exactly? I grew up in JF -- lived there for 22 years -- and can tell anyone that the area is not a "write off". In fact, Pickletoes, I'd challenge whether you've ever actually been there. Cheers to accozaglia for loads of great, useful input -- I thought the same thing about the correlation of the "Radiant Garden City" model with JF when I read TDALOGAC.
And, as for dismissing neighbourhoods wholesale...wow. Just wow. Especially when there are so many opportunities to make positive change, the very idea of calling a place, especially a place inhabited mostly by poor minorities, a "right off" (sic) is just disgusting. Why do you feel it's appropriate to *expect* something low and brutal from the residents of that area? The Jane Finch Mall may not have a Starbucks (or whatever equivalent feature would deem it worthy in your eyes), but the area is full of people, agencies and organizations doing the opposite of "righting" (sic) off its residents.
How we treat each other, especially the poor and vulnerable, is a choice. Some of us choose to work or volunteer for agencies that demonstrate compassion and caring and which promote values like equity and collaboration. Others among us choose to "right" (sic) each other off.
You might want to ponder the implications of that when you're sitting in PHIL202 this fall, Pickletoes.
> And, mister 'urban planner,' you need philosophy more than anything! How are you 'planning' for people to live? What distinguishes Jacobs from, say, Le Corbusier?
Demographic information? Not sure what's so philosophical about basic statistics...
one time, i was sitting on the GO train, trying to get home to Mississauga and after the stopover in Mimico, about a minute after we pulled out of the station, the train stopped. this woman suddenly ascended from the bottom level (i was sitting on the second level) and said to everyone "they missed my stop!" and ran into the next car. we later learned that someone had pulled the emergency brake switch on the car (the one that says underneath "conductors only").
so, lunatics don't just exist at jane and finch...
What's a "right off?"
??????
Guys. Please. Pickletoes just baited you and you fell for it.
You give him too much undue credit, t-rek.
C'mon people, it's not like we're talking about REXDALE here!
Like rek's never gotten all het up and fired off responses to bait.
I am amused by people who condemn Jane-Finch out of hand like that; obviously they've never spent any significant time there and rely upon the hype of the media to base their opinion on the moral character of thousands and thousands of people. It denotes laziness.
@ accozzaglia
Sorry about the gender assumption.
I thought you said you were in urban planning, thus thinking that you were, well, planning! But I'd disagree with your account of Le C and Jacobs, at least in terms of their theories. Sure, he might've been a crazy prick and she a nice old lady (both of these descriptors rely on a whole range of value and truth judgments), but I'd repeat my earlier comment that they had competing concepts of the good; they both thought they were doing the right thing. My point is that I think there is a concept of the good-life grounding their ideas, as is the case with all of us: this is the domain of philosophy, or perhaps political philosophy/theory. Le C felt that he and his group of experts had all the answers and if they could just go ahead and do what they 'know' is right, everything will be great. Jacobs, however, rejects this 'expert,' planning from above imposition in favour of a more 'encouraging' approach seeking the people who actually live in and use an area to do any theorizing or developing. She was always amazed how ignorant planner were of the areas which they were 'planning.' At first wash, this appears as the old debate between universalism and relativism, though I think that easy split would quickly fall apart once an informed critique is leveled against, or on behalf of, either one of them.
@torontothegreat
Statistics are highly 'philosophical.' We accept statements made with the 'supporting evidence' of statistics as Truth. However, it should be obvious that we don't really have access to the Truth. If you're really interested in the development of this 'truth procedure,' M. Foucault writes a mean book! Check out his Discipline and Punish - You'll be hooked after the first few pages!
Glad that this woman pissed off at a bus driver started such a big debate!!
andrew - If it was all I did, or if Pickletoes actually believed what he's writing (the 'het' part, I guess) you'd be on to something.
Maybe I missed it, but why has nobody pointed out that this attack wasn't unprovoked exactly? Just what percentage of attacks (and "attacks") on TTC employees aren't due to the attacker feeling wronged by the TTC or employee specifically? I'm not saying you can take a hammer to a driver because they didn't see you at the stop, but there's something else going on here.
@aleslinger - Thanks for pointing that out. I'm pretty sure that was an honest mistake, probably perpetrated with the good intentions of adding context (ie, "what other bus attacks have there been recently?").
For the record: no one was struck by the hammer; the driver was able to remove the hammer from the assailant's hands before anyone was seriously injured. The minor injuries reported were a result of the scuffle that ensued.
With respect to the comment by "tyrannosaurus rek" that the "attack wasn't unprovoked exactly," and that “there’s something else going on here” is extremely troubling. At no time did the driver provoke this assault. Those are the facts.
And frankly, when is assault ever justified? To suggest that TTC employees who have been assaulted were, somehow, asking for it is outrageous.
Brad Ross
There have been some surprisingly petty debates generated by this rather innocuous, if humorous, post.
But, to bring it back to the original post, not the comments, you just have to love good 'ol fashioned fear mongering. At least the Post recognized how stupid it was eventually.
PickleToes has compelled to link to this.
compelled me to
I was hit in the face with a large flying object at work today so the pain makes it hard for me to reply in a meaningful way. I apologize in advance.
accozzaglia: Wow you're really keen with the ad hominems now! You were the one who made the apple comments right? Whatever happened to that critical but polite individual? Anyways, why can't punishment be used as a preventive strategy? I know its a radical example, but Middle Eastern theocratic dictatorships seem to do a pretty good job of keeping the masses from fighting each other. I would never advocate for something so savage as what one of those countries has, but surely it shows that "fighting crime" can be more than just a band-aid solution.
mister j: I totally agree with the way you see philosophy. Indeed, its a very humbling subject. While I think that anybody can philosophize you need the guidance of a professor to cut through the lingo and really understand/join the conversations between the "great ones". That's why I go to school to help me learn how little I know. Torontoist helps me figure that out as well. You'd be surprised to know that some of the posters have swayed my views on some issues.
archimago: Hah, no, I'm a little further along in my studies than that. But when you've been off since April, its no surprise that your writing skills will degrade somewhat. As for your dinosaur insult I'll take it as a comment because I think they're pretty awesome. But please, can I be a cool dinosaur? Maybe something large and green.
wardnikoff: Yeah, just when you thought that the left had the universities all locked up you get surprised by some originality.
Robin Hatch: I call things a write off when I consider them to be so broken or messed up as to be beyond repair.
rek: No, they're just conversing with me. You're the one who gets trolled because you seem to get so seriously angry at my posts. Calm down, go outside maybe.
@PickleToes:
Misogyny/racism/conservatism/snap judgements are considered 'originality' now? I think they're pretty old school.
I'm fairly certain that for at least some of these topics that you take such a popularly despised position on, you're really of a more middle-ground view and are just stirring shit up to see what people say. That seems a very philosophy-major-who-thinks-they're-clever thing to do. And I'm not saying that's necessarily bad.
Whether the way you throw out incendiary comments, i.e. the way you phrase things, actually produces a worthwhile discussion... Maybe not so clever. But who knows what crazy motivations lie behind that apple icon.
Don't take it personal, PickleToes. We're all just a nice little chit-chat, right?
+having
And I hate it when flying things hit one in the face. Harold Edgerton, rest his soul, knew all about it.
Thanks Pickle Toes. I am happy to read your response. I'm worried about your thoughts on crime and punishment. Consider that 'crime' is an ever changing invention, and that punishment is too. What is/are the "masses"? Again, you'd love Discipline and Punish. Anyway, good to hear that you feel you've got a good prof. Rock it!
Brad - I didn't say it was justified. In fact I said it wasn't justified. All of the reports of the incident, however, credit the attacked with accusing the driver of failing to stop for her, and that's the part nobody is talking about.