Jump to content
sunshine59

Off-Campus Housing: Cherryhill VS Blossom Gates

Recommended Posts

Hi :)  I've just went to London today to do some apartment searching. My priority is to find 1 bed-room or Bachelor Apartment since I prefer to stay on my own.

This narrowed down my choices between either Cherrhvill or Blossom Gates (625 Kipps Lane). 

I feel like Cherryhill is safer and closer to the campus whereas I find the Blossom Gates neighbourhood a bit more appealing since they are younger. I was wondering if anyone would like to share their experiences with either of the places. You can either comment below or if you prefer PM, that works perfectly fine with me! 

Thank you for all your help. It seems like almost impossible to find a Bachelor or 1 bed-room place at this time except those two places. :(  If anyone knows other properties still accepting tenants, please let me know! 

Thank you in advance! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How were the apartments at kipps - were they nice? Balconies? Carpets? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, beyondsection17 said:

Rule #1 at Western: Do not live east of Adelaide.

I second this. I've heard good things about Cherryhill though I haven't personally lived there. You may want to look into Bayfield Hall for a 1 bedroom apartment as well. It's on campus but is an upper-year residence where you have your own apartment.

Edited by georgecostanzajr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cherryhill is fine... I lived there for a bit, just make sure you get a nice place... don't cheap out in london.  Cherryhill is close to a metro so that's good. Not sure about Blossom Gates. The best locations I have found to live was along Richmond St. 

Good Buildings to live in:

Luxe Apartments (right by campus)

- can walk to campus

675 Richmond (Closer to Downtown but still on Richmond.. Better if you have a car)

- 15 min bus ride

 

Also you could live in the Red Bricks along Western rd, they are supposed to be good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I highly recommend the Red Bricks if you can get them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked at Blossom Gate and ultimately chose elsewhere. Once I was actually living in London, I remember thinking that I was very glad I didn't live there. I didn't know any other law students living out that way, and it seemed very far from campus/other social activities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Cherryhill is the secret move for attending Western.

8 minutes to school, 8 minutes to downtown.  Live next to a shoppers and a metro, and a two second bus ride away from a costco (!) and a big LCBO.  The buildings are clean and absurdly well maintained.

The tradeoff is that all your friends are going to live DT and will be walking distance from the Row and fun stuff to do.  

Source: I lived in 105 Cherryhill blvd through law school and articling.  Place is dope. 

Edited by machine
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • Thanks for taking the time to answer my previous question. I may be applying this cycle and have a question with regards to the Sketch part of the application. When I previously applied to Law School I added every little volunteer/extracurricular from the time I entered University. For simplicity purposes, I wanted to retain only the last 3-4 years of relevant experience. Would this be a problem for an individual that had more sketch items in a previous application 1-2 years ago? For example some activities are not included at all whereas they were on a previous application?  And just for the sake of knowing I guess, would you have access to and look back at a previous application if you were assessing a candidate?  
    • No, I think the bias is good because it makes whiny conservatives like you fill your diaper. Your first thought on hearing the Prime Minister did something racist was run to bump an old thread to try and score points for your “team”, because to you the racism isn’t really the issue, it’s just an opportunity to poke a lib in the eye.
    • I don't think that people are necessarily laughing at the essence of what you are saying.  What you are saying isn't completely crazy.  The pace at which you are suggesting this will all happen is likely, in part, what they are doubting.  The reactions may also be partly attributed to the fact that you haven't (I don't think?) actually practiced law at this point. I just don't think the legal profession will be completely revolutionized as imminently as your comments suggest.  While I (and probably others) can appreciate arguments that computers will replace certain functions currently done by humans and that some of Ryerson's tech-forward training could be helpful (if well executed), I think it will take time to get there.  While I do appreciate the need for lawyers to have more technical skills and to better integrate technology into law schools (whatever that means...I'm old), I don't understand how this translates to what seems to be your critique of the substance of law school (i.e. what is taught not the way it is taught).  I do think that law school, especially 1L, should continue to include the case reading, making legal arguments, etc. that you seem to criticize, both because I can't imagine a scenario where humans interacting with AI technology don't need a baseline level of knowledge of the law and because I don't think these changes are going to come all that quickly.  It is also pretty absurd to claim that summaries from 2003 are "the same".  75% the same?  Sure.  But actually the same?  Doubtful.  Even if they were "the same", that doesn't demonstrate that law school curricula are dated or make them irrelevant.  If that is the current state of the law, then that is the current state of the law.
    • Agreed. Also I’m at UBC (where OP also seems to attend) and I’ve had several recruiters at big firms tell me, unprompted, that we have a great CSO that understands exactly what the firms want. Probably since our CSO people have worked at large firms.  Just wanted to add that since I don’t think it’s helpful for OP to go down the path of thinking an incompetent CSO was his or her issue. 
    • Okay since I am getting laughs here. Fine, here's a fairly "primitive" model of how natural language processing algorithm can be used. Read this, its an open-source Python library designed for building legal tech software: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3192101 This is an easier to digest thing describing how AI is reshaping law.  https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3381798
×
×
  • Create New...