[rbt]

Keesmaat has neither the land nor the money to build 100,000 units of affordable housing. If she even manages to build 1/10th of that, I would consider it a success.

Land isn't particularly necessary.

The city could purchase 3 to 4 floors (likely the bottom floors) in every proposed residential building within city limits.

Money, of course, is trickier although Rob Ford's property tax lineitem (for transit capital) which Tory expanded on could again be expanded upon. Both of those Mayors sold that lineitem as not increasing property taxes; so Keesmaat could continue that narrative.

Developers may not put up a big fight either. With sales slowing, unloading the unwanted suites (poor views, layouts, etc.) is getting more challenging. If the city picked them up at cost some may be able to build a project that otherwise wouldn't have gone through.

Perhaps give developers the ability to opt out for a price ($2M or something) which can be pooled to fund additional units elsewhere in the neighbourhood.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The city could purchase 2 to 3 floors (likely the bottom floors) in every proposed residential building within city limits.

Those will be seen as the ghetto floors, where parents tell their kids never to venture, unless picking up Dad's weed.

 

[Avenue]

Those will be seen as the ghetto floors, where parents tell their kids never to venture, unless picking up Dad's weed.

There a few city owned semi detached houses that serve as subsidized housing on my filthy rich Annex street and nobody calls those ghetto houses.

 

[DSC]

Those will be seen as the ghetto floors, where parents tell their kids never to venture, unless picking up Dad's weed.

You really do have a very elitist view of the world - I suspect you would like to live in a gated community so that the "awfulness of the world" could be kept out of sight. If you can manage to leave your bubble you should come and take a walk around St Lawrence where there are (expensive) condos, townhouses, co-ops and subsidised housing all mixed together and it is not easy to tell who lives where.

 

[Admiral Beez]

There a few city owned semi detached houses that serve as subsidized housing on my filthy rich Annex street and nobody calls those ghetto houses.

Here in Cabbagetown they certainly do consider them as such, at least until they were sold off recently, and the neighbours sighed in relief when the houses were bought up, the filth and neglect removed, and the houses restored. I don't blame the tenants, the TCHC should be maintaining these properties like any other home owner would.

You really do have a very elitist view of the world

You don't know me. But what I'll tell you is that putting all the marginalized folks into the bottom floors of a building will stigmatize that space. What should be done is to mix the affordable or RGI units throughout the building, from the penthouse on down.

- I suspect you would like...

Your suspicions are not my concern. If you want to know what I would like, then ask me? You make so many assumptions here.

St Lawrence where there are (expensive) condos, townhouses, co-ops and subsidised housing all mixed together and it is not easy to tell who lives where.

That's exactly what I've called for above, mix them together, instead of sticking all the subsidized units on the bottom floors.

 

[Avenue]

Well, yeah. That about sums up Cabbagetown.

 

[ShonTron]

MODS. It really is time the SURVEY at top of this thread was removed or redone. Apart from anything else, Justin di Dunpar is not running

I removed it.

 

[zang]

Here in Cabbagetown they certainly do consider them as such, at least until they were sold off recently, and the neighbours sighed in relief when the houses were bought up, the filth and neglect removed, and the houses restored.

The irony, given the origins of the neighbourhood (and by proxy its name).

 

[steveintoronto]

You really do have a very elitist view of the world - I suspect you would like to live in a gated community so that the "awfulness of the world" could be kept out of sight. If you can manage to leave your bubble you should come and take a walk around St Lawrence where there are (expensive) condos, townhouses, co-ops and subsidised housing all mixed together and it is not easy to tell who lives where.

St Lawrence immediately came to mind for me too. Affordable housing has gone awry in a number of cases, but it needn't if planned and implemented well. St Lawrence is more inviting than ever to cycle through and stop and talk, let alone live.

Keesmaat's emphasis is on *rental housing* and her "100,000" figure is over ten years. Yes it's ambitious. It's also necessary, and if the right factors line-up, do-able. Some of those factors aren't in place, but other cities, most notably Vancouver in Canada, and many cities in the US, NYC, etc are moving to more flexible zoning that allows much more mixed usage (commercial/residential/employment) which has many advantages for a city and a society, *if done well*.

I do have an issue with Keesmaat that during her time as Chief Planner, she was part of Toronto's very rigid zoning policy, but that's another discussion. Here's a page from a profoundly forward looking and excellently produced NYCity report:

November 2014 THE NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL
Engines of Opportunity
MELISSA MARK-VIVERITO, SPEAKER
Reinvigorating New York City’s Manufacturing Zones for the 21st Century
167.153.240.175/downloads/pdf/NYEO.pdf

I highly recommend reading the entire chapter, let alone the full report. Other US cities with similar flexible zoning are studied in the report, some of them well to the 'Right' politically. It's not a case of political stance, it's one of enlightenment.

Vancouver has a milder approach, but the most progressive in Canada:
https://www.cityofvancouver.us/sites/default/files/fileattachments/vmc/titles_chapters/20.430.pdf

Excellent Globe article on it here:
Industrial grit meets residential glass in Vancouver - The Globe and Mail

And further to Van's approach, something I've been made aware of by discussion with an architect friend involved in designing and building in Austria (He's to the Cdn 'Right of Centre' btw):

REAL ESTATE
The Vienna model for housing sanity

No housing shortage, no waiting lists, no Ponzi scheme-like market scramble. Can Vancouver learn anything from the Austrian way?

FRANCES BULA
SPECIAL TO THE GLOBE AND MAIL
PUBLISHED MAY 26, 2017 UPDATED NOVEMBER 12, 2017

Vancouver and Vienna often end up on the top of the "most liveable cities" lists, ranked highly for their quality of life, air, health care and education.

But the two couldn't be more different in one crucial aspect.

Vancouver is a region racked by the negative effects of spiralling real-estate prices and rents, with people bitterly divided over the causes and solutions amid warnings that young people's futures, businesses and urban life are being seriously damaged.


In Vienna, 60 per cent of the population lives in social housing and rents are set so that people pay no more than 30 per cent of their income. There is no housing shortage, no years-long waiting lists for subsidized housing, no mad scramble to pour money into a real estate market that feels like a Ponzi scheme.

When the city releases land for new development, architects, developers and non-profit groups compete to come up with designs that demonstrate how they will create attractive living spaces and a socially integrated community.

This month, Vancouverites are getting a chance to look closely at what's called the Vienna model and talk about whether one city could learn lessons from the other.

The Museum of Vancouver is hosting the travelling exhibit the Austrian government has sponsored on the Vienna model – recently arrived from New York, where it was popular – and a series of debates and tours has been organized around that. In a city desperate for solutions, that's generated a lot of public interest.

"This is something to help a discussion of housing as a public good," says Sabine Bitter, an artist and professor at Simon Fraser University who helped bring the exhibition to Vancouver. "It's a way of showing how people can organize their life in the city differently."

The question is what exactly can Vancouver take away from Vienna? [...]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/rea...-model-for-affordablehousing/article35128683/

Is Keesmaat's claim of "100,000 affordable units in ten years" do-able? Absolutely, but there's going to have to be a massive change in Toronto/Ontario mindset to do it. Even more than that number can be built. Austria is far from being alone doing this in nations with a higher standard of living than ours. And far better transit and overall livability too ...

Let the conversation begin...

Addendum: Just up at the Globe:

Vancouver removes perplexing roadblock to affordable housing

ADRIENNE TANNER
VANCOUVER
SPECIAL TO THE GLOBE AND MAIL
PUBLISHED SEPTEMBER 24, 2018 UPDATED 10 MINUTES AGO
Adrienne Tanner is Vancouver journalist who writes about civic affairs.

[...]
The solution gelled last week, when council voted unanimously to create the Vancouver Affordable Housing Endowment Fund. Its mandate is to finance and deliver, along with other partners, 72,000 units of truly affordable housing over the next 10 years. More than a third of the units will be geared toward households earning less than $80,000, including 12,000 units of social and supportive housing.
[...]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opi...s-perplexing-roadblock-to-affordable-housing/

 

[rbt]

Those will be seen as the ghetto floors, where parents tell their kids never to venture, unless picking up Dad's weed.

Not sure how this is a change from being a different building. It can be more distributed if you prefer tighter integration; perhaps 1 unit per floor instead.

My point was the city doesn't actually need land to build affordable housing; just money.

 

[King of Kensington]

It's funny to hear that Jennifer Keesmaat's housing plan is too "radical." I think for a progressive candidate it's too market-oriented and puts a progressive spin on enriching private developers.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Keesmatt doesn't stand a chance. The only reason she's getting any attention is that the media wants a race. I predict she gets less than 20% of the vote. 70% goes to Tory, with the rump wasted on the also rans.

The better plan is for Keesmatt to run for one of the 25 wards, and work in Council for a term. Then run for mayor after Tory leaves in 2022.

 

[King of Kensington]

I think it'll be more like a 2006-type result. Jennifer Keesmaat gets Olivia Chow's vote + some yuppies and strategic voters from last time. She'll bomb outside the old city of Toronto.

I also think turnout will be rather low in NW Toronto and Scarborough. Neither Tory or Keesmaat seem to have much appeal in working class districts on the city's periphery.

 

[Videodrome]

Maybe even more so if the only Ford remaining is Tiffany.

Works for me! Doug would probably rather see Mikey work for him.

 

[steveintoronto]

It's funny to hear that Jennifer Keesmaat's housing plan is too "radical." I think for a progressive candidate it's too market-oriented and puts a progressive spin on enriching private developers.

Yeah, it's beyond "funny"...it's ridiculous, and with nothing but accusations with no reference to support them.

She's getting it from both sides, which is a pretty good indicator of it being down the centre.

The better plan is for Keesmatt to run for one of the 25 wards, and work in Council for a term. Then run for mayor after Tory leaves in 2022.

How about the best plan? If she doesn't win (a distinct likelihood, but it's still an open race) then why waste the inertia? She has enough developers, planners and architects backing her to address what is now being termed "the largest election issue", and take it to the Market.

@King of Kensington sets it up nicely, and let's not forget what Keesmaat's past is:

Before becoming the chief planner of Toronto, she had worked on master plans in Toronto, Vancouver, Mississauga, Vaughan, Regina, Saskatoon, Lethbridge, Moncton, London and Halifax.[11] Outside of Canada, she has worked in the United States, Ireland and Greece. Along with Harold Madi and Antonio Gomez-Palacio, Keesmaat is a founder of the planning and design firm Office for Urbanism. She is also a founding partner at DIALOG.[11] She writes articles on planning-related topics, including recent editorials in the Toronto Star on the importance of complete streets and Complete Communities,[12][13] and in The Globe and Mail on the need to change approaches to land use planning to ensure the liveability and sustainability of Canada's future communities.[14] She has guest lectured at Ryerson University, York University, and the University of Toronto.[15] She has also delivered the TEDx talks Own your City and Walk to School.[16]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Keesmaat