HousingNowTO
Senior Member
Yeah, early days problems have echoed down thru the rest of the HOUSING NOW program... this U of T report is not just about HOUSING NOW sites, but these comments apply to all of them...
Update on this one to next week's CreateTO meeting:
There have been changes to the 'terms' to reflect the economic headwinds on the project, but those are as yet confidential.
What has not changed is the number of affordable housing units.
The new report suggests a construction start of Q1 2024:
View attachment 462629
Yeah, CMHC stuff is crazy-making...Approved by CreateTOs Board. BUT....
Still needs financing from CMHC.
My view, CMHC should providing a pre-approved envelope to the Housing Now Program that covers multiple sites, and they just file through and claim their financing. This hold-up is ridiculous.
View attachment 469994
^^^^ From the April CreateTO Agenda: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2023/ra/bgrd/backgroundfile-235720.pdf
A great, if depressing article looks at the miserable failure that the City's Housing Now program has become.
Equally clear is that various other departments dragged their feet as well. I would disagree with Mark, in the article about the value of the traffic studies, I think they are/were needed, but on an expedited basis. Time is indeed money, and these studies can be done well, and quickly, if staff and/or third parties are properly motivated.
The quote “Those transportation reports aren’t free --- Time is money, time is units, time is risk.” was given in the context of the local Councillor's push-back on reducing the $5/Day commuter parking. That context didn't really come out in the STAR article...View attachment 482887
View attachment 482879
To be honest, the STAR feeder-papers (Metroland Media) were "part of the problem" on the commuter parking-lot problems in mid-2019... by giving the NIMPL (Not In My Parking Lot) folks sympathetic front-page coverage...The Star's lack of context is unfortunate there, as I would agree w/you that no traffic study was required for the commuter parking lot issue. Obviously there would be an impact as those lot users either:
a) Changed mode
b) Parked at a different commuter lot
c) Chose to drive to their destination.
But those impacts would not be felt locally, and as such that development need not be delayed/burdened by such a study.
People pretty much demanded it in this ward, "more traffic" and "where will I park after I drop off my kids" were the rally cry of the idiots in this area.The Star's lack of context is unfortunate there, as I would agree w/you that no traffic study was required for the commuter parking lot issue. Obviously there would be an impact as those lot users either:
a) Changed mode
b) Parked at a different commuter lot
c) Chose to drive to their destination.
But those impacts would not be felt locally, and as such that development need not be delayed/burdened by such a study.