The problem is there's a constant demand for mediocre, if not downright hideous-looking, condos. If people stop buying units in trashy-looking buildings and demand more aesthetically-pleasing ones, developers will be forced to adapt. Of course another question is: can they afford units in these better-looking buildings? Pre-construction condos in downtown Toronto are selling north of $1.5k per sq ft, even in ugly buildings. I have no idea what the developers' margins are like, but presumably the extra costs of better designs and materials will be passed on to buyers.
 
Last edited:
allengeorge said:
My observation is that in general Canadians are conservative; so far we don’t value big bets in businesses or in investments. We do it from time to time, but it’s not really in our national psyche.
Click to expand...
Er..not sure how I feel about that, as that would make me a conservative too. And I'm pretty sure I'm the furthest thing from that... >.<

...perhaps we're not as economically libertarian would be more accurate assessment here.
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
Er..not sure how I feel about that, as that would make me a conservative too. And I'm pretty sure I'm the furthest thing from that... >.<

...perhaps we're not as economically libertarian would be more accurate assessment here.
Click to expand...
I have no opinions on yours - or others - social or economic leanings. I will say that one can be economically conservative, but not socially so.

And I don’t think it’s just economic libertarianism at play. I do think there’s an element of economic risk aversion. My (uninformed) opinion is that this is partly driven by the heavy presence of government in our economy as well as oligopolies in all sectors. The Canadian government at all levels is hard to convince to use new processes or technologies (especially from Canadian startups). And our large companies don’t see a reason to innovate since they are often insulated from competition and have a captive audience.

At a policy level we have a tendency to overregulate off the bat as opposed to letting experimentation happen and curbing the worst of the excesses. A particularly laughable example of this was Toronto’s A La Cart program. This also happens at a provincial level, where we constrain the free movement of labour and food (EDIT: meant to say ‘goods’) across borders, at a significant ongoing drag to our GDP.

I also don’t think - as others have pointed out above - that we demand more of our companies or governments. We complain, but happily settle for mediocrity.

Finally, I do think our small population size relative to the US (and we have to consider the US, since it is next door and money and labour can fairly easily flow across the border) along with the issues above means that there’s a disadvantage to starting a company here. It’s easier to get money and grow businesses south of the border. And, if you have skills in demand and are willing to relocate you can easily double or triple your income. We lose a lot of opportunity and talent that way.

I want to point out that I can have contradictory views: for example, I want to open the economy to competition, yet I don’t want us to become a branch plant economy; I have decried our mid/late 90s selloff of major mining companies and our unwillingness to create national champions (government-led industrial policy is definitely not in vogue among economic liberalizers!)

If we want to continue, I’m happy to take this discussion to another thread.
 
Last edited:
allengeorge said:
I have no opinions on yours - or others - social or economic leanings. I will say that one can be economically conservative, but not socially so.

And I don’t think it’s just economic libertarianism at play. I do think there’s an element of economic risk aversion. My (uninformed) opinion is that this is partly driven by the heavy presence of government in our economy as well as oligopolies in all sectors. The Canadian government at all levels is hard to convince to use new processes or technologies (especially from Canadian startups). And our large companies don’t see a reason to innovate since they are often insulated from competition and have a captive audience.

At a policy level we have a tendency to overregulate off the bat as opposed to letting experimentation happen and curbing the worst of the excesses. A particularly laughable example of this was Toronto’s A La Cart program. This also happens at a provincial level, where we constrain the free movement of labour and food (EDIT: meant to say ‘goods’) across borders, at a significant ongoing drag to our GDP.

I also don’t think - as others have pointed out above - that we demand more of our companies or governments. We complain, but happily settle for mediocrity.

Finally, I do think our small population size relative to the US (and we have to consider the US, since it is next door and money and labour can fairly easily flow across the border) along with the issues above means that there’s a disadvantage to starting a company here. It’s easier to get money and grow businesses south of the border. And, if you have skills in demand and are willing to relocate you can easily double or triple your income. We lose a lot of opportunity and talent that way.

I want to point out that I can have contradictory views: for example, I want to open the economy to competition, yet I don’t want us to become a branch plant economy; I have decried our mid/late 90s selloff of major mining companies and our unwillingness to create national champions (government-led industrial policy is definitely not in vogue among economic liberalizers!)

If we want to continue, I’m happy to take this discussion to another thread.
Click to expand...
I sorta get that. And I am not really disputing that. As well as, one can hold economic views that seem to contradict their social views (but not really in actuality). As well as terms applied can seem to be confusing at times, such as neoliberalism is not the same thing as social liberalism..but I agree, one can hold both those views...

...I just don't think..or least I haven't considered that as not as valuing big bets in businesses or in investments as being a good thing as being economically conservative. Fiscally responsible, maybe? But I have my reasons that I object to being labelled as such. Not that I am offended by this...more like I never thought it of myself that way in this if that makes sense.

Getting back to here though, I do agree that our concerns with this project here are not the result of tall poppy syndrome, rather result of a developer that has been notorious for VE'ing their projects. And the danger of having to look at another blight on the skyline for the ages is a very real prospect here. It has nothing to do with Madison's success or how fast or loose they're playing with their investments for that fact. It's simply we don't trust them to pull off something like their renderings are suggesting.

Anywhoose, thank you for your time and in explaining all of this! /bows
 
Last edited:
UtakataNoAnnex said:
Er..not sure how I feel about that, as that would make me a conservative too. And I'm pretty sure I'm the furthest thing from that... >.<

...perhaps we're not as economically libertarian would be more accurate assessment here.
Click to expand...
Yeah I agree with you. I’m quite radical/imaginative when it comes to politics and culture

I don’t identify with the conservative straight-laced Torontonian that is too scared of stepping on others toes and being rigid with new ideas or change. I try so hard to break out of that.

I do think its a generational thing. I’m in my 20s and grew up in midtown. I think in many ways we are feeling the effects of a broken system that is static and is affecting our way of life in the city, so we are embracing experimentation in a way that benefits us. Imo.
 
I don't know about the generational thing. Among my late 20s, early 30s friend group, people have moved away from youthful radicalism and naivety. That's not to say we don't care about doing better. But we also increasingly realize that things are much more complicated than the simplistic "revolution" narrative we were fed in school.
 
Undead said:
I don't know about the generational thing. Among my late 20s, early 30s friend group, people have moved away from youthful radicalism and naivety. That's not to say we don't care about doing better. But we also increasingly realize that things are much more complicated than the simplistic "revolution" narrative we were fed in school.
Click to expand...
I guess I never went to such a school in my youth...it was mostly about respecting hierarchy and rigidity, where everyone wore the same uniform and conformed to the same rules. Perhaps it's why my radicalism is still relevant today sans the naivety, lol.

...that said, I'm not sure it's ever a good idea base how things are today on one's life experience though, because it's never the same for everyone.

And that's pretty much all I'm going to discuss on this subject here.
 
Then you haven't been on a college campus the last 10-15 years lol. Breeding grounds of radicalism with unfortunate real world consequences as we've seen over and over in recent years.

UtakataNoAnnex said:
...that said, I'm not sure it's ever a good idea base how things are today on one's life experience though, because it's never the same for everyone.
Click to expand...
Sure, but there's also larger scale evidence for my anecdotal observations: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/01/upshot/millennials-polling-politics-republicans.html
 
Last edited:
I am not sure why we are arguing whether rust coloured aluminum will look good or not or whether it will be value-engineered, because we kind of know the answer: aluminum hardly ever looks good and the very choice of material has already dictated that it has been value engineered. Heck, we have a new build on Yonge Street around the corner from this site and its covered in rust coloured aluminum....and it looks sh*t (cough* cough* Lifetime).

It will be cheap looking aluminum fins going up a sprandel covered building. I would be surprised if it turned out to be anything more.
 
Hopefully Northern Light-san has saved us delving into the tedium of bothside'isms, naivety indeed...

...and hopefully Madison will keep with the integrity of architect and materials. It will be telling how they'll be handling Alias of what we could expect here.
 
This one is up for a Decision Report - Approval Recommended to the next meeting of TEYCC:


No changes to overall architecture.

But the office space is likely gone, and in its place we have this for @HousingNowTO

1728659585712.png


On Parkland:

1728659702987.png
 
Adding to the watch list. thx!
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top