[UtakataNoAnnex]

You're welcome.





***

Let me take the two points above together.

I will let @Undead speak for himself, but I don't be he or I ever suggested that foreign students were some how malevolent or trying to cause a problem.

Rather, the issue is one of supply and demand. If you permit 'x' number of people to enter your country for a period of time, they must have somewhere to stay. Presumably, when they come from abroad, at great personal/family cost, they imagine they will have a place to stay, that they/their family can afford.

In reality, that has been untrue in recent years. Not because foreign students are bad people or intentionally causing a problem, but because they've been mislead by immigration consultants, by post-secondary institutions and by the government of Canada as to the reality.

We offered people the chance to come here, under false pretenses.

There wasn't any housing available. Or at least, far too little to meet demand.

That's unfair to the those foreign students, and their families, who have taken on debts, enormous risk to move 1/2 way across the world for an opportunity that is nothing but a mirage.

As a country, we have failed them, and ourselves.

No malice or failing is attributed to people aspiring to a better life.

Rather greed and avarice and indifference to human welfare are rightly attributed to those who invited people to be homeless or live in squalor, to those who suggested opportunity for great education that is in fact second-rate, and that in any event they can't do justice to, because they need to work 60 hours a week just to survive.

There is food for thought here…

…but to be clear, I wasn’t accusing anyone of harbouring any anti-foreign student sentiments in the commentary either. Rather my focus has been on government and policy…to which I still stand by for the most part in my opinions of. At least it is nice to know some more context behind this. Thank you for that.

As for Undead’s sentiments towards me, is unsurprising. Although my feelings are quite mutual here “all the time” and to put it mildly. So let’s say from now on I let will others to address their more grievous claims and reactions since we will unlikely to see eye to eye on a lot of things. There is no real point in me in debating it.

…anywhoose, that’s enough of me!

 

[FastidiousHack]

Rents are falling because the feds reduced the intake of international students.

As for interest rates, the hikes *increased* rents because of higher carrying costs that investor owners passed on to renters.

I suggest people acquaint themselves with the facts before posting.

Have to say here, @Undead has his facts right.

Canada’s rent growth slows as international student enrolment drops - National | Globalnews.ca

Last month, rents across Canada reached an average of $2,193 per month, according to Rentals.ca and Urbanation’s latest National Rent Report.

globalnews.ca

From the above:

View attachment 603135

I'm just here for good discussion, and I'm happy to change my mind when presented with new information. However, I think you're broadly missing the point of what I'm trying to say.

I concede that immigration contributes to demand for rental housing, and that lowering immigration numbers drop rents in the short-term. However, changing immigration numbers won't solve the housing crisis.

The macroeconomic makeup of our real-estate market is flawed. Put simply, we're investing all our money in a non-productive asset, that commodifies a basic human right, and siphons money from the lower to upper (landowning) class in the process. This isn't me being anti-capitalist, actually the opposite. I'm specifically pointing out that the money we're investing as a society should be more focused on productive assets that don't widen the wealth gap or profit off of shelter.

It's like if someone were to build a dam and cause a drought, then charge people for bottled water. Sure, having more people that require said water bottles would increase the price, but that person commodifying a human necessity would find a reason to increase the price regardless.

I'm not advocating for a shooting ourselves in the foot like China has done to curb their real-estate bubble. I'm advocating for a carrot & stick approach to redirect capital towards more productive assets.

 

[Northern Light]

I'm just here for good discussion, and I'm happy to change my mind when presented with new information. However, I think you're broadly missing the point of what I'm trying to say.

I concede that immigration contributes to demand for rental housing, and that lowering immigration numbers drop rents in the short-term. However, changing immigration numbers won't solve the housing crisis.

The macroeconomic makeup of our real-estate market is flawed. Put simply, we're investing all our money in a non-productive asset, that commodifies a basic human right, and siphons money from the lower to upper (landowning) class in the process. This isn't me being anti-capitalist, actually the opposite. I'm specifically pointing out that the money we're investing as a society should be more focused on productive assets that don't widen the wealth gap or profit off of shelter.

It's like if someone were to build a dam and cause a drought, then charge people for bottled water. Sure, having more people that require said water bottles would increase the price, but that person commodifying a human necessity would find a reason to increase the price regardless.

I'm not advocating for a shooting ourselves in the foot like China has done to curb their real-estate bubble. I'm advocating for a carrot & stick approach to redirect capital towards more productive assets.

I take no issue w/your thesis and previously hit 'like' in support of it.

I don't disagree w/your point of view.

But to run with your analogy, when one is low on water (whatever the cause), and the price of accessing water is becoming a burden for many, it is counter productive to increase demand for said water.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't look at what gave rise to the problem in the first place; but we still have to mitigate in the near term.

 

[FastidiousHack]

I take no issue w/your thesis and previously hit 'like' in support of it.

I don't disagree w/your point of view.

But to run with your analogy, when one is low on water (whatever the cause), and the price of accessing water is becoming a burden for many, it is counter productive to increase demand for said water.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't look at what gave rise to the problem in the first place; but we still have to mitigate in the near term.

Totally agree, immigration numbers need to be adjusted for our capacity to house new people. Just as zoning, transportation planning, and heritage protection all need some review.

The building proposed on this site is a symbol of that.

 

[thecharioteer]

The focus of the discussion has been on the student housing aspect of this proposal, not the architecture. They are proposing student housing, market housing and institutional uses. I would frame the question as to whether any tower could be added to the site while respecting the integrity of the heritage building. I would answer yes, however this proposal falls short on a number of grounds: 1) Massing: the tower floorplate is too large in relation to the heritage building (it's 840 SM). Pulling back the tower from College would improve the relationship. The tower should be pushed as close to the schoolyard as possible; 2) Height: 60 storeys doesn't bother me, and I realize that a larger floorplate is necessary to accommodate the number of elevators needed for a 60-storey building. Reducing the floor plate would likely reduce the height of the tower. Articulating the tower would help; 3) Materiality: the banality of the materials and windows emphasize the lack of compatibility with the heritage building and help lead to the impression that this entire proposal is a "value-add" exercise and not a real building; 4) Programming: I haven't looked at the drawings and wonder how they are handling the different uses on the ground floor. Student housing and market housing are not particularly compatible uses if they are all sharing one lobby and elevators. This is a complicated program and it does not appear to be thought through. I would hope (but am not optimistic) that the planning and heritage review of this proposal actually results in a better building.

 

[rdaner]

I like the 20,000sf of institutional space.