[flonicky]

Unfortunately as long as large swathes of nearby unremarkable Victorian houses, also largely altered, are protected from redevelopment, this will continue to happen. Most significant heritage buildings are located in the few areas where the City allows tall buildings to get built, so this is going to happen over and over and over.

Having just spent the better part of the day on the dystopian nightmare that is Eglinton East, I would argue that our "unremarkable Victorian houses" should not be touched until we begin to consider maybe, possibly, a some point in the far future, begin to discuss the topic of suburban reform. Instead of ruining the livable part of the city, let's start thinking about making the unlivable portion more livable.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

Mixed agreement here too. And with the risk of going down this off-topic rabbit hole, immigration has been an all too easy escape to blame our issues on....when the real issue has always been greed. And to a degree our own homemade greed. Many of the comments here have been eluding to that...

...getting back off my own socialist soapbox (and more on topic) here, there is also something to be said about large single family houses and their all consuming footprints. So for me at there is a good grounds to replace those with multi-residential, multi-purposed buildings. To which should looked on a case by case, evidence based process that doesn't include angry NIMBY's yelling at the clouds, IMO.

Finally, I do believe this building here does need preserving to best of the developer's abilities. And try to work the tower around that...for what that's worth.

 

[egotrippin]

Having just spent the better part of the day on the dystopian nightmare that is Eglinton East, I would argue that our "unremarkable Victorian houses" should not be touched until we begin to consider maybe, possibly, a some point in the far future, begin to discuss the topic of suburban reform. Instead of ruining the livable part of the city, let's start thinking about making the unlivable portion more livable.

Unremarkable Victorian housing is a wild comment. This right here is where you've hit the nail on the head though; we need to stop eviscerating the livable older neighbourhoods and improve the suburbs.

Fun fact, one day I was curious so I looked at the density of some of our "unremarkable" older neighbourhoods that have a lot of SFH, but were built before cars were dominant. If in an alternate universe we kept building neighbourhoods at that scale and density, across the boundaries of present day Toronto, you could fit approx. 6 million people vs the current 2.93 million. That's with the typology you see across places like Leslieville, the Annex, Little Italy, etc.

We've been duped into allowing developers to run amok with crappy towers full of unlivable units that served no one except investors and said developers. It's all coming home to roost now that investors have stopped buying and new projects are stalled or being cancelled left and right. So much for condo developers building for altruistic reasons like more housing and improved affordability.... just a few more storeys, right? That'll solve the issue.

 

[Undead]

You can (and should) change immigration numbers, heritage protections, and zoning laws, but it won't make a difference until the market economics of real-estate investment change.

Not true either: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/bus...-in-september-marking-fifth-straight-monthly/

Cutting foreign student intake has sent rents falling across ON and BC, and especially in Van and TO.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

And there we go, correlation and causation...

 

[Undead]

^If that's aimed at the Globe article I linked, then you've really got a penchant for disputing facts and muddying the water. The Bank of Canada confirmed the same thing earlier this year.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

....

 

[FastidiousHack]

Not true either: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/bus...-in-september-marking-fifth-straight-monthly/

Cutting foreign student intake has sent rents falling across ON and BC, and especially in Van and TO.

Interest rates, see below:

And there we go, correlation and causation...

 

[Undead]

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.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

Now which facts are we referring to? Ones that are actual or ones approved by bad actors who don’t like to be proven wrong?

 

[Northern Light]

Now which facts are we referring to? Ones that are actual or ones approved by bad actors who don’t like to be proven wrong?

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:

 

[torontologist]

I'm going to be contrarian here.......... I see value in preserving what I think is one of the most desirable aspects of Toronto, tree-lined, Victorian-styled, human-scaled side streets.

I certainly wouldn't mind if a few of those were converted to apartments inside (legally); or if a few select streets of them went commercial. But the idea that the only way to save a few excellent buildings such as this one is to agree to a wholesale demolition of The Annex doesn't sit right with me.

I see no reason we can't do both.



Again, we need to state first, that it is a choice to grow our population, not some unavoidable feat of nature. With birth rates well below replacement, if we slowed the runaway train of newcomers, we could actually see housing prices fall, rent fall, homelessness alleviated and pressure to wipe out heritage buildings subside.

That to one side, there is ample room to replace strip plazas and non-descript bungalows throughout the City with new development.



Let me try a different take............ this just shouldn't be built............anywhere.

If we scale back non-domestic students in numbers, there will be no student housing crisis. We also already have a proposed new residence on U of T's campus that is not under construction; and TMU/Ryerson still has a potential residence site sitting empty.



Yes, the City has wrongly designated some buildings, but that plays little role in this outcome.

No one is advocating for wholesale destruction. There are plenty of insignificant or run-down properties within 5 blocks of here that are protected (through zoning mostly). These would be cheap and appropriate sites for intensification. When these sites are not available, it starts to make financial sense to undertake a façadectomy on a significant heritage building like this.

Even if immigration is reduced, there is still not enough housing in downtown Toronto to shelter everyone who wants to live here. The affordability crisis started 2016-2017. It's not just students.

If Toronto is going to successfully transition to being a sustainable, fully walkable city, we are going to need more density around downtown and in shoulder areas. Tradeoffs are going to have to be made, and keeping very central neighbourhoods in their current low-rise state should not be a priority.

Put me down as a huge fan of alleged "unremarkable" Victorian housing. I guarantee that, should they be eradicated, multitudes of Torontonians will bemoan the relative paucity of historical examples in the city's building range of typologies.

It's not a spartan, either/or equation. There's plenty of room for a lot of variation in building height, scale, cladding materials, etc. You don't have to knock down every two story building because it's supposedly in the way of some vague notion of "progress."

There certainly isn't a paucity right now; in terms of land coverage, the pre-amalgamation Toronto of the 1890's-1920's is largely still extant. What *is* missing are many of the most elaborate and significant commercial/institutional buildings from that era because the City is not properly protecting them and constraining new construction to the core and along main streets.

Unremarkable Victorian housing is a wild comment. This right here is where you've hit the nail on the head though; we need to stop eviscerating the livable older neighbourhoods and improve the suburbs.

Fun fact, one day I was curious so I looked at the density of some of our "unremarkable" older neighbourhoods that have a lot of SFH, but were built before cars were dominant. If in an alternate universe we kept building neighbourhoods at that scale and density, across the boundaries of present day Toronto, you could fit approx. 6 million people vs the current 2.93 million. That's with the typology you see across places like Leslieville, the Annex, Little Italy, etc.

We've been duped into allowing developers to run amok with crappy towers full of unlivable units that served no one except investors and said developers. It's all coming home to roost now that investors have stopped buying and new projects are stalled or being cancelled left and right. So much for condo developers building for altruistic reasons like more housing and improved affordability.... just a few more storeys, right? That'll solve the issue.

People want to live in areas that are close to their work, transit and amenities. We should be accommodating as many people as possible in the "liveable older neighbourhoods" because it is impossible to artificially re-create that built form today. Right-of-ways have to be three times as wide, building codes place absurd requirements on new construction, and transit is *extremely* expensive to build. A new Leslieville at Jane and Finch is... unrealistic, to say the least.

I agree with you that 60 storeys is excessive, but right now it's impossible to build something even just 5 storeys as close to this as D'Arcy St.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

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

Thank you for taking the time to reply to this in earnest….

However, first of all and once again this brings up correlation and causation issues I have been eluding to…which does not deny there might be a connection here. But rather suggests other things might be other going on instead. And to be clear, this is a discussion point…and not a claim made in contradiction without evidence as being suggested here.

Secondly, I will say that I do have problems with this because it targets foreign students as immigrants unfairly. As well as institutions that rely upon them…all in order to bring down rents that many of us still cannot likely afford. And a distraction from government doing the right thing by helping create a national housing program that gives everyone right to adequate accommodations instead, IMO.

Finally, I am miffed that you defending someone who took extreme issues with me for pointing out the correlation problem, whether I was right or wrong in doing so. I am sorry, but behaviour like that sets off my trolldar and baloney detectors in a big way. As the demands being made by this poster seems to be less about whether the facts are right here, rather someone whose views don’t want to be challenged or called out. Just so you know…

…with that all said, I am willing to agree to disagree here and move on. This has far gone off topic to which I am willing to take some responsibility for. And my apologies for that. /bows

 

[Northern Light]

Thank you for taking the time to reply to this in earnest….

You're welcome.

However, first of all and once again this brings up correlation and causation issues I have been eluding to…which does not deny there might be a connection here. But rather suggests other things might be other going on instead. And to be clear, this is a discussion point…and not a claim made in contradiction without evidence as being suggested here.

Secondly, I will say that I do have problems with this because it targets foreign students as immigrants unfairly. As well as institutions that rely upon them…all in order to bring down rents that many of us still cannot likely afford. And a distraction from government doing the right thing by helping create a national housing program that gives everyone right to adequate accommodations instead, IMO.

***

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.

 

[Undead]

Secondly, I will say that I do have problems with this because it targets foreign students as immigrants unfairly. As well as institutions that rely upon them…all in order to bring down rents that many of us still cannot likely afford. And a distraction from government doing the right thing by helping create a national housing program that gives everyone right to adequate accommodations instead, IMO.

Finally, I am miffed that you defending someone who took extreme issues with me for pointing out the correlation problem, whether I was right or wrong in doing so. I am sorry, but behaviour like that sets off my trolldar and baloney detectors in a big way. As the demands being made by this poster seems to be less about whether the facts are right here, rather someone whose views don’t want to be challenged or called out. Just so you know…

I'm annoyed you make smug comments all the time without providing much of a logical argument or evidence. And then accusing others of trolling is just the cherry on top.

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.

You covered all the bases.