TossYourJacket said:
So we shouldn't build housing along a subway line?

We have a housing crisis, where do you expect people to live? Ideally yes we'd just replace the yellow belt instead but we all know that isn't going to happen so what is the answer if we cant build there and we can't build here?
Click to expand...

As others have mentioned - this isn't an argument against intensification, but that this is an example of what should be preserved during that process. Not everything can and should be saved, but it seems that we have tilted to the nonsensical position that nothing but 2 story houses can be preserved as is without any ridiculous addition, no matter their worth (another case in point - 1 Front). Our built form reflected this extreme bifurcation.

AoD
 
Last edited:
This is NOT an attractive addition to our city. It is nonsense to build housing just because it is housing on a transit line or not. Especially if it is at the expense of an existing 'heritage' structure.
 
I like the redesign a lot! Also it looks so much better now compare to the first renderings. It retains the look of the heritage podium. We need more of this!
 
Northern Light said:
A Member Motion to next week's Council meeting amends the previous settlement offer to provide and additional 4 affordable housing units for 40 year terms (total 24)


@HousingNowTO
Click to expand...
Hmmm... QUOTE : "Through the more detailed design process it was determined that 24 rather than 20 affordable rental housing units are required to meet the minimum of 15 percent of the converted office floor space. As well, the location of the affordable housing units is proposed to be relocated from levels 2 and 3 to levels 3 and 4 of the existing building."

a.) It used to be 20% of the converted office floor space in prior Office-to-Affordable-Rental conversions.

b.) No breakdown on unit-types and bedroom counts, so makes it harder to assess the quality of this revised deal.
 
HousingNowTO said:
Hmmm... QUOTE : "Through the more detailed design process it was determined that 24 rather than 20 affordable rental housing units are required to meet the minimum of 15 percent of the converted office floor space. As well, the location of the affordable housing units is proposed to be relocated from levels 2 and 3 to levels 3 and 4 of the existing building."

a.) It used to be 20% of the converted office floor space in prior Office-to-Affordable-Rental conversions.

b.) No breakdown on unit-types and bedroom counts, so makes it harder to assess the quality of this revised deal.
Click to expand...

You ask, I help. (usually, LOL)

Layout - 3rd floor, red units are affordable. - 17 beds over 12 units


1765568941817.png


4th Floor: 17 beds over 12 units

1765568990942.png



Unit sizes are good, nothing smaller than 644ft2 for a 1bdrm, nothing smaller than 935ft2 for 2bdrm, 3bdrm is over 1,200ft2.

Area of each floor after deductions is 1,081m2 which is ~11,635ft2, the market units (one per floor) are 598ft2 each or 1,196ft2 total out of the 22,270ft over the 2 levels.

That leaves you with 21,074ft2 of affordable units.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top