Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
23,120
Reaction score
58,625
That's the one. It's almost more of a trapezoid, but it looks like a triangle because there's some landscaping at the northeast corner. It's just a stone's throw from Gledhill, so my point is less about the proximity to school and more about the overall composition of the project. Affordable housing should be close to schools! But to repeat my point, I'd rather see a mix of housing units within the development, so that families can move in and enjoy the neighbourhood. Sure, throw some studios into it as well, single people need homes too, but I think history has shown that affordable housing works best in buildings that have mixed income residents living in mixed housing stock. But the Trenton site feels too small to accomodate that style of building. What I'm describing makes way more sense on Cosburn.

Edit: Maybe it doesn't have to be either/or, but I could even see an argument for selling off the Trenton land, allowing townhouses to go up there, and then using the proceeds of the sale to help a proper development on the Cosburn parking lot.

That's the parking lot for the Curling Club.

It is also City-Owned.

The landscaping at the corner was to make the intersection safer, and narrow the pavement.

****

In theory, the parking could be underground.

There might be a conflict though.

There's an extremely large trunk sewer which also contains a remnant creek that comes out of Everett Park just up Oak Park Avenue.

That sewer ultimately intercepts both a trunk sewer and a CSO (combined sewer overflow) located below Stan Wadlow Park.

I'm not sure if that sewer passes only under the Oak Park Avenue alignment or encroaches on the parking.

Stan Wadlow Park is also a former landfill.

I believe that site is entirely north of Cosburn under the park; but I wouldn't want to be held to that.

Assuming neither issue is a conflict; placing the development on Cosburn would make sense.............

Mind you, I'm not keen on leaving that surface parking lot (on Cedarvale) as is, either way.
 

whatever

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 25, 2007
Messages
2,879
Reaction score
1,014
I wasn't aware of the encroachments on the Cosburn lot, but that may also account for why it's been left undeveloped all this time. But it's the kind of option that I'd like to see thoroughly explored, before we rush to throw something up on the Trenton site. As it stands it looks like there's a push for a ministerial zoning order to bypass the approval process, and if that happens there's no possibility of having an intelligent discussion about the best way to bring affordable units into the neighbourhood.

The surface lot on Cedarvale is serving some function in the community (parking is tight, very hard to get on-street permits in the area, few other available parking lots for the arena/pool/park), but I'm sure there's room for some creative imaginings for how to better use the public land. I'm just not convinced that the proposed housing, as-is, is an optimal use of the lot, nor is it an optimal solution to creating affordable housing.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
23,120
Reaction score
58,625
I wasn't aware of the encroachments on the Cosburn lot, but that may also account for why it's been left undeveloped all this time. But it's the kind of option that I'd like to see thoroughly explored, before we rush to throw something up on the Trenton site. As it stands it looks like there's a push for a ministerial zoning order to bypass the approval process, and if that happens there's no possibility of having an intelligent discussion about the best way to bring affordable units into the neighbourhood.

The surface lot on Cedarvale is serving some function in the community (parking is tight, very hard to get on-street permits in the area, few other available parking lots for the arena/pool/park), but I'm sure there's room for some creative imaginings for how to better use the public land. I'm just not convinced that the proposed housing, as-is, is an optimal use of the lot, nor is it an optimal solution to creating affordable housing.

That is an entirely thoughtful and fair-minded take.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
23,120
Reaction score
58,625
I'm not as keen on protecting the parking; a lot I have been known to park in from time to time............

But I do understand the inconvenience its removal will impose on some.

****

Entirely tangentially, I've long favoured (subject to the landfill issues not precluding this), moving the parking beside the arena underground; twinning-the-rink, shifting the pool onto the roof, of same, with a design
similar to the Regent Park Aquatic Centre, such that is it can be a near-outdoor pool in the summer (fully openable accordion doors/windows), and a fully indoor pool in the colder weather.

That would then free-up the current pool site; which could become part of the adjacent park OR, you could shift the clubhouse north, and add supplementary Recreation Centre facilities and directly abut the arena; then create the new park space to the south .

****

While I'm off on tangents......there's also some wasted space for surface parking and TDSB Operations to the north of the nearby D.A. Morrison school.


1614139566480.png


Again, I'm not certain how this interacts w/the Trunk Sewer; I don't think it's a conflict, but I'm not sure. But I'm sure it could be worked-around anyway.

The functions here (staff parking and some operations works, could be contained largely underground and accommodate housing over the top. Or on a portion of the site.

****

I also tend to favour the mixed-income model you note; though I'm not sure that can be easily integrated w/the supportive housing concept at play here.

Perhaps it could.

Hmmm.
 

interchange42

Administrator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
26,376
Reaction score
32,182
City:
Toronto
the hypocrisy of censoring
and deleting opposing opinions
You'll notice that opposing opinions remain throughout UrbanToronto threads, including this one. Those that are deleted are disrespectful and/or include ad hominem attacks, are trolling, etc. Read the Rules of Conduct.

42
 

whatever

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 25, 2007
Messages
2,879
Reaction score
1,014
The extra background is helpful, but it doesn't do anything to convince me that this is a great approach. $3.1 million year in operating funding for 128 residences works out to just over $2,000/month/residence. If we put that kind of money even into rent subsidies, how many units could we secure? Or what alternative models could we come up with that would generate some revenue to defray the operating budget?

I understand that this is supportive housing that comes with a bunch of additional services, but it seems like a ludicrously expensive and inefficient way of providing housing. And that's above and beyond our historical experiences around devoting entire buildings to single-person units. It just isn't the way to build strong communities. I don't always agree with him, but on this one I think John Sewell has the right of it: https://trnto.com/toronto-modular-housing/

There's unquestionably a housing crisis, people need somewhere to live, and the shelters are inhumane, but I wish we could talk this out and come up with solutions that actually work. My sense is that the City has already decided that this is what we're going to do, and the consultations are just theatre. I do hope this works out for everyone, though. If these projects fail it's going to be strikes against both modular and supportive housing in the city, and will make future projects that much more difficult.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
23,120
Reaction score
58,625
The extra background is helpful, but it doesn't do anything to convince me that this is a great approach. $3.1 million year in operating funding for 128 residences works out to just over $2,000/month/residence. If we put that kind of money even into rent subsidies, how many units could we secure? Or what alternative models could we come up with that would generate some revenue to defray the operating budget?

I understand that this is supportive housing that comes with a bunch of additional services, but it seems like a ludicrously expensive and inefficient way of providing housing. And that's above and beyond our historical experiences around devoting entire buildings to single-person units. It just isn't the way to build strong communities. I don't always agree with him, but on this one I think John Sewell has the right of it: https://trnto.com/toronto-modular-housing/

There's unquestionably a housing crisis, people need somewhere to live, and the shelters are inhumane, but I wish we could talk this out and come up with solutions that actually work. My sense is that the City has already decided that this is what we're going to do, and the consultations are just theatre. I do hope this works out for everyone, though. If these projects fail it's going to be strikes against both modular and supportive housing in the city, and will make future projects that much more difficult.

$2000 per person, per month, is considerably cheaper than Shelter accommodation which this is effectively replacing.

24/7 staffing, and supplementary services do not come cheap!

Shelter beds cost $40,000 per year which is $3,333 per person, per month.

As per this article:


So that's a 40% savings!
 

whatever

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 25, 2007
Messages
2,879
Reaction score
1,014
Wow. I had no idea a shelter bed was that expensive to supply! That makes $2000 a month seem like a bargain!

So I have to grant this is much more financially efficient than a shelter, but maintain my preference for mixed-income, mixed-unit housing. I wonder if any other jurisdictions have had experiences incorporating supportive housing into that mix.
 

ChesterCopperpot

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
4,118
Reaction score
6,891

allengeorge

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
1,484
Reaction score
3,560
I suspected this had to do with COVID-related federal funding timelines and indeed: the money the federal government earmarked has to be used by end of year. That’s partly why the city is moving so fast with these modular builds - and applying for MZOs.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
23,120
Reaction score
58,625
If a parking lot is the heart of a community - the community must suck.

The FB group is as awful as you'd expect - https://www.facebook.com/groups/205765427966591

There's lots of bad arguments in there for sure..........

But ya know, there's some interesting content too. (just read it for the first time because of your link).

1) They are trying to suggest alternate locations. Their motivation for doing so is problematic; but that doesn't mean they aren't coming up w/some interesting ideas. A few a bit loopy, like sites in the middle of the regulatory floodplain......

But some I'd like to see brought back to the City for serious consideration.

Top 2; The Green P lot on Cedarvale ( could just as easily argue for the one to the south as well).

Also, the parking behind the Beaches Recreation Centre. This one is actually a TDSB lot. But it occurs to me that there's been musing about enlarging/rebuilding the Beach CRC; and the the parking could go underneath it, instead of behind it.

That would free up that land.

Probably not suitable, the way it's currently arranged for mid-rise form; but perfectly workable for stacked townhome form.

2) The mod of the group, much as I'm not keen on his objective, is actually putting out facts and smacking down some of the stupider statements.
 

rbt

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
7,189
Reaction score
3,363
1) They are trying to suggest alternate locations. Their motivation for doing so is problematic; but that doesn't mean they aren't coming up w/some interesting ideas. A few a bit loopy, like sites in the middle of the regulatory floodplain......

But some I'd like to see brought back to the City for serious consideration.

Agreed, not as alternatives but additional locations.
 

Top