thefreak said:
Light is not a right?? As if rights are the ONLY things that should be protected? What a load of crap, garbage platitude. I suppose we should cut all funding to the ttc because public transport is not a RIGHT.

Low hanging fruit @Filip.
Click to expand...
Well.. it's not. The slippery slope argument you offered doesn't help.
 
Light should absolutely be a right. In jurisdictions around the globe, they have 'right to natural light' easements etc., and potential by-laws to protect and promote natural light on certain areas. Take the city's stance on shadows that are cast on public parks and spaces - while not a residential tower, you can see that people are concerned with the access to natural light. I have lived in places where the spaces are so tight there is no light access at all and it makes for a pretty bitter and dark existence.

Aside from the debate of whether or not it is a privilege to live downtown or not (it shouldn't be), the concept that natural light is a right would behoove designers and builders to come up with more innovative approaches to getting natural light into buildings.

p5
 
At the end of the day, we're talking about an apartment for subsided housing. No offence but people who cannot afford to live in downtown don't have to live in downtown. They get the privilege of downtown living at a discount, while others need to save up ridiculous amounts of money, even sacrifice living with parents, or in the burbs while commuting for hours to work in downtown in order to save up for a tiny shoebox.

In any case, those facing north have a sufficient setback from 75 Esplanade, as such that they don't have to stare at a cement wall.

p5connex said:
Light should absolutely be a right. In jurisdictions around the globe, they have 'right to natural light' easements etc., and potential by-laws to protect and promote natural light on certain areas. Take the city's stance on shadows that are cast on public parks and spaces - while not a residential tower, you can see that people are concerned with the access to natural light. I have lived in places where the spaces are so tight there is no light access at all and it makes for a pretty bitter and dark existence.

Aside from the debate of whether or not it is a privilege to live downtown or not (it shouldn't be), the concept that natural light is a right would behoove designers and builders to come up with more innovative approaches to getting natural light into buildings.

p5
Click to expand...
 
Not about to turn this thread into a debate about affordability in the city, but seriously your thinking is out of sync with how a society should work. In essence your suggesting that only those who can afford to live in the downtown should! If I didn't know you were an AH before, I certainly know it now.
 
The rights argument is irrelevant in my mind. The question should be framed in terms of public good. Is it in the public good to build cheaper housing so that working poor have easier access to the most dense employment areas/ government services? Is it in the public good to make sure apartments have access to light? Is it in the public good to build transportation so more people can access more employment areas? Unless you are in favour of a city where everyone has to commute 1h plus to work than yes working poor need to live close to downtown.
 
Irishmonk said:
We need light to live, so obviously it is a right.

It's over-entitled folks such as yourself who are laying waste to the world as we know it.
Click to expand...
Wrong - water is also not a right, believe it or not.

You want light and downtown living? Pay for it.

People spend $500k on a shoebox downtown so that in the following 2 years another condo goes right in front of their unit and they live in perpetual shadow. But somehow subsidized housing 'deserves' to have their light protected? Wtf.

There is no entitlement - it's called merit.
 
Filip said:
Wrong - water is also not a right, believe it or not.

You want light and downtown living? Pay for it.

People spend $500k on a shoebox downtown so that in the following 2 years another condo goes right in front of their unit and they live in perpetual shadow. But somehow subsidized housing 'deserves' to have their light protected? Wtf.

There is no entitlement - it's called merit.
Click to expand...
What on earth are you talking about. Are you saying that we should be paying for light like we pay for water? The hyper free market thinking has gone way too far. Not everything should be for sale. You should read Michael Sandel's book "What money cant buy".
 
There's no point in arguing with certain people.

The fact that some resorted to name-calling ("AH"?) and bringing political preferences into the discussion in regards to a condo development just goes to show you the type of people who are blindly defending something without any real logic, all due to self-entitlement. It is what it is and you'll just be wasting your own energy continuing this.

Filip said:
You’ll have to help me understand the logic leap you’ve made here. Going from the right to light to Doug Ford? Some of you are obsessed.
Click to expand...
 
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! Wow! hilarious.

And to be perfectly clear here - I did not advocate or even insinuate that residents of subsidized housing deserve to have their "natural light" protected, vs. those who, as you so eloquently put it; live in the parents hovel of a basement for 10 years to scrounge together enough money to live in a tiny shoe-box, wrapped in the privileged womb of downtown living. But rather, that natural light should be a right and it should be an emphasized component when designing residential buildings (or buildings) IN GENERAL!!
 
p5connex said:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! Wow! hilarious.

And to be perfectly clear here - I did not advocate or even insinuate that residents of subsidized housing deserve to have their "natural light" protected, vs. those who, as you so eloquently put it; live in the parents hovel of a basement for 10 years to scrounge together enough money to live in a tiny shoe-box, wrapped in the privileged womb of downtown living. But rather, that natural light should be a right and it should be an emphasized component when designing residential buildings (or buildings) IN GENERAL!!
Click to expand...

I think that's a fair statement. However in this particular instance, I think it's an overreaction to say this project somehow eliminated natural light for the neigbhouring building as if it will turn the place pitch black. It will not - and let's not forget about the amount of shadowing a slab the existing building itself imposes either.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Stefan said:
There's no point in arguing with certain people.

The fact that some resorted to name-calling ("AH"?) and bringing political preferences into the discussion in regards to a condo development just goes to show you the type of people who are blindly defending something without any real logic, all due to self-entitlement. It is what it is and you'll just be wasting your own energy continuing this.
Click to expand...

Right - rise above it all Stefan..you saint! And name calling?? Where did you see that? AH is an acronym and a term of endearment - it means, Ascending Hero - voice of reason, one who looks out for the Joe-public, gravy train hater...you know that sort! Don't be offended.
 
Careful, your condescending nonsense is leaking everywhere. Might have to call a plumber to get it fixed.

p5connex said:
Right - rise above it all Stefan..you saint! And name calling?? Where did you see that? AH is an acronym and a term of endearment - it means, Ascending Hero - voice of reason, one who looks out for the Joe-public, gravy train hater...you know that sort! Don't be offended.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top