ProjectEnd said:
Height and massing aside, you think there's no issue with putting 1430 units here?
Click to expand...
The question of infrastructure sufficiency is certainly a fair one, but Y&B is one of the most transit-dense intersections in the city (though it's admittedly already overburdened).
 
Any argument is purely academic since this will change - likely drastically - before it gets anywhere near approval. I'm on record as saying that I've got no issue with the height, but the last thing we need is 1183 sub-par bowling alleys in the form of studios and 1brs.

It's just a gaudy, value-increase exercise and I hope that the tools at the doughnut shop 'developer' get torched.
 
ProjectEnd said:
Any argument is purely academic since this will change - likely drastically - before it gets anywhere near approval. I'm on record as saying that I've got no issue with the height, but the last thing we need is 1183 sub-par bowling alleys in the form of studios and 1brs.

It's just a gaudy, value-increase exercise and I hope that the tools at the doughnut shop 'developer' get torched.
Click to expand...

If that is what the market demands why is that a bad thing? if the market demands a bigger size unit then that is what will get built.
 
Ho boy...

1579142325568.jpeg
 
ProjectEnd said:
If your view of housing is that it is a commodity which follows an Econ101, 'supply and demand' model with no external influence, I'm not interested in having that argument. Housing-bull-Twitter is more your place.
Click to expand...

Actually, I don't think regulations should ever allow a necessity, such as housing, healthcare, etc. to become an investment opportunity, as it leads to speculation (at the expense of those who depend on it). With that said, your elitist attitude is just asinine. What did your 'ho boy' comment add to the conversation? Absolutely nothing. Meanwhile, Obsidian's comment, while I disagree with it, was logical.
 
FWIW, I didn't read "asinine" or "elitist" in ProjectEnd's post. It just made me smile. It's easy to be wound too tight.... and pretty hard to tell what emotions are in play when it's all just a bunch of text on screen.
 
DtTO said:
Actually, I don't think regulations should ever allow a necessity, such as housing, healthcare, etc. to become an investment opportunity, as it leads to speculation (at the expense of those who depend on it).
Click to expand...

Dt,

If you extract investment from the housing equation you’re left with less housing and, all other things being equal, more expensive housing as what’s left is bid up by the same pool of renters.

Rents would probably be 20% higher today were it not for the massive amount of specuvestors quietly adding 10’s of 1000’s of shadow rental units to the market.

Careful what you wish for.
 
LMVDR said:
Dt,

If you extract investment from the housing equation you’re left with less housing and, all other things being equal, more expensive housing as what’s left is bid up by the same pool of renters.

Rents would probably be 20% higher today were it not for the massive amount of specuvestors quietly adding 10’s of 1000’s of shadow rental units to the market.

Careful what you wish for.
Click to expand...

You're assuming a private supply-demand model. I lean towards a government controlled sector (through large crown corporations) whose mandate is not profit/bottom line. In fact, I'd argue that it should be subsidized and ran at a loss, if anything. Sort of like how we run public transit, the postal service, sewage, waste disposal, healthcare; you know, essential services. A two tier system where these crown corporations, operating at a loss, at least fulfill a large segment of the demand, and private corporations, operating at profit, cover the luxury segment or other niche segments, is ideal.

In an era where wealth aggregation is becoming a serious concern, and housing is the overwhelming largest pot of an average individual's spending, I'd say that mass subsidized housing is the best way to combat wealth inequality.
 
DtTO said:
You're assuming a private supply-demand model. I lean towards a government controlled sector (through large crown corporations) whose mandate is not profit/bottom line. In fact, I'd argue that it should be subsidized and ran at a loss, if anything. Sort of like how we run public transit, the postal service, sewage, waste disposal, healthcare; you know, essential services. A two tier system where these crown corporations, operating at a loss, at least fulfill a large segment of the demand, and private corporations, operating at profit, cover the luxury segment or other niche segments, is ideal.

In an era where wealth aggregation is becoming a serious concern, and housing is the overwhelming largest pot of an average individual's spending, I'd say that mass subsidized housing is the best way to combat wealth inequality.
Click to expand...


So basically the Singapore model.
I love it there, but I think it’s much easier for a small island nation than a sprawling province like Ontario
 
Love this tower.
And parking isn't an issue - in fact - less parking is good unless people don't understand how that cycle works.
 
DtTO said:
You're assuming a private supply-demand model. I lean towards a government controlled sector (through large crown corporations) whose mandate is not profit/bottom line. In fact, I'd argue that it should be subsidized and ran at a loss, if anything.
Click to expand...

That is the model. All 3 levels of government are currently subsidizing the construction of rental housing in Toronto. As well, TCHC is currently the largest landlord in the city and I believe in North America.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top