from Metronews.ca....

In city first, building will have affordable employee housing

25 January 2010 05:07

A recently-approved tower near King and Spadina will contain something that no other building in Toronto has: A floor of affordable housing built by the developer expressly for tenants who work in the building.

When complete, at least seven rental units on one floor of the 41-storey combined hotel and condo tower at 56 Blue Jays Way will be reserved for hotel workers.

It’s an innovative rental scheme brought to you by Coun. Adam Vaughan, the Ward 20 champion of family-sized downtown condominiums and affordable housing. Tenants will pay less than market to rent the units and, in exchange, the developer has been given permission by city council to build a taller condo than allowed by zoning.

“Hotel workers can live on the same site where they work, so people don’t have to drive, walk or take transit to work. They can simply take the stairs,” says Vaughan, who is looking at projects near hospitals to similarly embed strategic downtown workers.

But the deal is a one-off, made possible only because of Vaughan’s political will and the developer’s willingness.

The agreement was brokered under Section 37 of the city’s official plan, which stipulates that developers have to pay fees to community benefits in exchange for higher density.
 
Now THAT is a creative and innovative urban arrangement. I am very interested to see how that works out in the end. :)
 
yyzer said:
from Metronews.ca....

In city first, building will have affordable employee housing

25 January 2010 05:07

A recently-approved tower near King and Spadina will contain something that no other building in Toronto has: A floor of affordable housing built by the developer expressly for tenants who work in the building.

When complete, at least seven rental units on one floor of the 41-storey combined hotel and condo tower at 56 Blue Jays Way will be reserved for hotel workers.

Tenants will pay less than market to rent the units and, in exchange, the developer has been given permission by city council to build a taller condo than allowed by zoning..
Click to expand...


As long as this doesn't turn out that the 'tenants' end up being friends and family of the developer/hotel owner ... i can see it now, the daughter 'jr manager' gets a 1,200 SF suite for $100/m.
 
SP!RE said:
Now THAT is a creative and innovative urban arrangement. I am very interested to see how that works out in the end. :)
Click to expand...

It is indeed. What happens when an employee is terminated or laid off? Perhaps something similar to when a Superintendent at a rental complex is terminated - you have seven days to find a place to live, mmm-bye-bye...

It is an interesting concept though and I like it.
 
Last edited:
cdr108 said:
As long as this doesn't turn out that the 'tenants' end up being friends and family of the developer/hotel owner ... i can see it now, the daughter 'jr manager' gets a 1,200 SF suite for $100/m.
Click to expand...

Yeah, its not like that's ever happened before...

The_Suite_Life_of_Zack_and_Cody_title_card.jpg
 
These weird deals should not be allowed. Zoning should be changed based on other factors. Not that what they're doing is bad, it's actually great. This kind of stuff just seems shady to me. Do this, and we'll give you more height. Stupid.

Do we know which hotel this is going to have yet?
 
I like the idea of having affordable housing in the same building as a hotel and condos, but having the affordable housing geared to people who work in the building strikes me as a bad idea, and probably unworkable. Taken seriously, it could lead to dt's observation that losing your job also means losing your place of residence (can you say 'court challenge'?). It would certainly place the person living there at risk of being abused by their employer ("Sorry, Michael, I've had to cancel your day off. You could quit of course, but it would also mean losing your apartment"). But also, it's not clear that the people who work in the hotel would necessarily have the most need of assisted housing - would they jump to the head of the line just because they were a concierge?

I wouldn't worry, though, because I think the concept is so unworkable that in reality, the assisted housing and the jobs in the hotel will end up in different hands anyways over time.
 
khristopher said:
These weird deals should not be allowed. Zoning should be changed based on other factors. Not that what they're doing is bad, it's actually great. This kind of stuff just seems shady to me. Do this, and we'll give you more height. Stupid.
Click to expand...

Despite what the article says its not a direct trade off. The inclusion of the affordable rental housing is this project's section 37 contribution, which technically is density in exchange for community contributions. However, the way a projects contribution is determined is done so as an afterthought, after the project's zoning approvals are in place and the approvals are determined based on planning merits. After all of this the City and the developer negotiate the value and the nature of their section 37 contribution. It is never a case of a shady deal to purchase more height/density.
 
Archivist said:
It would certainly place the person living there at risk of being abused by their employer ("Sorry, Michael, I've had to cancel your day off. You could quit of course, but it would also mean losing your apartment"). But also, it's not clear that the people who work in the hotel would necessarily have the most need of assisted housing - would they jump to the head of the line just because they were a concierge?
Click to expand...

Interesting points. But this won't be the first time or place that employers have offered lodging for employees, whether it's a live-in nanny or (until recently) the warden of Hart House. Employees would only accept these units in the first place as part of their jobs, so there's nothing nefarious about the fact that the job and lodging are linked. Quite the opposite. These people would be choosing to live above the shop, with the plusses and minuses that go with it.

Does that give employees an added disincentive to walk away? Yes, though the same could be said for any job benefit, especially non-trivial ones like dental and drug plans. Will it lead to abuse and coercion? Hopefully not: that's why we have labour laws.

The question of how to manage, enforce, and apportion this in the long run, though, is a good one. Don't know how they'll manage it, but I'll ask into it.

khristopher said:
These weird deals should not be allowed. Zoning should be changed based on other factors. Not that what they're doing is bad, it's actually great. This kind of stuff just seems shady to me. Do this, and we'll give you more height. Stupid.
Click to expand...

So, wait. Weird deals that seem shady should not be allowed, because they're great, though they should be based on other stuff, and it's stupid. Have I got that right?
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
I was at IDS and actually have some marketing material. I will scan it tonight and upload it.
 
Sir Novelty Fashion said:
Interesting points. But this won't be the first time or place that employers have offered lodging for employees, whether it's a live-in nanny or (until recently) the warden of Hart House. Employees would only accept these units in the first place as part of their jobs, so there's nothing nefarious about the fact that the job and lodging are linked. Quite the opposite. These people would be choosing to live above the shop, with the plusses and minuses that go with it.

Does that give employees an added disincentive to walk away? Yes, though the same could be said for any job benefit, especially non-trivial ones like dental and drug plans. Will it lead to abuse and coercion? Hopefully not: that's why we have labour laws.

The question of how to manage, enforce, and apportion this in the long run, though, is a good one. Don't know how they'll manage it, but I'll ask into it.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it will be done through a lease agreement wherein as long as the person is employed at the hotel the rent is $X per month (where X is below market rent) and reverts to $Y per month upon termination of employment (where Y is significantly above market rent)...I dunno.

This would create an incentive for the person to leave after termination but would not guarantee it and you could end up with all of those "below market rent" units ending up yielding above market rent?

The other thing that jumped out at me when I read this is that the amount of the subsidy would be taxable in the employee's hands. It is, afterall, a financial benefit (lower rent) that falls to them as a result of their employment....the very definition of a taxable benefit.
 
There is a slightly longer version of the article yyzer posted here:

http://www.yourhome.ca/homes/newsfe...hotel-condo-tower-to-feature-low-rent-housing

It appears that Adam Vaughan really wants this kind of thing to happen more often. I guess some of the kerfuffle about this project was simply a way to create drama so that he could eventually squeeze some of these affordable units out of the developer.

And only seven? Is that really much of a victory?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top