Rangostar:

Well for me I feel that if I just paid for building using my life saving and found out that across you is low income paying less than you and get better view is quite a slap to me.

Same argument can go for social housing in 'desirable' neighbourhoods. There is more to living in a place than the view - like equity - which TCHC renters won't have.

Let's just hope the development of the TCHC will not be detrimental to the value of the properties at City place. Most of us at City place are young investor, and just really hope we don't get burned.....especially the government.

I think in this case you probably should be more worried about the developer than the government screwing you over.

AoD
 
It looks like they're doing some work on the site. I saw some trucks carrying out soil and one digging soil onto the trucks. Otherwise not much going on. Progress looks slow.
 
The part they're working on is still part of the park, I believe. They appear to be levelin the strip of land on the eastern edge. I am hoping they're still planning to build the basketball courts.

I don't think work on Block 31 can begin until everything is approved.
 
I just wonder, do all TCHC buildings include amenities like swimming pool, whirl pool, fitness machines and the like? I looked over the TCHC budget and it seems 50% of it comes from rent. 50% of the budget is government subsidized. If there's luxury condo amenities, I think the subsidize percentage would increase. Taxes would end up subsidizing their private fitness club membership.
 
I just wonder, do all TCHC buildings include amenities like swimming pool, whirl pool, fitness machines and the like? I looked over the TCHC budget and it seems 50% of it comes from rent. 50% of the budget is government subsidized. If there's luxury condo amenities, I think the subsidize percentage would increase. Taxes would end up subsidizing their private fitness club membership.

the proposed development consists of two schools, a public community centre, a daycare centre, and 322 units of affordable housing


Did you also see the 3.00m (9ft) floor heights? I think Cityplace is mostly 2.7m (8ft)
 
Last edited:
the proposed development consists of two schools, a public community centre, a daycare centre, and 322 units of affordable housing


Did you also see the 3.00m (9ft) floor heights? I think Cityplace is mostly 2.7m (8ft)

yes, I also suspect the TCHC is 9 ft ceiling which in itself is a luxury. The building seems to be as tall as westone which is 50 floors. But theirs is 43 floors. I calculate that to be 9 ft ceiling. If it's like One Cole, there's swimming pool and fitness amenities. That's why I wonder if the govt is building amenities in the TCHC housing. The govt subsidies would increase to help pay the budget.
 
One Cole is a privately built, market condominium in case you didn't know. I'm not aware of any pool in the 246/252 Sackville complex. (defeats the purpose with a new community centre being built almost next door)
 
Last edited:
October 14 meeting report

I attended the meeting this evening. It was a relatively small room and it was packed, with lots of people forced to stand in the back. I was unable to easily take notes because of the crowded conditions, so these impressions are from memory. It ran three and a half hours, from about 7 to 10:30. Adam Vaughan, a city planner whose name I didn’t catch, a representative from TCHC whose name I also didn’t catch, and Peter Clewes were the four main speakers and moderators. (PS, Clewes bears an uncanny resemblance to David Caruso! I’m tempted to ask him to wear sunglasses, then take them off in a dramatic manner and say something witty.) The crowd was generally hostile to the tower and Vaughan had to intercede at the beginning to tell people to wait their turn to speak or they would be asked to leave. There were quite a few “I let you make your point, now let me make mine” exchanges between various people throughout the evening.


The low-rise portion consists of 1) one of the schools in a U shape along the south; 2) one of the schools in an inverted U along the north; 3) the day care at the northwest corner; 4) the seniors’ residence along the north IIRC; 5) the community centre along the north IIRC. The west side merges into the park and is meant as a general play/spillover area for the children, without any buildings in order to maintain a north-south view corridor from the lake deep into the north part of the city. There is an east-west open public way through the centre (ie separating the U from the inverted U) aligned with the east-west corridors through the West One / N1 block and the Harbour View Estates block.


The main point of contention was the 43 (?) story affordable housing tower at the southeast corner of the project. Suffice to say, there was a lot of disagreement about the basic principle of public housing with the usual arguments about whether it is a disincentive to work and unfair to those paying their own way etc. If I remember correctly, this will be a self-financing operation where the rents are indexed to 80% of fair market rate. There were also the standard concerns about falling property values, crime, ghettos etc. The planner eventually tried to focus discussion on the built form, since ultimately the public housing is mostly set in stone and not changeable in this forum.


I wouldn’t know how to critique the tower professionally, but from my layman’s perspective I liked it. It is very thin and oriented north-south. The east face has no balconies. The west face has very large and interesting balconies that jut out a ways, with high glass walls to reduce wind. There are some sort of gardens inside aligned with the elevators to create public spaces and improve air circulation? They are aiming for silver or gold LEED and it has geothermal systems, rainwater harvesting, etc. They are aiming for lots of large family units. Amusingly, someone complained that it looked different from the other Cityplace towers and they preferred a uniform look, to which Vaughan poined out that in the earlier phases of Cityplace many people complained the towers were too uniform.


The people in West One or N1 were very annoyed at losing part of their view and felt the zoning should remain at roughly 7 stories as they felt this had been “promised” and marketed to them. I have some sympathy for them, but at the end of the day I love tall buildings and it’s hard to take people seriously who already live in 40 to 50 story towers in downtown Toronto that were objects of contention themselves when planned, and then act shocked and surprised that zoning is getting changed to put up another tower beside them. There was definitely a strong sense of entitlement, and also naivity at thinking that zonings never get changed. I should say in fairness that I don't live immediately beside the project so I'm not impacted.


There was a lot of discussion about the constraints of trying to fit the full density into the space, and that doing it as a low-rise while superficially geometrically feasible creates various other problems such as family-sized units where all bedrooms have windows, etc.

Also, someone had to ask what TCHC was, they thought it was a private developer!
 
Last edited:
I really question why they have to build such a tall tower myself. They could easily build a podium style instead much like what Parade is like and a shorter towers on top if they wish. They said themselves many people complained about the tall glass towers. They could easily put the TCHC building over the school building with the entrance on the side from brunel. Infact, why not both C inverted. Or having a square donut shape? In the centre they could put a park for the kids like One Cole's above ground park. or have a swimming pool on the first level and a park on the second level or something towards that end (which can be shared by both schools). The inner units would face the inside park, the outer units face the CP park, the highway, or CP buildings.

I also think maybe they should mix the seniors and the other tenants together. Unless they have the are planning exclusively for seniors and have nurses to take care of them.

Regarding the shifting balconys. I find the architect is full of himself. It's all about forms and such. I don't find the shifting balconys all that impressive. However for the people living there, it seems like certain large families will have large balconies while many won't have any at all. How is that fair to the other families renting? Too bad? They generally pay the same rent. That lends itself to an exclusivity to certain renters. And the owners facing east, north and south have no balconies either. I'm glad you mentioned the architect's name. I didn't realize he was Peter Clewes. I found I liked Adam Vaughn more than him. My feelings towards him when he first spoke, was "Let me talk about me first." then it was "Let me talk about my great design and why people should be blown away by it". I agree the people in the room were pretty hostile to Adam, which I understand but not warranted. I think Adam, handled the crowd well. Even though they dissed him, he was taking it well and willing to discuss hence the meeting (better than PC who thought people were behaving badly, not taking into consideration the anger the residents who live there felt. Cuz he certainly doesn't and don't care).

One thing I don't understand also is how it will create more live in the area other than the school. Adam Vaughn complained about how there's nothing there. Adding the TCHC won't help either unless they intend to add in restaurants, etc within the TCHC. Unless Concord stops building town houses at the bottom or renting them out to banks, the only place people can actually use is Sobeys. There's no restaurants in the area.

One thing that irked the people there I think was the claim it's 80% cost of the average rent. I think average rent overall in Toronto rather than C1 average rent. $1100 for 3 bedroom is not 80% of the average rent in the area. 2 bedrooms in the C1 newer buildings are renting for over $2000 let alone 3 bedrooms. Also, 9' ceilings? Builders are selling 9' ceilings as a luxury condo. Most CP buildings are 8' infact. I just get the feeling it's like, TCHC wants to compete with other builders using tax money to outdo them.

Also, regarding the renters for TCHC. Adam said it would be catered to income around 30-65k but not solely. I kind of wonder if I should apply for TCHC rental myself. I earn around 25-30k and I've been scrimping and saving for 10 years to buy a condo. I only treat myself to a vacation once in 2-3 years. I don't even own a car so I could save more, I take the TTC. I hardly go out much so I won't waste money and I'm always looking for deals and savings so I don't have to spend so much to save more for the future so I can take care of myself rather than have the city take care of me. I even worked throughout high school and university to pay for my own tuition. Now, I'm starting to wonder why I'm working so hard to survive and build up. I should get govt to subsidize me instead so I can live without being so frugal. At 65k, I don't understand how the family aren't able to take care of themselves and need subsidized housing.

I read in news articles, many young adults don't bother saving. They spend what they have and save very little. Even teenagers live pay check by pay check. I don't think there's need for them to worry. I think they're thinking they'll just have the government take care of them if needed.

ah, sorry. A final rant. Adam Vaughn was complaining how he doesn't like the investors buying into the area and renting them out cuz they're looking for a profit. But, if it wasn't for the investors, the buildings wouldn't exist. I don't think the builders could build tall towers without investors help. Even the builders are looking for a return, so that's why they build. Why shouldn't the investors? I don't understand his claim. He doesn't like the high rises and it's investor orientation? But what about the large amount of taxes people in the downtown area pay to the city? Incoming money is good, investors and builders bad. You can't have one without the other. I doubt the city could build all these towers without builders and investors.
 
Last edited:
I will never understand the ill-will spewed at community/affordable housing. Everyone deserves a place to live yet those who cannot afford it or need assistance shouldn’t be forced to hide in sloppy, remote slums away from my backyard. Talk about selfish. But that's just my own values speaking.

The attitude that it is 43 storeys (even at 9†floors) is too tall is laughable. CityPlace is an extension of the downtown central business district in form, height and density. Given that all available land between Yonge and Bathurst, south of Front, has been built-up to a premium height (between 30-60 storeys), how can anyone credibly question this piece of available land’s premium height? Seriously, what makes this property so unique that it absolves the trend?

Whether or not Concord lied or misled the residents in West One is another issue.

But you points AKS about Vaughan's bizarre assumption that TCHC will all more life (you wrote live) are well made. I'd like Adam to explain this point further. Yes schools are part of a traditional community but they don't enhance the street life. Where are the mixed commercial/restaurant uses? It does not appear as if the podium for TCHC will have any commercial tenants. Hey, maybe some family-run restaurants can open up along Fort York Blvd at 80% market rent to help curb the Starbucks/Banks sterilization.
 
Thanks for those detailed overviews AKS and MatrixElement.

However, I take issue with AKS' notion that because these are TCHC towers, they should only be built to the minimum spec. We tried that in the 50's and 60's with disastrous results both here in Canada, and, more conspicuously, south of the border. Part of the problem was that residents didn't feel compelled to take any pride in where they were living. By giving them a building which they could feel proud of, aA and TCHC are trying to prevent past problems and keep the fabric (loose as it is) of Cityplace relatively tight-knit.

Also, I find the criticism of Clews for being arrogant a little weak. He's there to shamelessly promote his design, not sit back and have uninformed Cityplace residents (not AKS or MatrixElement specifically) take cheap shots at something they are unable to change.
 
Well it depends.

If you have people making around 25-30k+ a year living in it, it will be okay.

If you start getting really poor people in that tower, then it will negatively effect the area.
 
Are we missing one obvious detail....

This ongoing debate about whether this tower should be tall seems to ignore one obvious reality regarding Cityplace. Almost all the towers here are tall.
 

Back
Top