[SP!RE]

Wait-- sorry. I haven't read back all the way through this thread as I have been really busy lately but...

1) Are people complaining that the low-income units are going to have higher ceilings? Really?

2) People in CityPlace are actually making this much of a fuss over "low income housing" blocking their views? Get over it. A tower is a tower. You live in a highrise district.

That type of jealousy is just inexcusable, condo owner or not. It's childish. I don't care if you paid two million dollars for your condo-- there are other people in the world who also deserve good housing. End of story. And if your views are blocked-- well, welcome to the city. As for ceiling height? If that's what's making you angry, then shame on you.

It really saddens me that these types of attitudes exist.

And let's be honest, CityPlace isn't exactly the top end of downtown Toronto condos. Some would call it trashy.

And Rangostar's little spiel about "I don't want to come home from a hard day's work to see people across from me living comfortably (which you don't if you are getting government assistance) who haven't worked hard for it (which is a LOADED assumption that speaks a lot about your own insecurities)" leaves me with one suggestion for him: move somewhere else. Simple as that. Go live in a gated community or somewhere where the poor won't be in view.

It really ruins my day when I hear about stuff like this. How sad is that. I wonder how insecure with their own lives (and mortgages?) many of these complaining condo owners are. Hmmm.

 

[tkip]

Light at the end of the Tunnel....

Sp!re, thanks for that post.

Much better put than my rant that I posted last night. I found the whole "I don't need to see a tower with poor people living across from me in a building that's above average in quality to be there when I come home" theme to be just outrageous and bigoted.

It was pure garbage and yes, it reeks of insecurity and barely concealed jealousy and hostility

 

[SP!RE]

Well, I am not even from a low-income background (though I've done all sorts of work with lower-income groups) yet it still hurts me, right to my core, when I hear stuff like that. It really saddens me.

 

[Xenosblitz]

As a future Cityplace resident (Parade), I am most concerned about the delays people are going to add through their anti-poverty protesting to the community services I would like to enjoy once I move in - namely the community centre and the schools. The more they protest and delay the process, the longer it will take to get services we can ALL enjoy.

If people have a problem with the rent subsidized units, please provide solutions instead of just rejecting what has been presented. Add to the pool of ideas, don't only shoot them down.

Plus, if God forbid, I ever needed social services help, I would want the best possible care from them. I would think the people against this building will want the same. It just so happens that their objectives and goals at this time does not correlate with the tower at this point in time.

 

[SP!RE]

If people have a problem with the rent subsidized units, please provide solutions instead of just rejecting what has been presented. Add to the pool of ideas, don't only shoot them down...

Plus, if God forbid, I ever needed social services help, I would want the best possible care from them...

A very mature outlook. It's far easier to sit back and complain than it is to get involved or be positive/creative.

 

[MatrixElement]

Affordable housing has been part of the Railway Lands plans from the start in 1980s (yes, plans for Cityplace go back that far, or even farther by some definitions) and have been reconfirmed and baked into official plans, zoning, and developer agreements at every step along the way. In particular, Blocks 31, 32, 36 and 18x were acquired by the City in the 1990s as part of all the land deals and agreements with Concord and have always been designated for public use such as schools, libraries, housing, etc. Everyone who has bought a Cityplace unit (including myself) has agreed to this whether they realize it or not. Therefore, the basic presence of poor, or should I say poorer, people in Cityplace in some sort of public housing is simply not up for debate. At most, some of the details can be debated. Get over it.

If people don't like the basic principle of public housing and want to debate the appropriate size and role of the welfare state, then fair enough, that's a valid issue, but it belongs in a provincial politics forum. It has nothing to do with this specific development. Be warned, though, that it is a major long-term policy issue with lots of things to consider. Also, be careful what you wish for! The only political party likely to eliminate or seriously reduce public housing is also likely to want to reduce redtape, bureaucracy, and the power of the city to make regulations. So much for your height restrictions. Sink-or-swim libertarianism and zoning kinda don't go together! I bought my land fair and square! Who the hell are you to tell me I can't build a skyscraper on it if I want to!

There are only two things that are possibly up for debate here.

First, has affordable housing always been designated for Block 31 specifically, or was it originally just schools? Perhaps someone could argue the public housing was originally only planned for Blocks 32 and 36. The answer would be in Toronto bylaw 1994-0805 but unfortunately the City's online records only go back to 1998.

The second valid issue is the height of the tower, but that has nothing to do with the affordable housing, it could just as easily be a private developer wanting to build high. Block 31 is technically still zoned for about 20 metres or 7 floors, but it's always been understood that it would get rezoned like the rest of the Raillands. For example, Map 7 on page 15 of the the Railway Lands West Urban Design Guildines from June 2004 envisions Block 31 at 105 metres. As the city planner explained at the meeting, in 1994 the whole Railway Lands were zoned for about 20 metres when it was still brownfield. When Concord was selected as the main developer in the mid to late 1990s, they decided they wanted to do high-rises and got all their lands rezoned. The secondary/subsidiary plans for the whole area - not just Concord's lands - then began to reflect high-rises, but no one bothered to rezone the non-Concord lands right away.

Also to be clear, the application has no material change in the volume or contents of the site, only the spatial distribution. There is trivial 10%-15% increase in the density, but that would only account for a few floors on the tower.

Some people have complained that Concord misled them and simply pointed to the official zoning at the time instead of the broader picture which would include inevitable rezoning. If so, that's a private matter, not the City's problem. Sue Concord if you think you have a case.

As for the so-called "luxury" public housing:

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

It's not like the place has solid gold toilets. For an item to count as luxury it should cost at least twice, if not three or four times, more than a regular item. It is a mendacious and grossly misleading abuse of the English language to call Block 31 luxury. The Ritz-Carlton and Shangri-La are luxury. Cityplace is not and Block 31 is not. As long as the construction costs are roughly +/- 20% of a typical downtown high-rise I couldn't care less if it has 9 foot ceilings and I sure as hell don't want it to look like an eyesore. That would be cutting off your nose to spite your face and it really would cause property values to plummet. If the costs start rising significantly more than that range, then yes at some point you have to draw the line because no matter how worthy a cause there is only a finite amount of resources to go around.

As for the moral panic over ghettos and crime, get a grip. Decent lower-income residents who do an honest day's work for an honest day's pay would be a welcome change from some of the drunken douchbaggy fratboys now inhabiting the private towers, and with probably far less drug use and petty prostitution than what currently goes on.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

How about a compromise: keep the 'luxury,' but keep the name "Block 31," too...

 

[tkip]

Another well said post....

"It is a mendacious and grossly misleading abuse of the English language to call Block 31 luxury".

This should put into proper perspective that the tower on Block 31 isn't some ultra building catering to low income people and MatrixElement is bang on with another point that we don't need another cheap eyesore because it's only poor people living there and building the proposed tower to higher standards is a travesty and waste of time.

My friend has this to say when this topic pops up in conversations.

She has said on more than one occasion, why can't we aspire and encourage others to aspire in our society? We seem only to want others to have less and to break them down because we're jealous and feel insecure about ourselves.

If we don't have it then we don't want others to have it either. I think she's unto to something here. Then again, she works in social services and has a keen and uncanny ability to analyse things.

And it goes without saying that categorizing all low income people as lazy and unmotivated that are a blight out there is really missing the point. But I suspect that's exactly the point of why we demonize poor people.

By keeping them down, you limit their ability to go out there, compete, succeed and actually do better than the "haves" who had a easier go of it.

And yes, I work with a lot of middle class bratty snobs who have never put a honest day's effort in, have always had their parents pave the way for them and have zero appreciation for pretty much anything. I'll take lower income, hard working individuals over this any day of the week, thank you very much.

 

[khris]

Great post xenosblitz!

 

[AKS]

My point was missed entirely. Someone on this board clearly has a low income bias and doesn't want them around where they live.

It's not the lower income issue I have a problem with. I don't care if TCHC moves in. But the floor plate is so large. CP could fit 2 tall buildings in that floor plate and not block other residents totally. But TCHC only has to build 1 tall building and they can't design it well so people don't get blocked totally? Use some imagination and move the blocks around. They're like legos, there are more ways than one to design a block. If you look at the floor plate plan, There's a C shape at the top and a C shape at the bottom. At the bottom of the C shape, they have a thin vertical rectangular building right at brunel. Right across from West One. I don't understand why they can't make it a horizontal or even a square shape instead of a thin rectangular one. They could even make it into a big square donut or whatever. There's tons of designs to play around with. Also, as being poor yourself at one time. What is most important for you? A roof over your head and enough food to put on the table right? Also hopefully some money you can save up and a neighbourhood not riddled with crime.

Also, what do you consider low income? Is 30-65k income low? I make 30k myself. Maybe I should be on subsidize housing too. Vaughn said he wanted doctors and nurses to live near there as well as people who could pay rent. I hardly consider that low income. 14K for a family is low income and struggling to survive.

And as solaris mentioned. Why the need for 9'. Why not 8' ceiling. That would decrease the height and not take way the "spadina" entrance effect away. And why have it as a thin rectangle right infront of WestOne. Why not have a square shape and a bit shorter and spread it across more. Or why not have a thin horizontal shape on the south end so some CP buildings aren't completely shadowed. Why not do an L shape so it won't completely cover West One's west side? There are so many ways to play with the lego blocks stacking. and what's with the flat box shape (yet again). Are there no creative architects around? Also, some people complain about CP builders disregarding the north side of their buildings by making it flat. Only the front is nicely designed. At least on their buildings CP give it some sort of design by making it wavy. West One only has a slight wave. But Luna has a big one. Also you can see the curves of the podium following Luna and onto Parade.
The TCHC building is just a square. They think making bigger and less balconies make it special. What about 4/5 of the residents renting there without balconies?

Also, while I'm at it. Why bother trying to save money to buy a condo if you want to live downtown. At 600 psf it's nearly impossible unless you have huge incomes, savings or mortgage for the next 20-25 years away and you get crappy small floor plans. If you're household income is under 65k, you might as well apply for TCHC. Their rent cost is about the price of paying for property tax and maintenance fees which you would need to pay for anyway if you owned one. Renting from TCHC will leave so much money open, you can save money for a family trip each year, car, LCD, and still save tuition for your sons and daughters in the future.

 

[tkip]

Just to point out.....

AKS, my post was actually directed to someone else on this board who has a problem with poor people and the proposed tower. Didn't want to give the wrong impression that I was after anyone who had a problem with the proposal. I'm all for whether the logistics of this proposal makes sense though.

 

[maestro]

There is nothing holding anyone back from renting here. In regards to the nine foot ceilings, TCHC is not in the business of selling their housing stock but it's out of the question either. Nine foot ceiling might be the right long term investment.

Also, while I'm at it. Why bother trying to save money to buy a condo if you want to live downtown. At 600 psf it's nearly impossible unless you have huge incomes, savings or mortgage for the next 20-25 years away and you get crappy small floor plans.

I think anyone paying $600 psf is taking a huge risk at ever getting their money back out but, that's beside the point. The fact remains you have equity in ownership.

 

[Silence&Motion]

1) Are people complaining that the low-income units are going to have higher ceilings? Really?

2) People in CityPlace are actually making this much of a fuss over "low income housing" blocking their views? Get over it. A tower is a tower. You live in a highrise district.

Great post!

 

[AKS]

There is nothing holding anyone back from renting here. In regards to the nine foot ceilings, TCHC is not in the business of selling their housing stock but it's out of the question either. Nine foot ceiling might be the right long term investment.

I think anyone paying $600 psf is taking a huge risk at ever getting their money back out but, that's beside the point. The fact remains you have equity in ownership.

Yes, while I was there, Adam Vaughn mentioned about selling some of the units, but the other person in charge of TCHC (kinda half bald guy) seemed hesitant. I think it would go into competition with CP and I'm not sure if they have any agreements with them regarding competing in sales.

As for buying at $600 psf. That seems to be what builders are selling them for. Every year, the prices go up for pre-constructions. In the long term, I just don't see it dropping unless the cost of building things drop. Like the lower simcoe lanes for pedestrians and cars going through. Fairmount said the cost of building it doubled within a few years of their estimates. Also the CP park is half of what is was planned because the cost of building doubled. So you had the cheapening effect. Current units are getting smaller and smaller so make prices slightly more affordable. Who would buy 1500 sq ft at $600 psf? Can you see the future of construction costs getting cheaper? Also with the higher cost of the unit, you pay more land transfer taxes and HST. I think it would be better to rent from TCHC unless you feel like you can afford such crazy downtown prices, want crappy floor plans that aren't made for living or the proud feeling of ownership that you can buy such expensive condos.

Anyhow, I think there are better ways to design the TCHC building. 38 Avenue Road one isn't too bad. It will break the CP towers too and add some real bricks. Not their "fake I wanna look like bricks". Or even build an L Tower we lost the foot for. I think it would make a great school at the bottom of the foot.

As for the anger of 30-65k people on TCHC. It wasn't because I really wanted to live on government subsidize. I was angry that people on 30-65k would be able to. I think those making 14k and less with large families should have priority. Also, I believe people who want to relocated due to bad neighbourhoods should have first choice. People shouldn't have to live in fear of their children getting shot if they're outside (Jane & Finch).

Also, if building 8' would be cheaper than 9' and making it less advanced features could save money. Using that extra money towards other TCHC buildings would be better. If they need to increase housing, start building block 32 and 36. Those could be taller too since they're a bit further away south, located on the north side of the park. I have a feeling they're gonna try building 50 stories there, taller than parade at 36. Talk about badmouthing CP planning...

I also think, they should offer some spaces for commercial or residential too. Or force CP to do it. There's too much residential and hardly any commercial components. BMO is trying to get into the area too --; great 4 banks. Next Scotia will wanna be there and we'll have all 5 bank branches --;

I also think something should be done about the builder's prices. It's great helping the less fortunate. But those in the middle class are also getting squished out.

 

[ProjectEnd]

Let me get this straight. You're against the design of a subsidized building for several reasons, most of which are based in the size of this complex. You also take issue with the design, which you believe to be 'too luxurious', 'too nice' etc., but then suggest that (the hideous, hateful) 38 Avenue, a pretentious, faux mashup of past 'luxury' style would be a better model? And what nouns of derision will you yell at the selfish, lazy poor when they emerge from this failed attempt at palatial extravagance?