[Rangostar]

my intention of the post is the poor planning of the government and Cityplace, by putting such a tall building that will potentially cause concern of the surrounding. Like I said, the building can be much shorter but broader. 9 foot ceiling is not necessary for TCHC unless they are selling them at market price. I am living at a 8 foot ceiling Condo and I think it is just fine.

as long as TCHC this is good for my investment and does not block my view I really don't mind the TCHC around me.

I would like to apply for the TCHC, I wonder how they select the occupants? I Should sell my place and it would save me more money Overall and buy a better area with TTC access.

I think by reducing the flooring of TCHC money should be diverted for more city wide planning to expand west side of lake shore neighborhood through beautification and easy transportation (eg to cross the streets and more commercial properties to increase jobs and community environment) More units should be on Block 32 and 36 as these are not blocking any surrounding towers and anyone who bought in condos beside them are aware of this already and price are already adjusted. This is my intention of what I hope to achieve, to get the common understanding of all side, Government, citizens and Cityplace should strife towards.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Poor people are generally short, too (stats - look it up), so they could probably go with 7 foot ceilings without too much of an issue.

 

[grey]

Like I said, the building can be much shorter but broader.

But this neighbourhood is characterized by tall point towers. I thought you were just criticizing the City for bad planning...

9 foot ceiling is not necessary for TCHC unless they are selling them at market price. I am living at a 8 foot ceiling Condo and I think it is just fine.

This doesn't make sense. Reducing ceilings from 9 feet to 8 feet will not turn a tall building into a short building.

as long as TCHC this is good for my investment

Insensitive.

and does not block my view

Irrelevant.

I think by reducing the flooring of TCHC money should be diverted for more city wide planning to expand west side of lake shore neighborhood through beautification and easy transportation (eg to cross the streets and more commercial properties to increase jobs and community environment)

Let me get this straight -- you are suggesting that the city should divert funds from the TCHC that would have gone towards building heigher ceilings (or higher floor counts, I'm not sure which one you're suggesting, but both are ridiculous and would not pay for any of the following) and use it to:

1) beautify the Lake Shore neighbourhood (which is already taking place, thanks largely to developers)
2) provide better transportation (the streetcar route has already been upgraded to a ROW and another streetcar route through Bremner is in the works)
3) change some zoning in the Lake Shore neighbourhood to commercial so that businesses will open here and provide jobs to residents (this suggestion is not economically sound).

If I got all that right, I think you should keep your day job (and be grateful that you have one at all).

More units should be on Block 32 and 36 as these are not blocking any surrounding towers and anyone who bought in condos beside them are aware of this already and price are already adjusted.

Irrelevant. Preserving views is not a mandate of planning policy for reasons so obvious that I will not get into them.[/quote]

This is my intention of what I hope to achieve, to get the common understanding of all side, Government, citizens and Cityplace should strife towards.

Bring your suggestions to a council meeting and I guarantee you will experience strife.

 

[Rangostar]

This neighbourhood is characterized by tall point towers. I thought you were just criticizing the city for bad planning...



This doesn't make sense. Reducing ceilings from 9 feet to 8 feet will not turn a tall building into a short building.



Insensitive.


Irrelevant.

City should consider the equity of the owners at city place, overall balance of utility of this community. There is a probability decrease in rental value when the rent is significantly lower just beside you and blocking many units of CP owners.

Why not? logic and math

Why should i try to be sensitive, I am speaking on my own behalf and many CP owners.

relevant to me and CP Owner/investors.

 

[tkip]

Benefit of the doubt....

I read Rangostar's last post and he really seems baffled as to the furor over his posts regarding the proposed tower for low income peopple and his objections. I will give him his due for stating that he feels very strongly about above standard quality for people who haven't paid for their housing.

At least he's being honest here.

I don't agree with his views but he's entitled to them. What I have a problem with is that I truly think he just doesn't want poorer people living in his community and with government funding for what he considers to be underserved superior housing standards.

One can't help but read his posts and come away with this conclusion.
I think it's his phrasing with the assertion that these people would be living in underserved superior conditions that is polarizing this debate.

 

[grey]

City should consider the equity of the owners at city place, overall balance of utility of this community. There is a probability decrease in rental value when the rent is significantly lower just beside you and blocking many units of CP owners.

I have news for you: the City has, somewhere along the line, considered the equity of owners at City Place and they've decided that poverty is an enormous problem in Toronto and social housing is monumentally more important than preserving the view from your window.

Why not? logic and math

Okay. I don't even need to know the height of this building in order to disprove your math and logic:

---> The building is 43 stories.
---> The ceilings on all floors are 9 feet tall (not counting the ground floor and the mechanicals on top).
---> Let's subtract 1 foot from each of these floors to reduce the ceilings to 8 feet. Agreed?
---> Now, how many feet have we reduced from the total height of this building? 1 foot times 43 floors = 43 feet (1 x 43 = 43).

We've just reduced the height of this building by 43 feet. Congratulations, you've just saved the view for the elite bourgeois occupying the penthouses at the top of your building. Power to the people, comrade!

Why should i try to be sensitive

I'm not really the person to encourage a much-needed paradigm shift for you, but maybe these people can help you...

 

[Rangostar]

I have news for you: the City has, somewhere along the line, considered the equity of owners at City Place and they've decided that poverty is an enormous problem in Toronto and social housing is monumentally more important than preserving the view from your window.

Okay. I don't even need to know the height of this building in order to disprove your math and logic:

---> The building is 43 stories.
---> The ceilings on all floors are 9 feet tall (not counting the ground floor and the mechanicals on top).
---> Let's subtract 1 foot from each of these floors to reduce the ceilings to 8 feet. Agreed?
---> Now, how many feet have we reduced from the total height of this building? 1 foot times 43 floors = 43 feet (1 x 43 = 43).

We've just reduced the height of this building by 43 feet. Congratulations, you've just saved the view for the elite bourgeois occupying the penthouses at the top of your building. Power to the people, comrade!

I'm not really the person to encourage a much-needed paradigm shift for you, but maybe these people can help you...

Not just my window, but many of the CP owners' window. And good planning and other ways can be done to reduce poverty other than create unease with surrounding community. Giving people jobs and sense of accomplishment instead of handing them all the goods imo is a better poverty prevention. All the tax dollars that we paid can be decreased, to put more money in our pocket and we can increase spending. Exploring public transportation, to make all Area in Toronto more marketable, business and real estate will flourish along with it. Point in the end, is that Balance needs to be created to when planning these buildings.

there are 43 feet to be reduced so 8 feet per building around 4-5 floors can be reduced, and the two surrounding building will have a view. so if 5 units are blocked, then 10 units will be avoided from reduce equity.

So if the building was broader, and flatter, you can do the math from here on. This will aslo have minimal reduction on the number of TCHC units.

Again, i am speaking out but not intend to offend anyone. Maybe if you are applying for the TCHC at this area, I welcome you with open arms, but all CP owners will want their equity to be unaffected and we got to do our best in our own interest. Selfish maybe, but I just hope government approach this whole development with more consideration.

 

[AKS]

Rangostar, some of the issues can be somewhat rectified IF the city is willing to do some compromise. However, I don't know if they will or not.

1) Only allow income lower than 14-20k in that building. That will filter out the people who can afford to pay regular rent rates. (I was really upset when Adam Vaughn said 30-65k people were allowed to rent there. It's ridiculous if they can earn enough to live by that they can't pay the regular rent. Those below 30k with families must be living on chicken feed and need even more help if those 30-65k people can't afford to take care of themselves). Let's face it, if they're earning such low incomes, it's unlikely they'll ever be able to afford something nice. It will be something nice to look forward to after a hard days work.

2) Decrease the height and spread it across on the large floor plate. Or shift the building horizontal instead of vertical so only partial view is blocked and it won't be entirely "in your face". After looking at the floor plate design, I notice it seemed to be built like it never took into consideration for W1 building. It's feels like "I'm gonna stand nowhere but just right infront of you. And to prove it, I'll be thin and spread the width of the west side just in front of you."

Like I said there are many ways to stack on such a large floor plate. I was even thinking something whimsical like having the roof of the building spanning the floor plate with a wavy roof like waves on the wave deck. And have a building shaped something close to a buoy like it's floating on water Just a crazy idea.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Or instead of building UP they could build DOWN, creating a reverse skyscraper digging deep into the earth's core. Then they won't bother anyone!

 

[grey]

Not just my window, but many of the CP owners' window. And good planning and other ways can be done to reduce poverty other than create unease with surrounding community. Giving people jobs and sense of accomplishment instead of handing them all the goods imo is a better poverty prevention. All the tax dollars that we paid can be decreased, to put more money in our pocket and we can increase spending. Exploring public transportation, to make all Area in Toronto more marketable, business and real estate will flourish along with it. Point in the end, is that Balance needs to be created to when planning these buildings.

Yes, those are all fun and serious-looking things to say, but you've cobbled them together in a manner that doesn't make sense. There's clearly a language barrier here, but I think that you either have giant knowledge gaps or are attempting to mislead us out of shame over your thinly-veiled contempt for the poor by feigning ignorance.

there are 43 feet to be reduced so 8 feet per building around 4-5 floors can be reduced, and the two surrounding building will have a view. so if 5 units are blocked, then 10 units will be avoided from reduce equity.

What about CityPlace owners on floors that are under 43 stories? You have saved 10 views, but many dozens more are still completely blocked. What of their equity? How is this a solution at all?

all CP owners will want their equity to be unaffected and we got to do our best in our own interest.

You've also begun to speak as though you represent all people living at CityPlace and all stakeholders there share your opinions.* I don't think your constituents would appreciate your lack of concern about the views from lower floors. What makes higher floor condo dwellers more worthy of uninterrupted views than those on low floors?

Did CityPlace residents on lower floors not work hard enough to earn the money to buy units on the top 5 floors? Maybe they should have studied harder in school, or their mothers should have hugged them more, or they didn't have good access to easy transportation and couldn't cross the street. Because their buildings were tall instead of wide.

Those poor people If only we had cut back some ceiling heights and funded street beautification and crosswalks instead.



* ...Because many people care more about their view and the value it adds to their condos than social housing.

 

[maestro]

1) Only allow income lower than 14-20k in that building. That will filter out the people who can afford to pay regular rent rates. (I was really upset when Adam Vaughn said 30-65k people were allowed to rent there. It's ridiculous if they can earn enough to live by that they can't pay the regular rent. Those below 30k with families must be living on chicken feed and need even more help if those 30-65k people can't afford to take care of themselves). Let's face it, if they're earning such low incomes, it's unlikely they'll ever be able to afford something nice. It will be something nice to look forward to after a hard days work.

The rent is geared to income. You pay more rent if you make more money. TCHC also needs those higher income earners/market rent payers to stay financially afloat. Maybe you should do some research instead of just pulling stuff out of your ass.

 

[AKS]

What does it matter? The rent is geared to income. You pay more rent if you make more money. TCHC also needs those market rent payers to stay financially afloat.

They said the largest 3 bedroom unit will be charged around $1100/month. That's hardly regular rent. Downtown rent for 2 bedrooms cost over $2000/month let alone 3 bedrooms. Calculating $1100/month at 1500 sq ft, that covers the cost of maintenance and property tax. Hydro is separately metered. Also with LEED it's suppose to save energy and costs. Priority should be given the the lower income people who can't afford to pay the rent everyone else does. Also, there are some who disparately want to move out of the Jane and Finch or other bad area because they're afraid for the child's safety. TCHC just says, there's no available housing.

 

[maestro]

They said the largest 3 bedroom unit will be charged around $1100/month.

And you pressume this to be the proposed building's market rate?

Were you by chance surprised when you showed up at your building with moving van in tow on your developer's estimated date of completion to see the floor slab wasn't even poured yet?

 

[AKS]

That is what he gave the estimate for. That may be why some people were very upset. Some have to pay the over $2000 for 2 bedrooms. If TCHC are allowing people to pay cheaper rents, the lower income would have to wait even longer in line to get housing who really need it more.

When I looked at the budget. 50% of the TCHC was subsidized by government funding.

 

[urbanboyto]

Its funny we never had this "blocking views" debate for all the other City Place towers as they were built!... hmmm.... seems like a canard to me.