simuls said:
I am beginning to think that building 2 schools in an area that has almost no children is a poor use of taxpayer's money.

Currently there are almost no people anywhere in Cityplace that have children between the age of 6 and 17 and even the locally run daycare is constantly advertising its openings because people move out of the area to larger housing as soon as their children are around 3 or 4.

The only people these schools would be for would be the people in the TCHC building and when the city is busy closing schools less than 8 blocks away because of declining enrollment it seems a bit foolish to build something in the "hope" that they will come.

I think it would be a wiser use of taxpayer's money to get rid of the schools and build more units or conversely, use those extra funds to repair some of the existing TCHC buildings that are falling apart.
Click to expand...

I dont think that they are building these new schools just for this complex but for the entire area, say Dundas to the lake and Church to Strachan. You mention that the city has closed a bunch of schools, yes but then again they are the outdated ones that the school board had maintained poorly thus not attracting many new students.
 
Last edited:
grey said:
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.

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?


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.
Click to expand...

Actually, each extra floors cost more money when you buy condos. Hence less probability of being covered. So it is the risk that you take when you pay cheaper price for the same-view condo units. So this price was built in.
 
urbanboyto said:
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.
Click to expand...

Because Cityplace should disclose this to buyers since they know about their own projects.

TCHC are taxpayers money, and everyone has the right to say about it. There are also issue of decreasing rental value of their own Condo units.
 
TCHC are taxpayers money, and everyone has the right to say about it.
Click to expand...

TCHC is hardly taxpayer's money. The publicly owned agency does receive a subsidy but so too do a lot of private developers building affordable housing. I'd like to see you go to Verdiroc, for example, and tell them as a taxpayer that you're ordering them not to tear down 48 Abell.
 
Rangostarr:

TCHC are taxpayers money, and everyone has the right to say about it
Click to expand...

Exactly right - and that includes individuals who will benefit from this project through having a place to live. Perhaps for the sake of balance they should be at those public meetings too? Or is it because they don't necessarily pay taxes (i.e. taxpayers) their voices doesn't qualify? Last time I checked that wasn't a tenet of a democratic system.

AoD
 
simuls said:
I've been giving this some more consideration and while i have no problem at all with the housing (although I think it would be wiser to consider 8 feet ceilings and either lower the height, or add more floors to attain even larger density and more units), I am beginning to think that building 2 schools in an area that has almost no children is a poor use of taxpayer's money.

Currently there are almost no people anywhere in Cityplace that have children between the age of 6 and 17 and even the locally run daycare is constantly advertising its openings because people move out of the area to larger housing as soon as their children are around 3 or 4.

The only people these schools would be for would be the people in the TCHC building and when the city is busy closing schools less than 8 blocks away because of declining enrollment it seems a bit foolish to build something in the "hope" that they will come.

While I'm normally a huge fan of Adam Vaughan and believe he has the best of intentions, his dream of family condo living just isn't being accepted by the paying public - at least not yet, and most developers are having to reconfigure the 3 bedroom layouts they promised the city into 2 or 3 smaller condos because no one is buying them.

I think it would be a wiser use of taxpayer's money to get rid of the schools and build more units or conversely, use those extra funds to repair some of the existing TCHC buildings that are falling apart.
Click to expand...

The schools are being built in anticipation of all the development that will be swallowing up that area all the way down to the waterfront and way the hell over to parkdale/batterypark/liberty village. There’s some mess about a use it or lose it thing from the developer (so build now or never build in that area). It’s partly arm twisting and partly need.

I think the thinking here is the TDSB is not on the hook for any of that money (apart from running it once it's built) and if they wind up not needing it, they'll flip it over. They're getting the same kind of pressure from developers in Scarborough. They'll need a school in 10 years after the development finishes, but the developer wants them to build it now, and the City wants them to build something on institutional land, and they’ll come by later and stick in a community centre. Developer just wants a school for advertising and jacking up their building prices. The City doesn’t want to commit money because their budget process is whack. TSDB doesn’t have a short term need, but a long term need so there’s no need to build now, and they can’t afford to buy the land 10 years from now but are getting it for free from the developer, and no one is willing to let it sit as an empty park-like plot. I guarantee it is also going to be a tiny ass school on 1 acre of land if even.

And whatever school is being closed down 8 blocks away (Brant maybe?) is probably being closed for a whole host of other reasons. Toronto downtown schools have their own unique histories and whatnot, it’s a mess. You can have an empty school that is near to another one that's bursting at the seams, and there would be no way of convincing parents to start sending their kids to the empty one to keep both open. It's ridiculous. Downtown junior schools are like half alternative schools with 12 kids, and half normal school with 100 kids in old decrepit buildings that the TDSB can’t afford to repair or refurbish in any meaningful way. A lot of them should be amazing old heritage institutions, but they aren’t. Apparently it’s the legacy from the funding choices the old City of Toronto board made back before Harris and the end of local taxes paying for your schools. They’d plow money into programmes and opportunities for kids, and nothing into the buildings.

Also, 8 blocks away might be outside the 1.6km walking distance. Bussing kids in the city is just a nightmare. And most parents seem to drive their kids to downtown schools, it’s wild. All the kids in the school in st Lawrence get driven there, no one walks. I think the regent park/Nelson Mandela school is the only one downtown where kids walk to school.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, they'll lose their uninterrupted views of Mimico. What a shame.
 
Solaris said:
I do feel bad for WestOne and N1/N2 owners who will lose their views to this proposal though
Click to expand...

3 weeks ago, I visited a friend's west-facing unit at WestOne and discovered that if indeed the TCHC building is built at the southern-most part of the block, it would block my friend's view of the gardiner expressway... not too bad
 
CanadianDriver said:
3 weeks ago, I visited a friend's west-facing unit at WestOne and discovered that if indeed the TCHC building is built at the southern-most part of the block, it would block my friend's view of the gardiner expressway... not too bad
Click to expand...


What is the unit of your friend's condo? I am Curious if this will also block my view?

thanks!
 
Two schools, three greenhouses, and hundreds of apartments in one building. This is what I always imagined future space colonies would be like.
 
kettal said:
Two schools, three greenhouses, and hundreds of apartments in one building. This is what I always imagined future space colonies would be like.
Click to expand...

There will be greenhouses inside? If so, that's groundbreaking.

Where is there more information on this aspect of the development? :) Is it a grow-your-own-veggies setup?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top