[Oliver Tweed]

I have to admit, I also get a little annoyed when I see subsidized housing that's nicer than mine. I think it's natural to feel that way.

 

[AGTO]

TCHC just says, there's no available housing.

because they're filling two bedroom, two story townhouses with single, able bodied young men.

 

[ProjectEnd]

I don't understand how so many will complain that subsidized housing is the 'problem' because it's supposedly 'better' than what's available on the market. It's worth considering that perhaps it's the private developers and contractors who are at fault. In other words, if a building housing subsidized renters is better than most condos out there, perhaps the problem is in the shoddy quality (both design and quality-wise) of the condos themselves.

To me, these arguments smack of the same private-interests which are skewing the debate about health care down south. Private insurers are complaining that a public option will drive up premiums when they know that it is truly in danger is their bottom line. Here we have private condo owners complaining that this 'public option' will ruin their home values when, like in America, the opposite is more likely to happen. By creating buildings which are forward-thinking and unashamedly modern, like, oh say, the future Block 31, developers might just be forced to park their mullion-and-spandrel-tower-on-podium gravy train and create something of real meaning.

 

[urbandreamer]

Although honestly, having seen the massive TCHC highrise in High Park, having a massive 43 floor highrise with TCHC people is a bad idea. It's not as well maintained as even the cheapest (to rent) highrises in my 'hood.

 

[adma]

Although honestly, having seen the massive TCHC highrise in High Park, having a massive 43 floor highrise with TCHC people is a bad idea. It's not as well maintained as even the cheapest (to rent) highrises in my 'hood.

Which one is that?

And aside from Rangostar's mush-mouthed self-justifications, I do agree that TCHC in supertall mode might not be such a great idea...if only on past record; that is, those who do not know (or forget) history are doomed to repeat it (cf past Corbusian disasters).

Consider that the closest thing to "low income/affordable housing" in these south-of-Front quarters remains the 80s neo-St Lawrence low-rise/high-density nucleus at Bathurst Quay--and how, for reasons other than class snobbery, that "feels just right"...

 

[Tuscani01]

Some better quality renderings:

Personally, I dont think this design should be sacrificed for anything or anyone. I love it.

 

[yyzer]

very nice!

 

[SP!RE]

1) It's so Rotterdam... I love it.

2) The way it deals with the curve in the road is brilliant.

This is one shmexy piece of modernism. I am absolutely in love with this design.

 

[Tuscani01]

A note: Balconies will be 10-12 feet DEEP.

Some other notes included:

To silence those who believe it should not be affordable housing.

In Canada, there are limitations on the kind of decision making that can be shared through a democratic process. For example, a neighbour cannot intervene on a real estate transaction or interview potential tenants at a neighbouring property. Residents do not have the right to choose or limit who lives in their neighbourhood. This is protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

To those who think they were there before affordable housing:

Since the early 1980s, the planning for this site included plans for affordable housing. This was incorporated in a 1994 by-law for this site, which included specific directives about what would be built on this site, including schools, community centre, and affordable housing.

To those who think these buildings are too tall for the area (even though their buildings are built in the same area, at similar heights):

In 1994, all of the sites were zoned as low-rise perimeter block buildings. Since that time, Concord Adex, which has developed most of the Railway Lands, has rezoned their sites and built tall and thin point towers set out in urban design guidelines that TCHC is now following for Block 31. Block 31 is the only site that has not been rezoned in the Railway Lands West. The proposed development would constitute a 12% increase in density over the existing zoning on the site.

By the way, all of this can be found in Ward 20's October newsletter which should be arriving in your mailboxes shortly.

 

[khris]

As much as I love the balconies on this, I am worried that they will turn into storage rooms. Hopefully not!

 

[Automation Gallery]

1) It's so Rotterdam... I love it.

2) The way it deals with the curve in the road is brilliant.

This is one shmexy piece of modernism. I am absolutely in love with this design.

Beautiful, this will fit into this area nicely. It's definitely the missing link that will change how people will view this neighbourhood.

 

[Northern Light]

In the development proposed by TCHC for this site all of the units would be affordable rental units.
Rents would be set at about 80% of average rental rates for the City of Toronto, as determined as the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC). All of the units are being planned as “market
rental units,” there will be no rent-geared-to-income units planned in this building. This means that in order to qualify for a lease in these units, future residents would need to have an annual income in the
range of $35,000 to $65,000

Note the above quote from Adam Vaughan's newsletter, this basicially translates as not-for-profit, rather than subsidized housing.

Essentially this is market rent - profit margin.

City of Toronto Official Plan
Rent Thresholds for 2009:
Affordable Threshold
Unit Type Affordable Maximum Limits
Bachelor $ 767
1-bedroom $ 929
2-bedroom $1,104
3-bedroom $1,292
2-bedroom townhouse $1,078
3-bedroom townhouse $1,304
4+ bedroom townhouse $1,417

Not that it should matter; but its worth saying based on this statement that no household moving into this building we'll be on social benefits as this pays $8,000 per year for a single person, and far less than $35,000 for even the largest family.

****

I actually think this is the type of public housing more people would be supportive of in that it increases the supply of affordable units; but isn't a money-loser for the gov't landlord. Its not the solution for everyone; but it does help address the need for housing for less affluent families.

Though there are still a host of other measures I prefer to government being a landlord, which I covered in other threads.

This looks more like the European model of public housing where its common for middleclass families to live in housing that is state-owned, but not necessarily subsidized per se.

 

[GrinTO]

Block 31

Interesting looking design.

Are there any models of the other TCHC complexes west of the park yet?

 

[egotrippin]

Hahaha; this is awesome. On top of this building being too tall, and a potential view spoiler (according to a certain voice in this thread), its design is better than any of the Cityplace buildings to boot. It's kind of the icing on the karma cake, as listening to all the complaints towards the TCHC building here to date has been pretty disconcerting.

Also, Oliver Tweed, I don't think it's natural to feel the way you do. I think you may have some insecurity issues.

 

[simuls]

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.