AlvinofDiaspar said:
They can now take OL to Gerrard Square next door, if needed - and there is something fundamentally wrong about excluding those with lower incomes from the most accessible sites. That's how you end up with low income housing at the periphery. If you can have affordable housing at St. Lawrence or Regent Park, I am not sure how you can't have affordable housing here,.

AoD
Click to expand...

I completely agree.

But I do understand @WislaHD 's concern.

If an area is dominated by a higher-income clientele, there maybe inadequate retail/services for the moderate income household.

I think in this case, that is mostly addressed, as I did in my post; though, discount grocery is certainly at the outer limits of walking distance for many and the absence of transit through-service on Eastern Avenue or Lakeshore is a notable issue.

But I also think, in most cases, the answer is not, not prioritizing affordable housing in a community, it's making the adjustments needed in retail/transit to support same.
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
9 x 31 to 42 storied office towers would be quite imposing here, considering if the ceiling heights of these are the same as the one in The Well.
Click to expand...
Think of it as a second downtown here. A mini one. CIBC's new towers are roughly the max height here and it will be like a pyramid slope down to the current residential to the north (45 degree angular plane) But once this development is in full swing some of those residential might be further developed for densification. I think it will look rather great to spread out into two "peaks" kind of like the Bloor/Yonge one and NY with Downtown and Midtown. even London has a few with Canary Wharf and their main DT.
This also of course is hoping for well designed buildings.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
They can now take OL to Gerrard Square next door, if needed - and there is something fundamentally wrong about excluding those with lower incomes from the most accessible sites. That's how you end up with low income housing at the periphery. If you can have affordable housing at St. Lawrence or Regent Park, I am not sure how you can't have affordable housing here,.

AoD
Click to expand...
It's kind of like trying to pretend gravity doesn't exist. More accessible locations will have higher values. Trying to put low income housing in desirable locations requires some heavy duty market manipulation to keep it affordable.
 
afransen said:
It's kind of like trying to pretend gravity doesn't exist. More accessible locations will have higher values. Trying to put low income housing in desirable locations requires some heavy duty market manipulation to keep it affordable.
Click to expand...
Similarly the market forces means you can create a lot more affordable housing in low cost areas for the same price as less in high cost areas.

for the cost of creating an affordable unit at Yonge and Bloor you can probably build 3-4 affordable units at Finch and Kipling.

now of course that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t build any affordable units at Bloor/Yonge or only build affordable units in the lowest cost parts of the city, but you have to find a balance.

regent park and the st Lawrence have lots of affordable housing as at the time of that housings construction they were low cost areas, they just aren’t any more.
 
I mean, something is fundamentally unfair about me not having waterfront property on Lake Joseph. Why should I have to settle for waterfront property on some smaller, more isolated lake?

When are we going to address the shocking lack of affordable housing in Bridle Path?

That's just reality!
 
afransen said:
I mean, something is fundamentally unfair about me not having waterfront property on Lake Joseph. Why should I have to settle for waterfront property on some smaller, more isolated lake?

That's just reality!
Click to expand...

Can we please cut back the absurdity.

There will be affordable housing here, because the City can demand it and get it.

The City cannot demand a developer build affordable housing where there is no development.

The City is not paying for this housing, that's key.

The developer is getting a huge windfall as this land has been massively upzoned; it also previously didn't allow residential (still doesn't, technically, for now)

*****

Further, Eastern and Broadview is not Lake Joseph or the Bridal Path, or Rosedale or Forest Hill.

It’s Eastern and Broadview.
 
afransen said:
It's kind of like trying to pretend gravity doesn't exist. More accessible locations will have higher values. Trying to put low income housing in desirable locations requires some heavy duty market manipulation to keep it affordable.
Click to expand...

Yes and no - and considering it is the government that is putting the money into to making the general area accessible (nevermind flood protected); also keep in mind that it is also government regulation that enabled the increased ask under the current scenario - above and beyond what they had been approved for previously. I don't seem to hear any complaint about "market manipulation" that way.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Providing housing at below market rents is market manipulation. Selling 'affordable' units is a massive windfall to the first time buyer. It's just roundabout taxation. We could more directly tax and use the funds to make more of the city appropriately 'accessible'.
 
Affordable housing is a band aid. The real solution is giving everyone a good smack for allowing housing to become an investment (and deflating the bubble). It's unethical to turn a basic human necessity into a investment. But it's the unfortunate result of the current endless bull market/inflationary super cycle that's been going since the early 80s and particularly the last 10 years.
 
Getting a first kind of look at the tower placements in guess what - the updated flood study document.

The office towers look to be closer to the new Broadview extension and I'm guessing the tallest residential towers are those which sit in the office cluster. The smaller residential towers running along the south of the site.

East-Harbour.png
 
Undead said:
Affordable housing is a band aid. The real solution is giving everyone a good smack for allowing housing to become an investment (and deflating the bubble). It's unethical to turn a basic human necessity into a investment. But it's the unfortunate result of the current endless bull market/inflationary super cycle that's been going since the early 80s and particularly the last 10 years.
Click to expand...

That............

AND

We have seen the artificial suppression of wages, by increasing the labour force; and holding back minimum wage........

As well as the real reduction of social assistance and EI/UI payments for that same reason (to drive more people to work for below subsistence wages, because basic income support is enough to leave you homeless and starving)

Not to mention gutting the union movement (which while severely flawed at times, did sever, broadly, to raise entry-level wages)
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top