Of course, the city could copy Vancouver--family-sized affordable (public) housing at the base or just above the retail in exchange for increased densities. But look at the result: you see the cheap bases of Vancouver (Yaletown, Concord) condos falling apart within a decade of being built, practically zero interaction between the public housing folk on the bottom (hey is this a class thing where the poor live beneath the rich? You betcha...) and those above.

So, public policy is an ass. Eventually the market will sort things out, maybe not today or tomorrow, but probably in time for the next housing boom--2030s?
 
If you have a family and want to live downtown, then consider getting a smaller place. A lot of people would like to live downtown, but having kids doesn't automatically entitle you to cheaper housing.
 
Last edited:
Discuss the change of L-Tower address

Don't know why this address change from 1 Front st. east to 8 the Esplanade that

might influence the value of this bulding. also, the address on the Yonge st. is better

than on the Esplanade.

I need you to offer good suggestions.
 
Who cares? It's not Rosedale, or FH, so what does it matter? It's just a tacky vulgar Libeskind apartment building, probably it will leak too!

Probably? It's his signature for goodness sake. ;)
 
Not sure if you are being facetious or serious (internet forums don't communicate sarcasm well)... The $psf for penthouses are typically much higher then the other units. Penthouses also differ substantially from project to project where some really are the over-the-top penthouses depicted in hollywood films, while other buildings just have slightly larger units. The point being the city doesn't regulate the sizes or the prices and the developer will bring what they can sell to the market - penthouses being a very very small portion of that market (and a portion which obviously isn't being subsidized by the other units).
Wasn't being facetious, that was just the fist question that came to my head, you are probably right.

In another thread I read that a new zoning by-law clause will provide 'benefits' to developers who make family size units.
 
^ Well anything is possible but there are always different trade offs and sometimes unintended consequences when trying to balance different public policy objectives. If changes were made to the Planning Act or City of Toronto Act, the city could implement inclusionary zoning policies which would essentially 'force' developers to build family sized units and/or affordable units. The public policy trade off would be that the remaining supply of 'market' units would have higher prices levied in order to subsidize the lower cost and/or larger units (cross subsidization). So certain city objectives would be achieved, but on the other hand the cost of housing for the majority of people would go up. There are other methods the city could achieve larger/lower cost units, but that may come at taxpayers expenses if there is a direct subsidy or if certain taxes, fees and charges were exempted to reduce the sticker price for buyers of larger units (also this would have to be closely monitored so wealthy buyers of penthouses etc don't benefit from a policy directed towards families). A quicker approvals in which more certainty was provided could reduce processing & carrying costs (i.e. as-of-right zoning), but the trade off may be less public participation or municipal control of the planning process - so again there are trade-offs. Tax increment financing could be utilized, but that's a tool generally used for brownfields or infrastructure investment. The city could waive section 37s or focus section 37s on affordable housing, but the trade off is less money for other community benefits that sec 37s fund. Or the city could take on a more direct role in housing investment, but that would once again impact the tax base or other municipal assets.... It's a complex issue with no easy answers, and any solutions are often the result of trade-offs which may impact other municipal (or provincial or federal) objectives.

Very informative post. Thanks. I wonder how Adam Vaughan would respond.
 
^ Well anything is possible but there are always different trade offs and sometimes unintended consequences when trying to balance different public policy objectives. If changes were made to the Planning Act or City of Toronto Act, the city could implement inclusionary zoning policies which would essentially 'force' developers to build family sized units and/or affordable units. The public policy trade off would be that the remaining supply of 'market' units would have higher prices levied in order to subsidize the lower cost and/or larger units (cross subsidization). So certain city objectives would be achieved, but on the other hand the cost of housing for the majority of people would go up. There are other methods the city could achieve larger/lower cost units, but that may come at taxpayers expenses if there is a direct subsidy or if certain taxes, fees and charges were exempted to reduce the sticker price for buyers of larger units (also this would have to be closely monitored so wealthy buyers of penthouses etc don't benefit from a policy directed towards families). A quicker approvals in which more certainty was provided could reduce processing & carrying costs (i.e. as-of-right zoning), but the trade off may be less public participation or municipal control of the planning process - so again there are trade-offs. Tax increment financing could be utilized, but that's a tool generally used for brownfields or infrastructure investment. The city could waive section 37s or focus section 37s on affordable housing, but the trade off is less money for other community benefits that sec 37s fund. Or the city could take on a more direct role in housing investment, but that would once again impact the tax base or other municipal assets.... It's a complex issue with no easy answers, and any solutions are often the result of trade-offs which may impact other municipal (or provincial or federal) objectives.

Agree with Mike's post.

Another perspective from a process viewpoint - if there were a reaonably attainable, more ideal solution to resolving these trade-offs, someone would should have found it by now, and everone else would be copying it. The fact that the various parties to the situation - the residents, neighbours, developers, and the city are all parties to the development approval process and associated trade-offs would indicate to me this is inherently one of balancing the various interests against constraints in an attempt to reach a best fit solution.

When one side has had too much power (typically, but not exclusively the developers), and have been able to impose a solution which has not been broadly acceptable to the other parties, the result has changes through the political process to bring about a rebalancing of the parties. Inappropriate developments led to stricter zoning and municipal approval processes. Overly strict zoning and municipal processes led to the creation of the OMB.

Like Churchill's comment regarding democracy - the processes we have a not great, but other than evolving and fine tuning them, there do not appear to be any simple, realistic alternatives.

AHK
 
Very informative post. Thanks. I wonder how Adam Vaughan would respond.

To be honest, as the expression goes, I think his heart is in the right place ... the issue is he probably gets a lot more publicity and it's a lot easier just to say he's enforcing some arbitrary limit (or minimum amount) - clearly in practice, as established this doesn't work.
 
Don't know why this address change from 1 Front st. east to 8 the Esplanade that

might influence the value of this bulding. also, the address on the Yonge st. is better

than on the Esplanade.

I need you to offer good suggestions.

Since when an address change affects the value of a building? that's not true at all. I have seen many address changes and it does not have any influence on the value. 550 Wellington changed to 55 Stewart, 455 Adelaide changed to 10 Morrison, etc
 
Don't know why this address change from 1 Front st. east to 8 the Esplanade that

might influence the value of this bulding. also, the address on the Yonge st. is better

than on the Esplanade.

I need you to offer good suggestions.

The entrance is on the South-West corner of the building which is on the Esplanade. Not that this forces them to change (i.e. Ryerson Business building has a Bay st. address even though the entrance is way far down on Dundas) but for a residential building, the Esplanade is more attractive than busy Front or Yonge st.
 
Hi! MetroMan

I can accept your idea cause it's a residential building.

But it's better on the busy street for a office or commercial building, right!

Thanks
 
Since when an address change affects the value of a building? that's not true at all. I have seen many address changes and it does not have any influence on the value. 550 Wellington changed to 55 Stewart, 455 Adelaide changed to 10 Morrison, etc

The only major issue with such address changes is finding cab drivers who know where these streets actually are.
 
You're lucky. On one of my first visits to Toronto, over 25 years ago, I arrived at the downtown Greyhound bus terminal and needed to get to Union Station. The cab driver did not know where Union Station was -- fortunately I had read a street map just prior to this and was able to direct him.
 

Back
Top