raptor
Senior Member
This one looks awful up close, all the white metal panels are misaligned, some are already dented.
- Thread starter BobBob
- Start date
neuhaus
Senior Member
What a garbage developer.
/https://www.thestar.com/content/dam/thestar/news/gta/2019/06/10/would-you-live-in-a-condo-without-an-oven-162-units-in-this-downtown-building-dont-have-one/_1_westside_condos.jpg)
Would you live in a condo without an oven? 162 units in this downtown building don’t have one
Instead, units under 480 square feet have convection microwaves for “space saving efficiencies.” The move follows a decline in cooking and rise in foo...www.thestar.com
This project was aggressively marketed to investors and I have a strong feeling that these investors bought these units with intentions to run AirBnB's, as they are designed similar to hotel rooms. Even the cooktop has only two burners.
.dwg
Active Member
Unfettered greed. You can talk about how "we're an app-based society" or how "lifestyles have changed" (usually some additional wordsmithing about how young people don't/won't/can't cook at home and don't bother and therefore such units of course don't need ovens) but at the end of the day, it's a bunch of developer-shill Grade-A bullshit.
This project has 1200 units - the developer is not hurting, and regardless of any other frills included or not included, one should be able to count on ovens and other cooking necessities as basic features of any new living space. What owners do with units beyond that is their business but there is no excuse for skipping such a basic necessity in these types of units.
Of course I need to anticipate that some people will argue "Well, if there are buyers for it, then why not?". To that I say, if that's your standard for the type of living spaces we should be creating for renters, or the type of city you want, that's on you.
This project has 1200 units - the developer is not hurting, and regardless of any other frills included or not included, one should be able to count on ovens and other cooking necessities as basic features of any new living space. What owners do with units beyond that is their business but there is no excuse for skipping such a basic necessity in these types of units.
Of course I need to anticipate that some people will argue "Well, if there are buyers for it, then why not?". To that I say, if that's your standard for the type of living spaces we should be creating for renters, or the type of city you want, that's on you.
gabe
Senior Member
What a garbage developer.
Would you live in a condo without an oven? 162 units in this downtown building don’t have one
Instead, units under 480 square feet have convection microwaves for “space saving efficiencies.” The move follows a decline in cooking and rise in foo...
I had a kitchenette in a Motel 6 that look like that. Even if it did come with an oven, that sink looks far too small for most pots and pans. I guess you can wash cookware in the shower.
concrete_and_light
Active Member
Our system is bad at achieving livable standards even at luxury prices, let alone accounting for those who cannot afford market housing and we should be investing in building widespread social housing instead.
raptor
Senior Member
wrong on all counts:
1. If there's demand for these 'sub-standard' living standards, I see no issues
2. did you mean "...who cannot afford market housing in the CITY?" Why should everyone everyone be able afford housing in Toronto? We're not a socialist country.
3. Re: social housing, we praise capitalism while striving for socialism. There are plenty of other more affordable places around the country, I do not understand why everyone MUST live in Toronto.
concrete_and_light
Active Member
1. Demand existing for housing that is below reasonable living standards and yet is sold for many hundreds of thousands of dollars shows exactly how broken the system is. It's kind of staggering to me that you see that as "no issues". Would housing without sanitary or safe conditions be "no issues" as well if that's what the market results in? Your vision of society is remarkably hostile towards the people who live in it. In your defence of un-checked capitalism you could not better prove how heartless it is as a way of ordering society than you have with this comment.
2/3: Many people have to live in the city for a variety of reasons or perhaps just want to (there is an increasing centralization of job opportunities in Toronto, perhaps you have family here, perhaps you just don't want to leave because it is your home, etc.) — either way, as an extremely prosperous country we should be able to accommodate people being able to afford to live in the city they need to/choose to. People shouldn't have to choose between reasonable housing and living in the city that is their home. There are also economic benefits to people being able to afford to live in the economic engine of the country. We're not a socialist country — ok, sure, but perhaps we should be given the state of things and it's not a pure capitalist/socialist policy binary anyway. For instance we already have public policy inspired by the best of socialism such as public health care. There are also many other countries around the world that maintain capitalist systems while investing significantly in public housing such as Singapore (high economic freedom + 80% of people live in public housing) and we have ourselves in the past invested more in public housing while being largely capitalist.
Last edited:
ProjectEnd
Superstar
1. What is 'demand' to you? Is that only end users? 'Pure demand', if you will? Or does that also include investors, Air BnB hosts, etc.?
2. We should absolutely strive for a more socialist form of society wherein people who don't make as much can still have a comparable quality of life to those that do.
3. Who is 'praising capitalism' here? Sure as shit ain't me. Is your solution to an affordability crisis to kick the less fortunate out of the city they call home and demand that they move elsewhere? Generally, cities that are more affordable are so because there's a limited job market and fewer opportunities there.
raptor
Senior Member
1. demand = purchasers of condo units
2. I don't think it's fair to have both capitalism and socialism at the same time, they're contradictory. In no way I'm in favour of capitalism, but we live in a capitalist society.
3. Governments. Heck, even our educational institutions. Again, doesn't mean I agree with them.
Rascacielo
Senior Member
Here’s another ‘spacious’ suite in the building: 250 sq ft and oddly shaped to boot!
www.blogto.com
Rental of the week: 576 Front Street West
There’s something to be said for these “luxury” apartments that are really just one step away from being unlivable. As the crass saying goes: “You ca…
www.blogto.com
Red Mars
Senior Member
PIc from June 11, 2019
ProjectEnd
Superstar
1. That 'demand' is spiked by those who purchase but will never live these units. Since an investor is almost always less demanding than an end user (especially in a frothy market), there's a negative effect on the quality and livability of new supply.
2. Ok, socialism then.
3. Funny, you've said this twice but your initial post seemed to indicate that people who couldn't afford Toronto shouldn't aspire to live here. That's a raw, capitalistic outlook on society, no?
LUVIT!
Senior Member
I've had this conversation with New Yorkers when visiting there.
They usually say something like;
" Living in Manhattan is not a right it's a privilege. Those who cannot afford Manhattan can move or live in Jersey"
Is it not the same principal here or in Moscow, Hong Kong, Paris etc.?
I can't afford a central apartment so I live a bit further out as close to transit that I can afford.
They usually say something like;
" Living in Manhattan is not a right it's a privilege. Those who cannot afford Manhattan can move or live in Jersey"
Is it not the same principal here or in Moscow, Hong Kong, Paris etc.?
I can't afford a central apartment so I live a bit further out as close to transit that I can afford.
LUVIT!
Senior Member
I smell a sense of entitlement.
Stefan
Active Member
Why can't we have both capitalism and socialism working together? Why must everything be either black or white, right or wrong?
We live in a world where multiple concepts thrive to varying degrees, it's a mix of rules & regulations with the choices of the free market. The government sets certain regulations & we are allowed the freedom to function within those parameters, as it should be.
For example, imagine a world that's 100% capitalist in terms of the construction industry, where every builder has their own building codes in regards to the structure, foundation, mechanical, plumbing, drainage. How healthy would that society be compared to our current one?
However, I do agree that if you can't afford to live in downtown, you shouldn't. Living in downtown is not a right, it's a privilege and a 800 sq. ft. condo shouldn't cost the same in the suburbs as in downtown, it will cost more as dictated by the laws of supply and demand. But the laws of supply & demand can be broken down into 2 items:
1. How willing is a person to spend hours commuting from the suburbs to spend less money on a property of the same size. Thousands of people commuting from Mississauga, Markham, Burlington, Scarborough, Etobicoke dictates that there are people willing to sacrifice time rather than money, which to me is pretty sad because time is the most finite resource we have but that's a different story. This is assuming that you work in a field where the opportunities are better in downtown than in the suburbs or other towns.
2. But on the contrary, demand for housing in downtown is through the roof. Now I don't have facts to back this up, only anecdotal but this demand seems to be largely driven by not only foreign investors but also local investors hogging units for their own personal gain, i.e. park foreign money, additional monthly income, etc. Because these investors are basically buying units in bulk, thus restricting the supply in units in downtown, it restricts the options of the locals who actually want to have a life in downtown but it's not restricted because of their own personal choices (i.e. don't have the finances to do so), it's restricted by external factors.
Personally, I would:
1. Restrict foreign investment in housing or at least tax non-residents through the roof. Why are foreigners allowed to buy residential units is beyond me, especially in an area that's already short in supply.
2. Implement (or increase as in the case of BC) the vacancy tax. Units should not be sitting vacant just for you to park your money.
3. Implement a system where people that want to purchase units are given priority over those who just want it as an investment. This would allow those who actually want to settle down in an area long-term to actually have a chance. The free market would still exist in this group because prices would be dictated by the demand from this group of people. If the demand doesn't exist, then the unit is released to the list of people who want it as an investment. Me personally, I don't even make money (or plan to in the future) from real estate by hogging units that would otherwise benefit a family, I do so by investing in REITs & stocks.
4. The government should provide more incentives to developers to not only build more purpose-built rentals for people who want to live short-term in downtown but also incentives for larger units for families (which they kind of do already by saying you need to build x # of 2-bedrooms & 3 bedrooms...oh hey look, another example of socialism working together with capitalism). These rentals could be in the same building as owned units but they would be managed by a professional corporation, not my friend's uncle's sister who just happened to have a unit for rent. The fact that there are 200 sq. ft. studios listing for $2,000+ is ridiculous. How can you even 1. build that 2. list it for that amount with a straight face.
5. Ban all short-term rentals (less than 6 months) in the downtown core. Self-explanatory. If you're visiting the city, stay in a hotel. If you want to live short-term, there would be purpose-built rentals.
We live in a world where multiple concepts thrive to varying degrees, it's a mix of rules & regulations with the choices of the free market. The government sets certain regulations & we are allowed the freedom to function within those parameters, as it should be.
For example, imagine a world that's 100% capitalist in terms of the construction industry, where every builder has their own building codes in regards to the structure, foundation, mechanical, plumbing, drainage. How healthy would that society be compared to our current one?
However, I do agree that if you can't afford to live in downtown, you shouldn't. Living in downtown is not a right, it's a privilege and a 800 sq. ft. condo shouldn't cost the same in the suburbs as in downtown, it will cost more as dictated by the laws of supply and demand. But the laws of supply & demand can be broken down into 2 items:
1. How willing is a person to spend hours commuting from the suburbs to spend less money on a property of the same size. Thousands of people commuting from Mississauga, Markham, Burlington, Scarborough, Etobicoke dictates that there are people willing to sacrifice time rather than money, which to me is pretty sad because time is the most finite resource we have but that's a different story. This is assuming that you work in a field where the opportunities are better in downtown than in the suburbs or other towns.
2. But on the contrary, demand for housing in downtown is through the roof. Now I don't have facts to back this up, only anecdotal but this demand seems to be largely driven by not only foreign investors but also local investors hogging units for their own personal gain, i.e. park foreign money, additional monthly income, etc. Because these investors are basically buying units in bulk, thus restricting the supply in units in downtown, it restricts the options of the locals who actually want to have a life in downtown but it's not restricted because of their own personal choices (i.e. don't have the finances to do so), it's restricted by external factors.
Personally, I would:
1. Restrict foreign investment in housing or at least tax non-residents through the roof. Why are foreigners allowed to buy residential units is beyond me, especially in an area that's already short in supply.
2. Implement (or increase as in the case of BC) the vacancy tax. Units should not be sitting vacant just for you to park your money.
3. Implement a system where people that want to purchase units are given priority over those who just want it as an investment. This would allow those who actually want to settle down in an area long-term to actually have a chance. The free market would still exist in this group because prices would be dictated by the demand from this group of people. If the demand doesn't exist, then the unit is released to the list of people who want it as an investment. Me personally, I don't even make money (or plan to in the future) from real estate by hogging units that would otherwise benefit a family, I do so by investing in REITs & stocks.
4. The government should provide more incentives to developers to not only build more purpose-built rentals for people who want to live short-term in downtown but also incentives for larger units for families (which they kind of do already by saying you need to build x # of 2-bedrooms & 3 bedrooms...oh hey look, another example of socialism working together with capitalism). These rentals could be in the same building as owned units but they would be managed by a professional corporation, not my friend's uncle's sister who just happened to have a unit for rent. The fact that there are 200 sq. ft. studios listing for $2,000+ is ridiculous. How can you even 1. build that 2. list it for that amount with a straight face.
5. Ban all short-term rentals (less than 6 months) in the downtown core. Self-explanatory. If you're visiting the city, stay in a hotel. If you want to live short-term, there would be purpose-built rentals.