coopEng said:
I cant wait for the first shoring rig to work right beside them - at that point regret may sink in. That one hold out is an expensive issue for the development - the footprint of the below grade structure got completely screwed up.
Click to expand...

The store to the south of Alternative Thinking is remaining as well. This does not seem to be a problem for Westbank. The store is shown in their elevations. It's not in the way of anything. The store buildings at Lennox and Bathurst are remaining, and buildings on Markham are being retained. It hardly seems like an issue.
 
Alex L said:
The store to the south of Alternative Thinking is remaining as well. This does not seem to be a problem for Westbank. The store is shown in their elevations. It's not in the way of anything. The store buildings at Lennox and Bathurst are remaining, and buildings on Markham are being retained. It hardly seems like an issue.
Click to expand...
Of course it's in the way - think about the footprint of the building, they have to now jog around this one building and its property line. It's not a problem now in a sense that there is no other solution - but it really did screw things up. The buildings at Lennox and Bathurst are not remaining - only the facades are. The buildings on Markham are different and are part of the re-development (they had to remain for heritage reasons I believe), but are owned by Westbank.
 
What's exactly the reason for this project being all rentals? I lost most of my excitement when I found that out.
 
Yeah - that's an odd thing to lose enthusiasm over
 
Larger rental complexes like this more often than not are prone to decay. The business case for the landlord to constantly maintain the buildings and common areas and keep them nice may not be there.
I don't mind a rental building here and there but a quite sizable rental only complex like this can start looking like a mini St Jamestown in 30 years. It's risky for the area. Should have been at least half condos to ensure continuous middle class presence here.
 
Avenue said:
Larger rental complexes like this more often than not are prone to decay. The business case for the landlord to constantly maintain the buildings and common areas and keep them nice may not be there.
I don't mind a rental building here and there but a quite sizable rental only complex like this can start looking like a mini St Jamestown in 30 years. It's risky for the area. Should have been at least half condos to ensure continuous middle class presence here.
Click to expand...

Yeah this is pure garbage.
 
Really? there are hundreds of well maintained rental buildings across the city that are well over 30 years old. St Jamestown is more of an anomaly than the norm. St Jamestown is run down since it was constructed in a cheap area and was always a more affordable option. Apartments in the Annex like here will never deteriorate to that extent.
 
Plus there are loads of ancillary community benefits at the core of this development: a market (of sorts), fine-grained retail, a bike co-op, a public park, a massive heritage restoration plan, and so on. I expect this will be a massive boon for the community and, as a nearby resident, I couldn't be happier it's to be realized mostly as it was conceived.
 
innsertnamehere said:
Really? there are hundreds of well maintained rental buildings across the city that are well over 30 years old. St Jamestown is more of an anomaly than the norm. St Jamestown is run down since it was constructed in a cheap area and was always a more affordable option. Apartments in the Annex like here will never deteriorate to that extent.
Click to expand...

Apartments in the Annex most definitely have a lot of the same problems as the other rental neighborhoods. I disagree that St Jamestown area was inherently bad/cheap - otherwise Cabbagetown would have never gentrified. The vicious cycle of lack of maintenance and concentrated poverty has a lot to do with its rental only status. Doesn't happen every time, but its risky. There are many other examples around the city.

ADRM said:
Yeah this is pure garbage.
Click to expand...
Great response.

ADRM said:
Plus there are loads of ancillary community benefits at the core of this development: a market (of sorts), fine-grained retail, a bike co-op, a public park, a massive heritage restoration plan, and so on. I expect this will be a massive boon for the community and, as a nearby resident, I couldn't be happier it's to be realized mostly as it was conceived.
Click to expand...

And what does this have to do with anything I've said? We're talking about the entire residential portion being rental-only.
 
You think the apartment buildings in the annex are "decayed"? why? because they don't rent for $2k a month for a 1bed? The properties are generally in fine condition. Sure there may be a few bad apples, but it is no different than condo buildings.
 
Avenue said:
Apartments in the Annex most definitely have a lot of the same problems as the other rental neighborhoods. I disagree that St Jamestown area was inherently bad/cheap - otherwise Cabbagetown would have never gentrified. The vicious cycle of lack of maintenance and concentrated poverty has a lot to do with its rental only status. Doesn't happen every time, but its risky. There are many other examples around the city.


Great response.



And what does this have to do with anything I've said? We're talking about the entire residential portion being rental-only.
Click to expand...

Well, you called the development "risky for the area", predicted that it'll "start looking like a mini St Jamestown in 30 years", and claimed that developments of this sort are "more often than not prone to decay", and then I and another contributor advanced a litany of reasons why we think those viewpoints are wrong. Seems pretty relevant.
 
Large apartment complexes in the Annex is part of what makes it great as a neighbourhood of mixed-means. When I first came to Toronto, my relatively cheap and "run-down" apartment in 35 Walmer Rd. was the only way I could afford to live in such a great central neighbourhood while paying off student debt. From what I hear, in the five years since I leased there, rents have skyrocketed in 35 Walmer (and similar buildings).

Building more apartment supply in the area can only help moderate the increases, and if it deteriorates over time, that will just mean it develops into another entry-level option in the area. I'm certainly not worried about the luxury homes in the Annex going anywhere.
 
Avenue said:
Larger rental complexes like this more often than not are prone to decay. The business case for the landlord to constantly maintain the buildings and common areas and keep them nice may not be there.
I don't mind a rental building here and there but a quite sizable rental only complex like this can start looking like a mini St Jamestown in 30 years. It's risky for the area. Should have been at least half condos to ensure continuous middle class presence here.
Click to expand...

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight....
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top