[Northern Light]

We don't have a housing crisis because of capital gains exemption on primary residences, we have a housing crisis because of many different issues, these are a few of the issues IMO, to much immigration, low cost of borrowing for a long period of time, very slow process with city approvals, ridiculous fees by the cities, and to many people buying and flipping properties for a quick profit, Developers will not invest in rental stock if it won't be profitable, i would agree that for people that are flipping properties they should be taxed on the full amount of their profit but totally disagree to tax someones profit on their principal residence when they could not write off any of the expenses that they incurred over the many years of owning their principal residence.

I get your take. Here's my challenge.

If you make money via a job; and earn '100k' per year, you pay income tax on that at at 'x' rate (obviously it's a blended rate), but it's 'x' rate on your total income. You, do get assorted access to deductions (RRSPs, RESPs, TFSAs and myriad other tax shelters). I disagree with all of them. Every last one. (and btw I have two of the three above)

To me the government should be agnostic on how you earn your income, the manner is irrelevant, what matters is that you made it, and you owe society/gov't a share.

We don't allow people to deduct the most basic cost of living from their income tax. Food+Shelter+Transit/Car, winter coat, work clothes, we don't do this, because if we did, neither the poor nor most middle income earners would pay any tax at all.

Instead we have deductions that disproportionately benefit people like me. I'm comfortable, yet pay less tax than many lower-middle-income people because of the way in which I structure my income and investments.

That's nuts.

Why should you get to 'earn' $500,000 selling your house and do so tax-free, while someone earning $40,000 pays income tax? That doesn't work with my sense of fairness.

You might argue that you 'invested' in the house; to which I would say, right, and you're not being taxed on your original purchase price, only the gain.

You might argue that you 'renovated' the house, and paid property tax and utility bills on it, to which I would say, low-income earners who are employees, need to feed themselves in order to show up at work, they need to buy a transit pass, they need a hair cut, they need to pay rent, etc. The majority of those things are not write-offs/deductions, but are 'investments' in a body, in order to make it available for work (earning income).

I would do it this way (don't get stuck on the rates, this is just a model)

$40,000 of income, tax-free for every Canadian, every year.
Entry level tax bracket 20% (federal), 10% (provincial), no deductions or credits of any kind on your next $100,000

Then progressively higher rates at $250,000, $500,000 and $1,000,000 in income to some logical cap.

****

I do get the idea that a capital gain all at once can be a big hit, there are ways to address this by taxing un-realized gains annually and refunding any difference on sale.

We could agree that that gains at or below the rate of inflation would not be taxed, my problem there though is that you have to apply that to all other forms of income (interest, dividends etc.), it really adds a lot of complexity to the tax system.

****

We could consider one other option which would be provide one, open-ended (any type of capital gain, stocks, property etc.) exemption but to a lifetime limit (say 500k); that still favours people with money over those working and with no investments though, which I see as problematic.

***

Edit to add, I'd be happy to discuss the tax system or housing further in whatever thread may be appropriate, or privately, but perhaps we might return this thread to its primary intent of discussing Ontario Place.

 

[generalcanada]

It's starting to get warmer, took a walk around ontario place this morning

 

[mistersg1]

I do wonder if we’ll finally get use of those pods again after the construction work is done, it’s such a shame really because the pods are arguably why the islands exist in the first place.

But as far as I remember, most of the pods have basically been abandoned for almost 25 years now.

 

[generalcanada]

I do wonder if we’ll finally get use of those pods again after the construction work is done, it’s such a shame really because the pods are arguably why the islands exist in the first place.

But as far as I remember, most of the pods have basically been abandoned for almost 25 years now.

pretty much except for that bridge which is an entrance to the cinesphere.

 

[mistersg1]

pretty much except for that bridge which is an entrance to the cinesphere.

Regarding the Cinesphere, isn’t this technically its third renovation in a span of just over 10 years, correct me if I’m wrong.

But I believe they did a renovation in 2011 or so, I remember seeing Avatar in 3D in there following the renovation. Then in 2018, perhaps it just reopened, but I thought it came out of a renovation again, as I saw 2001: A Space Odyssey at that point. Now the cinesphere is yet again under renovation.

But rereading that Star article from 2012 about the abrupt closure I find interesting to this day.

Bob Hepburn: Secret Ontario Place documents tell a story of success, not failure

Government created the impression of Ontario Place as a money-losing disaster, but documents indicate it was enjoying a turnaround.

www.thestar.com

It claims that attendance was rebounding, and even more astonishing is the claim that 3.2 million visitors went to Ontario place in the 70s each year. It wasn’t until the mid 20-aughts that Wonderland got those kind of guest numbers.

I mean let’s face it, Ontario Place had a great marketing campaign in their final years towards the end of the 20-aughts. Even to this day, if I hear Cyndi Lauper’s song, I’ll sing along the lyrics of the Ontario Place ads from that time.

 

[mistersg1]

According to the Sun, apparently Ford wants to move the Science Centre to Ontario Place, realistically speaking, how would this work, would this Science Centre just be in the pods?

LILLEY: Science Centre part of much-needed redevelopment of Ontario Place

Premier Doug Ford confimed the move Thursday with a smile and a claim that it's a great idea that he can't talk about just yet.

torontosun.com

Or will this require building onto the East Island, something even I oppose when there’s realistically nothing at stake in it for me.

There’s also of course the existing Science Centre, as nice as affordable housing sounds on the Ontario Science Centre, isn’t most of that building built into the ravine? I’d assume that would be a serious protected green space.

In other words, I always seen the Science Centre, the building that is having a very small footprint in habitable land, while the rest goes over the ravine in protected land.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

If you read the heritage report submitted by the Therme team, it goes into details about what was done in the previous Cinesphere reno (not much, beyond tech upgrades, apparently) and the states of all the various buildings. Pretty interesting.

Development Applications

City Planning COA Application Information Center

app.toronto.ca

Anyway, I think this Science Centre thing is a land grab. If it was a NEW idea, yeah, I'd like the idea of putting it at Ontario Place. But I don't like the idea of abandoning its current site, which is just as much of an architectural landmark, with heritage significance, and which is - as a rare tourist attraction outside of downtown - an important part of its community. The new LRT and subway should make it even more accessible than it now is. Selling it off for housing is, IMHO, as short-sighted a use of the site as putting, say, a spa at Ontairo Place.

Small-time thinking, money-grubbing... it's just a shell game.

 

[Northern Light]

But I don't like the idea of abandoning its current site, which is just as much of an architectural landmark, with heritage significance,

I'm always fascinated by people's love of the OSC as a building.

As a kid, I always liked the escalator down to the bottom w/the view of the valley; the rest of the interior was essentially a black box at the bottom that makes no use whatsoever of its surroundings, you would be completely unaware you were in a valley but for that ride down.....and back at the top, an interior that straddles airport terminal and 1960's era banking hall.

The exterior is indisputably plain and of little interest on the south, north and west elevations.

The East Elevation seems to be what once captured people's imaginations (the front of the building); but to me, its best feature was the water feature out front, which was removed a generation ago; and moreover, even one were a fan of that front face of the building, which I admittedly never was........its been molested through the addition of the IMAX theatre and other alterations.

I'm really not sure what one might value in that building at this point, in its current form; assuming there was arguable value to it in an earlier iteration.

This is what one can see from just in to the site, of the building's principle elevation:

This is the closest I can get on Streetview;

I have to say, I'm not taken by the complex, where as I am by the Pods and Cinesphere down at OP.

I'm not saying we should rush to wreck the thing mind you.

Merely that the OSC is tired, its glory days are behind it; it's been under funded both operationally at capitally for two generations.

So at the very least, it's due for a massive amount of renewal.

That being the case, I'm not sure why it wouldn't be fair game to consider shifting it to Ontario Place campus.

Sure, one would lose the valley context, but then again, it's a context which is made very little use of.........

In the alternative, you could have the waterfront as context, and if so desired, you could take a portion of the OP site and make it 'natural', maybe a small wetland, and actually design it in an integrate way with the OSC as 'free' outdoor exhibit space. A boardwalk through the wetland; or a swamp, or maybe even a tree-top board walk, mid-height of the current mature trees.

What about a science-themed version of the old Children's Village; a 'learning playground'. I dunno, just a thought.

 

[rdaner]

I sense another international architectural competition coming! Maybe Gehry has another trick up his sleeve.

On a related note I think that the current OSC site would make a great site for a university. Isn’t the University of Guelph looking for a site in the GTA? I would love it to be a Toronto campus for McGill but I’m not holding my breath.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

I'm always fascinated by people's love of the OSC as a building.

As a kid, I always liked the escalator down to the bottom w/the view of the valley; the rest of the interior was essentially a black box at the bottom that makes no use whatsoever of its surroundings, you would be completely unaware you were in a valley but for that ride down.....and back at the top, an interior that straddles airport terminal and 1960's era banking hall.

The exterior is indisputably plain and of little interest on the south, north and west elevations.

Well, beauty is certainlyin eye of the beholder and Brutalism tends to get a bad rap (and one could argue that the renovations - which improved the facade - damaged the original design, on top of that; I agree that seeing it at grade hardly gives you a sense of the entire complex.) But, like it or not, it is unequivocally one of the most archietcturally singificant buildings in the City. (There's a nice little description of the intent here.)

I have to say, I'm not taken by the complex, where as I am by the Pods and Cinesphere down at OP.

I'm not saying we should rush to wreck the thing mind you.

Merely that the OSC is tired, its glory days are behind it; it's been under funded both operationally at capitally for two generations.

I'd counter this by saying:
a) Same with Ontario Place. Some of those pods have sat shuttered for 30 years and every building there is in need of significant repairs to have any kind of use again. Even back in the day - as someone who loved Ontario Place - Ontario North Now's concrete silos weren't exactly the first place I couldn't wait to visit.
b) In both cases, one could argue this is by design. Neglect the facility, say you have to sell it off to recoup and make it useful, reap the rewards.

But to your closing point - it'd be different if this government had retained someone like Lord Cultural Resources to evaluate the two sites and they studied the architecture and the potential uses etc. etc. and concluded it made sense to amalgamate at one of the sites, thereby revitalizing both, and that Ontario Place should be the site. But no - this is coming from the guy who tried to do an end-around of City Council to allow developers to put up a ferris wheel and a mall and a hotel where you could park your boat on the portlands. So I don't think I'm being overly cynical to think there is no thought whatsoever here about the cultural significance of these sites. It's just about money. It's robbing from Peter to pay Paul and, at the end of the day, the sellling off of public resources to private interests.

But hey, I could be wrong!

 

[mistersg1]

Just a question that’s somewhat off topic, the Ontario North Silos, what was the attraction like back then, as a millennial, I only remember the space as the “Megamaze”.

Throughout much of the 1990s, two of the pods, ones that have the white over them and not the glass windows, they were occupied by the Nintendo Power Pod and I believed Lego Discovery Pod. They both vacated the pods in 1997 or 1998 I believe with Lego moving to a much smaller central space, while Nintendo disappeared entirely.

 

[rdaner]

I guess the addition of the OSC to Ontario Place makes the idea of a parking facility a tiny bit more digestible. Not condoning it but maybe the relocation figured into the planning.

 

[Northern Light]

I guess the addition of the OSC to Ontario Place makes the idea of a parking facility a tiny bit more digestible. Not condoning it but maybe the relocation figured into the planning.

To me, the problem with the OSC campus (full or partial) At OP is that it's being very high-level designed (massed) around Therme's site/building.

I'd love to see a somewhat different vision where the OSC's non-pod building(s) are cited optimally for their relationship to the site, rather than filling in the leftover space.

I also, as I noted above, would want to see more meaningful relationship to the surroundings than is currently the case, at its current home.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Just a question that’s somewhat off topic, the Ontario North Silos, what was the attraction like back then, as a millennial, I only remember the space as the “Megamaze”.

Throughout much of the 1990s, two of the pods, ones that have the white over them and not the glass windows, they were occupied by the Nintendo Power Pod and I believed Lego Discovery Pod. They both vacated the pods in 1997 or 1998 I believe with Lego moving to a much smaller central space, while Nintendo disappeared entirely.

It was like... stuff about mining and agriculture, as I recall? It was - if we're being honest here - boring.
Like, "Hey, did you know Ontario produces more nickel than any other G20 nation??! Here is a piece of unprocessed nickel from Sudbury!" Stuff like that.

The Pods, also if we're being honest, never really had great uses. At one point there was a kind of science museum - I remember seeing the Canadarm and stuff like that - and there was, briefly, the Canadian Baseball of Fame in one of them.

But even at Ontario Place's peak, those silos weren't particularly exciting, is my recollection.

 

[Northern Light]

Well, beauty is certainlyin eye of the beholder and Brutalism tends to get a bad rap (and one could argue that the renovations - which improved the facade - damaged the original design, on top of that; I agree that seeing it at grade hardly gives you a sense of the entire complex.) But, like it or not, it is unequivocally one of the most archietcturally singificant buildings in the City. (There's a nice little description of the intent here.)

Good photo array, and I take your point.

I now counter w/this:

The fall colours exterior view, which is interesting is almost never seen by anyone. Its relationship to any publicly accessible outdoor spaces is poor.

The interior shot you offer (right hand side) is also interesting, but is not a primary exhibit area of the building, but rather something of a leftover space; it's also a good illustration of the building not taking proper advantage of its surroundings.

I'd counter this by saying:
a) Same with Ontario Place. Some of those pods have sat shuttered for 30 years and every building there is in need of significant repairs to have any kind of use again. Even back in the day - as someone who loved Ontario Place - Ontario North Now's concrete silos weren't exactly the first place I couldn't wait to visit.

The Silos were probably the least successful element of OP over the years, I would not lament their loss, for something better.

b) In both cases, one could argue this is by design. Neglect the facility, say you have to sell it off to recoup and make it useful, reap the rewards.

I completely agree with this take. The neglect of both sites is shameful and creates the wrong driver for change. Instead of positioning change as strength to strength, it becomes more of 'settle for anything' vs this neglected heap. Not a way to raise ambitions at all.

But to your closing point - it'd be different if this government had retained someone like Lord Cultural Resources to evaluate the two sites and they studied the architecture and the potential uses etc. etc. and concluded it made sense to amalgamate at one of the sites, thereby revitalizing both, and that Ontario Place should be the site. But no - this is coming from the guy who tried to do an end-around of City Council to allow developers to put up a ferris wheel and a mall and a hotel where you could park your boat on the portlands. So I don't think I'm being overly cynical to think there is no thought whatsoever here about the cultural significance of these sites. It's just about money. It's robbing from Peter to pay Paul and, at the end of the day, the sellling off of public resources to private interests.

But hey, I could be wrong!

I'm not saying you are wrong, in respect of motivations, and that should be viewed with healthy cynicism just as the Therme proposal ought to be.

While I think a shift of OSC could be made to be a good thing, I have no confidence in this government to carry that off.