I’m not sure you addressed the question posed earlier in relation to the CBC article. The city contends that rules were not in place at the time that would allow them to insist on ‘Affordable Housing’.

The quote:

“At the time that The Well's zoning by-law amendments were approved, in 2017, there was no provincial inclusionary zoning regulation and the city didn't have the ability to require new affordable housing, the statement said.

The city is still waiting for provincial approval to implement inclusionary zoning and it won't apply retroactively, according to the department.“

If this is accurate, what scorecard was the city supposed to use? Moral persuasion goes only so far in a market that appears to fully support the pricing structure in place.

Having said all of that, the need for affordable housing is clear. How we make and meet those requirements is possibly less clear as we do not seem to be interested in all the possible tools in the tool bag. And our ability to move with speed and purpose is layered in politics.
 
just east of the creek said:
I’m not sure you addressed the question posed earlier in relation to the CBC article. The city contends that rules were not in place at the time that would allow them to insist on ‘Affordable Housing’.

The quote:

“At the time that The Well's zoning by-law amendments were approved, in 2017, there was no provincial inclusionary zoning regulation and the city didn't have the ability to require new affordable housing, the statement said.

The city is still waiting for provincial approval to implement inclusionary zoning and it won't apply retroactively, according to the department.“

If this is accurate, what scorecard was the city supposed to use? Moral persuasion goes only so far in a market that appears to fully support the pricing structure in place.

Having said all of that, the need for affordable housing is clear. How we make and meet those requirements is possibly less clear as we do not seem to be interested in all the possible tools in the tool bag. And our ability to move with speed and purpose is layered in politics.
Click to expand...
Even without “Inclusionary Zoning” laws - the City could (and should) have allocated more of their Development Charge and Section-37 revenues from these Developments into the provision of net new Affordable Housing units.

That was 100% within the City’s power to choose to do with the Rules that existed in 2017.

Example - Almost 80% MORE money from THE WELL project was dedicated to ---- Uhhhm... "Public Art" [$900-K], than was dedicated to - "new (*off-site) Affordable Housing units" [$500-K] in 2017.

*Local-Voices & City Staff did NOT see "New Affordable Rental" as a REAL "Community Benefit".

It was an afterthought in almost all of these kinds of negotiations prior to the 2018 elections.
 
HousingNowTO said:
There's a strong bias that a REAL "Community Benefit" - is something that the WHOLE Community can use (eg. Daycare, Library, Splash Pad, Dog Park, Public Art, etc) - and therefore, new "Affordable Rental" units are an after-thought once the REAL stuff is secured.
Click to expand...
It's not much of a REAL community if it only includes one income bracket. That is, folks who can only afford to live there...

...whether it's The City's or the developers' fault here doesn't seem really important in the end. Everyone else's need for sustained shelter was clearly overlooked regardless that there's a city's worth of units to choose from here. /sigh
 
HousingNowTO said:
Even without “Inclusionary Zoning” laws - the City could (and should) have allocated more of their Development Charge and Section-37 revenues from these Developments into the provision of net new Affordable Housing units.

That was 100% within the City’s power to choose to do with the Rules that existed in 2017.

Example - Almost 80% MORE money from THE WELL project was dedicated to ---- Uhhhm... "Public Art" [$900-K], than was dedicated to - "new (*off-site) Affordable Housing units" [$500-K] in 2017.

*Local-Voices & City Staff did NOT see "New Affordable Rental" as a REAL "Community Benefit".

It was an afterthought in almost all of these kinds of negotiations prior to the 2018 elections.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

Sometimes I think we jump on the city a lot, and often with blinkers as to any other issue or need, regardless of demographic or income level. For a GTA that is supposed to add 3 million or so individuals in the 25 years, currently has a GDP that is over 20% of the entire country, the city has a slim toolbox to deal with everything on its plate.

I am not a housing expert by any means, now stay well away from rental housing which I was once involved in on a small scale. But my pet peeve is housing co-ops and why are we not spending more provincial and federal $ on creating co-op housing in all municipal areas, keying on the GTA, and geared to income. We cannot/should not depend on the private sector to create all geared to income rentals. (I have a couple of friends who are shying away from building/owning rentals - build cost, finance cost, operational cost and the LTB are all cited as reasons), or families to pick up the slack. The Feds, in their 2022 budget, directed $1.5 billion as seed money I believe, but I am not sure how effectively that was or is being taken up. The provincial government allocated zippo in their latest budget is my understanding. The $ that are being spent to make the city ‘world class’ (the latest example might be Ontario Place) might be better allocated to world class housing ( and transit) in areas within the GTA.

There seems to be notable longer term success stories with co-ops and the neighbourhoods they foster. I understand that not all co-ops are problem free or without issue, but the concept of co-op housing appears to be a very useful tool that is being under utilized to a large extent In this country.
 
Obsidian said:
Did the residential portions of the Well beginning construction before the province banned all glass exteriors. I believe the most residential building can have is 40% now.
If not, how are they getting away with a much higher window wall component. I assume the smaller buildings are doing double duty to bring down the glass content so the towers can have more glass.
Click to expand...

My guess would be that on the east and west facdes, the balconies provide enough sun shading to reduce the solar gain of the floor to ceiling glass windows.

On the left of the pic below. you can see that the balcony-free south facades do have spandrel panels to reduce solar gain, but the quality of the glass is so good that you can't tell during the day.

generalcanada said:
View attachment 486877
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
UtakataNoAnnex said:
It's not much of a REAL community if it only includes one income bracket. That is, folks who can only afford to live there...
Click to expand...
The entirety of Toronto fits that description.

I definitely understand the criticism of this project on lack of affordable housing, but it misses the real target. There are serious structural problems with the way the Canadian economy is structured around housing, our density/zoning, and transportation planning. I wish there was more affordable housing here too, but I'd rather focus on the real work of fixing the problem then point fingers at this development.

It's not a terribly complex solution either, we know exactly how to fix our crisis. The problem is that all levels of government have lacked the spine to make real fixes for the last 10 years, and now we're left with the NIMBY v. YIMBY matches of pointing fingers at the Well, and the 50 proposed stories at Pape literally meters away from single family housing. Meanwhile the average Toronto home has increased in value more than the S&P500, by nearly double, for over a decade straight.
 
FastidiousHack said:
The entirety of Toronto fits that description.

I definitely understand the criticism of this project on lack of affordable housing, but it misses the real target. There are serious structural problems with the way the Canadian economy is structured around housing, our density/zoning, and transportation planning. I wish there was more affordable housing here too, but I'd rather focus on the real work of fixing the problem then point fingers at this development.

It's not a terribly complex solution either, we know exactly how to fix our crisis. The problem is that all levels of government have lacked the spine to make real fixes for the last 10 years, and now we're left with the NIMBY v. YIMBY matches of pointing fingers at the Well, and the 50 proposed stories at Pape literally meters away from single family housing. Meanwhile the average Toronto home has increased in value more than the S&P500, by nearly double, for over a decade straight.
Click to expand...

The problem is also a function of wage suppression at the low and middle income levels; low minimum wages and ultra-low social benefits with stiff penalties for working.

The CCPA just came out with a study that says you need to earn $33 an hour wage to afford a 1-bedroom apartment in Toronto, using the typical metric of 30% of your gross income on housing.

Even if one weren't stuck on 30% (which most middle income people don't get to pay either)......at 40% you're still in the range of $28 per hour'ish.

$15.50 sure as hell doesn't cut it.

 
Last edited:
Lunch in The Well today.
20230719_151849.jpg

20230719_151616.jpg


20230719_151526.jpg

20230719_151704.jpg
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top