bilked said:
Repressing supply through restrictive zoning is an odd way to address affordability issues. Ask San Francisco how that worked for them.
Click to expand...

You say that as if Toronto hasn't approved unfettered development in other parts of the city instead.
 
maestro said:
It hasn't really worked here so far. That said, it could still work to everyone's favour down the road.
Click to expand...

Well, the budgeoning middle/upper middle wouldn't have been able to afford to live in downtown otherwise vs. the limited stock of gentrified detached/row housing offerings, so I guess we're ok from that lens. Lower middle/lower, not so much - but they would have been priced out regardless.

AoD
 
bilked said:
Repressing supply through restrictive zoning is an odd way to address affordability issues. Ask San Francisco how that worked for them.
Click to expand...
Zoning bylaws are meant to regulate land use. The existing zoning bylaw is not repressing anything, it's simply doing what it was meant to do.
 
I agree that a land owner has the right to do whatever they want with their property as long as fits in within the framework of zoning, official plan etc.
But what we are seeing in our real estate market is the relentless march towards higher and higher housing prices. Do we really want to sell the entire city to the highest bidder and only let the rich buy into new developments?? In this case here, basically anyone in Parkdale that is having a hard time making ends meet should just prepare for the inevitability that eventually their rent will be too high to afford and they should pack up and leave. I am not sure what the solution is but I think a bit more thought should go into how this city grows, and who we are planning for with new developments. Developers build condos to make money and no matter how much supply we allow they will want prices to go up. It should be up to the local government to make sure that housing is equitable and make sure there are provisions to provide for different income levels.
 
salsa said:
You say that as if Toronto hasn't approved unfettered development in other parts of the city instead.
Click to expand...

Where are these fetterless lands of which you speak?

But is the point 'don't worry about supply in Parkdale, families can just buy into Concord Park Place'? Don't think I've seen that calculus in planning discussions.
 
Jacob Lisgar said:
I agree that a land owner has the right to do whatever they want with their property as long as fits in within the framework of zoning, official plan etc.
But what we are seeing in our real estate market is the relentless march towards higher and higher housing prices. Do we really want to sell the entire city to the highest bidder and only let the rich buy into new developments?? In this case here, basically anyone in Parkdale that is having a hard time making ends meet should just prepare for the inevitability that eventually their rent will be too high to afford and they should pack up and leave. I am not sure what the solution is but I think a bit more thought should go into how this city grows, and who we are planning for with new developments. Developers build condos to make money and no matter how much supply we allow they will want prices to go up. It should be up to the local government to make sure that housing is equitable and make sure there are provisions to provide for different income levels.
Click to expand...
rent control means that as long as they don't leave, their rent will always be affordable.
 
ProjectEnd said:
Not really. They bought a site and want to build. Conflict or not, TEYCC endorsed the plan yesterday. Lifetime, for better or worse, bought the site and have to make the land pay. It's the reality of 21st century buildings.

Here's an excellent article regarding that change in the last half century: http://commonedge.org/the-politics-of-architecture-are-not-a-matter-of-taste/
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing the article. Did Lifetime actually purchase the 2 sites? I don't recall ever seeing them listed, do you have info about the sale.
 
Old news now, but just to bring this thread up-to-date, City Council approved the application for both sites on December 5, 2017.

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top