News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.8K     0 

What's the point of preservation if it just leads to exclusive playgrounds for the rich to park their money. A victorian / edwardian on the outside, gutted and reno'd to oblivion on the inside..

We'll all die looking for apartments while someone decides what wolf range they want for their new bellwoods house reno.

Toronto's best characteristic? If you consider polarizing wealth inequality our shining beacon, then sure.
 
What's the point of preservation if it just leads to exclusive playgrounds for the rich to park their money. A victorian / edwardian on the outside, gutted and reno'd to oblivion on the inside..

We'll all die looking for apartments while someone decides what wolf range they want for their new bellwoods house reno.

Toronto's best characteristic? If you consider polarizing wealth inequality our shining beacon, then sure.

Inequality is not caused by a few thousand Victorian/Edwardian homes; which, by the way, I'm not opposed to seeing become rentals, or being divided into apartments inside.

Inequality is caused by low wages, primarily, by inordinate un/under employment, and for those dependent on the state, anemic social assistance rates and low old-age pensions.

All of that can be easily addressed without harming the livability of the city.

Raise minimum wage, over a couple of years to $21 per hour (same as Seattle, Wa); add in a premium for weekend/evening/overnight work, just like Australia does (ie. minimum wage for evening and weekends is 10% higher, 20% higher for overnights.
Boost the retirement age to 70, like most of Scandinavia has, and reinvest those savings to boost pensions by 40% on average. Slant it slightly so that that couples see an increase of 35%; singles an increase of 45%
Raise disability benefits to $2,000 per month (from $1,200)
Raise Social Assistance to at least $1,400 per month, and penalty-free allowance for working income of at least $600 per month on top of that.

Its easy, affordable and there is precedent for all of the above.

****

Housing supply is best addressed first, by curtailing demand, cutting foreign-student volumes back to what they were 8-10 years ago (1/2 the current level), which would free up 25,000 places to live in Toronto.
Then curtail immigration, until housing supply ratios are more reasonable. (not a freeze, just a reduction to same level as 8-10 years ago, with a cap that will lift as soon as housing supply is adequate).
Legalize multi-family/rental everywhere (that's not about built-form, but use); by all means upzone major streets.
Reduce the cost of housing supply by banning all non-resident ownership of SFH (including condos).
Eliminate speculative investment in housing by raising capital gains inclusion to 100%; and by eliminating the exception for principle residences.

There, problem solved with real-world solutions that keep the City a nice place to live and without promoting climate change as any proposal to rip out most of the mature trees in the City would.
 
Last edited:
That would destroy one of Toronto's best traits.

I would certainly call it radical to call for tearing down most of the mature trees in the City and the majority of its heritage housing stock.......sigh.

That to be is not only an undesirable outcome, I would call it an abomination.
Who said anything about tearing down trees? Just set back the new development to allow mature trees to be retained. The current canopy is fantastic. What I am utterly against is allowing this city to be for the rich and entrenched.
 
Inequality is not caused by a few thousand Victorian/Edwardian homes; which, by the way, I'm not opposed to seeing become rentals, or being divided into apartments inside.

Inequality is caused by low wages, primarily, by inordinate un/under employment, and for those dependent on the state, anemic social assistance rates and low old-age pensions.

All of that can be easily addressed without harming the livability of the city.

Raise minimum wage, over a couple of years to $21 per hour (same as Seattle, Wa); add in a premium for weekend/evening/overnight work, just like Australia does (ie. minimum wage for evening and weekends is 10% higher, 20% higher for overnights.
Boost the retirement age to 70, like most of Scandinavia has, and reinvest those savings to boost pensions by 40% on average. Slant it slightly so that that couple see an increase of 35%; singles an increase of 45%
Raise disability benefits to $2,000 per month (from $1,200)
Raise Social Assistance to at least $1,400 per month, and penalty-free allowance for working income of at least $600 per month on top of that.

Its easy, affordable and there is precedent for all of the above.

****

Housing supply is best addressed first, by curtailing demand, cutting foreign-student volumes back to what they were 8-10 years ago (1/2 the current level), which would free up 25,000 places to live in Toronto.
Then curtail immigration, until housing supply ratios are more reasonable. (not a freeze, just a reduction to same level as 8-10 years ago, with a cap that will lift as soon as housing supply is adequate).
Legalize multi-family/rental everywhere (that's not about built-form, but use); by all means upzone major streets.
Reduce the cost of housing supply by banning all non-resident ownership of SFH (including condos).
Eliminate speculative investment in housing by raising capital gains inclusion to 100%; and by eliminating the exception for principle residences.

There, problem solved with real-world solutions that keep the City a nice place to live and without promoting climate change as any proposal to rip out most of the mature trees in the City would.
Apologies but I would not consider major streets in Toronto along with side streets being lined with SFHs "a few". Are we really imagining a city of 7-10+ million and retaining SFH in its core?
 
Apologies but I would not consider major streets in Toronto along with side streets being lined with SFHs "a few". Are we really imagining a city of 7-10+ million and retaining SFH in its core?

Under no circumstances should Toronto City proper ever have 7M residents.

Canadian women are producing babies below reproduction rate (good, there are too many of us)

Everywhere else is following suit, though it will take awhile, human population should start to fall by later this century..........not too long after the City reaches 5M.

At that point, we can start contracting, restoring farmland and nature, here and elsewhere.

The world is over-built. The answer, over time, is not more buildings, but fewer people.

*****

Edit to add, this is a bit of an OT tangent to this thread.........may I suggest we take it elsewhere if there is a desire to continue?
 
Who said anything about tearing down trees? Just set back the new development to allow mature trees to be retained. The current canopy is fantastic. What I am utterly against is allowing this city to be for the rich and entrenched.
Not everyone needs to live in the core. A mere 15-20 minutes away in Scarborough, North York and Etobicoke you have endless streetscapes full of 1 storey plazas and parking lots. This is where we should focus on intensification before destroying the built form of the downtown. More people in these areas will bring amenities and transit (well, hopefully, transit is coming slowly but surely).

Building more condos downtown isn't the only solution to the city's affordability though, look how many new units are being built, yet affordability has only further decreased.
 
Building more condos downtown isn't the only solution to the city's affordability though, look how many new units are being built, yet affordability has only further decreased.
The number of new units being built is not that high relative to population growth, and the number of new bedrooms being built (since units tend to be smaller than 20+ years ago) really is not.
 
Under no circumstances should Toronto City proper ever have 7M residents.

Canadian women are producing babies below reproduction rate (good, there are too many of us)
Canada will be a much better place when it has 100M people. And we will get there within our lifetime hopefully.

 
Not everyone needs to live in the core. A mere 15-20 minutes away in Scarborough, North York and Etobicoke you have endless streetscapes full of 1 storey plazas and parking lots. This is where we should focus on intensification before destroying the built form of the downtown. More people in these areas will bring amenities and transit (well, hopefully, transit is coming slowly but surely).

Building more condos downtown isn't the only solution to the city's affordability though, look how many new units are being built, yet affordability has only further decreased.
You assume its an OR when its an AND. We should absolutely do what you suggested. However, Christie, Ossington, etc should not be littered with SFHs. I'm surprised this is even contentious.

Supply is nowhere near demand. We completed 17k units in the city last year when we should have completed 3-4x that number. We're underbuilding.
 
Canada will be a much better place when it has 100M people. And we will get there within our lifetime hopefully.


There is no particular logic to that idea.

It has its roots in a desire for more geo-political power.
 
The original comment was about streets like Bathurst, Ossington and Christie, which are major streets with subway stops. There is no reason we need to protect single family houses on those streets, and they don't really have trees anyways.

That's fair.

My response was targeted at the reference to side streets.
 
That's fair.

My response was targeted at the reference to side streets.
My issue with protecting side streets is that it prevents interesting retail from popping up (not to mention reducing available housing). Here's a thought experiment. If you allow densification of side streets (with retail), you allow the average cost / rent of retail to decrease and then allow entrepreneurs the ability to open up more clothing shops, cafes, bookstores, etc. We're limiting where we build housing and retail and its causing a cost surge. Eventually interesting retail will leave the city since they cant afford rents on major roads. Why can't we allow more permissive zoning?
 

Back
Top