Going backwards

[Silence&Motion]

It's "centrally planned" in the sense that city planners are deciding where to build housing dedicated for "the poor" instead of more organic approaches that might happen in a traditional neighbourhood with a mix of housing types of different age and finishes that would cater to different parts of the market - single family dwellings in various states of renovation, apartments above stores, fancy condos, older apartments, and so on.

So a neighbourhood planned exclusively by private developers with no democratic oversight is considered more "organic" and natural? Last I checked, when you give developers free reign, they don't produce this diverse mix of housing. They clear cut neighbourhoods and "monocrop" with whatever happens to be the most profitable type of housing at the time.

I wouldn't really call the St. Lawrence neighbourhood that much of a success in terms of social integration - there are TCHC buildings that are for poor people, and there are condos for empty nest middle class people young and old. Not many families with kids outside of subsidized housing, since when it comes down to it middle class parents don't want their kids mixing with poor kids. TCHC residents are not going to The Keg on Friday night, and condo-living working professionals are not playing basketball in David Crombie park either.

Social integration is only one of the potential benefits of mixed-income housing, and probably the most unrealistic (especially with some of the attitudes I've witnessed in this thread). However the TCHC residents do get to live in a neighbourhood where crime is low, and there are thriving businesses that offer potential employment. There are affordable grocery stores nearby. So yes, I would call the St. Lawrence neighbourhood a success.

Speaking frankly as someone who lived in the neighbourhood, the TCHC residents added nothing to the neighbourhood and might as well not have been there for all I saw.

I don't even understand this comment. Did you think they were put there to entertain you or something? What were you expecting?

With an average length of stay for TCHC residents of 10 years and only 1/3 of household heads having any employment income, there is clearly something wrong with the picture.

Yeah, it sucks being poor and unemployed.

 

[freshcutgrass]

This sounds like a scheme to subsidize the slumlords instead of directly providing housing to those who need it. The language of choice sure sounds nice, but where has it ever worked? If the TCHC bureaucracy is bad enough as it is, how would adding hundreds (if not thousands) of private landlords into the mix make it any better?

There's a few things that will never make it past the conservative thinking mind's "Star Wars" defence system....and that's that "trickle down" economics simply does not work.

Social services need to be provided by a body that does not have a profit motive, which is why it must be provided by the public...and not capitalism. The conservative thinking mind does not accept this logic, as it implies they have to contribute to it.

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

I know it's really un-PC, but it's pretty easy to tell the difference between a TCHC resident and a St. Lawrence condo dweller, and the two do not mix. The neighbourhood retail is dominated by high end restaurants, furniture stores, and the market itself, and the people living in TCHC buildings obviously don't patronize those stores. Thanks to subsidy clawbacks (and other perks such as free day care and cash benefits for families) there is little financial incentive for those living in a TCHC building and not working to actually join the labour force. As a result, you basically end up with a ghetto of non-working people in the TCHC buildings near the railway tracks that is totally separate (physically and mentally) from the rest of the neighbourhood.

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

There's a few things that will never make it past the conservative thinking mind's "Star Wars" defence system....and that's that "trickle down" economics simply does not work.

Social services need to be provided by a body that does not have a profit motive, which is why it must be provided by the public...and not capitalism. The conservative thinking mind does not accept this logic, as it implies they have to contribute to it.

TCHC is the biggest slumlord in the city; have you seen all the articles about how badly maintained their buildings are? At least with a voucher system someone can move out from a crappy building, but with TCHC you are stuck with what you get because the building managers have no incentive to make improvements. At least a profit motive can lead people to take care of their assets (buildings)...

The social service here is the subsidy not the actual building. After all the TCHC buildings do have market rate tenants too!

 

[Silence&Motion]

I know it's really un-PC, but it's pretty easy to tell the difference between a TCHC resident and a St. Lawrence condo dweller, and the two do not mix. The neighbourhood retail is dominated by high end restaurants, furniture stores, and the market itself, and the people living in TCHC buildings obviously don't patronize those stores. Thanks to subsidy clawbacks (and other perks such as free day care and cash benefits for families) there is little financial incentive for those living in a TCHC building and not working to actually join the labour force. As a result, you basically end up with a ghetto of non-working people in the TCHC buildings near the railway tracks that is totally separate (physically and mentally) from the rest of the neighbourhood.

Here's where the conversation basically ends: when it is revealed that one person's position is not rooted in a concern for the public good, but rather a contempt for the poor. Whatever benefits mixed-income might bring, it is simply better to keep them out of sight and out of mind of the more privileged members of society.

(Though I'll add one more thing before I sign off. The No Frills and Dollar Store are recent additions to the neighbourhood and seem to be thriving right next to all the fancy coffee shops and furniture stores.)

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

I never said it was a good thing that the neighbourhood is so segregated! You held up St. Lawrence as an example of a working mixed income neighbourhood, and I told you why it isn't very successful if you look beneath the surface. It's only successful in the sense that it's not a complete failure, but it hasn't been successful in leading to more socioeconomic mixing or in getting more people out of poverty.

If anything, the fact that people say St. Lawrence is a successful implementation of mixed income housing tells me that the bar has been set pretty low thanks to previous failures in urban planning.

 

[sixrings]

Folks...this is the USA...segregation is entrenched there. I don't see this happening here because that kind of blatant segregation would just not be acceptable. It's also completely unecessary.... we already have mixed income buildings, and I've been in them. I'd dare you to tell the difference between who is a subsidized tenant and who is not by watching them come and go throgh the lobby (or swimming in the pool).

I have worked in and with community housing and now run a food bank. I guarantee you I would be able to spot the different 95% of the time between a subsidized tenant and one who paid market rate. I love my job and I enjoy attempting to help people but I would say that out of the people I know who use our services there might be 10-15% who I would have no problem living right beside. There have been times I have been in peoples community housing units (mostly townhouses in the jane and finch area) and they have been treated like they built the house themselves. You would never know that this was suppose to be a temporary place or that it was housing. But that's an exception to the rule. Most of the time immediately you call tell exactly where you are. Personally speaking even when I rented it wasn't mine. I treated my apartment nice but I didn't love it. When I bought my house though and it was my own money going into it I treated it like it was the crown jewels. When you work hard for something you end up valuing it more than when something is given to you. I understand it is essentially a lottery getting one of these places. But like anything as people we have short term memories. We forget something good after a few weeks and then go back to how we would normally behave. If I won a lottery for a car Id be so happy and Im sure Id promise to keep it nice but i'm sure I wouldn't treat it with TLC the way I do my car which I paid for out of my own pocket.

As for people who don't want to live next to housing here is my take. If you drive through the neighbourhoods of Jane and Finch you will some very nice houses owned and cared for by a large Italian community. Some of these houses have beautiful gardens. These people loved their houses so they didn't sell when they started building the housing. Now despite the care of their properties the real estate value is greatly diminished because of the neighbouring housing and slowly the Italians sell off to people who come in and don't care for the houses the same causing the remaining hold outs properties to drop even further.


Obviously we need housing. I question if we need units that are bigger then my house as community housing. I also question why something temporary has become something long term. Our system may be better than the states but it is far from perfect and it doesn't do enough to help people transition out of housing after a time frame. I wonder if cities like Kitchener where the housing is far cheaper is a better potential solution then to house people in a place where even if they find work they wont be able to afford to live without subsidy. I also question how to integrate the housing into the community positively and without diminishing other peoples values.

 

[ksun]

^ good post.
I wonder how many of those who advocate so vehemently about "mixed income neighbourhood" and poor people's rights would actually choose to live in areas where there is substantial poverty. Talk is cheap, and when they actually hunt for a condo/house for themselves, they try to avoid "priority" neighbourhoods like the plague and would always prefer the highly gentrified areas as long as they can afford.

So far despite the downtown condo boom, Moss Park for example has almost no new development, and why? because most people don't want to live there, and most people include you and me on this forum and such aversion is justified. Who wouldn't want to live in nice looking areas with decent well-behaving people nearby? Segregation is human nature, and if we ourselves are making selfish decisions when buying a house (ask yourself if you want to have your kids live on a street where half of the residents are unemployed/low income), why do we blame developers who are just building condos based to actual market demand?

Attempting to create a paradise where wealth doesn't matter and the rich and poor live in harmony is bound to fail. Why? because very few people would actually do it when it comes to themselves.

 

[Lenser]

^ good post.
I wonder how many of those who advocate so vehemently about "mixed income neighbourhood" and poor people's rights would actually choose to live in areas where there is substantial poverty. Talk is cheap, and when they actually hunt for a condo/house for themselves, they try to avoid "priority" neighbourhoods like the plague and would always prefer the highly gentrified areas as long as they can afford.

So far despite the downtown condo boom, Moss Park for example has almost no new development, and why? because most people don't want to live there, and most people include you and me on this forum and such aversion is justified. Who wouldn't want to live in nice looking areas with decent well-behaving people nearby? Segregation is human nature, and if we ourselves are making selfish decisions when buying a house (ask yourself if you want to have your kids live on a street where half of the residents are unemployed/low income), why do we blame developers who are just building condos based to actual market demand?

Attempting to create a paradise where wealth doesn't matter and the rich and poor live in harmony is bound to fail. Why? because very few people would actually do it when it comes to themselves.

No one wants to live in Moss Park? Nonsense. "No one" wanted to live in Regent Park either and yet's in the midst of exciting redevelopment. No one wanted to move to Leslieville because it was a dump. Go back even further and no one except the poor wanted to live in Cabbagetown; look how that turned out. Methinks you are being terribly short-sighted here.

Segregation is human nature? Yeah, that's why Dachau and Buchenwald happened - just human nature, after all. Your reasoning reminds me of the nasty, self-serving extremities of Ayn Rand and her fictional paradises where everything is black and white and the virtue of selfishness triumphs over all else. It's a fantasy.

Mixed income housing is indeed a messy proposition. But the absence of planning for it at all strikes me as even worse.

 

[doug]

Moss Park for example has almost no new development, and why? because most people don't want to live there, and most people include you and me on this forum and such aversion is justified

Speak for yourself.
I bought a house very close to Moss park a year ago. I would like to build an apartment over my garage. I would have been able to do that a few years ago when zoning allowed for 1.5X density, but the city very recently reduced that to 1X and it's no longer possible to increase housing density in the neighbourhood. I don't understand why the city says they want to densify downtown areas, and then actively prevent home-owners, such as myself, from doing so.

Attempting to create a paradise where wealth doesn't matter and the rich and poor live in harmony is bound to fail. Why? because very few people would actually do it when it comes to themselves.

I think you're revealing your own biases here, not that of the general population.

What neighborhood do you live in, Ksun?

 

[sixrings]

For the record I am encouraged by Region Park and by the plans for Lawrence heights redevelopment.

At Jane and Sheppard there is a womans housing unit. As soon as you get a unit your three year countdown begins. In that time you have a free place where there is free daycare where they help you work on resume or schooling. No men are allowed in the building so leave the boyfriend outside. The idea is to help these ladies transition into jobs and possibly a better future.

This is my fundamental problem with part of our housing. I think somehow or another we need to help these people find jobs, and to move on so that we can help a new group of people. Instead all our resources goes into a select few. And the select few once in housing isn't motivated to leave because if they don't make it outside they will be back on a huge waiting list to re enter.

This might sound mean but I am hoping the smaller unit sizes of the region park locations and the Lawrence heights development encourages people to want to move out eventually if for anything just to have a bigger place. To me whatever can be used as motivation is a good thing.

Again region park and Lawrence heights get my thumbs up

 

[ksun]

Speak for yourself.
I bought a house very close to Moss park a year ago.

How close?
When I say Moss Park, I mean between Jarvis, Queen, Parliament and Dundas (more or less).
In downtown, one or two blocks makes all the difference. For example, Adelaide and Berkeley is not Moss Park because it is 10 times better than Queen/Sherbourne. Sumach and Queen is not Moss Park. Geographically close but the demographics can be quite different, so can the appeal be. Walking from King/Parliament to Queen Parliament things get progressively worse and it is only a 5 minute walk, night and day difference. Real estate guys give King E an A, B for Adelaide, C for Richmond, Queen would just fail.

korman house is an excellent example of Moss Park condo project which went south.

What neighborhood do you live in, Ksun?

I live just on the edge of the financial district.

 

[doug]

How close?
When I say Moss Park, I mean between Jarvis, Queen, Parliament and Dundas (more or less).

Shuter and Sherbourne....well within your defined area.....and much closer to Moss park than the financial district.

korman house is an excellent example of Moss Park condo project which went south.

No, Korman house is a prime example of a real estate developer who tried to get greedy and trick potential buyers. Claiming that they were 75 % sold out in the opening weekend, in an attempt to entice buyers, backfired on them.

I live just on the edge of the financial district.

That's nice

For the record I am encouraged by Region Park

It's Regent park.

 

[freshcutgrass]

TCHC is the biggest slumlord in the city; have you seen all the articles about how badly maintained their buildings are?

TCHC is the second largest landlord in North America...period.

Calling them slumlords is unfair and patently false, as it implies they are trying to profit from the poor, when the opposite is true. It would be fair to criticize the City for mismanaging and underfunding it. But since it is "public" housing, ultimately it is YOU and I who are to blame for allowing it to happen. Also, you allude to the idea that all people who work in the social services industry don't give a crap, which is very insulting to the many people who work in social services because they do care (I get the impression that this is a foreign concept to you, as you could never imagine yourself doing it).

The social service here is the subsidy not the actual building. After all the TCHC buildings do have market rate tenants too!

You are absolutely correct...and you are also killing your own argument against mixed-income buildings with this statement.

1: The mixed-income buildings are the ones that aren't "slums"...otherwise they could not attract market rent tenants.
2: The market rents help subsidize the below market rents, lowering the TCHC's reliance on funding from taxes.
3: The subsidy for your rental "voucher" to private landlords would have to be more per unit to account for the profit portion of the private landlord that does not exist in public housing.

You are also blithely disregarding the reality that private landlords aren't interested in participating in this social experiment of yours in the first place. And as a person directly involved in the private landlord business here in Toronto, I can confirm that. There are many sound business reasons why private landlords don't want tenants who are on social assistance (one example is that you can't garnishee someone's wages if they don't have one).

Social services is public business...it should never be shirked off onto private enterprise.

If anything, the fact that people say St. Lawrence is a successful implementation of mixed income housing tells me that the bar has been set pretty low thanks to previous failures in urban planning.

Ha Ha ...I love that!!!

A little reverse psychology eh? Take the overwhelming contradiction to your argument and pretend it isn't what it is. Good One. Is it just dishonesty...or are you really that cynical?

Except I don't think anyone is going to buy it. On any level, St. Lawrence was a success. You, me, and the city planners from all over the world that came to look at it know it.

But this was a product of a Toronto that was once heralded as the "city that works"...not the cynical Fordian nation it has become these days.

 

[ksun]

Shuter and Sherbourne....well within your defined area.....and much closer to Moss park than the financial district.

No, Korman house is a prime example of a real estate developer who tried to get greedy and trick potential buyers. Claiming that they were 75 % sold out in the opening weekend, in an attempt to entice buyers, backfired on them.

That's right in the middle of Moss Park, and I believe you made a great investment. Some of the side streets in that area are actually quite nice and most houses are in pretty decent condition. You would think it is in the middle of the Annex if not the main streets such as Queen and Sherbourne.
But most families would still stay away from the neighbourhood with such a bad undeserving reputation. However, the fact that despite the boom everywhere, there is almost no new development in this area really shows how much average people would want to live among a bunch of poor neighbours - there is development on Richmond/Sherbourne, or Dundas/Jarvis, Shuter/Church, but developers avoid Moss Park like the plague, because there is little demand for it.

I agree with you that it is stupid for the government for not allowing more density. I never understood such fear of density, even in downtown.