Toronto CityPlace: Canoe Landing Community Centre & Schools | 15.85m | 3s | City of Toronto | ZAS Architects

[marcus_a_j]

The 43 storey building is being shortened, according to Adam Vaughan. Nothing has been released AFAIK on the redesign. Perhaps the 9-storey mid-rise building will increase in height to make up for some of the of units being removed from the other building.

 

[Ramako]

I think that's a pretty quick knee jerk reaction, the issue isn't about "poor people" having a place to live, there are incredible number of affordable housing developments in Toronto right now, the regent park development alone will have in excess of a dozen current and future TCHC buildings. Also if you have noticed, there has been no opposition to the planned block 32 and 36 developments which contain a significant amount of affordable housing.

The owners in City Place are more unhappy with change to the scale and nature of this particular development. Again if the city had made it clear that this was going to be a 41 storey affordable housing building in block 32 before West One, N1, Montage, Luna, and now Parade was sold and built, there would be no issue. The problem is that the general feeling is that the City and TCHC waited untill the "Paying Customers" put up the capital to build up this neighbourhood and now wants to reap the benefits. If the city was committed to this area and the affordable housing model, they should have built the TCHC Buildings, the library, school and community centres first.

In any case I see any additions to the overall diversty of my neighbourhood to be a strength, but I do understand why a lot of owners would be unhappy with this development.

Ah, so they're just good old fashioned NIMBYs who didn't do their due diligence and now are trying to impede others' enjoyment for the sake of their own, despite ironically living in the tallest buildings ever built in the area. Disgusting.

 

[cassius]

Personally, I think the use of the term "disgusting" to describe them is a little over the top. However, it is true that downtown living almost always results in changes around you, and that can include surrounding properties being developed. I also think that of all the CityPlace residents on UT that have verbalized opposition to this development, CrimsonShadows has displayed the most evenly-balanced argument yet.

 

[condovo]

The use of the term 'disgusting' is meant to shut down debate. No disgusting dissenters allowed.

 

[Ramako]

The use of the term 'disgusting' is meant to shut down debate. No disgusting dissenters allowed.

How have I tried to stifle debate? I clearly stated principled reasons for disagreeing with his position, to which he is free to rebut as he did to my prior comment. That's the essence of debate. Furthermore, the subject of our debate is the motives of the opponents of this project. I didn't use the term in reference to the poster himself or his position but rather in direct reference to the motivations of those opponents, who are clearly not a party to our debate on their motives.

And yes, I do find such a high degree of selfishness and hypocrisy disgusting. It's akin to moving into a new house then immediately walking over to your neighbour and demanding that they knock down their children's bedroom because it blocks your view of the park. The fact that the project wasn't actually going to be constructed until after they moved in is irrelevant. They didn't do their due diligence on the biggest purchase of their lives and they have no one to blame but themselves. Yet instead of living with the consequences of their own poor decisions like adults, their reaction is to attack innocent parties who are more vulnerable than themselves. Dis-fucking-gusting.

 

[CrimsonShadows]

How have I tried to stifle debate? I clearly stated principled reasons for disagreeing with his position, to which he is free to rebut as he did to my prior comment. That's the essence of debate. Furthermore, the subject of our debate is the motives of the opponents of this project. I didn't use the term in reference to the poster himself or his position but rather in direct reference to the motivations of those opponents, who are clearly not a party to our debate on their motives.

And yes, I do find such a high degree of selfishness and hypocrisy disgusting. It's akin to moving into a new house then immediately walking over to your neighbour and demanding that they knock down their children's bedroom because it blocks your view of the park. The fact that the project wasn't actually going to be constructed until after they moved in is irrelevant. They didn't do their due diligence on the biggest purchase of their lives and they have no one to blame but themselves. Yet instead of living with the consequences of their own poor decisions like adults, their reaction is to attack innocent parties who are more vulnerable than themselves. Dis-fucking-gusting.

Hello Ramako,
I respectfully ask that you first examine the facts of the situation before jumping to conclusions, and painting a large group of very diverse individuals with the same brush of "disgust".

Now as I have clearly stated in my previous posts (thrice I believe) the purchasers of the city place condo DID DO THEIR DUE DILIGENCE and was given the plan from the city and TCHC on what will be developed at block 31. A 7 storey affordable housing tower, a school, a daycare facility, and a community centre. This is in no way reflective of the current proposal, which was tabled during the fall last year after the vast majority of the current owners have already made their purchases based on the previously disclosed information.

This has no similarities to the allegory that you have stated above. This situation would be more similar to having an individual spend a good deal of his time and resources to build a home for himself and his family on the shore of a lake so that his children can wake up to a view of the water every morning. Then after all his individual hard work and effort, have the government come in and decide that now that the area has more residents, it can now build a brand new amusement park right in front of the individual’s cabin. Now the amusement park would be of greater good to the people of the town, but can you honestly call the cabin owner “disgusting” if he voices his opposition?

The point here is that I believe that since we live in a democracy we have to champion our own interests and make our voices and opinions heard. Taxation without representation is not democratic. That doesn’t mean that we have to be selfish pricks about getting our own way all the time and dismiss anyone that doesn’t agree with our point of view. But if we are not willing to speak up for our own interests no one else will.

 

[Ramako]

Hello Ramako,
I respectfully ask that you first examine the facts of the situation before jumping to conclusions, and painting a large group of very diverse individuals with the same brush of "disgust".

Now as I have clearly stated in my previous posts (thrice I believe) the purchasers of the city place condo DID DO THEIR DUE DILIGENCE and was given the plan from the city and TCHC on what will be developed at block 31. A 7 storey affordable housing tower, a school, a daycare facility, and a community centre. This is in no way reflective of the current proposal, which was tabled during the fall last year after the vast majority of the current owners have already made their purchases based on the previously disclosed information.

This has no similarities to the allegory that you have stated above. This situation would be more similar to having an individual spend a good deal of his time and resources to build a home for himself and his family on the shore of a lake so that his children can wake up to a view of the water every morning. Then after all his individual hard work and effort, have the government come in and decide that now that the area has more residents, it can now build a brand new amusement park right in front of the individual’s cabin. Now the amusement park would be of greater good to the people of the town, but can you honestly call the cabin owner “disgusting” if he voices his opposition?

The point here is that I believe that since we live in a democracy we have to champion our own interests and make our voices and opinions heard. Taxation without representation is not democratic. That doesn’t mean that we have to be selfish pricks about getting our own way all the time and dismiss anyone that doesn’t agree with our point of view. But if we are not willing to speak up for our own interests no one else will.

Did they ask whether that would be the only structure built on that lot? Did they ask to what degree those city plans were guaranteed by law? Did they investigate the process by which public development plans are executed? Did they consider that the city, which was strapped for cash, might instead choose to sell the property to a private developer who may have had intentions to maximize the value of the site?

Clearly I have a very different conception of due diligence than many of the owners in CityPlace. Heights and densities listed in city plans are essentially meaningless, and it doesn't take more than a simple conversation with your real estate lawyer or even ten minutes on a website like this to figure it out. I'd argue that it's common knowledge that living next to an empty lot always entails such a risk, especially when the buildings that surround it are tall. But even ignoring that, given just how massive and life changing an investment this represents for most people, I'd expect them to investigate and understand all the legal issues surrounding their property, including those of adjacent properties that might directly affect their enjoyment. I wonder how many of them even read their contract.

But perhaps they were indeed aware of the risk and simply thought, "okay, there's a remote chance that something tall might get built, but if it happens I'll fight it." Fine. I don't disagree that selfishness is an important aspect of democracy, but there's also such a thing as tyranny by the majority. In other words, sometimes what the vast majority of people want is not what's best for society. I have a hard time believing that society is benefited by exchanging public housing for exclusive waterfront views. So what appalls me isn't that they're championing their own interests, it's that the interest they seek to preserve is so petty when weighed against the relative benefit that must be deprived from others so that they can enjoy that interest.

 

[musicman]

I am curious if there will be special requirements or proof of income obligations to move into this new building. I certainly wouldn't mind dropping my rent and bills from $2000/mo to $1100.

For the record, this building is not why I consider cityplace to be ghetto-like. The treatment we are dealt in the luna building is beyond ridiculous. It's not always fun at Cityplace.

http://cityplace-ghetto.com

 

[Tuscani01]

I am curious if there will be special requirements or proof of income obligations to move into this new building. I certainly wouldn't mind dropping my rent and bills from $2000/mo to $1100.

For the record, this building is not why I consider cityplace to be ghetto-like. The treatment we are dealt in the luna building is beyond ridiculous. It's not always fun at Cityplace.

http://cityplace-ghetto.com

Everything that website is against is common in other buildings. 2 guests per resident rules, and no smoking on podium rooftops. Everything else is just something you face with new construction... growing pains. How does that make it ghetto?

 

[TOBoy]

It's just renters bashing CP for no legitimate reasons. Stuff that's happening in Luna (being a brand-new building) do not necessarily mean it is happening to other CP buildings. West One went through some rough times a year or two ago, but as a building matures, things will smooth out.

 

[musicman]

I'm interested in whether there are special requirements to become a renter in affordable-housing. Will these units compete directly with the units in the adjacent Concord Cityplace builings, only at half to a third of the price -- or will there be rules restricting who can rent?

Everything that website is against is common in other buildings. 2 guests per resident rules, and no smoking on podium rooftops. Everything else is just something you face with new construction... growing pains. How does that make it ghetto?

I think it's pretty clear how unsafe building conditions, rude security, frequently broken elevators and selective rule enforcement are "ghetto". It probably will fix itself over time, but haven't lived in such a restrictive environment since I was a small child, and until recently (when there was a significant improvement in the general attitude and demeanour of building staff) I was embarrassed to bring my colleagues or friends to my building.

For the record, I didn't experience this in my north york townhouse, my suburban home, my icon II condominium or anywhere else I have lived.

 

[Tuscani01]

I think it's pretty clear how unsafe building conditions, rude security, frequently broken elevators and selective rule enforcement are "ghetto". It probably will fix itself over time, but haven't lived in such a restrictive environment since I was a small child, and until recently (when there was a significant improvement in the general attitude and demeanour of building staff) I was embarrassed to bring my colleagues or friends to my building.

For the record, I didn't experience this in my north york townhouse, my suburban home, my icon II condominium or anywhere else I have lived.

What unsafe building conditions?
Security isn't rude... they are just doing their job. Residents (owners not renters, since renters have no say) complained to building management, and building management responded to their concerns.
Give the elevators some time, and everything will work out. The building is brand new, and work is still being done, and people are still moving in. It is going to be chaos until everything settles.
And what selective rule enforcement? From what I saw on that site, the rules are enforced for all.

I think the problem here is CityPlace has a lot of renters, and only owners have a say on the condo board. The owners are getting sick of the renters ruining the building, and are complaining to management, which is why security is getting tighter and rules are strictly enforced.

If you think CityPlace is ghetto, then you need to look up the word ghetto in a dictionary.


As for affordable housing,

Anyone who qualifies for affordable housing will pay 30% of their income as rent. So yes, you have to qualify. No it will not compete with other buildings in CityPlace.

 

[musicman]

The mirrors in the parking lot are a safety issue.

As far as affordable housing, I've gotten bunch of good info from someone named Chris on the cityplace-ghetto.com site (is that you?).

I wasn't aware of the 30% rule. That basically makes the affordable housing not compete with the Concord development. That's really what I wanted to know. Thanks.

 

[Torontovibe]

What unsafe building conditions?
Security isn't rude... they are just doing their job. Residents (owners not renters, since renters have no say) complained to building management, and building management responded to their concerns.
Give the elevators some time, and everything will work out. The building is brand new, and work is still being done, and people are still moving in. It is going to be chaos until everything settles.
And what selective rule enforcement? From what I saw on that site, the rules are enforced for all.

I think the problem here is CityPlace has a lot of renters, and only owners have a say on the condo board. The owners are getting sick of the renters ruining the building, and are complaining to management, which is why security is getting tighter and rules are strictly enforced.

If you think CityPlace is ghetto, then you need to look up the word ghetto in a dictionary.


As for affordable housing,

Anyone who qualifies for affordable housing will pay 30% of their income as rent. So yes, you have to qualify. No it will not compete with other buildings in CityPlace.

Only 1/3 of tenants are rent geared to income. (they pay 30% of their income) People who pay market rent, pay the full amount, usually around 1000 dollars for a 1 bedroom. I think you need an income over $35,000 to qualify for a market rent apartment. Wait time is usually 3 months to one year.

 

[Sovz]

Looks like there's some sort of ground leveling work going on at the site... Bulldozers have chopped and removed the trees and seem to be shuffling the dirt around for the past week or so.

Does anyone know what was the final decision on the height of the TCHC building for the site?