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

I am have a unit on the 50th floor, hoping I will have a nice lake view but now I think i am screwed since I will be facing a wall.

I face directly to the west side and hope I can enjoy the occasional fireworks and air shows...now this building is in front of us.

why does a Low income unit get to have the best view where the rest of us paying good hard earn money get second rated spots. I think i should just collect welfare.

I have to admit, it is partly my fault that I didn't do my research and thinking a housing project will not surpass my 50th floor but now it looks like there is a chance.

Is there anyway for citizen to object this project, who should we elect that will help oppose 43 flr building. I think 9 floors is enough!!

Being poor in Ontario's has it's advantage!! I sound really mean but I am just being direct.
 
Rangostar said:
I am have a unit on the 50th floor, hoping I will have a nice lake view but now I think i am screwed since I will be facing a wall.

I face directly to the west side and hope I can enjoy the occasional fireworks and air shows...now this building is in front of us.

why does a Low income unit get to have the best view where the rest of us paying good hard earn money get second rated spots. I think i should just collect welfare.

I have to admit, it is partly my fault that I didn't do my research and thinking a housing project will not surpass my 50th floor but now it looks like there is a chance.

Is there anyway for citizen to object this project, who should we elect that will help oppose 43 flr building. I think 9 floors is enough!!

Being poor in Ontario's has it's advantage!! I sound really mean but I am just being direct.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me?

I hope it does get turned down, and that another developer gets to build a 60 storey tower in the same spot now.
 
Rangostar said:
why does a Low income unit get to have the best view where the rest of us paying good hard earn money get second rated spots. I think i should just collect welfare.
Click to expand...

So you have a problem that the building that will block your view might have welfare people in it? Maybe you need to go check out subsidized housing, regardless of neighbourhood, before you make your decision to go on it. I think the city is at the bottom of the landlord pile. You might get to experience what it is like to be a person who once worked but had a debilitating accident and is now stuck in the apartment between the loud mouth and the unhygienic. Enjoy the view.

I think the bigger issue is whether or not it makes sense to have a single building of 322 low income units rather than five buildings with 20% low income and 80% market units. Creating the poor building or the poor neighbourhood is a failed experiment where the same neighbourhood or building constantly shows up in the news leading to a bad reputation for more than just the offenders. I'm disappointed that when a neighbourhood plan style development like Metro Place, City Place, Park Place, East Bayfront, and West Don Lands is approved there isn't a requirement for a certain percentage of all units in mid-rise or high-rise buildings to be added to TCHC housing stock. We should be ending the creation of specific public housing buildings and neighbourhoods. I'm not suggesting 20% is the percentage... it could be 2% or even less. The more buildings low income or public housing is spread over the lower the percentage of any particular neighbourhood or building needs to be low income or public housing. It also gets rid of high-income schools and low-income schools.
 
Last edited:
EnviroTO said:
I'm disappointed that when a neighbourhood plan style development like Metro Place, City Place, Park Place, East Bayfront, and West Don Lands is approved there isn't a requirement for a certain percentage of all units in mid-rise or high-rise buildings to be added to TCHC housing stock.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%. When I lived in Atlanta there were many news articles about the success of programs like this. People who lived in new buildings didn't know who lived in the subsidized units or not. I believe developers there had to set aside 10% of the units for community housing units. (This was probably the only progressive thing Atlanta ever did.)

Also, no one owns a view out their window. And it doesn't matter who is living across the way. People living in TCHC buildings are hard-working individuals as well.
 
Unless you buy a condo on the south side of Queen's Quay, you have absolutely no reasonable expectation of keeping a water view. You have bought a condo in a city that is constantly growing and evolving. All development south of your building will not stop just maintain your views. Whether the land is used for public or private purposes is completely irrelevant - the point is it will be used for something of considerably more benefit to socitey than a brownfiled or a parking lot.

Perhaps you need to buy a plot of land a long way out of the downtown core.
 
My issue with all this is not that fact that they will be building a low-income building (it will work fine if properly integrated into Cityplace), but the fact that they planned to build a 32-storey in a 9-storey-limit piece of land, and now wants to build a 43-storey. From a 9-storey limit to a 43-storey is a huge jump. Plus why does all the low-income units have to be all in one thin 43-storey building, while the rest of the buildings on the block are like 3-storey high? Why can't they spread it out a bit, make everybody happy about the view?
 
Rangostar said:
I am have a unit on the 50th floor, hoping I will have a nice lake view but now I think i am screwed since I will be facing a wall.
Click to expand...

catcher_of_cats said:
Being on the 50th floor of a building and complaining of losing a view to a 43 storey tower? I know that I can count.
Click to expand...

Xenosblitz said:
If he lives in Cityplace, he might be blocked since there are no 4s, and no 13.
Click to expand...

I assume Rangostar is living on the 50th (municipal) floor, the # as seen in the elevator ... which would translate to the 44th (legal) floor, after discounting for the 4th, 13th, 14th, 24th, 34th, and 44th floor taken out in WestOne ... so technically the 43 storey tower in Block 31 won't be blocking his west view, but being only 1 floor higher than the neighbouring building means that the view from a horizontal plane won't be obstructed, but since the human eye doesn't only look horizontally, but also vertically, the lower half of the view from Rangostar's window will be gone ~

This is the same situation I came across at the Accolade project, I originally bought a unit on the 30th (legal) floor of the building, with a view towards an old 21 storeys apartment slab building in the distance ... I though I would clear that building (which I did), but as it turns out the view is adversely affected by this 21s building ... thankfully I had other problems with the project and recinded the APS within 10 days period

Tridelwebmaster said:
View East
IMG_5632.jpg
Click to expand...
 
Public Housing

In respect of public housing, I offer two thoughts.

The first is that Enviro is right on point in that IF we choose to offer this type of development as part of accommodating the needs of low-income earners, then we really ought to follow our own successful model in the St. Lawrence area.

Buildings should include a mix of market-rent, non-profit and Rent-geared-to-income/subsized units.

Beyond the neighbourhood, my fear in buildings that all RGI/low-income focus is that residents within that building lose the opportunity of making connections with those who have jobs or are in schools can help them via references, tips, etc. rebuild their own sustainable wealth and self-worth.

The added stigma of having an address known to house only those requiring assistance, is also unhelpful to folks looking for a hand-up.

******

Now that said, I don't care for public housing as the means by which we help folks in need.

I would rather focus on 2 things:

1) make private sector housing more affordable by making property tax rates as low for multi-residential as they are for single-family homes. This would reduce rent (if passed on) by between $100-150 a month for most tenants.

2) Help people with insufficient income to afford housing, by fixing their income.

Those who are gainfully employed require an adequate wage, I think $13.50 an hour might be enough to get by in this town, fingers crossed, if you're frugal. So let's raise the minimum wage to that level (over time) and reduce corporate/business taxes at the same time, on the premise that the province will make up most of the difference though increased personal income tax, sales tax and reduced benefit costs.

For those that on social assistance, in the short-term (while finishing University or the like, or completing training etc.) then give then an adequate benefit. Right now its something like $550.00 a month total (of which only $350.00 is for housing) if you are single/no kids.

I don't care if you are happy to take a basement apartment or the cheapest studio, there is no way you can find a place in Toronto for $350.00 per month.

Let's make that a do-able number like $725.00 per month ($925.00 all-in) so that people can house themselves! (even this number is very conservative, but I appreciate the need not to create a program that is desirable for everyone to go on)
 
EnviroTO said:
So you have a problem that the building that will block your view might have welfare people in it? Maybe you need to go check out subsidized housing, regardless of neighbourhood, before you make your decision to go on it. I think the city is at the bottom of the landlord pile. You might get to experience what it is like to be a person who once worked but had a debilitating accident and is now stuck in the apartment between the loud mouth and the unhygienic. Enjoy the view.

I think the bigger issue is whether or not it makes sense to have a single building of 322 low income units rather than five buildings with 20% low income and 80% market units. Creating the poor building or the poor neighbourhood is a failed experiment where the same neighbourhood or building constantly shows up in the news leading to a bad reputation for more than just the offenders. I'm disappointed that when a neighbourhood plan style development like Metro Place, City Place, Park Place, East Bayfront, and West Don Lands is approved there isn't a requirement for a certain percentage of all units in mid-rise or high-rise buildings to be added to TCHC housing stock. We should be ending the creation of specific public housing buildings and neighbourhoods. I'm not suggesting 20% is the percentage... it could be 2% or even less. The more buildings low income or public housing is spread over the lower the percentage of any particular neighbourhood or building needs to be low income or public housing. It also gets rid of high-income schools and low-income schools.
Click to expand...

Bravo, well said, i totally agree
 
Rangostar said:
I am have a unit on the 50th floor, hoping I will have a nice lake view but now I think i am screwed since I will be facing a wall.

I face directly to the west side and hope I can enjoy the occasional fireworks and air shows...now this building is in front of us.

why does a Low income unit get to have the best view where the rest of us paying good hard earn money get second rated spots. I think i should just collect welfare.

I have to admit, it is partly my fault that I didn't do my research and thinking a housing project will not surpass my 50th floor but now it looks like there is a chance.

Is there anyway for citizen to object this project, who should we elect that will help oppose 43 flr building. I think 9 floors is enough!!

Being poor in Ontario's has it's advantage!! I sound really mean but I am just being direct.
Click to expand...

I think we have a winner for the UT "Middle Class Twit of the Year Award".
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top