Thanks. Appreciate the explanation, felt kinda stupid asking but can’t help but think that most folks don’t know the details and just echo “affordable housing” because it sounds good.
I think most folks do have a sense of the details; but the problem is that most here at UT are doing rather well economically (not a bad thing) but it does put some huge distance between where a perception of affordable is vs the reality for those on the lowest rungs of the ladder economically.
I also think there is default perception that 'affordable housing' will include a meaningful component of RGI; but that is not necessarily true.
I would simply say at ~350k per unit build cost on publicly owned land we could build 2,000 RGI/deeply affordable units for 700M.
That's a mortgage-free, cash-version of the investment; rolled equally over 10 years, that's an annual cost of 70M which represents ~0.45% of the annual budget of the City of Toronto.
The notion we can't afford to do it properly is horse-twaddle.
Mix that in with 1,500 non-profit units, financed by CMHC and 1,500 private, full-market rental and you have something that would make a great difference and be only 5,000 units, and free up some room for other functions.
Reason why I suggested no residency on Villiers because at low density, everyone will argue “well who gets to live there?!” -
As noted, I'm fine with medium density, just not super-high, particularly w/o having put the necessary supports in place to make it work.
I just don’t want to see all the green space created turned into the parsley on a steak dinner.
I agree, and I think the answer to that, in part, is fully planning out the entire Portlands at a high level, with a clear density number and other vital uses protected and making sure we get the greenspace right.
We can include more in the balance of the Portlands, particularly by widening the greenway to the south of river to provide a better, protected connection to the spit.
But a (public) educational district tied to nature and science (STEM to stem) would be great, and I could see a lot of K-12 programs tied to conservation efforts in the Leslie Spit.
I think the clear commitment at this point, outside of Villiers, is to a cement district to serve the construction industry, which does make sense while we have a boom on our hands in the area.
As well as the media/production sector.
I'm happy to support those two.
The Portlands Energy Centre {gas plant) isn't going anywhere soon, and there is a need for a City yard of some type as well.
That still leaves the vacant lands at the Hearn, Rebel and associated lands, a dubiously located postal facility and a couple of other post-industrial sites, plus the current area for soil remediation.
There is room to address some other functions, but to do that we need to map it all out and ask those questions; where is this next thing going (Hospital, post-secondary etc.)
