Toronto Pinnacle One Yonge | 345.5m | 105s | Pinnacle | Hariri Pontarini

raptor said:
maybe you don't mean that, but that's very insulting. I believe I speak on behalf of all UTers when I suggest retracting your comments.
Click to expand...
You didn't speak for me. Fair questions. He never said he was against the idea, just wondered if there would be an issue.
 
Stefan said:
marketed as an upscale, luxury project, only to find out that there will be subsidized housing.
Click to expand...

If only there were some publicly accessible resource for development application information that is completely separate from a developer's marketing materials...
 
Stefan said:
Hardly speaking for all UTers. I agree with dracolnyte, it's a valid question and he posed it in a civilized manner. What's with all this "political correctness"?

For example, I was looking to buy a unit at "home: Power and Adelaide" last year until I went in for the signing and found out that there will be subsidized units in the building, at which point I was no longer interested. I'm sure the builder won't lose any sleep over my decision, there were most likely 20 other people in line waiting to snatch up whatever is left, which is fine. I don't think I'm above anyone, nor would I ever disrespect anyone, especially based on their income level; it's simply a personal choice and as long as I don't attack anyone for it, that choice should be respected and not be forced to "retract my comment".

So yes, I would be concerned as well if the building is marketed as an upscale, luxury project, only to find out that there will be subsidized housing. We as taxpayers already subsidize these and when hundreds of thousands of dollars are at stake, you have a right to choices and your opinion, even if not everyone agrees with it, that's why it's an opinion and not fact.
Click to expand...

Those points kind of conflict with one another
 
smably said:
I don't know whether it's common, exactly, but it's not unheard of. I know at least one other building nearby that has a similar mix of market and affordable housing (Aquavista, IIRC). And no, it's not the least bit concerning. I think it would be fantastic if every building had an affordable housing component.
Click to expand...

It is going to be the way forward in the core area. In any case, the choice is that of the buyer's to make - and I highly doubt it will be an issue. Besides, for all the talk about "luxury" I'd be curious to see how many of said units will turn out to be short-term rental.

AoD
 
ADRM said:
If only there were some publicly accessible resource for development application information that is completely separate from a developer's marketing materials...
Click to expand...
There will be affordable rental units, this is from the development application website:

" The residential use GFA for Phase 3 is inclusive of 12,411 square metres devoted to affordable rental housing uses. The total FSI for Phases 2 and 3 is 27.2 (the total FSI for Phases 1, 2 and 3 is 19.6 for a site area of 12,153.9 square metres). A total of 2,171 residential units (including 124 affordable rental housing units) are proposed for Phases 2 and 3."

Seems like Phase 1 will not have any. As a potential owner, I would like to make an informed decision based on all the facts available.
 
Stefan said:
Hardly speaking for all UTers. I agree with dracolnyte, it's a valid question and he posed it in a civilized manner. What's with all this "political correctness"?
Click to expand...

He has edited his post. I guess there was other stuff in it, potentially insulting, to which Raptor was responding. I know people love attacking from a "political correctness" angle but let's read the discussion before reacting.
 
Avenue said:
He has edited his post. I guess there was other stuff in it, potentially insulting, to which Raptor was responding. I know people love attacking from a "political correctness" angle but let's read the discussion before reacting.
Click to expand...
no he quoted the original post, there was nothing in there. The only statement potentially insulting was with regards to condos on the west side having subsidized housing, which is what was edited out
 
Again, the architectural plans show the base levels of the building containing a significant amount of affordable housing units accessed off their own lobby and elevator bank from the main condo tower. There is no overlap of amenities, interior spaces, elevators, etc. from the condo. They function as entirely separate uses, even if they are in the same physical structure.
 
dracolnyte said:
no it just means he doesnt want part of his hard-earned money to be subsidizing or paying for other people's unit
Click to expand...

It is his call, of course, but one way or another his hard-earned money will be subsidizing public housing units - here or elsewhere.

innsertnamehere said:
Again, the architectural plans show the base levels of the building containing a significant amount of affordable housing units accessed off their own lobby and elevator bank from the main condo tower. There is no overlap of amenities, interior spaces, elevators, etc. from the condo. They function as entirely separate uses, even if they are in the same physical structure.
Click to expand...

I think people have to get used to the idea that affordable units in private development will be the default unless the project is truly in the stratospheric realm.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Well that line of comments sure showed that the "more condos means more options!" crowd are full of it. If poor people don't buy condos, they're idiots and don't respect the market. If they do, the people buying condos start screeching about poor people driving down their property values. If poor people live in social housing, they're leeches. If they live in condos, they're leeches. Seems some users just don't like poor people and need an excuse to justify their classism.

Ah excuse me, I forgot, this isn't a Marxist thread. DEVELOPMENT GOOD. POORS BAD. TALL SHINY BUILDING!
 
I found these comments around subsidized housing surprising because I prefer living in complete communities, and part of that is a mix of income levels. Personally, I would consider buying in a condo with social housing to be a benefit in helping create a more varied and therefore more vibrant community. I would actually prefer to buy in such a building. It's the "poor door" that's a problem.

In a market like Toronto, hopefully people like me balance out those who avoid buildings with social housing and there would be minimal net effect on property prices.

In any event, the real estate truism "location, location, location" probably rules the price of a condo here far more than any other factor or combination of factors.
 
My point is to address hypocrisy.

I have spent time (not frequently) volunteering at homeless shelters for men, in part because few people care about them compared to children and refugees etc. But I'll be honest, I don't want them boarding in my condo. So where do you draw the line? I gladly pay taxes towards social causes. And I enjoy a diverse neighborhood. But I dont need to take all this home with me. A friend in Regent Park (nice building) complains one of the residents insists on urinating in greenery by the doorway. Community housing comes with more social problems, undeniably.

My building has a toxic share of narcissistic, vain, pretentious, arch-conservatives. But at least they don't interfere with me.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top