dt_toronto_geek
Superstar
It certainly is not. Can it be better? Are there areas that can be improved? Can new architecture be better? Absolutely, but it's far from dilapidated. I don't know where you come up this stuff.
Toronto The Britt Condos | 142.03m | 41s | Lanterra | Arcadis
- Thread starter AlbertC
- Start date
maestro
Senior Member
It won't be cheap to remove all the precast panels. It makes you wonder if the anchors are structurally sound.
SP!RE
°°°°°°
Ohhh, I love how overly dramatic UTers can be. I'd love to send a bunch of you to live in a third world country and then see how your opinion of what is "dilapidated" changes. I find it even offensive how complaining and self-pitying you some of you can be about a city that we are extremely lucky to live in.
Is there room for improvement in Toronto? Absolutely, plenty. But let's not kid ourselves into thinking we have it very rough here. /end-offtopic-rant about off-topic post.
Red October
Senior Member
Um... wut
coolcanadian
Banned
Are you kidding me? First of all, Toronto has a lively clean downtown. It is one of the safest major cities in North America. You are so wrong. You are extremely lucky to live in such an amazing city. Toronto is always in the top 5 most livable cities, and were growing at an unprecedented rate.
67Cup
Active Member
I've stayed in the Sutton Place each year for a number of years. It isn't dilapidated and neither is Toronto as a whole.
Now, Havana is dilapidated, though a gorgeous city underneath the flaking, unpainted concrete.
Now, Havana is dilapidated, though a gorgeous city underneath the flaking, unpainted concrete.
WanderLust
Active Member
Yes, Havana is crumbling, they are so slow in rejuvenating their historical buildings, they can't keep pace with the dilapidation.
Also, I've never seen a city with so much of dog poop everywhere, I mean, it's EVERYWHERE, they just don't bother cleaning it up, and there are quite a few dogs running around doing their business everywhere, on every single square centimetre of history, even on the steps of the old Capitol building, and nobody ever cleans it up.
But I do find Havana a fascinating city despite how depressing it can be at times. I especially like it when the power goes out, and that happens quite a lot, quite amazing views at dusk and at dawn when there are no lights on.
Toronto has got to be one of the cleanest big cities in the universe, even our slum areas look regal in comparison to parts of Europe or America. The Sutton should almost get some kind of historical designation, put the glass condos on top of the concrete slab !!
G
gabe
Guest
Data from the GTHA monthly occupancy statistic listings shows almost a 4% increase in 2012 versus 2009.
greenleaf
Senior Member
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Indeed. It's like the lovechild of Regency and some annoymous ersatz aA. Yuck all around. Lanterra and P+S just hit a new low.
AoD
AoD
freshcutgrass
Senior Member
The City of Toronto does have a policy regarding the conversion of "affordable" rental housing. But somehow I doubt the Sutton Place qualifies. My guess is the City will not refuse the developer on that basis.
The RTA does not prohibit the conversion, and does allow the landlord to apply to end the tenancy for the purpose of conversion to a condominium, but does provide rights and compensation to the tenant.
Since the conversion requires repairs or renovations to it that are so extensive that they require a building permit and vacant possession of the rental unit, the tenant is entitled to 120 days notice and entitled to compensation in an amount equal to three months rent or offer the tenant another rental unit acceptable to the tenant. Since it is also a condo conversion, the tenant is also entitled to right of first refusal to purchase the/a unit.
There's nothing "unfair" about it. Landlords & tenants have a business arrangement. The landlord business follows strict rules regulating that business, and therefore all involved know (or should know) the business arrangement they have entered into. Landlords who don't like it should not be in the landlord business. And tenants who don't like it should should find another business arrangement for accommodations outside of those regulated by the RTA.
A landlord who has tenants paying "below market rents" has no one to blame but themselves, as they negotiated the original rent, or knowingly acquired it when they bought the property. The annual increases set out by the province may not be equitable for the landlord, but you should have known that anyway. The landlord business is not for everybody, and is not a licence to print money, as some people assume.
CanadianNational
Senior Member
Horrible. An incoherent, awkward mess.
isaidso
Senior Member
They need to leave this building alone. It's one of the few buildings on the whole strip that's decent. They're going to turn an elegant 70s slab with character into another boring, sterile, banal, block.
TOareaFan
Superstar
It is my understanding, however, that there will be replacement rental units built as part of the new project and that any renter who wants to move back in will be able to rent one of the new rental units. I thought this was a requirment of law that when rental units were taken out of the market they had to be replaced but, rather, it may just be a negotiated item in the Section 37 Agreements for each project of this nature....(ie. in exchange for the increased densities the city negotiates that the lost rental units be replaced).
One project I looked at was the development on Tweedsmuir.....I think they took down a rental building and got approval for a rental tower of 341 units and a similarly sized for sale/condo tower. They have to give the tenants exiting the former rental building (however many of them there were at the end) first refusal on the new building and, I believe, unlike most new rental units these "replacement" units will still be subject to rent controls (calculated off of the rents they were paying but likely adjusted for annual increases).
To the extent that this is a model the city works with then I hardly think the Sutton rental residents are going to be treated too badly.
freshcutgrass
Senior Member
If they are indeed doing this, then things are different.
It is not a requirement of the RTA that landlords replace rental units when they convert to condos....they just have to follow the guidelines as to notices and compensation. If the City has bylaws pertaining to this (which I don't think they do regarding non-affordable housing), then it may be as you say, a special arrangement regarding this specific project. The Ward Councillor may have fought for this on behalf of the existing tenants.
If they are providing rental units with the condo project, then the RTA rules come into effect for the previous tenants. Quoted from the RTA.....
The landlord can apply for an above guideline rent increase if the capital costs are substantial (and in this case I would imagine it would be)...but it can't be any more than 3% over and above the guideline.
But this is all a bit tricky, as who is going to be the landlord? Couldn't be the Condo Corp. So the developer must have to purchase individual units for the purpose of renting. But there's no requirement in the RTA that the owner do this. So if this is true, it must be a special deal the City negotiated with the developer to gain approval for the project for the benefit of the existing tenants.