Toronto YWCA Elm Centre | ?m | 17s | YWCA Toronto | SvN

2 rendings and site plan on the last page - very aA-esque.

Not just aA-esque, but actually aA. With someone called Hilditch Architect.
 
And from the Star:

Housing project expected to raise tempers
Women, mentally ill would benefit Downtown site
to have 300 units
Jul. 8, 2006. 01:00 AM
DONOVAN VINCENT
CITY HALL BUREAU

A proposal calling for a $61 million affordable- and subsidized-housing development with 300 units is sure to draw the ire of downtown Toronto residents, Councillor Kyle Rae says.

"I'm expecting to hear (criticism) all the way through the process and to hear it when I'm knocking on doors during the election," Rae said of the project, which would be built in his ward.

The proposal calls for the YWCA and some partners to run a new facility at 110 Edward St., currently an 80-bed homeless shelter and housing referral centre near Dundas St. W. and University Ave.

Rae (Ward 27, Toronto Centre-Rosedale) strongly supports the plan, which calls for 100 subsidized units for single mothers with serious mental illnesses, 150 units of affordable housing for single women and single mothers, and 50 units for aboriginal singles, couples and families.

But he said he anticipates opposition from some people, who will view the project as simply "adding to the problems" of the city's downtown.

"The downtown problems are here and on the street," Rae said yesterday, adding the proposal is probably one of the most significant social-housing initiatives Toronto has seen since the province halted construction of such projects in 1995.

"People will assume that because (the project is) subsidized, or for people with mental illnesses or aboriginal people, it's a shelter. They won't see it as an apartment building," he said.

The project would require demolishing an existing building on the site and erecting two new ones, as well as renovating a heritage building that the YWCA wants to turn into its head office. The YWCA also wants the project to include a 200-seat auditorium/meeting room for use by the public.

The current shelter has been used to relocate homeless people who were sleeping at Nathan Phillips Square.

The proposal, which goes before the city's affordable housing committee next week, the policy and finance committee the following week, and council at the end of the month, is calling for demolition to begin next April, with occupancy in January 2009.

The cost of the project, if it gets the go-ahead, will be borne through mortgaging, rental income, and funding from the city, province, federal government and the YWCA.

The agency would have to launch a "significant fundraising campaign," spokeswoman Amanda Dale said yesterday.

Residents and business owners should keep an open mind to the proposal, Dale said.

"We are moving to permanent housing, which is generally an easier integration than a shelter is," she said.

The city bought the property in April. It was formerly a long-term-care facility, but the organization operating it was told it no longer met provincial standards, so it joined forces with a developer and put forward a plan calling for 300 units of condos, which city council approved.

But the condo deal fell through.

As the city tried to address its homeless problem, a lease agreement was signed allowing 110 Edward St. to be used as a winter emergency homeless shelter and referral centre, which opened in December 2004.

When the city was looking into building affordable housing, the site was found to be favourable since it had already been zoned for condos, Rae said.

In the meantime, the province said it is prepared to provide funding for 100 units for people dealing with mental-health issues, he said.

"That's a godsend for the city, given we know a significant number of homeless are dealing with mental-health and addiction issues."

The aboriginal housing aspect is also timely, since the city's recent homeless census found a disproportionate number of native people living on the streets, Rae added.

Aside from single mothers, young women having difficulty attending college or university because of expensive housing prices in Toronto could benefit from the project, the YWCA's Dale said.

AoD
 
But he said he anticipates opposition from some people, who will view the project as simply "adding to the problems" of the city's downtown.

Funny, but I thought this would be taking away from the "problems" of the city's downtown. It is helping to get some people off the street. Homeless people who have homes are no longer homeless. At least that problem gets solved.
 
If you don't like something, either fix it or move somewhere else. No one has the right to claim a neighbourhood as their own. I think that this project is a step in the right direction, therefore I support it as an area resident. I will be honest though, a major aspect of downtown living that I dislike is the high concentration of homeless people, many of which are at minimum unpleasant or rough looking. I'm moving slightly uptown in a few months to get away from things like that and also to get a little bit more breathing space. I"m considering the upper Annex.
 
I live in this area, and frankly, I'm tired of the east side of downtown being forced to hold such a high concentration of low-end social housing. We're already oversaturated. It's a big city - put it somewhere else.
 
You're right - that neighbourhood would be much improved if all the meth-addled undesireables were packed off and made to support themselves for a change.
 
No one has the right to claim a neighbourhood as their own

Well, one might argue that citizens' sense of "ownership" of their neighbourhoods is exactly why we have so many vibrant areas of the city.
 
SGM:

In general, I don't disagree with that statement, but the difference between"ownership" of a neighbourhood and fortress mentality is a very fine line. Would we necessarily be so generous if the opposition in question occurs in a suburban setting? Probably not (and probably shouldn't be).

The neighbours should rightly be aware of this development, and ask difficult questions while remain open minded in allowing their concerns to be addressed. What I cannot condone is knee-jerk reactions that colours these issues.

AoD
 
I agree - especially since the most voiciferous nimby's on this project can hardly be described as find, upstanding, productive citizens themselves.
 
I must agree that the east side bears an awful lot of social housing and services, and it only takes five minutes of wandering in the area to notice this.
 
Except this project is located on the west side where there are far fewer projects like this.
 
Except this project is located on the west side where there are far fewer projects like this.
There are too many low income units downtown in general. I'm not exactly pleased with myself for saying this, but I'm leaving downtown because I don't like living in an area dominated by lower social classes. It's not because of the people, it's because as a neighbourhood's income level increases, the quality of services, amenities, shopping, housing, and streetscaping improves as well. When I look around my area, I'm not pleased with what I see anymore.
 
but I'm leaving downtown because I don't like living in an area dominated by lower social classes.

Just an itty-bitty note, but what do you mean by "lower social classes" if you don't mean the people?
 

Back
Top