Toronto The Livmore | 138.68m | 43s | Vertica | IBI Group

Rentals are so important to developing mixed-income communities. I was/am getting worried that the condo boom in Toronto is going to create a rift between buyers and renters, such that buyers have mostly beautiful new buildings to move into, and renters are increasingly moving into converted houses or the 1950/60s style apartment buildings all over the city. Also, if having affordable renting means less frills on the building, as long as it's still a respectable structure I'm all for that.
 
I doubt this project would be considered affordable rental - but in any event, having a mix of housing types isn't a bad thing.

AoD
 
Most rental projects are not as good as the residential buildings.

The quality of the design is a result of the quality of the architect who produces it. Our local design culture has produced some fine rental buildings - the new Regent Park contains several examples, for instance.
 
Manulife Centre?

42
 
I had no idea that this was a rental building, so I guess I can "thank" 1bloorvip and his aristocratic post for that.

Have there ever been any other rental buildings of this height built in Toronto?

There are the mid-40s twin towers in Leaside built in the early 70's and 50-something Manulife apartments, also built in the early 70's. Those are the two tallest rentals I can think of.
 
Rentals are so important to developing mixed-income communities. I was/am getting worried that the condo boom in Toronto is going to create a rift between buyers and renters, such that buyers have mostly beautiful new buildings to move into, and renters are increasingly moving into converted houses or the 1950/60s style apartment buildings all over the city. Also, if having affordable renting means less frills on the building, as long as it's still a respectable structure I'm all for that.

The current real estate boom is an investor driven one. Meaning a good portion, if not the majority, of new residential condo's being built in the city are being rented out instead of being occupied by the unit owner(s).

Last edited by interchange42; Today at 16:13. Reason: Boom!

LOL!
And Bravo on taking care of that 'issue'.
 
Right, that's a good point. But I was more thinking of rental properties that are targeted to renting demographics, i.e., people who typically can't afford $1500/m in rent and up, as otherwise they'd, with exceptions, be in a buyer's market.
 
Well, there's this:

Ahh come-on..its tall and butt ugly.... whats there to like about it.:confused:
Dont hear to many people concerned about them ripping apart the Sutton Place... which is a lot more interesting and older structure than that heap.

Sorry to go off topic,,,but i just dont see anything special of this 35 year old 163 meter slab.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top