Toronto OnePark West | ?m | 13s | Daniels | Core Architects

It makes absolutely no sense to spend $300,000,000 to recreate a ghetto when the city could actually have MADE MONEY by converting RP to condos and letting buyers actually improve them and the area themselves at probably 1/4 the cost of new construction.

This soon-to-be-mixed-income-ghetto benefits Daniels and the contractors. Not the city or the low income tenants!
 
vultur said:
It makes absolutely no sense to spend $300,000,000 to recreate a ghetto when the city could actually have MADE MONEY by converting RP to condos and letting buyers actually improve them and the area themselves at probably 1/4 the cost of new construction.

This soon-to-be-mixed-income-ghetto benefits Daniels and the contractors. Not the city or the low income tenants!
Click to expand...

The area was a blight, and a mere transference of ownership of the rundown units to residents would not have accomplished anything. RP's buildings were too far gone, and the dead-ended streets a planning mistake. The city is doing the right thing with the mixed income rebuild. Are you suggesting a plan-less free-for-all hands-off evolution of the area? Yikes. You'd be happier in Houston.

42
 
It makes absolutely no sense to spend $300,000,000 to recreate a ghetto when the city could actually have MADE MONEY by converting RP to condos and letting buyers actually improve them and the area themselves at probably 1/4 the cost of new construction.
Click to expand...

WTF are you pulling out of your ass this time? I've never read anything so ridiculous - shot buildings in need of renovations far exceeding the potential value , bad location due to the community's reputation and you think the city could of made more money than they are now by selling the units off!?! ... I've got a few council buildings to sell you.
 
I've been wondering if all of the TCHC redevelopment plans involve only townhouses and low and mid-rise buildings. I know they demolished some mid-rises at RP but are there any plans to demolish or redevelop high-rises (like the ones at Jane/Finch or Islington/Bloor? I've seen this happen in Chicago.
 
Most of social housing around Jane and Finch is low-rise. The high-rises most people associate with Jane and Finch, specially at the northeast corner, are privately owned.
 
Convert the ownership structure from TCHC to private condo and watch the area magically gentrify. With a vested interest in the aesthetic of the neighborhood you would quickly find a major overhaul of the buildings occurring, landscaping, and a positive sense of ownership in the community. I can see knocking down a building or two to inject some excitement, but to level existing low cost housing that can instantly be turned into owned dwellings for the city's less fortunate is a moral crime imo.
It became a slum because that's how the city maintained it. If the people living in the units had pride of ownership they wouldn't have mistreated their homes that way and it wouldn't have deteriorated so quickly.
The city is so fixated on not losing affordable rental units that they appreciate the enormous opportunity at their feet. Damn socliaists!

Same goes for SJT- turn it into condo and you'll the area will prosper virtually overnight.
 
maestro said:
WTF are you pulling out of your ass this time? I've never read anything so ridiculous - shot buildings in need of renovations far exceeding the potential value , bad location due to the community's reputation and you think the city could of made more money than they are now by selling the units off!?! ... I've got a few council buildings to sell you.
Click to expand...

Your comments are ignorant. In an era of conservation demolishing perfectly workable structures to make way for $300,000,000 ghetto is gross negligence on the part of the city. Who did Daniels Corp. have in their back pocket to nab this job? Nothing but a bunch of hypocrites.
 
Maestro's comments are bang-on and the buildings are not "perfectly workable structures."
 
alklay said:
Maestro's comments are bang-on and the buildings are not "perfectly workable structures."
Click to expand...

You honestly don't believe that the buildings are capable of being renovated and modernized? Are you that sheltered? Are your sensibilities that jaded? Just another shining example of government abusive waste that could be put to far better use.

Pathetic.
 
^ LOL. Before I read who had posted what you just wrote, I assumed it was directed at you, vultur. Except that second last sentence re: Gov't abuse.
 
You honestly don't believe that the buildings are capable of being renovated and modernized? Are you that sheltered? Are your sensibilities that jaded? Just another shining example of government abusive waste that could be put to far better use.
Click to expand...

Everything can be renovated and modernized - but what's the cost of doing so, in comparison of building anew with the attendant benefits of allowing for a better urban layout? Plus, who is going to pay for building maintenance (which is a substantial cost) in a ownership model? What happens if the tenant can't afford that cost?

I have a feeling to you any attempt to house the poor (instead of ahem ahem, tax cuts) would be considered by you as "abusive waste". BTW, I believe this isn't your first time ranting the same way on RP.

AoD
 
Well, if we abide by green "embodied energy" arguments, there *could* be a valid argument to rehabbing, adding-onto, urbanizing etc the Regent Park blocks. Unfortunately, except for the Dickinson towers, Regent Park doesn't make for much of a romantic rehabbable-modern-landmark candidate a la the Riverdale half-round.

Besides, in the hands of a vultur-like spirit, "rehabbing" might mean making over Regent Park into a 50 Gerrard aesthetic...
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top