christiesplits
Senior Member
The power of colour! Imagine this development without the yellow!
Toronto SQ Spadina Queen Condos at Alexandra Park | 43.89m | 14s | Tridel | Teeple Architects
- Thread starter AlbertC
- Start date
ponyboy
Active Member
As nice as this building is, I don't like the balconies that are walled in. I would like a nice view in all directions when sitting on my balcony.
Looking at the remaining inventory, it is nice to see some larger condo units for sale in this project.
Looking at the remaining inventory, it is nice to see some larger condo units for sale in this project.
Sweet Hooligan
New Member
ponyboy
Active Member
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/alexandra-park-revitalization-party-1.3776793
Story about public housing residents moving into their townhouses here.
It's a nice project. My guess is that a 4 bedroom townhouse here would probably sell for $1M. Once children grow up to be adults, are families able to keep these large homes as long as they like? How much is the monthly rent? My view is that the city should get out of the direct provision of housing, which is not their skill set, and provide both vouchers to the poor and incentives to private landlords and developers to build more rental housing stock, using inclusive zoning to ensure affordable units are found in all neighbourhoods. This would lead to more people getting help, rather than the lucky few who can obtain and keep a prized unit. However, in absence of such a scheme, what has been done in Regent Park is the next best thing, but that kind of scheme will only work in communities in desirable locations (Regent Park is close to downtown, and Alexandra Park is near Queen West).
Story about public housing residents moving into their townhouses here.
It's a nice project. My guess is that a 4 bedroom townhouse here would probably sell for $1M. Once children grow up to be adults, are families able to keep these large homes as long as they like? How much is the monthly rent? My view is that the city should get out of the direct provision of housing, which is not their skill set, and provide both vouchers to the poor and incentives to private landlords and developers to build more rental housing stock, using inclusive zoning to ensure affordable units are found in all neighbourhoods. This would lead to more people getting help, rather than the lucky few who can obtain and keep a prized unit. However, in absence of such a scheme, what has been done in Regent Park is the next best thing, but that kind of scheme will only work in communities in desirable locations (Regent Park is close to downtown, and Alexandra Park is near Queen West).
Not to disagree with all of your arguments @ponyboy, but there are many locations now considered desirable that we would never have thought were, not long ago.
Who would have dreamt a half dozen years ago that a 65-storey luxury condo would be going up between the Gardiner Expressway and an off-ramp? One is though. Along with Regent and Alexandra Parks, the Lawrence Heights revitalization has is also underway now, following that same model. There may be more places (not necessarily on such grand a scale as these projects) that may also follow: most of the 416 is already desirable, or with the right improvements, can likely be made desirable.
42
Who would have dreamt a half dozen years ago that a 65-storey luxury condo would be going up between the Gardiner Expressway and an off-ramp? One is though. Along with Regent and Alexandra Parks, the Lawrence Heights revitalization has is also underway now, following that same model. There may be more places (not necessarily on such grand a scale as these projects) that may also follow: most of the 416 is already desirable, or with the right improvements, can likely be made desirable.
42
Northern Light
Superstar
I think Ponyboy has a point.
Its not, at least for me, one about the retail value of the unit in question.
Rather, its a question of questions.
Why is that people can't afford housing adequate to their needs?
What is the most efficient way to remedy this problem?
There are only 2 available answers, one assumes that 'cost' is the problem; and undoubtedly, in an overheated Toronto housing market with unreasonably tight rental market there is a problem there.
The other answer is that its a problem of income.
The latter is that's easier to address, whether by raising the minimum wage to something approaching a living wage; or by augmenting social assistance within the shelter allowance component.
The shelter allowance for a single individual being only $400 or so....... has the effect of ensuring there is no way except public housing to address a recipients situation.
Setting a more realistic number would create a space for private landlords/developers, not so much through new development for that market, but new development for the middle class and shifting existing stock to meet the need for more affordable rentals.
There is certainly room to address the influx of capital, including locals buying income properties or flipping, in order to return the overall housing market to a more balanced state.
But ultimately, someone earning $11.40 per hour, even full time, stands zero chance of affording anything in the market.
It is much more efficient to raise that wage to $14 per hour, than to build and operate public housing.
Its equally preferable to provide a reasonable shelter allowance to low income earners over mass housing construction and operation.
That doesn't mean gov't should exit the housing business all together.
Whether through student housing, long-term care, or a small chunk of the affordable rental market, if only to retain expertise and influence.
But mass construction has not been on the table since the Rae years, and operation is not exactly a stellar success.
While having every sympathy for the needs of low-income earners, or for those being unreasonably priced out of the rental or ownership markets by capital flows.....
One need not be set on the status quo being the best answer.
sunnyraytoronto
Senior Member
If this model is anything like the Regent Park model, which I would suspect it is,.... the "rent" of "the poor" is geared towards their level of income,.... and it's a "rent to own" policy to help the tenant build equity and empowerment. This is opposite to a vouchers/subsidy to the poor system with incentives to private landlords and developers type system which keeps the rich rich and the poor reliant on government handouts.
Northern Light
Superstar
RGI (Rent-Geared-to-Income, yes)...... equity building? I've never heard of rent to own from TCHC. That's more like a Habitat for Humanity type model or even 'Options for Homes'.
I could stand to be corrected, but I don't believe this model is being employed in either Regent Park or Alexandra Park, but I will duly stand to be corrected if that is not the case.
***
In any event, R-G-I tends to be a poverty trap model.
The problem is this, if you're on OW and you get part-time work; the more you earn, the less your OW cheque; while you rent, geared to income also rises.
sunnyraytoronto
Senior Member
I've been on 8-80 Cities tours of RegentPark with Ken Greenberg - the architect/urban planner who did the master plans for the transformation of TCHC's RegentPark, the developer of the Regent Park revitalization is Daniels Corp. which has a rent-to-own program along with a numerous other innovative financial tool to help first time buyer. This first article shows how Daniels' rent-to-own program works for regular folks,... the later articles describe how Daniels' rent-to-own and other innovative program works for those on social assistance:
http://blog.newinhomes.com/news/daniels-rent-program-perfect-first-time-homebuyers/
"Daniels Corp. It’s run not by a central-casting developer but by a onetime social-housing activist and part-time musician, Mitchell Cohen. Daniels markets itself as a developer who looks out for the little guy, the one who embraces public-private partnerships like the revitalization of Toronto’s massive Regent Park public housing project."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...-housing-affordable/article14558132/?page=all
"Yet the Daniels Corporation has sought to blur the social lines with two innovative financing programs designed to help moderate-income, first-time homeowners put together a down payment. The company says about a third of the 469 condo units in two of the first market buildings were purchased by such buyers, using a mortgage assistance program. Another 13 owners, Bilas among them, had been Regent Park tenants, and made use of a second financing scheme – the Foundation Program. “With a little assistance, they can buy and move out of social housing,” says Cohen. “This is one of the strongest tools for breaking the cycle of poverty.”"
http://magazine.utoronto.ca/feature/new-regent-park-toronto-community-housing-john-lorinc/
Daniels has offered Rent-to-Own at other of its condominiums as well (but not all of them). It's not tied specifically to Regent Park, and not at all to the TCHC buildings there.
42
42
maestro
Senior Member
Raising the minimum wage can cause inflation gobbling up most of that extra disposable income. It shouldn't be a provincial wide standard. I think the point of construction and operating housing is also to increase inventory as you can't rely on the private sector to fulfill that need. Sure there's a boom now but, let's not forget the dire situation of the 80s and 90s that brought the in the strict rental replacement program. Vacancy hovered around 0% for about a decade with not for profit government program supplying what little new inventory.
Rent controls have been relaxed since but, there's no reason to conclude we won't see such a time again if market values flatline.
Northern Light
Superstar
Re: Minimum Wage
That assertion simply isn't borne out by the facts.
I know that's what people have been told, but math doesn't allow it to work that way.
There are many reputable studies on this point.
But now, I'll simply provide 2 basic illustrations.
Fast Food: Typical cost of labour in your fast food combo 11% of purchase price. (the balance includes cost of food, rent, energy, marketing etc.)
So, for arguments sake, let's assume you raise the minimum wage 50% (from $11.40 to $16.10 per hour), note that I didn't suggest such a large increase, this is just for example purposes.
The cost of labour in your $10 combo was $1.10, it will now increase to $1.65, or an increase of 5.5%.
Obviously, there is markup involved, I would suggest, in this industry, you're looking at about a 50% mark-up on labour.
Assuming the business sustains the % mark-up, you're looking at an increase of 7.8%.
The largest non-labour costs would not be impacted by a minimum wage hike, rent/tax/marketing etc.
There might be some marginal impact in the cost of food, but given the way that sector works, I would venture to say you max out at 10% as a total increase
Thereby eating up only 20% of the raise in question.
*****
By contrast, however, the largest part of most people's budget isn't fast food, its housing.
As the minimum wage has little to no baring on the cost of land, or construction work, which is mostly paid at well above the minimum influenced level, nor is it likely to materially impact
energy or property tax costs......
The effect on housing is near nil. Allowing that it might impact the wages of cleaning/security staff, I'll allow 2%.
Aggregate the numbers across the economy, and you get inflation pressure on the order of maybe 6%.
If you divvy that up over say three years, you're at 2% per year.
And given inflation under 2% excluding housing, that leaves you with annual increases below 4%.
That assumes a near worst-case in which every cost dollar is passed through, which for a variety of reasons, rarely happens.
Make the increase a tad more modest and there is no evidence of a problem at all.
**************
As to housing inventory.
The only time Ontario had truly healthy rental inventories is when the Feds/Province were in the business of subsidizing new rental construction.
They could choose to do that again.
Or find other ways to tweak the market.
I don't think a mass inventory of gov't operated housing is the best answer.
Because that tends not to have the price suppressing effect one would hope.
No landlord can compete with $400 a month rent.
So you just completely suppress construction at that end of the market.
What you need is to raise incomes to the point where the market can address that need.
Which implies a rent of at least $900 per month.
Which suggests a gross income requirement of at least $2,500 a month which is about $15 per hour, assuming 40 paid hours per week.
There are mix and match options that using housing allowances, tax credits etc to bridge gaps, but I think its simply more likely to be effective addressing the income side.
maestro
Senior Member
There's also many intermediate steps between the farm and the fast food restaurant. There's also people willing to take advantage of the situation too. It's hard to pin point the effect of raising the minimum wage on inflation but, it's certainly left its impact on the price of food. The margin are just that slim.
Re: Housing
The point is to have adequate affordable housing which the private sector will never supply. Competition between not for profit units and market units simply doesn't exist. I don't think gov't operated housing is the best solution either but the advantages of retaining control is certainly better than the deep subsidies handed out to market developers that are still in it to make money. I believe more than half of the recent non market builds have been for not for profit companies. These not only address a very specific need for housing but, the smaller scale and on site administration should be more efficient to manage than a massive housing corporation.
Re: Housing
The point is to have adequate affordable housing which the private sector will never supply. Competition between not for profit units and market units simply doesn't exist. I don't think gov't operated housing is the best solution either but the advantages of retaining control is certainly better than the deep subsidies handed out to market developers that are still in it to make money. I believe more than half of the recent non market builds have been for not for profit companies. These not only address a very specific need for housing but, the smaller scale and on site administration should be more efficient to manage than a massive housing corporation.
Sweet Hooligan
New Member
I hate to be the Debbie Downer of the group but this thread has gone off the tracks (similar to today's New Jersey accident). Tridel's SQ is not a TCHC building. It's a market condo.
Speaking of SQ...here is an update for all of us to enjoy.
September Construction Update
The construction team at SQ is currently installing windows on the 10th floor and have received delivery of the 11th floor windows. Suite framing is on the 4th floor, while drywall installations have started for suites on the 2nd floor. Plumbing and electrical rough-in work has started on the 3rd floor along with suite wire pulling.
Speaking of SQ...here is an update for all of us to enjoy.
September Construction Update
The construction team at SQ is currently installing windows on the 10th floor and have received delivery of the 11th floor windows. Suite framing is on the 4th floor, while drywall installations have started for suites on the 2nd floor. Plumbing and electrical rough-in work has started on the 3rd floor along with suite wire pulling.
Sweet Hooligan
New Member
Picture captured by webcam on Tuesday, October 18th. The view is the west side of SQ (which is the back of the building). The concrete has been completed on all 14 floors. Window installations have started on the 12th floor. Plumbing and electrical rough-in work has also started on the 3rd floor. Suite framing is on the 5th floor, while framing for the common areas have been completed.
