Toronto 50 Scollard | 147.62m | 41s | Lanterra | Foster + Partners

Tonight at 50 Scollard

The lobby is looking nice
IMG_2735.jpeg

IMG_2733.jpeg

IMG_2739.jpeg
 
The suite shown earlier in this thread seems awfully tight. The average unit in a Holiday Inn Express has more room than this. Why are governments allowing this sort of quality of life to be forced on citizens? Don't say 'cost per square foot,' it's a scam and can be regulated away.
 
J Martin said:
The suite shown earlier in this thread seems awfully tight. The average unit in a Holiday Inn Express has more room than this. Why are governments allowing this sort of quality of life to be forced on citizens? Don't say 'cost per square foot,' it's a scam and can be regulated away.
Click to expand...
Most politicians are subject to lobbying and also have no backbone.
 
J Martin said:
The suite shown earlier in this thread seems awfully tight. The average unit in a Holiday Inn Express has more room than this. Why are governments allowing this sort of quality of life to be forced on citizens? Don't say 'cost per square foot,' it's a scam and can be regulated away.
Click to expand...
I don't buy into the idea that we have to save people from small units. I have lived in condos in the 500ft2 square range in good neighbourhoods because I chose that over 1,000+ square feet in a suburb/edge of the city. Never bothered me as long as there was lots of life/amenities outside my door. If people stop buying/renting the small units then the market will adjust (I believe it will, over time, but not to the extent that some people expect). If we regulate for larger units we'll be regulating for more expensive units - just another regulation to make homes more expensive (for a long time the larger units have been the ones that would not sell) - may cost less per square foot for a larger two bedroom, but they'll still cost more overall to buy/rent. Europeans live in much smaller apartments than our North American homes and by every measure of health/mental health they do better than North Americans. The much larger detached homes currently being built in North America also aren't consistent with the much smaller homes built for much of our history (the downtown Victorians have often more than doubled in size via additions from the day they were built). The idea that you can't raise a family in 900 square feet (I grew up in a 5 person family living in 500-700 square feet till my 20s, back in Europe then here as an immigrant), or have a single individual live in 500 square feet, is not consistent with what the rest of the world has shown, and what North America had done in the past. I get that some people prefer larger homes (because they feel that they need them or because it's a point of status), and I'm all for them having those larger homes (if they want to pay for them), BUT I don't believe that they need to save the rest of the population from more economical options....I feel the same way about anyone wanting to save people from living in tall buildings
 
I am fairly familiar with the living set up in dense large European and Latin American cities. I think the biggest issue in Toronto is not necessarily, the area but the lack of 3 + bedrooms. Obviously, bachelor, 1 bed, 1 bed + den and 2 Beds are not conducive to family living. Plain and simple. There should have been city bylaws regulating and enforcing (making developers comply with) a minimum percentage of 3 + bedrooms in highrise developments since the early 2000's. The city would not be in the terrible predicament we are in now. Common sense didn't prevail.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top