Toronto Mirvish Village (Honest Ed's Redevelopment) | 85.04m | 26s | Westbank | Henriquez Partners

When I walked by here last week I believe that I saw a lot of lights/blinds etc on in the building at Bloor/Markham so am thinking that a fourth building is being occupied. Can anyone else confirm? I know nothing about development finance but I’m thinking that this project is close to self-sufficiency due to rental income? Anyways quite a boost to the population along Bloor that may be reflected in the next census.
 
Dec 14 and Dec 20:

PXL_20251214_202419927~2.jpg


PXL_20251220_204639786.MP~2.jpg
 
I received an offer for an “affordable” 3 bedroom unit here, but ultimately decided not to take it. The way the so-called “affordable” units are designed and segregated is unacceptable. All affordable units are placed in one corner of the building with a separate entrance, and the living room view faces the backside of the building. The ceilings are exposed, the units look half-finished, and overall it feels like an afterthought.

When you compare these units to the private (non-affordable) ones, the difference is obvious. The private units have finished ceilings, covered spaces, balconies, and far more care put into the design. The affordable units feel neglected. There were also reports of rat infestation and mold due to halted construction and poor maintenance, which is extremely concerning.

There is absolutely no sense of community here. The segregation is obvious and uncomfortable.

The architects did a very poor job. I understand the intention behind an “industrial” aesthetic, but exposed pipes, unfinished ceilings, and bare walls without even an attempt to balance the design is not architecture…… it’s cost-cutting disguised as style.

If I compare this to West Don Lands’ affordable housing or Sugar Wharf’s Lido apartments, the difference is night and day. Those projects were thoughtfully designed. At Lido, even though affordable units have a separate entrance, the balconies are large, water-facing, and the units are spacious. There is no visible divide between affordable and private units…..both lifestyles were considered and respected.

At Mirvish Village, the bedrooms were tiny, the third bedroom looked more like a closet, the living room faced another building with barely any sunlight, ceilings were low, closets unfinished, and the fridge was far too small for a three-bedroom unit. There was no balcony, unlike the private units. The only real pro was having two washrooms.

People often say, “They’re affordable units, of course the quality is lower because rent is cheaper.” What those people forget is that the City of Toronto subsidizes these units. Developers are still making money…..just from the city instead of directly from tenants. Lower rent should not mean lower dignity.

I’m honestly disturbed by Mirvish Village. Is this really what Honest Ed’s was demolished for? To create a visibly divided, resentful community that isolates low-income families? It’s shameful.

The lobby feels depressing, the rooms lack sunlight, living room - the most used space barely has sun light. No balconies. Such depressing spaces, this is whats supposed to be considered a “lottery” for the average low- middle income person.

Westbank Developers and the architects responsible should be ashamed of creating these tin-box units with so little consideration for the people who are meant to live in them.

Photo 1: Living Room / Kitchen
IMG_8381.jpeg

Photo #2: Master Bedroom

IMG_8378.jpeg

IMG_8376.jpeg
 
Haledyne said:
I received an offer for an “affordable” 3 bedroom unit here, but ultimately decided not to take it. The way the so-called “affordable” units are designed and segregated is unacceptable. All affordable units are placed in one corner of the building with a separate entrance, and the living room view faces the backside of the building. The ceilings are exposed, the units look half-finished, and overall it feels like an afterthought.

When you compare these units to the private (non-affordable) ones, the difference is obvious. The private units have finished ceilings, covered spaces, balconies, and far more care put into the design. The affordable units feel neglected. There were also reports of rat infestation and mold due to halted construction and poor maintenance, which is extremely concerning.

There is absolutely no sense of community here. The segregation is obvious and uncomfortable.

The architects did a very poor job. I understand the intention behind an “industrial” aesthetic, but exposed pipes, unfinished ceilings, and bare walls without even an attempt to balance the design is not architecture…… it’s cost-cutting disguised as style.

If I compare this to West Don Lands’ affordable housing or Sugar Wharf’s Lido apartments, the difference is night and day. Those projects were thoughtfully designed. At Lido, even though affordable units have a separate entrance, the balconies are large, water-facing, and the units are spacious. There is no visible divide between affordable and private units…..both lifestyles were considered and respected.

At Mirvish Village, the bedrooms were tiny, the third bedroom looked more like a closet, the living room faced another building with barely any sunlight, ceilings were low, closets unfinished, and the fridge was far too small for a three-bedroom unit. There was no balcony, unlike the private units. The only real pro was having two washrooms.

People often say, “They’re affordable units, of course the quality is lower because rent is cheaper.” What those people forget is that the City of Toronto subsidizes these units. Developers are still making money…..just from the city instead of directly from tenants. Lower rent should not mean lower dignity.

I’m honestly disturbed by Mirvish Village. Is this really what Honest Ed’s was demolished for? To create a visibly divided, resentful community that isolates low-income families? It’s shameful.

The lobby feels depressing, the rooms lack sunlight, living room - the most used space barely has sun light. No balconies. Such depressing spaces, this is whats supposed to be considered a “lottery” for the average low- middle income person.

Westbank Developers and the architects responsible should be ashamed of creating these tin-box units with so little consideration for the people who are meant to live in them.

Photo 1: Living Room / Kitchen
View attachment 710109
Photo #2: Master Bedroom

View attachment 710110
View attachment 710111
Click to expand...
I was expecting to see a third world slum. The entitlement lol
 
unrealestate said:
I was expecting to see a third world slum. The entitlement lol
Click to expand...

Perhaps.

In fairness to the poster, I have a strong allergy to poor doors; it makes it really obvious to everyone in the community who is lower income and that is unfair and unreasonable irrespective of the interior finishes.

The unfinished ceilings aren't to my taste, to be clear, if you're going for loft-style, the basic idea works, but you have to either spray everything white or black if you're not going to do any kind of surface (or drop) treatment. The exposed bare concrete (not polished either) reads not merely as an after thought, but an intentional slight, particularly since other units were finished differently.
 
I understand the theory behind one door for everyone but the reality is that separate access is a huge benefit for the market tenants as there are serious cleanliness/safety issues in buildings without them.
 
rdaner said:
I understand the theory behind one door for everyone but the reality is that separate access is a huge benefit for the market tenants as there are serious cleanliness/safety issues in buildings without them.
Click to expand...

Not to mention practical items like maintenance cost sharing and insurance.
Remember that condo boards are notoriously petty - do you really want to have to come to agreements with them?
Find a project with a different cost sharing formula like a hotel and condos sharing maintenance of amenities, and you'll find a lawsuit or multiple lawsuits.
 
Yes poor doors being eliminated is great in theory but in reality is challenging for various reasons. Definitely not impossible though. I also don’t get the wild hate for them, people are usually aware of who / where the subsidized units are anyway and it’s not that different than standalone subsidized buildings.

These units are built at a loss by the developers typically to get approval, and ultimately are built as cheaply as they can. It’s normal for them to have basic finishes and be located in the worst parts of the development as that minimizes revenue loss from market units. Ultimately building them cheaper both in finishes and location lets the city and developers build more of them for the very limited funds that they have. It’s better in my eyes to have 10% more affordable units than to have units with condo-level finishes and nice views. At the end of the day, Westbank is doing about 10% affordable units here which is a large amount considering they had no real obligations to do it in the first place.

There isn’t an excuse for crappy layouts, but that’s far from just an affordable unit problem…
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top