TCHC: 501 Adelaide E / 288 King E (14s, aA)

[urbandreamer]

21 May 2009 photo update

Another beautiful building nears completion....note the red brick.

Inspiration for the shade of red brick?

I'd be proud to be a brick layer on this project!

 

[condovo]

Actually, in person, the brick looks more rust/burnt-orange than red to me. Whatever, it's gorgeous. But the building as a whole is a little too massive and undifferentiated for my taste. Kind of institutional-looking. Thanks for the pics.

 

[Wooba]

Does anyone know what's planned for the street level? Looks like a potentially massive retail space.

Yes, it's going to be retail. I'm pretty sure it's going to be a furniture store.

I helped build this building and as a tax payer in the city it makes me want to puke. Considering that it's public housing, it's positively opulent inside. If these were for sale I couldn't afford to live here. My favourite suite is the 5 bedroom, 2 bathroom loft with a lake view terrace. Makes me think of packing in my job and becoming a bum every time I enter it.

 

[maestro]

Interesting. What makes you think a troglodyte such as yourself is more deserving of the space? You do know you only need to apply.

 

[greenleaf]

I helped build this building and as a tax payer in the city it makes me want to puke. Considering that it's public housing, it's positively opulent inside. If these were for sale I couldn't afford to live here. My favourite suite is the 5 bedroom, 2 bathroom loft with a lake view terrace. Makes me think of packing in my job and becoming a bum every time I enter it.

As a taxpayer in the city, I'm delighted they built this building. This thing looks solid and like it will be used for many decades to come. The investment now is well paid.

Creating good public housing in a good neighbourhood saves the tax payer lots of money in the long term. It is preventative, as opposed to being a reactionary measure. A place like this is better than a cheap building because it creates a situation where people are in a stable environment where they don't turn to crime and drugs (and thus expensive, long-term safety and health issues).

In addition, there should be a variety of public housing options and I doubt there are very many 5 bedrooms that exist. A 5 bedroom unit in this building is likely much cheaper to maintain over time than a 5 bedroom detached house.

 

[Peepers]

I helped build this building and as a tax payer in the city it makes me want to puke. Considering that it's public housing, it's positively opulent inside. If these were for sale I couldn't afford to live here. My favourite suite is the 5 bedroom, 2 bathroom loft with a lake view terrace. Makes me think of packing in my job and becoming a bum every time I enter it.

This raises a very good point. How can the city justify building such extravagent buildings on what must be very expensive land to be used as public housing where many tennants will live for next to nothing (less than a $100 per month in many cases !). Even worse than this is the 60 Richmond bldg which has a very exotic (i.e. expensive) design and is on even more valuable realestate. To top it off neither of these locations is good for raising kids (no parks schools, heavy traffic). For the same money I am sure the city could build twice as many homes in Scarborough.

 

[Wooba]

Interesting. What makes you think a troglodyte such as yourself is more deserving of the space? You do know you only need to apply.

I don't deserve it. Nobody does. Helping people is fine, but this place goes over the top and then some.

 

[jaborandi]

This raises a very good point. How can the city justify building such extravagent buildings on what must be very expensive land to be used as public housing where many tennants will live for next to nothing (less than a $100 per month in many cases !). Even worse than this is the 60 Richmond bldg which has a very exotic (i.e. expensive) design and is on even more valuable realestate. To top it off neither of these locations is good for raising kids (no parks schools, heavy traffic). For the same money I am sure the city could build twice as many homes in Scarborough.

Why should the needy be exiled to Scarborough? These buildings are perfect for those of an age and limited income to be able to live in the centre of the city.

 

[greenleaf]

To top it off neither of these locations is good for raising kids (no parks schools, heavy traffic).

Please. There are schools and parks on the Esplanade and the Distillery. I'd rather have heavy streetcar and pedestrian traffic than a cars-only suburb to raise kids.

 

[Wooba]

As a taxpayer in the city, I'm delighted they built this building. This thing looks solid and like it will be used for many decades to come. The investment now is well paid.

Creating good public housing in a good neighbourhood saves the tax payer lots of money in the long term. It is preventative, as opposed to being a reactionary measure. A place like this is better than a cheap building because it creates a situation where people are in a stable environment where they don't turn to crime and drugs (and thus expensive, long-term safety and health issues).

In addition, there should be a variety of public housing options and I doubt there are very many 5 bedrooms that exist. A 5 bedroom unit in this building is likely much cheaper to maintain over time than a 5 bedroom detached house.

There's no reason they could not have built many more units in the same building, without any impact on the outside astetics or turning them into some sort of slums. Most of these units are 3/4/5 bedroom suites that are just massive. Plus they have underground parking. Considering how much of the Toronto budget goes into public housing there's no way that this building is value for OUR money.

 

[Peepers]

Why should the needy be exiled to Scarborough? .

The reason is simple, we can build far more homes in Scarborough than we can downtown which means a lot more people will have a suitable shelter over their heads. Considering how many people are on waiting lists for subsidized housing OR are in deplorable TCHC bldgs such as 200 Wellesley East it does not make any sense for the City to be squandering limited funds on these extravagent buildings.

 

[Archivist]

I would prefer that subsidized housing be spread throughout the city, as in fact, it generally is. I don't see that all subsidized housing should be in Scarborough or clustered around any other area.

Also, many of these units will be used, at least temporarily, by those displaced from Regent Park. It's much more humane to build housing closer to that project than to make families relocate very far away from what they know for a short term.

Finally, do you have any proof that these cost more? It sounds like you are assuming.

 

[Peepers]

I would prefer that subsidized housing be spread throughout the city, as in fact, it generally is.

Finally, do you have any proof that these cost more? It sounds like you are assuming.

I don't think that there can be any doubt that land downtown costs much much more than land out in the fringes of Scarborough - how can it be any other way? You don't need proof of this to make the argument I made.

 

[SP!RE]

I think what TCHC is building is brilliant. Peepers, everybody deserves a chance to live in housing they can be proud of, in a downtown area if they so choose.

 

[DSC]

I think what TCHC is building is brilliant. Peepers, everybody deserves a chance to live in housing they can be proud of, in a downtown area if they so choose.

I could not agree more! I really cannot understand why anyone thinks that poorer people (who are certainly not all bums) should be put into ghettos. (Out of sight, out of mind?)

One of the great features about the St Lawrence Market area, where I live, is that there are all kinds of people in the neighbourhood and this great building is just adjacent to it.