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

[SP!RE]

Exactly. I will NEVER fail to believe in the mixed-income approach. St. Lawrence neighbourhood is beautiful, safe, liveable and I am always proud to tell visitors, tourists, and Torontonians alike that it's actually packed with low-income housing as well as average-priced housing. People can never get over it, and usually tilt their head a bit when I tell them that. And it happens to be a favourite neighbourhood of mine.

 

[Silence&Motion]

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.

I don't see why you're taking issue with multi-bedroom suites. One of the main reasons people need public housing is to support families. If my tax money is going toward public housing, then I want it built properly to accommodate the people who need it. Shoving families into tiny suites would defeat the purpose of public housing in the first place, and would be the real waste of money.

 

[Torontovibe]

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.

Anybody can apply to live in that building, even if you have a good income, you just will pay the market rent. (usually much better than most other rental buildings) Only 1/3 of the apartments go to the poor, so just go there and apply and you can have your wish. lol It's really not so difficult.
Yep, I agree, this building looks great and so does the one on Carlton. It's turning out much nicer than I expected. This city is finally doing public housing right! All the new buildings look great. (and their available to all Torontonians)

 

[Wooba]

I don't see why you're taking issue with multi-bedroom suites. One of the main reasons people need public housing is to support families. If my tax money is going toward public housing, then I want it built properly to accommodate the people who need it. Shoving families into tiny suites would defeat the purpose of public housing in the first place, and would be the real waste of money.

As I've said previously, I'm not against building places for people who need a helping hand, but this place goes so far beyond that. There are dozens of $million suites in this building.

I've been in tons of condos around the city and this, even though not actually a condo is easily the most spacious of any of them. Unless you're super rich, you basically can't even buy a place of this calibre. All I'm suggesting is that is be a bit more realistic to what most of the middle class would potentially have.
Heck, even one of the reps from the city checking the place out was shaking his head at how over the top it is.

 

[BobBob]

So, the city reps were disappointed that the place wasn't more disappointing? I find that difficult to believe and much of your anger to understand.

 

[Wooba]

So, the city reps were disappointed that the place wasn't more disappointing? I find that difficult to believe and much of your anger to understand.

Some of you guys are hilliarious.. perhaps the guy was a Toronto tax payer too? Helping people is one thing, but seeing people live better than you, using your (our) money kinda put a damper on it. At least it does for me.

 

[T-Squared]

some of the penthouses in view:

 

[whatever]

It does seem a little silly, in a cost-benefit sort of way tho. For the value of this building they could have built three or four times the number of units further out from the downtown core. What serves the greater good? One $1M condo downtown, or three $300k houses in Scarborough?

 

[jaborandi]

It does seem a little silly, in a cost-benefit sort of way tho. For the value of this building they could have built three or four times the number of units further out from the downtown core. What serves the greater good? One $1M condo downtown, or three $300k houses in Scarborough?

Where does this $1M figure come from? Exactly what is the maximum we can spend per person? Am I to understand that we are to spend the absolute minimum possible? By your logic, there are many industrial sites in Scarborough which are fit only for the poor. Perhaps we should just round them all up and imprison them there. Obviously, compassion is to be dictated by the bottom $line and dignity is of no consequence.

 

[Wooba]

Where does this $1M figure come from? Exactly what is the maximum we can spend per person? Am I to understand that we are to spend the absolute minimum possible? By your logic, there are many industrial sites in Scarborough which are fit only for the poor. Perhaps we should just round them all up and imprison them there. Obviously, compassion is to be dictated by the bottom $line and dignity is of no consequence.

I'm sure that the $1M figure came from a previous posting of mine. I've been in every one of these units and there are many units in this building that would easily sell for $1M+ if on the open market.


I don't think that there is any sort of maximum, or minimum figure that needs to be assigned. Who is talking about rounding up people and imprisoning them? Nobody here, not myself nor any other poster has suggested anything that silly. There are lots of people who need government assistance, is that not correct? There is only so much money in our budget, is that not correct? Then surely it makes sense to spread those limit resources around to help as many of the needy in a reasonable and responsible manner as possible does it not?
Perhaps I shouldn't have phrased my original posting in the sarcastic manner I did, but many of the responses to this thread seem to be mistaking a call for fiscal responsibility for some some sort of attack on the poor. It's not.

 

[cdr108]

As I've said previously, I'm not against building places for people who need a helping hand, but this place goes so far beyond that. There are dozens of $million suites in this building.

I've been in tons of condos around the city and this, even though not actually a condo is easily the most spacious of any of them. Unless you're super rich, you basically can't even buy a place of this calibre. All I'm suggesting is that is be a bit more realistic to what most of the middle class would potentially have.
Heck, even one of the reps from the city checking the place out was shaking his head at how over the top it is.

Wooba, could it be possible for you to take some pictures of the suites you are talking about (ie. with a camera phone so you don't get into trouble).

as they say, a picture is worth a 1000 words.

I'm sure that the $1M figure came from a previous posting of mine. I've been in every one of these units and there are many units in this building that would easily sell for $1M+ if on the open market.

those units would have to be about 1700-2000 SF with luxury finishes like granite, hardwood, good views, nice sized outdoor spaces, etc.

 

[whatever]

Where does this $1M figure come from? Exactly what is the maximum we can spend per person? Am I to understand that we are to spend the absolute minimum possible? By your logic, there are many industrial sites in Scarborough which are fit only for the poor. Perhaps we should just round them all up and imprison them there. Obviously, compassion is to be dictated by the bottom $line and dignity is of no consequence.

Relax. The $1M figure did come from Wooba's post, but whether it's $1M or $600k the question remains relevant. It isn't a question of "the maximum amount per person". In this case we have a finite number of resources that have been collected, and the question is how best to allocate those resources to serve the greatest good. If you want to get emotional and fly off the handle and assume that that means we should buy several hundred thousand cardboard boxes and some duct tape, then by all means, assume away. I just happen to think that the reverse situation, where we allocate too many resources into helping too few people, to the exclusion of others, is equally bad.

 

[Tewder]

I don't think that there is any sort of maximum, or minimum figure that needs to be assigned. Who is talking about rounding up people and imprisoning them? Nobody here, not myself nor any other poster has suggested anything that silly. There are lots of people who need government assistance, is that not correct? There is only so much money in our budget, is that not correct? Then surely it makes sense to spread those limit resources around to help as many of the needy in a reasonable and responsible manner as possible does it not?

Your point is more than reasonable. This notion that any of us who are down on our luck have the 'right' to 5-star luxury subsidization is ridiculous, as is the notion that it's okay to just keep taxing more those who do work to fund it. Subsidized housing as with all welfare programs should be about a reasonably temporary compassionate leg-up to get people self-relient and back on their own feet as contributing members of society. It's not meant to keep people cozy and comfortable forever in a socially-funded lifestyle. Where would be the dignity in that?!

 

[AGTO]

It's not meant to keep people cozy and comfortable forever in a socially-funded lifestyle.

Tell that to the 35 year old, able bodied, employed male, who owns his own car and lives by himself in a 2 story 2 bedroom (TCHC) townhouse at Church and Carlton....for the past 3 years.
Wouldn't a young family of 3 be better suited to that subsidy?

 

[maestro]

What does it matter what the apartment may potentially sell for? Forgive me if I'm wrong but, the construction costs for a concrete building here is no different than in the depths of Scarborough. They obviously don't have to contend with meeting parking requirements on a tight site as this building has only one or two basements levels. The TCHC does have time for single family either. The only real cost difference I see is land and maybe they got a good deal.

About the worst thing a landlord can do is to outfit an apartment too cheap. Not only is the cheap stuff less durable but tenants automatically take better care of something that nice. There are some really nice affordable finishes created through the condo boom.