Toronto 1821 Weston | 146m | 45s | BSäR Group | Turner Fleischer

WislaHD said:
The rest of Toronto must suffer through constant construction, why should Weston be anymore or anyless special?
Click to expand...
Exactly it's a bigger question then. Why should Toronto suffer constant construction? Surely it's good for your business? What if city planning rules were rigidly adhered to (imagine no variances ever) and construction projects were granted permits in the best interest of citizens residing there? E.g closing a lane of traffic for three years would come at the real cost of all the encumbered citizens' time
 
interchange42 said:
If you think that edging borrowing rates up at some nebulous future time will be enough to halt development in this city, you're underestimating the demand here and the industry's ability to supply.

'Tenement' is a loaded word which denigrates future residents, even before anyone knows that they may someday be living these buildings. So, either you're not using that word particularly wisely or you have an agenda.

You're generalizing about the use of the 401, especially when the buildings are going in right at a rapid transit stop.

There are lots of people in Toronto dealing with construction fatigue—that condition is not endemic to Weston, it's citywide.

42
Click to expand...
Just saying First Capital (for example) would have a different business model if they had a larger loan service expense. We are talking about financing in hundreds of millions of dollars and if the loan service expense takes a bite out of margins, then some projects may not be profitable. Just saying not to take for granted money will be cheap forever. Be thankful you are living in a bull market.

It's really about the quantity demanded. The market will find a new equilibrium if the price of a good goes up. There is a possibility of coming out of these Covid times with many people unemployed and cash is scarce. There is no doubt that there is a machine for supplying new buildings. If people can no longer afford them, or if the quantity supplied saturates a market, then things may change. Just saying that Toronto is a boom town right now, but it may not be forever.

Sorry there was no intention to denigrate anyone. I have no agenda - just a concerned citizen that cares for the welfare of other citizens. "Tenement : Also called tenement house. a run-down and often overcrowded apartment house, especially in a poor section of a large city. " Weston's median household income is $45695. All of Toronto's median household income is $65829. So maybe these towers being built in a poorer section of the city will have am excellent Condominium Corporation that delivers fine maintenance and the rental units will have a conscientious landlord. I am just saying that kids not even born today may look back on your opinion differently, as I now look back on Alan Tonks' legacy.

True it's nice to live close to the Go Station. The UP train is standing room only between 730 and 930am and 430 to 630pm. There is talk of improving the service on that station by 2025 : (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toro...ress-rolling-in-the-right-direction-1.5301127) but in the mean time, it will get even more packed. It may have a decent transit score, but with no where to get groceries anywhere with walking distance, cars will still rule Weston roads. It would be thrilling to hear BSaR announce they have a grocery store chain as an anchor retail tenant, but it's too soon.

And why do we have to have construction companies tell residents how it's gonna be? Shouldn't it be the other way around in a democracy?

~Weston citizen
 
messenger390 said:
And why do we have to have construction companies tell residents how it's gonna be? Shouldn't it be the other way around in a democracy?
Click to expand...

Democracy also means that a disgruntled neighbour doesn’t get to send a massive residential housing project back to the kitchen like there’s a fly in his/her soup.

messenger390 said:
I hope developers will build schools, contribute to traffic planning, build more public space, pay for extra strain in infrastructure.
Click to expand...
messenger390 said:
Just saying there are many residents in the area that are weary from too much construction from ongoing storm sewer improvements.
Click to expand...

So you don’t want new construction because you’d like to see infrastructure improvements...

...but you also don’t like construction on infrastructure improvements!

Not really seeing how anything is going to please you.
 
messenger390 said:
Exactly it's a bigger question then. Why should Toronto suffer constant construction? Surely it's good for your business? What if city planning rules were rigidly adhered to (imagine no variances ever) and construction projects were granted permits in the best interest of citizens residing there? E.g closing a lane of traffic for three years would come at the real cost of all the encumbered citizens' time
Click to expand...
"City planning rules" meaning… zoning? It's entirely out of date, and next to nothing would be built here without minor variances or zoning amendments, simply as it would not be economically supportable: no-one can pay what's wanted for the land without dividing its cost across many units now.

Despite our outdated zoning, increased density is desirable for many reasons including planning ones. With more density we can bring down the cost of City services (and therefore your taxes) by making the delivery of the services more efficient. From an ecological POV, it's a huge boon to have more people in less space as it preserves farmland around the city, it preserves the watersheds around the city, it cuts down on the pollution emitted by vehicles that would be crawling along suburban and exurban arterials to take people to their distant cookie cutter tact subdivisions, it cuts down on the toll of stress those commutes exact, etc. etc. Density is good.

In the meantime, in what we call "stable neighbourhoods", density drops over time, as the kids from the young family that moved in years ago move away, and a good number of their parents stay in the homes and empty-nest. That's why schools empty out of course, and suddenly services are no longer so efficient to provide. To maintain healthy population numbers in such areas, we have to have reinvestment in the building stock, and for the past while that's meant towers near transit stations and avenues type buildings along the arterials. It's not enough though, so steps are just starting to be taken that will allow gentle density increases on neighbourhood streets. To save everything around the city that's worth saving as per the previous paragraph, we have to face the density increases, and we do need better ways to deal with it, both during construction (fewer lane closures) and afterwards (better transit to take the pressure of roads, more walkable shopping opportunities, etc.). It's those kind of investments that come with or follow density increases that we will need to stop such places—whole neighbourhoods—from declining into tenement-like states, or raising them out of them.

So, yes, new buildings come with some pain attached, but if they are well planned then the result should be a better neighbourhood and a better city as a while at the end of it.

42
 
bilked said:
Democracy also means that a disgruntled neighbour doesn’t get to send a massive residential housing project back to the kitchen like there’s a fly in his/her soup.
Click to expand...
- Democracy means that when there are 10000 disgruntled neighbours, a massive variance from city planning gets discussed rationally.
bilked said:
So you don’t want new construction because you’d like to see infrastructure improvements...

...but you also don’t like construction on infrastructure improvements!

Not really seeing how anything is going to please you.
Click to expand...
- Thanks for engaging in discussion. Not trying to be irrational here. Just saying that tall apartment/condo should be built at the same rate as schools, libraries, hospitals, storm sewers, water supply, electricity, post offices, for example. Imagine living in a town where the population grows very quickly in an unplanned fashion, it might be chaotic for residents.

- I don't mean to say there should not be basement flooding control programs, I am saying I don't understand why it has to take 3 years of ripping up streets and inconveniencing people who live there. Hopefully there is a better more efficient way.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
interchange42 said:
"City planning rules" meaning… zoning? It's entirely out of date, and next to nothing would be built here without minor variances or zoning amendments, simply as it would not be economically supportable: no-one can pay what's wanted for the land without dividing its cost across many units now.

Despite our outdated zoning, increased density is desirable for many reasons including planning ones. With more density we can bring down the cost of City services (and therefore your taxes) by making the delivery of the services more efficient. From an ecological POV, it's a huge boon to have more people in less space as it preserves farmland around the city, it preserves the watersheds around the city, it cuts down on the pollution emitted by vehicles that would be crawling along suburban and exurban arterials to take people to their distant cookie cutter tact subdivisions, it cuts down on the toll of stress those commutes exact, etc. etc. Density is good.

In the meantime, in what we call "stable neighbourhoods", density drops over time, as the kids from the young family that moved in years ago move away, and a good number of their parents stay in the homes and empty-nest. That's why schools empty out of course, and suddenly services are no longer so efficient to provide. To maintain healthy population numbers in such areas, we have to have reinvestment in the building stock, and for the past while that's meant towers near transit stations and avenues type buildings along the arterials. It's not enough though, so steps are just starting to be taken that will allow gentle density increases on neighbourhood streets. To save everything around the city that's worth saving as per the previous paragraph, we have to face the density increases, and we do need better ways to deal with it, both during construction (fewer lane closures) and afterwards (better transit to take the pressure of roads, more walkable shopping opportunities, etc.). It's those kind of investments that come with or follow density increases that we will need to stop such places—whole neighbourhoods—from declining into tenement-like states, or raising them out of them.

So, yes, new buildings come with some pain attached, but if they are well planned then the result should be a better neighbourhood and a better city as a while at the end of it.

42
Click to expand...

- Thanks for engaging in discussion 42. I acknowledge you make good points on increasing density of urban areas in interest of ecology and economic effiencies. Maybe it's the 'outdated' zoning laws that we are playing with that I admit I don't fully understand how they are made. They usually have ratioes of livable area:lot area or hard surface : permeable surface, for example. I have always imagined that great thought by educated minds goes into making these rules, so I imagine than when there are variances applied to them it has to be for a very good reason.

You make good reasons for urban density. All I am saying is that many developments seem to be motivated by 'for-profit capitalism', rather than the public good. It is welcome in a democracy to have oversight from city councillors to represent constituents' best interests.

I am sure we both hope Weston will benefit from the promised investments such as walkable shopping opportunities (and the employment that comes with it) and raising up the average income for the area.

Perhaps we can agree to disagree on the rate of density going up. But that is good respectful discussion.

390
 
messenger390 said:
You make good reasons for urban density. All I am saying is that many developments seem to be motivated by 'for-profit capitalism', rather than the public good. It is welcome in a democracy to have oversight from city councillors to represent constituents' best interests.
Click to expand...

Most private development is motivated by 'for-profit capitalism' as are most businesses. The developer's job is to maximize their return on investment in whichever ways they can, while it's the local councillor and other politicians' jobs to use that potential profit as leverage to make developers include things that benefit the public. This can be anything from parkland contribution, payment to the city towards affordable housing, and many other public benefits.
For this specific project, the City wants the following from the developer:
Should the application be considered for approval, Section 37 contributions could be secured towards specific benefits for the surrounding local community, including: affordable housing or the securing of purpose-built rental housing at mid-range or affordable rent level categories; funding for new and existing child care facilities; contributions towards the replacement of the Falstaff Community Centre; contributions to the revitalization of the Weston Library Branch; and improvements to local parks and facilities
Click to expand...
 
If the building is ugly, I can see that they may have a point. But most of the time it appears to be the clueless privilege that perceive the project as a threat to their status quo.
 
W. K. Lis said:
There are people who do not want ANY improvements or ANY developments the would change their status quo.

Weston residents, ACORN rally to fight gentrification

From link. Dated 2018.
Click to expand...
Or played by those same entities.

...personally, I can't speak for this situation, as I don't really know all the details. But what I gleam off of it, I get their issues...but stopping this development is unlikely going to resolve those issues. I think they should focus their energies on making their area a more equal and better place, instead....for what that is worth.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top