Toronto 2-20 Glazebrook | 111.27m | 33s | Gairloch | Gabriel Fain

2-20Glazebrook-001.jpg


I don't understand how they can demolish these, the most beautiful homes ever built.

2-20Glazebrook-002.jpg


2-20Glazebrook-003.jpg
 
Just to keep us all attuned:

a) None of the demo permits are issued, and no evidence of activity on file on any since Nov '24

b) No 'new build' permits have even been applied for here.

c) SPA hasn't even been filed here.

So this is going nowhere fast.
 
PurplePinky said:
It looks as if at least one home is still occupied. Car in driveway and no fencing at that home.
Click to expand...
I checked yesterday, and found the same. It's too bad (but also likely very hard to implement) that they can't make an arrangement with the city to temporarily use these houses for under housed people. Of course the neighbours would lose it if they did
 
A group of locals, among them a resident who is a 'commercial real estate developer' is trying to push Gairloch into allowing the vacant homes to be fixed up a social housing on an interim-use basis; likely for refugee families.


The point is made that these properties should be subject to the Vacant Home Tax currently, at a cost exceeding $100,000 per year, apart from routing taxes, and insurance.

Apparently the locals are being stone-walled.
 
Northern Light said:
A group of locals, among them a resident who is a 'commercial real estate developer' is trying to push Gairloch into allowing the vacant homes to be fixed up a social housing on an interim-use basis; likely for refugee families.


The point is made that these properties should be subject to the Vacant Home Tax currently, at a cost exceeding $100,000 per year, apart from routing taxes, and insurance.

Apparently the locals are being stone-walled.
Click to expand...
Weird to see the same Geoff Kettel (Super NIMBY) show up in this article...he's literally responsible for 100's of less housing units over the last decade in midtown Toronto.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
A group of locals, among them a resident who is a 'commercial real estate developer' is trying to push Gairloch into allowing the vacant homes to be fixed up a social housing on an interim-use basis; likely for refugee families.
Click to expand...
Although at first blush a good idea, I'd love to see the publicity on this once the site is ready for construction and the homes need to be vacated with no concrete relocation plan for the refugees or families
 
1Ć0 said:
Although at first blush a good idea, I'd love to see the publicity on this once the site is ready for construction and the homes need to be vacated with no concrete relocation plan for the refugees or families
Click to expand...

I hear ya; It strikes me though that stonewalling is not a good look.

You can reply with 'We greatly appreciate your interest and understand and sympathize w/the needs of the broader community, but given our short-term plans...."

Or simply, "We'll take a good look at the idea, thanks for the suggestion"

You can blow off an idea politely..

Also, the viability of the idea really depends on what condition these are in; whether there's any agency willing to take these on; and what lease term would be offered here. As you point out, if people have to exit after only a year or two, that's a tough sell, but if it is 3 years or longer, and if the lease came with a relocation plan requirement (not on Gairloch) .........maybe.
 
Northern Light said:
I hear ya; It strikes me though that stonewalling is not a good look.
Click to expand...
Yes - totally agree. A response is the least you can do at this stage; whether or not you want to or choose to pursue this idea. It's a conversation starter. And can eventually lead to the improvement of the idea that is more functional and permanent for the inhabitants.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top