Toronto 245 Queen Street East | 94.3m | 25s | ONE Properties | Graziani + Corazza

I don't see why we cannot have mixed income neighbourhoods without displacement. Or atleast with minimal displacement. This site we are currently talking about does not involve the destruction of large scale low income housing.
 
And how do you propose to "put pressure" on so-called selfish people?

By ignoring their protests and discontent and putting social housing in their backyards? Social housing/shelters don't have to be 40s tower blocks. Why not build a few midrise social housing in Rosedale? It seems completely accessible to downtown and its amenities. I am sure Deer Park and Forest Hill both have potentials as well. Leslieville too. No area in Toronto should bear a disproportional portion of poverty and its problem. Just stop using "neighbourhood character" as a NIMBY excuse.

I don't see why we cannot have mixed income neighbourhoods without displacement. Or atleast with minimal displacement. This site we are currently talking about does not involve the destruction of large scale low income housing.

Why should "displacement" be necessarily a bad thing? I am not sure people in social housing will hate the idea of moving from Moss Park towers to King/Spadina or the Annex. Is it supposed to be bad? Why do we assume it is always to a worse and remote area?
 
I expect most Rosedale taxpayers would fight tooth and nail any move to introduce people of the lowest economic rungs into their neighbourhood. They carry considerable clout and expect their politicians to back them up. Nimbyism at its finest.

And we often assume displacement is to a more remote area because that's what has traditionally happened... the poor get pushed out to the margins, where services are leaner, rarer; where transit options are fewer. This happens to any gentrifying neighbourhood in Toronto, by the way. If you were living in Corktown and found you could no longer afford to live there, you're hardly likely to move even closer to the city core - especially today, with skyrocketing property values and commensurate rental rates. No, you'd probably be moving further away from the core, to places where services and amenities tend to be far more dispersed. If things are to change, the old reflexive measures have to be re-evaluated and revised; the city as a whole must adjust. Such change tends to come about quite slowly.

By the way, Leslieville will be playing host to a homeless shelter soon, right on Leslie itself. But I'm pretty sure it's by definition a temporary shelter, not permanent housing.
 
There's quite a bit of TCHC/social housing in Leslieville currently
 
Actually displacement of social housing (which generally speaking is relatively protected) is less of an issue than displacement of relatively affordable rental housing for the lower and lower/middle class. That is bit of a policy vacuum - not poor enough to get social housing, but not rich enough to afford rapidly increasing rent.

AoD
 
Getting bigger

https://twitter.com/DavidOikawa1/status/816719095945187329

Revised application at Queen/Richmond/Ontario. Now 47, 52 & 56 stories. Includes hotel and non-res gfa to 48,966 m2

C1WRiqZVIAAs_zD.jpg:large
 
Last edited:
The development in this or a similar form. As much retention as possible would be good. I enjoy the tilted upper floors, and think these would have a positive impact on the cityscape.
I am a bit surprised they did not water down the design.
 
I would like to see this happen

Why? This oversized garbage is a slap in the face to all the infill that has occurred in the area. Some good, some bad but, all respectful to their surroundings. Arquitectonica has all the qualities of Kirkor. The urban form is completely self absorbed.

I can't believe they are applying for taller. It doesn't make any sense to me.
 
The development in this or a similar form. As much retention as possible would be good. I enjoy the tilted upper floors, and think these would have a positive impact on the cityscape.
I am a bit surprised they did not water down the design.
I feared that you thought that it should go ahead. It was too large before, now it's larger and it appears that the heritage buildings on the site (there are several) are not being kept. See: http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2016.PB17.12
 

Back
Top