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

Skeezix said:
I don't believe that the Regent Park redevelopment resulted in a decrease in social housing. Am I wrong on that?
Click to expand...
I think you're right.. I believe some of the redevelopment was scattered though throughout the east end. The building across from the new Globe and Mail office is TCH as are a few beside River City.

Regent park is also replacing ALL of the large family sized units. They have to. Which I find remarkable! Admittedly, I have a bit of a difficult time accepting new five bedroom townhouses being built for RGI tenants in downtown Toronto. Not that I think larger families do not deserve to live in the core, I just think that there are a lot of larger families living with less and wonder if that is the best option given the massive waiting list for affordable housing and how scarce land is becoming in the core.
 
Nobody HAS TO live in a five bedroom townhouse. Even if the family has four kids, a three bedroom is all they need. If they have more than four, maybe it's time to think about whether having so many kids on taxpayers's back is ethic or not.
 
Skeezix said:
I don't believe that the Regent Park redevelopment resulted in a decrease in social housing. Am I wrong on that?
Click to expand...

Hmm, I could be wrong then. That or I misunderstood how the articles I read about the redevelopment discussed Stupidandshallow's point about development being scattered across the east end. Either way, the point remains that we're not even approaching the numbers necessary to reduce the numbers waiting to get housing right now, let alone for the future. How are we supposed to serve the homeless population that likely isn't even on the list?

ChesterCopperpot said:
I'm not touching that one
Click to expand...

Yep. Right when I thought I could have a relatively constructive and polite debate with him too. ksun is always quick to fall back on his "lazy bums" rhetoric when he has nothing useful or interesting to say.
 
wolfewood said:
I could be wrong then
Click to expand...

You are, the social housing content was increased dramatically by decreasing the allowable development in the immediate surrounding areas.

wolfewood said:
Either way, the point remains that we're not even approaching the numbers necessary to reduce the numbers waiting to get housing right now, let alone for the future.
Click to expand...

True, but who is at fault here? Why didn't TCHC buy the land and build social housing on it?
 
doug said:
You are, the social housing content was increased dramatically by decreasing the allowable development in the immediate surrounding areas.



True, but who is at fault here? Why didn't TCHC buy the land and build social housing on it?
Click to expand...

I won't speak to the first point because I don't have stats and I'm not going to say anything I can't back up with sources. But you know it's far from the TCHC's fault they didn't buy prime real estate when they have a $2.5 billion repair backlog. Besides, do you really think the city would have agreed to build more social housing in Regent Park when all everyone can talk about is mixed neighbourhoods? Even if there wasn't a huge backlog on repairs the idea of building more social housing on its own is a non-starter.
 
Stupidandshallow said:
Regent park is also replacing ALL of the large family sized units. They have to. Which I find remarkable! Admittedly, I have a bit of a difficult time accepting new five bedroom townhouses being built for RGI tenants in downtown Toronto. Not that I think larger families do not deserve to live in the core, I just think that there are a lot of larger families living with less and wonder if that is the best option given the massive waiting list for affordable housing and how scarce land is becoming in the core.
Click to expand...

Not replacing the large family sized units would be playing right into OCAP's hands. Five bedroom advocacy is the name of the game.
 
I think there are many people that underestimate the costs of having a child. By no means, would I advocate government intervention in the bedroom but, improved education in our unfortunate market driven society wouldn't be a bad thing. There are also those that have the means for a large family and, through some kind of hardship, no longer can afford it. It's good TCHC provides a full range of units.
 
wolfewood said:
But you know it's far from the TCHC's fault they didn't buy prime real estate when they have a $2.5 billion repair backlog.
Click to expand...

Then what's your argument? Are you suggesting that 'someone' buy the land and give it to TCHC? It's a free market, the property owner is mostly free to do what they want with the land they own.
 
re: five bedroom units - is it really necessary or a good use of resources though? I mean, even if you have what, 5 kids you can still have bunk beds, and having that isn't undue hardship. At the end of the day floorspace in social housing is a limited resource - and I am not sure if providing those units extensively is the best use of such, relative to the long waitlist, etc.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
re: five bedroom units - is it really necessary or a good use of resources though? I mean, even if you have what, 5 kids you can still have bunk beds, and having that isn't undue hardship. At the end of the day floorspace in social housing is a limited resource - and I am not sure if providing those units extensively is the best use of such, relative to the long waitlist, etc.

AoD
Click to expand...

Those units are most likely for families living with their extended family members, where in certain cultures it is customary to all live under the same roof.
Though there is a need for 4- and 5-bedrooms apartments, as these are almost non-existent in the city, I think only a handful of them should be offered and the emphasis should be on 2- and 3-bedroom units to serve the much greater need.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
re: five bedroom units - is it really necessary or a good use of resources though? I mean, even if you have what, 5 kids you can still have bunk beds, and having that isn't undue hardship. At the end of the day floorspace in social housing is a limited resource - and I am not sure if providing those units extensively is the best use of such, relative to the long waitlist, etc.

AoD
Click to expand...

that's what I was suggesting. But because it was me who said it, it is automatically considered "lazy bum" logic by some.
In reality, a family of 6 (which is pretty rare) can easily be accommodated by a relatively spacious three bedroom apartment. It is idiotic to assume every child is entitled to his/her own bedroom.
And I maintain my position it is very irresponsible for a couple to have 5 kids when they know they can't afford to raise them. What kind of parenting is that? I am not saying only the wealthy can have many children, but it is utterly stupid to make a combined income of $55k and decide to raise 5 children, then expect the city to provide a 5 bedroom subsidized housing.
 
neuhaus said:
Those units are most likely for families living with their extended family members, where in certain cultures it is customary to all live under the same roof.
Though there is a need for 4- and 5-bedrooms apartments, as these are almost non-existent in the city, I think only a handful of them should be offered and the emphasis should be on 2- and 3-bedroom units to serve the much greater need.
Click to expand...

since when extended family members are considered "family" in Canada, or anywhere in the context of housing needs? The relatives can apply under their own name. Just because one is from a different culture background doesn't mean he should be treated differently in Canada. One can't honestly say: I need a 5 bedroom apartment because I need to talk to my aunts every day.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top