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

[Skeezix]

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.

Given that these family members have been demonstrated to usually play a vital role in the household, ranging from financial contributions to free child care, that's simply a short-sighted position to be taking. Characterizing it as needing to speak with one's aunts every day is just asinine.

 

[ksun]

Given that these family members have been demonstrated to usually play a vital role in the household, ranging from financial contributions to free child care, that's simply a short-sighted position to be taking. Characterizing it as needing to speak with one's aunts every day is just asinine.

I am not sure if it is reasonable to argue that "because I am from a different cultural background, therefore I need more house for my relatives to take care of my children (all on taxpayers' back)". Additionally, even considering that, a family absolutely doesn't NEED a five bedroom apartment, which can accommodate 10 people.

 

[Canadian Chocho]

Actually, if we're going to go into the "taxpayers' back" discussion, wouldn't it be hypothetically less expensive to consolidate several people in need of housing into one unit? I agree that the narrative shouldn't be that "it's because their culture", but if its more economically sound and it happens to be their preferred living conditions it kind of ends up being a win-win.

Just a spontaneous thought of mine, not based in any research fwiw.

Edit: Assuming there's more than 5 people living in a 5 bedroom unit.

 

[ksun]

Actually, if we're going to go into the "taxpayers' back" discussion, wouldn't it be hypothetically less expensive to consolidate several people in need of housing into one unit? I agree that the narrative shouldn't be that "it's because their culture", but if its more economically sound and it happens to be their preferred living conditions it kind of ends up being a win-win.

Just a spontaneous thought of mine, not based in any research fwiw.

Edit: Assuming there's more than 5 people living in a 5 bedroom unit.

Definitely.
If Canadian families can all adopt the culture of those people, aka, for grandparents to provide child care for their grandchildren, like they do in much of non-Germanic Europe, Asia or Latin America, we wouldn't need so much subsidy for the families to start with.
Yet Protestant culture dictates that retired grandparents should only care about their own life and leave childcare to taxpayers. On topic of that, the care of these same grandparents are largely left to taxpayers, not their income earning children either. I don't understand this system where we expect total strangers to care for babies and seniors, instead of their family by blood.

 

[maestro]

Now you lost me.

We have social healthcare so there will be a degree of taxpayer's dollars caring for the elderly. That said, I can't imagine families with means choosing to put their grandparents in tax subsidized spaces. The massive boom in private senior facilities from condos to private care supports that.

The point of daycare are for those that have no family that can care for their children while they are at work.

 

[greenleaf]

Actually, if we're going to go into the "taxpayers' back" discussion, wouldn't it be hypothetically less expensive to consolidate several people in need of housing into one unit? I agree that the narrative shouldn't be that "it's because their culture", but if its more economically sound and it happens to be their preferred living conditions it kind of ends up being a win-win.

Just a spontaneous thought of mine, not based in any research fwiw.

Edit: Assuming there's more than 5 people living in a 5 bedroom unit.

There is a tchc building just south of Carlton on Church that had (possibly still has?) an arrangement like this and as far as I know it was universally regarded as a terrible place to live because everyone hated the design and it actually made things worse for the people whose lives the housing was intended to help.

 

[Stupidandshallow]

This is going way off topic now! Perhaps this should be moved to the latest Regent Park thread?

On that note, here is a particular development I just couldn't understand: 180 Sackville St.

32 4 and 5 bedroom rent geared to income townhouses next to an 11 storey mid-rise... The value of a 5 bedroom townhouse in downtown Toronto has to be at least 800k (I want to say a million but I suppose 800k is more in line with the market for this neighbourhood). Given that these are all rent-geared-to-income how will it ever work out financially later on for TCH? It has to be more expensive to maintain than a mid-rise when you break down the cost per household.

Why on earth didn't they just build another mid-rise.

I don't understand the concept of having a variety of housing types in our developments (ie. tall building with townhouses at base or townhouses in an adjacent block). I suspect the idea behind it is to encourage a variety of people to live in a development, but it assumes that families can only live in houses with backyards and not apartments.. In any event I will always scratch my head at this aspect of the Regent Park development.

 

[Skeezix]

I am not sure if it is reasonable to argue that "because I am from a different cultural background, therefore I need more house for my relatives to take care of my children (all on taxpayers' back)". Additionally, even considering that, a family absolutely doesn't NEED a five bedroom apartment, which can accommodate 10 people.

I think it's unreasonable, short-sighted thinking to approach the issue so simplistically, failing to realize that the cultural norm of living with one's extended family actually does far more to help these families get established and get off public assistance than taking some silly sanctimonious stand about cultural backgrounds. If you want people to be a drain on the taxpayers for longer, by all means make it more difficult for them to get by, to learn English, and to get jobs. But if you're actually interested in helping people becoming contributing citizens who are not reliant on the public purse for housing, then you need to reconsider.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I think it's unreasonable, short-sighted thinking to approach the issue so simplistically, failing to realize that the cultural norm of living with one's extended family actually does far more to help these families get established and get off public assistance than taking some silly sanctimonious stand about cultural backgrounds. If you want people to be a drain on the taxpayers for longer, by all means make it more difficult for them to get by, to learn English, and to get jobs. But if you're actually interested in helping people becoming contributing citizens who are not reliant on the public purse for housing, then you need to reconsider.

There is a certain assumption in that outcome though - does the evidence actually supports that hypothesis? I would certainly look at the usage of those units with a fine toothed comb given the high cost of providing said units.

AoD

 

[NBGtect]

Yet Protestant culture...

Not sure if you really understand anything about the Protestant work ethic that our country was founded on. It's all about being self-reliant, hard-working, and frugal. It's about being a "self-made" person and not relying on one's family or the government for support. It's deeply entrenched in capitalism, so for people that come from communist/socialist/dictatorship countries, they may not fully understand the culture behind it never being raised that way.

But if someone comes and lives in Canada then they benefit from this basic nature of our culture. We have coupled it with socialist aspects over time, but the basis is still there. Just speak to those 'grandparents' that had no concept of socialized health-care or living off of the system back in the day. The greatest generation knew how to work and build the economy.

One would build a life here, pay taxes, and have savings to retire. Over time, we had things like pensions that people would pay into and benefit from much later on. So people worked hard, then benefited much later. Now people expect to be looked after from day one! Free housing, free health care from day one then (hopefully) some contribution to the economy and paying taxes at some point...maybe.

We have evolved somewhat, kind of in the same way that communist and dictatorship countries have taken on capitalism (when it's convenient for them, of course - minus human rights and freedom) to please as many people as possible - but the basic Protestant work ethic is still there if you look for it.

 

[Skeezix]

There is a certain assumption in that outcome though - does the evidence actually supports that hypothesis? I would certainly look at the usage of those units with a fine toothed comb given the high cost of providing said units.

AoD

Actually the evidence does support it. A lot of work had been done on the topic, including on multi-generational households, starting (as far as I am aware) mainly in the 1990s when the Liberals started to shift the focus away from the family reunification class towards economic class immigrants, and then again there was a good amount of discussion when the Tories later instituted annual caps on parent and grandparent applications and new criteria for the family reunification class. The general conclusion was that we were shooting ourselves in the foot and depriving many Canadians of the links they need to succeed (I'm obviously paraphrasing).

And although I am just speculating on this later point, it is not obvious to me that there is necessarily a higher cost associated with providing such units versus the costs of providing multiple households. But it's a valid point you've raised, and obviously we should always be doing cost analyses (albeit analysis that looks at the broader and long-term costs) to ensure that our social housing budget is being spent most efficiently and effectively. I was really responding to ksun's silly point, where he characterizes it the issue as being simply being people of certain backgrounds wanting bigger households. He's missing the point.

 

[maestro]

This is going way off topic now! Perhaps this should be moved to the latest Regent Park thread?

On that note, here is a particular development I just couldn't understand: 180 Sackville St.

32 4 and 5 bedroom rent geared to income townhouses next to an 11 storey mid-rise... The value of a 5 bedroom townhouse in downtown Toronto has to be at least 800k (I want to say a million but I suppose 800k is more in line with the market for this neighbourhood). Given that these are all rent-geared-to-income how will it ever work out financially later on for TCH? It has to be more expensive to maintain than a mid-rise when you break down the cost per household.

View attachment 60784

Why on earth didn't they just build another mid-rise.

I don't understand the concept of having a variety of housing types in our developments (ie. tall building with townhouses at base or townhouses in an adjacent block). I suspect the idea behind it is to encourage a variety of people to live in a development, but it assumes that families can only live in houses with backyards and not apartments.. In any event I will always scratch my head at this aspect of the Regent Park development.

Construction costs and maintenance are considerably less for these townhouses than a concrete midrise with only 100 units. I can't say on a unit by unit or square footage basis which is cheaper overall. TCHC in one of its many forms has owned the property for 50+ years so land value isn't a big factor here.

 

[Jacob Laponointe]

245 QUEEN ST E
Ward 28 - Tor & E.York District

Proposed Use --- # of Storeys --- # of Units ---
Applications:
Type: OPA & Rezoning
Number: 16 118638 STE 28 OZ
Date Submitted: Feb 19, 2016
Status: Application Received

 

[LUVIT!]

I just want to look at the proposals. What's with the BS from some regarding deep social issues that seem to be knee jerk reactions rather than information.

 

[wolfewood]

I just want to look at the proposals. What's with the BS from some regarding deep social issues that seem to be knee jerk reactions rather than information.

Because some of us actually care about urban issues and development beyond the shiny renderings? The drooling over flashy images and pie-in-the-sky proposals is far more annoying in my opinion.