Toronto 346 Davenport | 36.27m | 9s | Freed | RAW Design

There were areas in the Annex (with actual concentration of poor/needy and homeless) where property of the same size could have been purchased for 1/3rd of the cost. There is nothing about 348 Davenport that makes it strategic in any shape or form, I've been here sine 2001 and nothing has ever indicated to me or anyone I know that 348 was a appropriate location for a shelter. People will actually have to go out of their way to use the shelter, poor planning at the tax payers expense. The whole logic with " we did not consult with locals because no one wants a shelter" it absurd to put lightly. People have a right to make their opinions known, some of those neighbours are paying upwards $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ annually for realty taxes so yes their opinion counts.
 
Last edited:
Downtown Toronto said:
There were areas in the Annex where property of the same size could have been purchased for 1/3rd of the cost. There is nothing about 348 Davenport that makes it strategic in any shape or form, I've been here sine 2001 and nothing has ever indicated to me or anyone I know that 348 was appropriate locations for a shelter. People will actually have to go out of their way to use the shelter, poor planning.
Click to expand...

Which specific properties are you referring to? What zoning applies to each and would that affect the speed with which the City could move forward with its plans? Are the interiors of each of them configured in such a way that they could be easily and quickly fitted out for use as a shelter? Do any of them require remediation or removal of dangerous or contaminated substances or upgrades or changes to major building servicing such as plumbing or heating and cooling? Are the existing landowners in negotiations with other potential buyers? Are they holding out for some other reason?

Walking around a neighbourhood (or perusing online listing services) and picking a random property for sale and saying "hey, why not this one?" is just not a rigourous method of site evaluation. Feel free to speak up if you have more specific insight into any of the above questions; otherwise, it just smacks of an armchair quarterback lazily accusing the decision makers of failing to do their due diligence because armchair quarterbacks love nothing more than touting "examples" of tax dollar waste.
 
17 Years in the real estate industry teaches you a thing or two, not my job to post what locations would have worked ( makes no difference now) but safe to say having lived and work in the annex since 2001 I can attest to the fact that this transaction was a mistake of epic proportions. We all end up paying for it.
 
Downtown Toronto said:
17 Years in the real estate industry teaches you a thing or two, not my job to post what locations would have worked ( makes no difference now) but safe to say having lived and work in the annex since 2001 I can attest to the fact that this transaction was a mistake of epic proportions. We all end up paying for it.
Click to expand...

The guy who fixed my plumbing last year had been a plumber for 25 years but it still broke 3 hours after he left.
 
Is that you Mr. Napier-Andrews???
 
Downtown Toronto said:
some of those neighbours are paying upwards $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ annually for realty taxes so yes their opinion counts.
Click to expand...

When Canada became a country in the 1860s, only landowners could vote. Thankfully, in the 2010s, everyone's opinion should count to the same degree, no matter how much $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ they pay in taxes.

(Just as no one in such a rich society deserves to sleep on the street, no matter how little $ they pay in taxes)
 
Downtown Toronto said:
There were areas in the Annex (with actual concentration of poor/needy and homeless) where property of the same size could have been purchased for 1/3rd of the cost. There is nothing about 348 Davenport that makes it strategic in any shape or form, I've been here sine 2001 and nothing has ever indicated to me or anyone I know that 348 was a appropriate location for a shelter. People will actually have to go out of their way to use the shelter, poor planning at the tax payers expense. The whole logic with " we did not consult with locals because no one wants a shelter" it absurd to put lightly. People have a right to make their opinions known, some of those neighbours are paying upwards $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ annually for realty taxes so yes their opinion counts.
Click to expand...

Should the opinions of people who pay taxes count more than those who literally do not have a home? Those that need shelter are humans and neighbourhood residents too.

You argument is extremely weak. Try again.

I am an Annex resident and I support this shelter.
 
The Annex has been a mixed-income neighbourhood for decades. It's not an affluent enclave. There's nothing out of the ordinary about building a shelter in the Annex. It's better to do it now before real estate prices go up.

It's important that every neighbourhood should shoulder some of the burden. The only exceptions are areas that are impractical for the homeless. If there aren't many social service providers, employers, medical clinics, gyms, and high-quality transit options in the vicinity, then the shelter won't be as helpful to the homeless.
 
A good spot for a homeless shelter is beside a hospital obviously. Not in a rapidly gentrifying neighborhood where land value is at a premium and luxury condo buyers will get easily spooked.
 
LMVDR said:
A good spot for a homeless shelter is beside a hospital obviously. Not in a rapidly gentrifying neighborhood where land value is at a premium and luxury condo buyers will get easily spooked.
Click to expand...

If it's rapidly gentrifying, it shouldn't be difficult for it to shoulder some of the burden. The Annex has medical clinics, excellent public transit, a variety of employment options, and social services offices.
 
LMVDR said:
A good spot for a homeless shelter is beside a hospital obviously. Not in a rapidly gentrifying neighborhood where land value is at a premium and luxury condo buyers will get easily spooked.
Click to expand...

In our market is it even possible for condo buyers to get easily spooked?
 
LMVDR said:
A good spot for a homeless shelter is beside a hospital obviously. Not in a rapidly gentrifying neighborhood where land value is at a premium and luxury condo buyers will get easily spooked.
Click to expand...

To be clear, this point is entirely predicated on the notion that protecting rich people's investment vehicles is more important than providing shelter for people who may die on the next very cold day we have.

Needless to say, that's abhorrent.
 
Incorrect, ignorant and just an audaciously stupid comment. I passionately believe that the City of Toronto should prioritize widespread availability of homeless shelters for all those in need of this level of critical social support.

Mu point is predicated on locating quasi health facilities close to other health facilities for a multitude of reasons too obvious to waste my time recalling to the likes of ignorant people like you.

Should the effect on property values (ie property tax revenue that sustains homeless shelters) and area demographics also be a consideration on the location?

Damn right it should.

My suggestion is for us to locate the home address of mr or ms ADRM and to construct a homeless shelter immediately adjacent to that address. It is clearly the best possible spot in the city as mr or ms ADRM sees no issues living next to a homeless shelter.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top