80 Bloor Street West | 266m | 79s | Krugarand | Giannone Petricone

ProjectEnd

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
9,046
Reaction score
10,161
Any argument is purely academic since this will change - likely drastically - before it gets anywhere near approval. I'm on record as saying that I've got no issue with the height, but the last thing we need is 1183 sub-par bowling alleys in the form of studios and 1brs.

It's just a gaudy, value-increase exercise and I hope that the tools at the doughnut shop 'developer' get torched.
 

Obsidian

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 15, 2016
Messages
31
Reaction score
27
Any argument is purely academic since this will change - likely drastically - before it gets anywhere near approval. I'm on record as saying that I've got no issue with the height, but the last thing we need is 1183 sub-par bowling alleys in the form of studios and 1brs.

It's just a gaudy, value-increase exercise and I hope that the tools at the doughnut shop 'developer' get torched.
If that is what the market demands why is that a bad thing? if the market demands a bigger size unit then that is what will get built.
 

DtTO

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
859
Reaction score
136
Location
CityPlace
If your view of housing is that it is a commodity which follows an Econ101, 'supply and demand' model with no external influence, I'm not interested in having that argument. Housing-bull-Twitter is more your place.
Actually, I don't think regulations should ever allow a necessity, such as housing, healthcare, etc. to become an investment opportunity, as it leads to speculation (at the expense of those who depend on it). With that said, your elitist attitude is just asinine. What did your 'ho boy' comment add to the conversation? Absolutely nothing. Meanwhile, Obsidian's comment, while I disagree with it, was logical.
 

Lenser

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
2,674
Reaction score
2,296
Location
Leslieville
FWIW, I didn't read "asinine" or "elitist" in ProjectEnd's post. It just made me smile. It's easy to be wound too tight.... and pretty hard to tell what emotions are in play when it's all just a bunch of text on screen.
 

LMVDR

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 20, 2017
Messages
211
Reaction score
57
Actually, I don't think regulations should ever allow a necessity, such as housing, healthcare, etc. to become an investment opportunity, as it leads to speculation (at the expense of those who depend on it).
Dt,

If you extract investment from the housing equation you’re left with less housing and, all other things being equal, more expensive housing as what’s left is bid up by the same pool of renters.

Rents would probably be 20% higher today were it not for the massive amount of specuvestors quietly adding 10’s of 1000’s of shadow rental units to the market.

Careful what you wish for.
 

DtTO

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
859
Reaction score
136
Location
CityPlace
Dt,

If you extract investment from the housing equation you’re left with less housing and, all other things being equal, more expensive housing as what’s left is bid up by the same pool of renters.

Rents would probably be 20% higher today were it not for the massive amount of specuvestors quietly adding 10’s of 1000’s of shadow rental units to the market.

Careful what you wish for.
You're assuming a private supply-demand model. I lean towards a government controlled sector (through large crown corporations) whose mandate is not profit/bottom line. In fact, I'd argue that it should be subsidized and ran at a loss, if anything. Sort of like how we run public transit, the postal service, sewage, waste disposal, healthcare; you know, essential services. A two tier system where these crown corporations, operating at a loss, at least fulfill a large segment of the demand, and private corporations, operating at profit, cover the luxury segment or other niche segments, is ideal.

In an era where wealth aggregation is becoming a serious concern, and housing is the overwhelming largest pot of an average individual's spending, I'd say that mass subsidized housing is the best way to combat wealth inequality.
 

madknife

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 24, 2016
Messages
127
Reaction score
92
You're assuming a private supply-demand model. I lean towards a government controlled sector (through large crown corporations) whose mandate is not profit/bottom line. In fact, I'd argue that it should be subsidized and ran at a loss, if anything. Sort of like how we run public transit, the postal service, sewage, waste disposal, healthcare; you know, essential services. A two tier system where these crown corporations, operating at a loss, at least fulfill a large segment of the demand, and private corporations, operating at profit, cover the luxury segment or other niche segments, is ideal.

In an era where wealth aggregation is becoming a serious concern, and housing is the overwhelming largest pot of an average individual's spending, I'd say that mass subsidized housing is the best way to combat wealth inequality.

So basically the Singapore model.
I love it there, but I think it’s much easier for a small island nation than a sprawling province like Ontario
 

Lyphe

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 18, 2013
Messages
269
Reaction score
226
Location
Toronto
Love this tower.
And parking isn't an issue - in fact - less parking is good unless people don't understand how that cycle works.
 

LMVDR

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 20, 2017
Messages
211
Reaction score
57
You're assuming a private supply-demand model. I lean towards a government controlled sector (through large crown corporations) whose mandate is not profit/bottom line. In fact, I'd argue that it should be subsidized and ran at a loss, if anything.
That is the model. All 3 levels of government are currently subsidizing the construction of rental housing in Toronto. As well, TCHC is currently the largest landlord in the city and I believe in North America.
 

Top