Toronto 888 Dupont | 61.7m | 18s | TAS | SA

[HousingNowTO]

From TAS on IG:


View attachment 422572

Would love to know how much that "Chimney-Stack" retention / relocation is costing TAS..?

...and how much one of the Affordable Housing units cost TAS in comparison.

Maybe we could have added another Affordable Housing unit, or more years to the AH deal -- but instead, we get a Chimney..?

 

[bilked]

Would love to know how much that "Chimney-Stack" retention / relocation is costing TAS..?

...and how much one of the Affordable Housing units cost TAS in comparison.

Maybe we could have added another Affordable Housing unit, or more years to the AH deal -- but instead, we get a Chimney..?

Are these small gestures to the public realm really the barrier to affordable housing in this City?

Seems like a misguided critique (and not too much different from complaining about the cost of pink umbrellas on the waterfront).

I would have thought that deep investment in the public realm, public art, etc., is part of the grand bargain we're making in creating denser, but also more interesting and vibrant communities.

 

[junctionist]

Would love to know how much that "Chimney-Stack" retention / relocation is costing TAS..?

...and how much one of the Affordable Housing units cost TAS in comparison.

Maybe we could have added another Affordable Housing unit, or more years to the AH deal -- but instead, we get a Chimney..?

Saving heritage features makes the built form more interesting, engaging, and attractive to people of every walk of life. It results in more value to the built form.

We could build generic blocks for affordable housing for the masses like in the Soviet Union, but can't we achieve more than that as a society? This building could have been slightly taller for a few more units.

 

[HousingNowTO]

Are these small gestures to the public realm really the barrier to affordable housing in this City?

Seems like a misguided critique (and not too much different from complaining about the cost of pink umbrellas on the waterfront).

I would have thought that deep investment in the public realm, public art, etc., is part of the grand bargain we're making in creating denser, but also more interesting and vibrant communities.

All I am asking for is that the "Heritage Retention Costs" are made Public in the Section-37 deals like Daycare payments and other things are.

Our volunteers are regularly told about things like "a $5-Million dollar facade retention was required" - but those numbers are never on the PUBLIC record, which it makes it impossible to have any meaningful discussion about the "Values we Prioritize"

 

[HousingNowTO]

Saving heritage features makes the built form more interesting, engaging, and attractive to people of every walk of life. It results in more value to the built form.

We could build generic blocks for affordable housing for the masses like in the Soviet Union, but can't we achieve more than that as a society? This building could have been slightly taller for a few more units.

Find it fascinating that the alternative to the "status-quo" processes and political choices at City Hall are always quickly compared like we are suggesting some sort of proto-Soviet solution in 2022.

Public Art, Heritage Retention / Rebuild are all worthwhile - all we are asking for is transparency around the costs, so that we can see where exactly we prioritize our City's "Community Benefit" dollars when push comes to shove..?

 

[Northern Light]

All I am asking for is that the "Heritage Retention Costs" are made Public in the Section-37 deals like Daycare payments and other things are.

Our volunteers are regularly told about things like "a $5-Million dollar facade retention was required" - but those numbers are never on the PUBLIC record, which it makes it impossible to have any meaningful discussion about the "Values we Prioritize"

Right, but many here prioritize heritage retention.

If we all knew the exact cost; for argument's sake, 5M as you outline above, providing the retention itself is lauded; that cost on a typical 200M+ project isn't really material.

Don't get me wrong, I love transparency; though, in any demand for it, there is something to be said for asking about the utility; if you only want to know, in order to oppose heritage retention, writ-large, you'll find an army of opposition here at UT.

***

Curious digression here, I would actually be perfectly fine w/the losing the chimney in this proposal as I feel it lacks any value when completely decontextualized. It's just a totem. But that's a matter of preference.

Still, I think there's a case to be made that this particular heritage retention might not be the best use of funds; but the argument is on the merits of the preservation, not its costs.

***

Find it fascinating that the alternative to the "status-quo" processes and political choices at City Hall are always quickly compared like we are suggesting some sort of proto-Soviet solution in 2022.

Public Art, Heritage Retention / Rebuild are all worthwhile - all we are asking for is transparency around the costs, so that we can see where exactly we prioritize our City's "Community Benefit" dollars when push comes to shove..?

You do love the language of war; and it's always where we've differed.

No one here said anything about Soviets or Revolution; they suggested the argument made was a poor one, with which they disagreed, owing in part to your known preferences, housing at all costs, all the time.

That's something that most people simply can't get behind, and won't.

But this is a forum full of people, myself included, who regularly advocate for investment in affordable housing, in purpose-built rental and in permissions for more varied housing types and greater density.

If an argument for housing doesn't sell here, it's not selling anywhere else either.

 

[bilked]

All I am asking for is that the "Heritage Retention Costs" are made Public in the Section-37 deals like Daycare payments and other things are.

Our volunteers are regularly told about things like "a $5-Million dollar facade retention was required" - but those numbers are never on the PUBLIC record, which it makes it impossible to have any meaningful discussion about the "Values we Prioritize"

The developer was required to disclose its internal costs of its onsite affordable housing commitments here? Obviously external section 37 of funding commitments need to be disclosed, but I'm not sure how we require disclosure of a builder's internal cost structure without adding to the bureaucratic morass which (at least in part) drives unaffordability.

 

[Northern Light]

My above post notwithstanding, I want to express my sincere support for @HousingNowTO .

Not only for the excellent work he and his group accomplish, but for how much easier they make it for me to advocate for affordable housing. LOL

There is nothing like dealing with a lack of enthusiasm by saying, you know, it could be @HousingNowTO that you're talking to instead.......

 

[HousingNowTO]

On this thread - @junctionist said - "We could build generic blocks for affordable housing for the masses like in the Soviet Union, but can't we achieve more than that as a society?"

Yesterday on another thread about a site on woodbine somebody said - "Shame developers resort to this. Soviet style development tactics."

Our comments were just that questioning the 'status-quo' process seems to often trigger that kind of language.

 

[Northern Light]

On this thread - @junctionist said - "We could build generic blocks for affordable housing for the masses like in the Soviet Union, but can't we achieve more than that as a society?"

Yesterday on another thread about a site on woodbine somebody said - "Shame developers resort to this. Soviet style development tactics."

Our comments were just that questioning the 'status-quo' process seems to often trigger that kind of language.

@junctionist is a very reasonable fellow who just gets his spidey sense set off by people seeming to shrug off the importance of design/aesthetics.

The poster in the Woodbine thread, who is new to UT, was completely over-the-top in rhetorical flourish.

Though he too might have the semblance of a point, but it isn't one about the height of that proposal, but rather whether the proposal is functionally dependent on land that is neither public, nor
acquired by the developer in question.

But that doesn't change the fact there was far too much hyperbole in said post; and I can't speak to the details on the other proposal.

 

[HousingNowTO]

The developer was required to disclose its internal costs of its onsite affordable housing commitments here?

It's fairly simple for our volunteers to "reverse engineer" the costs/value of the onsite affordable housing commitments because the amount of R-GFA and unit-size/mix is included in the Public documents based on Altus data, and other recent City purchase agreements where they spend Section-37 dollars to BUY units from a market-development for affordable housing purposes.

In comparison, much of the heritage retention cost is a black-box to the public because the work is so unique on a site-by-site basis.

 

[Northern Light]

It's fairly simple for our volunteers to "reverse engineer" the costs/value of the onsite affordable housing commitments because the amount of R-GFA and unit-size/mix is included in the Public documents based on Altus data, and other recent City purchase agreements where they spend Section-37 dollars to BUY units from a market-development for affordable housing purposes.

In comparison, much of the heritage retention cost is a black-box to the public because the work is so unique on a site-by-site basis.

I'll briefly come back to this and simply say, I don't think advocates of affordable housing should appear to oppose heritage conservation, it doesn't help in building alliances in the community or on Council.

There are many better policy hills that deserve conquering.

As noted, I'm not a fan of this particular heritage preservation, and I think quiet one-off trade-backs, in cases where the heritage preservation is odd/poor and may not illicit broad sympathy can make sense.
But that's true irrespective of the costs. I would still add, in those cases, better to propose that quietly that put that in a public letter or deputation.

 

[HousingNowTO]

I'll briefly come back to this and simply say, I don't think advocates of affordable housing should appear to oppose heritage conservation, it doesn't help in building alliances in the community or on Council.

There are many better policy hills that deserve conquering.

As noted, I'm not a fan of this particular heritage preservation, and I think quiet one-off trade-backs, in cases where the heritage preservation is odd/poor and may not illicit broad sympathy can make sense.
But that's true irrespective of the costs. I would still add, in those cases, better to propose that quietly that put that in a public letter or deputation.

...and that's where we (respectfully) disagree --- we see regular "abuse" of the Heritage system, and have said so to folks like the Toronto Preservation Board (which is almost entirely made-up of the "Senior" Leadership of various Residents & Raterpayers groups)...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1374741811617525761

 

[A Torontonian Now]

SO LONG; BE KIND; MAKE ART

 

[UrbanAffair]

Apologies if already noted, but are they retaining any of the original structure here? It appears not based on the architecture plans. Even the façades look a bit too beat up to keep to me, but I don't know what is possible in terms of restoration here.