Toronto CityPlace: Canoe Landing Community Centre & Schools | 15.85m | 3s | City of Toronto | ZAS Architects

TOBoy said:
Why is it that discussions in this thread always end up being political?
Click to expand...

Because small-minded NIMBYism is the essence of political - no one else can have their view, especially not ungrateful poor people. I haven't read one convincing argument by Rango or AKS why social housing is a disincentive to work or why integrating social housing with market housing in a high-rise neighbourhood is a faulty plan. Their bitterness can be summarized in two points:

1) No poor people are allowed to live in their neighbourhood.
2) No other tall building is allowed to be built in their build, tall neighbourhood.

This is not to say that you’re not entitled to your opinions or that your loss of a view is something to celebrate. Rather, your posts do very little to rally sympathy to your points-of-view.

Since this is the projects and constructions section, perhaps either can enlighten me as to why building a mixed income, architecturally similar neighbourhood is a bad idea.
 
Originally posted by AKS
Then he was talking about how great the TCHC building would be. It's like a slap in the attendees face.
Click to expand...

It sounds like you'd be much happier if the building was total crap. How would that make anyone's life better, including yours? It sounds like you just want poor people to suffer, out of some sort of twisted principle.
 
Rangostar:

yep, why work hard when the tax you pay is going against you. Canada's tax system is not meant to motivate you to work hard, it tells you to evade tax and do underground business so you can get better benefit! Sigh
Click to expand...

Since life is so easy as a TCHC renter, why don't you try living a life that limit your income so that you'd qualify for RGI units? I am sure the views would make up for it.

BobBob:

I think it's the quintessential "think about the children" strawman.

AoD
 
Last edited:
TCHC or not ... I believe the tower on Block 31 does not warrant itself to be a 43 storeys building (which will be similar in height as WestOne given higher ceiling heights), the planned vision in this area was 3 landmark height buildings (two at the Spadina gateway being Harbour View Estates 2 + WestOne, and Signature Tower) ... there's no reason to plunk another landmark height tower at this location, because that would loose the effect of the 'Spadina gateway towers'

I think some height increase is warranted at this location, but not an increase from 9 to 43 storeys ... examining the heights of surrounding buildings, it is clear that the building heights shall taper down towards the Cityplace Park

Parade = 36
Luna = 38
Montage = 47
N1/N2 = 42
WestOne = 49
HVE 2 = 49
HVE 1 = 41

If additional height is approved on Block 31, I believe the maximum height should be equalvalent to the 36 storeys Parade (after adjusting for the higher ceiling heights) ... further, the same built form shall be applied at this site similar to Parade + Luna whereby the tower is set furthest back from the park, while a podium + midrise tower (~16s) is oriented towards the park frontage
 
Block 31

I wonder what the other TCHC buildings west of the park look like? I believe that they were originally to be built first and were in the 40 floor range as well.
 
Re: Disincentives

Isn't the issue around subsidized units side by side with market units one of perceived evenhandedness?

A couple working full-time to pay their mortgage in Cityplace, is likely to feel ambivalent at best about a family next door benefitting from the same neighbourhood amenities and possibly sq footage, but on a subsidized basis?

All-in the lifestyle might work out as equal, which is a disincentive IF (I say "IF")the subsized occupants don't appear to be especially motivated, although many are.
 
Enough already....

Someone here clearly can't stand poor people and especially poor people living next door to them and especially poor people living in decent quality, affordable housing built that's on par with condos.

Yes, the ultimate crime is being committed against humanity here. This whole rant against why low income shouldn't live in anything decent or nice just makes my blood boil. I come from a poor background, raised by a poor mother with a father who made good money but refused to pay child support payments and hoarded everything for himself.

We ended up finally living in a decent neighborhood in the upper beaches.
I guess we were lucky that the neighbors didn't revolt against our presence and run us out of there, thereby saving the neighborhood.
 
It never hurts to have an objective discussion.

I acknowledge low income people are blameless; that people who work full-time are greedy for wanting something "better" for their labours.

My point was simply hypothetical - what if somewhere there existed a less than motivated, less than saintly, person subsized in Cityplace. How might, neighbours feel especially those barely meeting their mortgage?

Frankly I would have been completely happy having you and your Mom as neighbours. But some guy just out of the Don Jail and his idoit twin - maybe not.
 
Please, don't stop the discussions just yet. The more we hear both sides, the more we understand and the more we are closer to common ground. Discussions are the better alternative than not having one at all (aka dictatorship)
 
I think the bottom line is, if you don't want to live beside poor people, do your research and find a neighbourhood where there are no poor people. If you were uninformed about government housing in City Place, I think that's your own fault, as it was public knowledge for a long time but there is an easy solution. Sell your condo and move to a neighbourhood that has only decent, hard working people. You have lots of options out there. Nobody is forcing you to have to live beside ex-convicts, the unemployed or the working poor. (god forbid)

Now can we get on with discussing the crappy urban design of this neighbourhood? Personally, I think it's cruel and unusual punishment to even make poor people live in this dead zone. I say scrap this whole dead zone and start from scratch. How the hell can these people live without a Tim Horton's? Boring buildings, boring streets, a boring park and no Tim Horton's, on second thought, maybe the whole neighbourhood should be turned into a government housing project. That's what those wretched poor deserve.
 
buildup said:
It never hurts to have an objective discussion.

I acknowledge low income people are blameless; that people who work full-time are greedy for wanting something "better" for their labours.

My point was simply hypothetical - what if somewhere there existed a less than motivated, less than saintly, person subsized in Cityplace. How might, neighbours feel especially those barely meeting their mortgage?

Frankly I would have been completely happy having you and your Mom as neighbours. But some guy just out of the Don Jail and his idoit twin - maybe not.
Click to expand...

I think you've got a bright future in talk radio.
 
Imagine being a dude who works as an office wonk making $29,000/year off 50-hour weeks who has to live next door to some egotistical asshole who cleared $500K last year selling mortgages to people who could never afford them or thinking up new ways to market cigarettes to school children.

Life is unfair on both ends.
 
Solaris said:
TCHC or not ... I believe the tower on Block 31 does not warrant itself to be a 43 storeys building (which will be similar in height as WestOne given higher ceiling heights), the planned vision in this area was 3 landmark height buildings (two at the Spadina gateway being Harbour View Estates 2 + WestOne, and Signature Tower) ... there's no reason to plunk another landmark height tower at this location, because that would loose the effect of the 'Spadina gateway towers'

I think some height increase is warranted at this location, but not an increase from 9 to 43 storeys ... examining the heights of surrounding buildings, it is clear that the building heights shall taper down towards the Cityplace Park

Parade = 36
Luna = 38
Montage = 47
N1/N2 = 42
WestOne = 49
HVE 2 = 49
HVE 1 = 41

If additional height is approved on Block 31, I believe the maximum height should be equalvalent to the 36 storeys Parade (after adjusting for the higher ceiling heights) ... further, the same built form shall be applied at this site similar to Parade + Luna whereby the tower is set furthest back from the park, while a podium + midrise tower (~16s) is oriented towards the park frontage
Click to expand...

So some sort of tacit 'gateway' is more important than increasing the number of affordable housing units in our fair and democratic city? This tower is as tall as it is because it needs to fit as many people as possible and since aA believes in having a porous, permeable urban environment, they went skinny and tall. It's a perfectly sensible approach and still leaves much for Cityplace residents to view. Conversely, they could have created a short, squat, fat building which completely blocks the views on the lower floors of every building around it. Regarding your second point, the tower is as far away from the park as possible as it fronts on Brunel Ct., not the park itself.

Torontovibe: I believe Parade and Parade II will have retail in the base. I'm sure a Tims or 'Bucks will find their way in there somehow.

AKS: I'm not sure what you wanted Clewes to say. The man made an offhand remark about the hectic nature of his life, soon to be made more so by the addition of more Clewes' to the flock (Shocker silently rejoices). You're clearly heartless, something which your and Rangostar's posts have made painfully, offensively obvious and now you have the gall to say that it was a "slap in the face" to hear that those who have to resort to subsidized housing will be 'allowed' to live in something 'great?' I'd honestly like to know what kind of window warrior is on the other side of the keyboard, constantly peeking out to make sure the 'other' doesn't encroach. Sickening.
 
GraphicMatt said:
Imagine being a dude who works as an office wonk making $29,000/year off 50-hour weeks who has to live next door to some egotistical asshole who cleared $500K last year selling mortgages to people who could never afford them or thinking up new ways to market cigarettes to school children.

Life is unfair on both ends.
Click to expand...

Or a security Guard making 20,000 a year, having to work night shift and having to deal with a whole lot of shit. I have a friend who just recently had to take a job as a security guard because he ran out of options. He's university educated and an artist but when the money ran out and job prospects were few, what else could he do. Yep, he's now the working poor. So not only is he just getting by, now he has to suffer the stigma of being considered a lowlife by people who probably have a lower IQ then himself and much less talent. Hey, nobody ever said the world was fair.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top