Project Essentials / dataBase – detailed project information, floor plans, renderings
Projects & Construction Thread
in.DE Dundas East & Jarvis Condominiums 
219 Dundas Street East, Toronto
Developer: Menkes Developments

in.DE Dundas East & Jarvis Condominiums | 66m | 21s | Menkes | Turner Fleischer

Discussion in 'Buildings' started by someMidTowner, Apr 8, 2016.

  1. someMidTowner

    someMidTowner ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2011
    Messages:
    7,782
    Likes Received:
    6,993
    Location:
    Ward 16
    http://app.toronto.ca/DevelopmentAp...ion=init&folderRsn=3929124&isCofASearch=false

    219 DUNDAS ST E
    Ward 27 - Tor & E.York District

    ►View All Properties


    Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate the construction of a mixed-use building, with a tower height of 29 storeys, which tower is located above a 5 storey podium which includes retail uses at grade, amenity space on the 2nd floor, with residential units located on floors 3 to 29 of the tower. The proposed development includes 19,801 m2 of residential Gross Floor Area (¿GFA¿) and 211 m2 of non¿residential GFA (20,012 m2 in total).
    Proposed Use --- # of Storeys --- # of Units ---
    Applications:
    Type Number Date Submitted Status
    Rezoning 16 137850 STE 27 OZ Apr 8, 2016 Application Received

    This is just east of the Dundas Square Gardens site on the south side of Dundas:

    Screen Shot 2016-04-08 at 2.27.12 PM.
     
    #1
    skycandy likes this.

  2. skycandy

    skycandy Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2015
    Messages:
    846
    Likes Received:
    6,318
    Location:
    South Riverdale
    Wow, unobstructed views of Filmores!
     
    #2
  3. Hamiltonian

    Hamiltonian Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2013
    Messages:
    405
    Likes Received:
    108
    How will the shadowing affect the public school to the south? Hmmm...
     
    #3
  4. stjames2queenwest

    stjames2queenwest Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2014
    Messages:
    2,564
    Likes Received:
    2,150
    Thankfully the sun is pretty predictable so anything south of it wont be affected, and George st/ filmores is already pretty shady (pun intended) so I think it'll be ok
     
    #4
  5. maestro

    maestro Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2007
    Messages:
    6,426
    Likes Received:
    1,392
    In an event, why would they care about a school?

    Y'know, Jesse Ketchum is the name of a city park too.
     
    #5
  6. ShonTron

    ShonTron Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    9,662
    Likes Received:
    2,320
    Location:
    Ward 27
    Holy crap. I guess we don't know much more about the proposal until we get number of units, whether it's condo or rental, who the developer and architect are, but I can't think of many other areas of Toronto seeing such rapid change these days as the Dundas/Jarvis area. And, as I've said before, I have mixed feelings about it.
     
    #6
    wolfewood likes this.
  7. Edward Skira

    Edward Skira http://skyrisecities.com Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2007
    Messages:
    12,345
    Likes Received:
    7,482
    Location:
    Toronto
    I don't. The area needs all the help it can.
     
    #7
    AndreaPalladio and Ramako like this.
  8. ShonTron

    ShonTron Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    9,662
    Likes Received:
    2,320
    Location:
    Ward 27
    The feeling I get sometimes on Urban Toronto is highrises solve all of Toronto's problems. This sudden change isn't helping many of the people who live in the area.
     
    #8
    smably, grey and wolfewood like this.
  9. wolfewood

    wolfewood Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2012
    Messages:
    491
    Likes Received:
    284
    Right? If anything, intensification will only make the problem worse. The Downtown East is one of the only parts of the old city that is still broadly affordable (the only other places I can remember seeing such low rents that weren't geared only to students were Parkdale between King and Queen and some of the apartments up near St. Clair and Bathurst) and all this new housing stock is only going to jack up rental costs (by making the land more valuable) while remaining out of reach for those already living there. The only people who are happy with development in this situation are local land owners and forumers who can't see past the height of a building.

    All these new towers will do is push out vulnerable populations and spread them around the city - except where will they go? Certainly nowhere in the old city where access to resources and services is often no more than a walk away. Shoving poor people out of downtown to the suburbs (where services are more spread out and living without a car or access to transit is far more difficult) will only make the growing problems of suburban impoverishment worse and will harm those living downtown who need the help most.
     
    #9
    grey likes this.
  10. innsertnamehere

    innsertnamehere Superstar

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2010
    Messages:
    11,579
    Likes Received:
    4,871
    Location:
    Hipsterville
    Parkdale is quick gentrifying today too. It doesn't have the new construction downtown east has, but it has way more in terms of hip new stores and restaurants.

    I don't think that peoples problems with the Downtown east is the access to affordable housing - it's the concentration of it. It is a ghetto of low income housing, and is far from healthy. A healthy neighborhood ideally should have a mix of incomes - both low income and middle and upper incomes, which doesn't exist in the downtown east. Projects like Regent Park show how it should be done - lots of social services still available but also middle incomes ensuring proper upkeep of the neighborhood and access to other private sector services like banks and grocery stores.

    The proposal for 10% affordable housing in new construction should help a lot with this - creating affordable housing spread out throughout the city so as to not concentrate it in a single area.
     
    #10
  11. wolfewood

    wolfewood Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2012
    Messages:
    491
    Likes Received:
    284
    If that occurs I'd actually probably be a lot less pissy about new construction. That said, I'm wary of both Regent Park type programs (last I checked there was no new social housing units, right? Just rebuilds) which are basically government-sponsored gentrification that ignores the backlog in social housing, as well as these mandated affordable housing quotas (both because I'm not sure what the definition of "affordable" will be and, invariably, you end up with "poor people" entrances and amenities and "rich people" doors and services, which just highlights the differences in wealth and doesn't really represent a true "mixed" neighbourhood. I mean, beggars can't be choosers and I'd be content with 10% affordable housing requirements and at least some new social housing units in existing communities being rebuilt but I'm wary as well.
     
    #11
  12. ShonTron

    ShonTron Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    9,662
    Likes Received:
    2,320
    Location:
    Ward 27
    On its own, intensification is fine. And yes, I am I favour of mixed income neighbourhoods, and yes the area can definitely use more development. St. Lawrence has long been my favourite - co-ops, TCHC, condos, all mid-rise apartments and rowhouses, with a linear park.

    This proposal really doesn't bother me as it's on a parking lot, not plonked down on some of the SRO hotels, rooming houses or other rental apartment buildings in the area. Pace took out a crappy plaza. Dundas Square Gardens will replace out a somewhat run-down tourist hotel. The Mutual Street proposals are a bit more concerning, so is Grid.

    But if this is yet another condo with units geared to investors renting to students, that's not good either. I'd like to see more variety in the housing types here, as well as a bit more concern for the existing low-income residents of the area.
     
    #12
    interchange42 likes this.
  13. Northern Light

    Northern Light Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Messages:
    2,812
    Likes Received:
    2,041
    Location:
    Toronto/EY
    As someone who cares deeply about issues of social justice, I must admit I find views such as these disconcerting.

    Social housing is NOT the answer to poverty, it is a sustainer of poverty.

    Here's the thing, you're not poor because the average cost of housing is beyond your reach.

    You're poor because you either lack a job, full time hours, or a decent rate of pay; or because you're retired/disabled and your pension income is too low.

    If we fix the cost of housing to someone's income, why not food? internet? water? hydro?, etc.

    Beyond the natural variation that occurs through market economics (you can rent or buy, you can have hardwood floors or laminate, you can have granite counter tops, or butcher block) etc.)

    It doesn't make sense to build an entire bureaucracy about keeping people poor.

    Fix the problem

    I'm not suggesting we not house people or subsidize rent on an interim basis.

    I don't want anyone left homeless or under-housed.

    Nor would I fail to advocate some policy changes to reduce artificial inflation of rents (such as property taxes that are almost triple on rental apartments as they are on single-family homes); fixing that, would reduce typical rent on the order of about $125 per month in Toronto.

    But the thing with opposing 'gentrification' is that it really comes down to saying, we need to preserve a crappy standard of living for some people, and neighbourhoods few would live in by choice, because nothing else can or will be done to give folks decent paying jobs (or pensions) as required.

    That makes no sense to me.

    And preserving what amounts to 'ghetto's has the effect of grouping together people who don't have the education or connections to gain good jobs.

    Most of us, have benefited over the years from getting a job because we "know" someone, whether that's just finding out about an opening or getting a critical recommendation.

    If you live beside only people who either lack employment, or lack good quality employment, then they likely can't help you get a good job.

    It makes far more sense to offer a viable shelter subsidy, tied to income, not social assistance, that is enough to rent at least a lower-end apartment. Maybe $900 per month?

    Rather than focusing on preserving areas of concentrated poverty.

    That and raising minimum wage, raising what disability/seniors pensions pay, and making sure we also invest in everyone having the opportunity to go back to school or otherwise receive
    training that advances their opportunity for meaningful work.

    * apologies, I seem to be in a ranting mood today, must be the weather.
     
    #13
  14. wolfewood

    wolfewood Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2012
    Messages:
    491
    Likes Received:
    284
    I don't necessarily dispute all you're saying (though I disagree with the concept that poor people living together is inherently a bad thing - it can have its benefits, as well as its problems) but you don't really give a satisfying solution here. Housing is the first need for everyone, along with food and water. Without those, there's no way to function as a human being. Certainly not a fully functioning one. So first, what do you do about the housing crisis in this city? There's a 100,000 person backlog on social housing right now. Even if we provided every one of them with enough money to afford rent (assuming that didn't just inflate rental costs further), where will they live? I can't find the most recent stats because UT's search function is meh but it looks like we're building about 5-6k units per quarter. So presumably we're building around 20-30k a year. It'd take a good 4-5 years of new construction by the private sector, as is, to clear the backlog. And I doubt we could build much more, considering the already frenzied pace of construction. So obviously there's a need for purpose-built subsidized housing in the interim, as you said yourself.

    But the real issue is how do we give everyone you're talking about a well-paying job that can afford these units? There's a finite limit on how many people can do certain jobs. If anything, society seems to be running out of potential jobs - automation is eating up more and more work every year. What jobs are left often require a significant skill set that the average person doesn't have, let alone someone who's on a subsidized housing list. And this doesn't even begin to address the problems of subsidizing work in our current hyper-free market moment. I'd be cool with subsidizing labour so that people can afford to live (though purpose-built housing still feels like a better bet to me) but I doubt you'd ever convince anyway with actual power to agree to that.

    So basically, yes opposition to gentrification is focused on leaving neighbourhoods as is but that's because the only alternative presented right now (unchecked development and the pushing out of marginal peoples) is far worse. I'd rather live in a dilapidated building downtown where I have access to resources than an equally dilapidated apartment in Scarborough or Etobicoke that leaves me further from the resources that could help me prosper.
     
    #14
  15. Northern Light

    Northern Light Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Messages:
    2,812
    Likes Received:
    2,041
    Location:
    Toronto/EY
    First off, I think its important to note that there are not 100,000 homeless people in Toronto.

    The waiting list for public housing exists at that level, because 100,000 people qualify, based on their income, and housing needs, and have applied.

    Those applications are, for the most part, from people now in private-sector rental apartments, but who find paying their rent an oppressive expense,
    and would benefit greatly from the relief an rgi (rent-geared-to-income) housing unit provides.

    There are somewhere around 5,000-10,000 'hardcore' homeless people in city, (those who lack any place to go home to, other than a shelter).

    There are some additional folks living in varying degrees of precariousness (staying w/parents or friends, etc., but on the understanding that can't be permanent)
    I don't think we have a good handle on how many, but somewhere in the 10,000-20,000 range seems credible.

    Everyone else IS housed, the only issue being (and not an unimportant one) that they can't afford all of their other basic needs and/or the odd small luxury
    as rent sucks up somewhere btw 40-60% of their income.

    The portable rent subsidy immediately resolves the problem for the latter group.

    Thus leaving a waiting list of somewhere between 15,000-30,000.

    But with a rent subsidy and/or higher minimum wage, that issue can resolve over time.

    The challenge right now is, even a non-profit will rent out a 1 bedroom at about $900 per month on new construction.

    That means you need to get someone's income up to a bare minimum of $1,500 a month to cover rent and other expenses.

    Since we currently pay a child-less person on social assistance roughly $700 per month, all-in (about $400 for shelter) there
    is no way to ever create market or non-profit housing for that person.

    Increase their income, and there is a way.

    Truth be told, most new build market constructed rental will go for much more, but that would open up the older stock to be priced more cheaply.

    ***

    Raising minimum wage is not a political impossibility, California has just signed a law bringing the entire state up to $15 per hour by 2022.

    That works out to around $19Cdn per hour at the current exchange rate.

    Adjusting for inflation, (since this would phased over the next 6 years or so)

    You're looking at $16 per hour, or $32,000 cdn per year for full-time work in today's money.

    Allowing for taxes that's around $26,000 net, which is about $2,200 per month.

    Which would be more than enough for anyone in Toronto to find housing.

    Even if you got a few hours short of 40, you'd be close.

    ***

    For those who aren't working or aren't working full time, variations of portable rent subsidy or guaranteed annual income are preferable.

    But an increased rate of social assistance, combined with larger allowances for penalty-free working income when on said program would do wonders to help out.

    ***

    Automation will, over time, reduce the need for un-skilled labour.

    Though, we are awhile away from that being a thing of the past.

    The simple act of giving folks money (through wages or subsidies) who don't have enough currently, will provide a measure of economic stimulus.

    Put, another way, if someone was under-nourished, the moment they get an extra $50 they will go spend that in a grocery store, or on treating themselves
    to their first pizza in an age. That in turn provides more of the very type of jobs that the low-skilled require.

    But there is absolutely a need to empower folks in those situations to become more skilled. Said opportunities may not fit everyone's circumstance, but
    if it works for 1/2 of them, we'll be much better off a society.

    ***

    In the end I just think giving low-income folks the chance to stay in their existing housing, or choose from a variety of public/private options in the area
    that works for them, makes more sense than warehousing them in buildings we as a society have shown little inclination to maintain well.

    Further, as was historically seen w/Regent Park, if an entire area is blanketed by low-income housing, virtually no retail will open to serve those residents
    or provide employment.

    Whereas a mixed income community offers the latter, providing a better quality of life and more opportunity to improve one's lot.
     
    #15
    grey and ksun like this.

Share This Page