Toronto XO Condos | 53.64m | 14s | Lifetime | Core Architects

interchange42 said:
Yup, quite a bit of substance to those speeches, and a good lesson for the activists who want everything that they want and nothing that they don't want.

42
Click to expand...

Also something of a masterclass by Perks in explaining why he's advocating for a position that he doesn't fully support; a careful and thoughtful explanation of how he's working within the confines of what he can control.
 
Well the units here really don't qualify as "HOUSING" when they're obviously just intended as unoccupied investment safe houses sold to foreign buyers through anonymized bitcoin accounts used to launder money from bogus emissions trading schemes! Duh
 
…and then turned into Airbnb rentals and/or meth labs. Get with the times!

42
 
bilked said:
when they're obviously just intended as unoccupied investment safe houses sold to foreign buyers through anonymized bitcoin accounts used to launder money from bogus emissions trading schemes! Duh
Click to expand...

Ugh?, lol...King + Dufferin,...Just intended as unoccupied investment safe houses sold to foreign buyers,





 
In Toronto, it's worthwhile to rent out those investment safe houses. Probably see more of that in Vancouver too now that rents have caught up with property values.
 
The big issue here is not necessarily about built form. I think most people would agree that this corner needs some intensification. Having said that, this corner is already congested and is brutal during the CNE, Caribana, TFC games etc. With hundreds of new units of housing already under construction just east of here at 1100 King Street West it will only get worse.
The biggest issue though is the economic and social destabilization that will come with such a large development. This is not options for homes coming in with an affordable ownership condo. This is Lifetime developments, who unless I missed something, are better know for a higher end product that is out of the price range of many of the people who already call Parkdale home. There is little control over who develops a particular site, but it would have been much more appropriate for a more affordable rental or ownership project at this site. At the very least they could have offered some affordable residential units or commercial space with rent control for local businesses and community organizations. Good example of a developer not knowing their context and creating conflict with the local community.
 
Jacob Lisgar said:
The biggest issue though is the economic and social destabilization that will come with such a large development.
Click to expand...

Yeah true but whats happening here is also going on @ Queen and Dufferin, Bloor + Dufferin,
Dupont + Dufferin, Dupont + Landsdowne, Bloor + Dundas, etc, etc etc,
Toronto real estate is expensive and the city is growing at an incredible pace for these borderline downtown neighbourhoods to stay affordable,
i think it's just a matter of time if you want affordability you will have to live at least 10-15km from the downtown core,
it's unfortunate but i dont know if you can blame the developers or city planning for whats going on
 
Jacob Lisgar said:
The big issue here is not necessarily about built form. I think most people would agree that this corner needs some intensification. Having said that, this corner is already congested and is brutal during the CNE, Caribana, TFC games etc. With hundreds of new units of housing already under construction just east of here at 1100 King Street West it will only get worse.
The biggest issue though is the economic and social destabilization that will come with such a large development. This is not options for homes coming in with an affordable ownership condo. This is Lifetime developments, who unless I missed something, are better know for a higher end product that is out of the price range of many of the people who already call Parkdale home. There is little control over who develops a particular site, but it would have been much more appropriate for a more affordable rental or ownership project at this site. At the very least they could have offered some affordable residential units or commercial space with rent control for local businesses and community organizations. Good example of a developer not knowing their context and creating conflict with the local community.
Click to expand...

Not really. They bought a site and want to build. Conflict or not, TEYCC endorsed the plan yesterday. Lifetime, for better or worse, bought the site and have to make the land pay. It's the reality of 21st century buildings.

Here's an excellent article regarding that change in the last half century: http://commonedge.org/the-politics-of-architecture-are-not-a-matter-of-taste/
 
Jacob Lisgar said:
The big issue here is not necessarily about built form. I think most people would agree that this corner needs some intensification. Having said that, this corner is already congested and is brutal during the CNE, Caribana, TFC games etc. With hundreds of new units of housing already under construction just east of here at 1100 King Street West it will only get worse.
The biggest issue though is the economic and social destabilization that will come with such a large development. This is not options for homes coming in with an affordable ownership condo. This is Lifetime developments, who unless I missed something, are better know for a higher end product that is out of the price range of many of the people who already call Parkdale home. There is little control over who develops a particular site, but it would have been much more appropriate for a more affordable rental or ownership project at this site. At the very least they could have offered some affordable residential units or commercial space with rent control for local businesses and community organizations. Good example of a developer not knowing their context and creating conflict with the local community.
Click to expand...

Repressing supply through restrictive zoning is an odd way to address affordability issues. Ask San Francisco how that worked for them.
 
Building more and more supply is not necessarily going to address affordability either.


I do agree. Lifetime bought the site and proposed something that isn't outrageous. It's up to them to decide the price points that work best for them. They aren't responsible for building affordable housing or for making good use of speculators.
 
maestro said:
Building more and more supply is not necessarily going to address affordability either.
I do agree. Lifetime bought the site and proposed something that isn't outrageous. It's up to them to decide the price points that work best for them. They aren't responsible for building affordable housing or for making good use of speculators.
Click to expand...

It won't address the lower rungs of the affordability issue, but I am sure it will help reduce slippage for everyone else.

AoD
 
It hasn't really worked here so far. That said, it could still work to everyone's favour down the road.
 
The derelict and thus affordable apartment buildings in King Street Parkdale weren't initially affordable either. They became affordable as they fell out of favour eventually. Supply isn't answer to everything but you're not going to achieve affordability by saying no to newer/better developments.

I mean what's next, rejecting King streetcar improvements because it'll make the neighbourhood more desirable and lead to gentrification?

maestro said:
It hasn't really worked here so far. That said, it could still work to everyone's favour down the road.
Click to expand...

Nobody is expecting it to work overnight. As with many economic elements housing evolves at a generational pace.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top