Towered said:
This must be AI generated misinformation. There's no way any place in Etobicoke can look like this ;)
Click to expand...
The area did change a lot tho. I go there often since my partner lives around before.

My gripe about the whole part is with crossing Dundas and Kipling. The area suddenly goes from smaller road and slower traffic to wider road and faster traffic with long wait time on the lights.

This is one of the few areas in Toronto that I think will be greatly improved by having some pedestrian bridges or tunnels (the order one being Queen Quay).
 
Tyrang said:
The area did change a lot tho. I go there often since my partner lives around before.

My gripe about the whole part is with crossing Dundas. Really wide road and really fast cars, long wait time on the lights.

This is one of the few areas in Toronto that I think will be greatly improved by having some pedestrian bridges or tunnels (the order one being Queen Quay).
Click to expand...
Agree. I feel like if the interchange configuration had been designed a decade later than it was, the new streets would have been much narrower to allow a true urban feel to develop. I just hope this area doesn't wind up looking like NYCC. Yuck.
 
HousingNowTO said:
New UT article posted about this site -
urbantoronto.ca

CreateTO Planning 43-Storey Complex Beside New Etobicoke Civic Centre | UrbanToronto

A 43-storey mixed-use complex is proposed beside the new Etobicoke Civic Centre in the Bloor-Kipling Housing Now site. Designed by Montgomery Sisam Architects for CreateTO, the plan includes 698 residential units, affordable and market-rate rentals, and retail. The site is halfway between...
urbantoronto.ca urbantoronto.ca
Click to expand...
>> The residential portion of the complex would have six elevators, providing approximately one for every 116 units, with high-speed motors required to ensure efficient service.
A recipe for lo-o-ong wait times.
At least one elevator will be broken at any given time.
 
An elevator ratio of 1 to 116 units is awful. Also, is one third "affordable units" standard? That seems a little high, to the point where it could act as a deterrent for anyone to rent in the other 2/3rds?
 
toaster29 said:
Also, is one third "affordable units" standard? That seems a little high, to the point where it could act as a deterrent for anyone to rent in the other 2/3rds?
Click to expand...
Some context on the PROJECT OBJECTIVES of the City of Toronto's HOUSING NOW program, and the order of those Priorities -

1739724960422.png

30% of the units as "Affordable Rental" (aka - Workforce Rental Housing at approx. $2 - 3 per month / per sq. ft) is pretty-much the STANDARD ratio in the last few years on new build "Mixed-Income Properties" on Government-Owned Lands within the City of Toronto...

KIPLING - BLOCK 03 - AFFORDABLE RENT - BOARD 01 - HIGHLIGHT - 202502.png

...the Target-Incomes for these kinds of "Affordable Housing" rents on HOUSING NOW sites are very different than the incomes of "Social Housing" (eg. Toronto Community Housing) rents in 2025...

KIPLING - BLOCK 03 - CITY CHALLENGES - SLIDE - HIGHLIGHT - 202502.png


...the majority of the HOUSING NOW program's "Affordable Housing" units are focused on creating net new rental apartments for - "middle income earners and key workers and professionals who are finding it increasingly unaffordable to live within the borders of the City of Toronto" - of the 230 x total new AFFORDABLE RENTAL apartments in this BLOCK-03 proposal, assume that approx. ~200 x apartments will be for annual household gross incomes between $43,000 - $88,000 / year, depending on Household / Family size...

1739726071759.png


...only Approx. ~30 (THIRTY) x new AFFORDABLE RENTAL apartments in this BLOCK-03 proposal will be for Households with annual household gross incomes below $40,000 / year. They will mostly be provided via unit-allocation deals with various "Not-Profit Partner Agencies" who have the ability to bring other forms of rent-subsidy into those apartments to lower the out-of-pocket rents for those specific households.

Example - Kehilla’s Rental Assistance Program (RAP) provides up to $400 a month to help people pay their rent and live more affordably in the Jewish Community -

Rental Assistance Program — Kehilla Residential Programme

www.kehilla.ca www.kehilla.ca

1739726660302.png

...the majority of the new "Affordable Rental" apartments will be for Households and Individuals like the people the City identifies in the materials that they present at their In-Person public-meetings about these kinds of developments.

This Market-to-Affordable apartments ratio (30%) - and target "Affordable Rent" bands are the same-model as on other recently completed developments like MAPLE HOUSE AT CANARY LANDING -
urbantoronto.ca

Maple House Wins Sole Canadian ULI 2024 Americas Awards for Excellence | UrbanToronto

Maple House at Canary Landing is one of ten winners of the 2024 Urban Land Institute’s (ULI) Americas Awards for Excellence. Developed by Dream Unlimited, Kilmer Group, and Tricon Residential, and designed by COBE Architects and architects—Alliance, Maple House stands as the sole Canadian...
urbantoronto.ca urbantoronto.ca
 
HousingNowTO said:
Some context on the PROJECT OBJECTIVES of the City of Toronto's HOUSING NOW program, and the order of those Priorities -

View attachment 631455
30% of the units as "Affordable Rental" (aka - Workforce Rental Housing at approx. $2 - 3 per month / per sq. ft) is pretty-much the STANDARD ratio in the last few years on new build "Mixed-Income Properties" on Government-Owned Lands within the City of Toronto...

View attachment 631454
...the Target-Incomes for these kinds of "Affordable Housing" rents on HOUSING NOW sites are very different than the incomes of "Social Housing" (eg. Toronto Community Housing) rents in 2025...

View attachment 631456

...the majority of the HOUSING NOW program's "Affordable Housing" units are focused on creating net new rental apartments for - "middle income earners and key workers and professionals who are finding it increasingly unaffordable to live within the borders of the City of Toronto" - of the 230 x total new AFFORDABLE RENTAL apartments in this BLOCK-03 proposal, assume that approx. ~200 x apartments will be for annual household gross incomes between $43,000 - $88,000 / year, depending on Household / Family size...

View attachment 631457

...only Approx. ~30 (THIRTY) x new AFFORDABLE RENTAL apartments in this BLOCK-03 proposal will be for Households with annual household gross incomes below $40,000 / year. They will mostly be provided via unit-allocation deals with various "Not-Profit Partner Agencies" who have the ability to bring other forms of rent-subsidy into those apartments to lower the out-of-pocket rents for those specific households.

Example - Kehilla’s Rental Assistance Program (RAP) provides up to $400 a month to help people pay their rent and live more affordably in the Jewish Community -

Rental Assistance Program — Kehilla Residential Programme

www.kehilla.ca www.kehilla.ca

View attachment 631458
...the majority of the new "Affordable Rental" apartments will be for Households and Individuals like the people the City identifies in the materials that they present at their In-Person public-meetings about these kinds of developments.

This Market-to-Affordable apartments ratio (30%) - and target "Affordable Rent" bands are the same-model as on other recently completed developments like MAPLE HOUSE AT CANARY LANDING -
urbantoronto.ca

Maple House Wins Sole Canadian ULI 2024 Americas Awards for Excellence | UrbanToronto

Maple House at Canary Landing is one of ten winners of the 2024 Urban Land Institute’s (ULI) Americas Awards for Excellence. Developed by Dream Unlimited, Kilmer Group, and Tricon Residential, and designed by COBE Architects and architects—Alliance, Maple House stands as the sole Canadian...
urbantoronto.ca urbantoronto.ca
Click to expand...
There’s folks way, way poorer than that, goodness….
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
There’s folks way, way poorer than that, goodness….
Click to expand...
Yes, there are -- TCHC "Social Housing" apartments serve households with an average Gross Annual Income that is less than $20,000 per year.


TCHC_RGI_2023_RENTS.PNG


On average, in 2023 -- those "Rent-Geared-to-Income" (RGI) households pay only ~$485 / month in rent... which is why those TCHC buildings are literally falling-apart...

If you want the HOUSING NOW program to deliver those kinds of new build apartments that rent at TCHC / RGI rents of under $500 /month -- then somebody needs to FUND the $600 to $1,700 monthly rent-gap on each of those RGI apartments ($7,200 - $20,400 per year / per apartment) , and also Index that rent-subsidy to (at least) CPI inflation for the next 99-years.
 
HousingNowTO said:
If you want the HOUSING NOW program to deliver those kinds of new build apartments that rent at TCHC / RGI rents of under $500 /month -- then somebody needs to FUND the $600 to $1,700 monthly rent-gap on each of those RGI apartments ($7,200 - $20,400 per year / per apartment) , and also Index that rent-subsidy to (at least) CPI inflation for the next 99-years.
Click to expand...

I would argue for:

Raising Minimum Wage to a more sustainable number, and allowing that RGI for someone earning (for argument's sake ~$24 per hour, or ~48k per year/4k per month before taxes) can be up to $1,200 per month (30%) and any gap between that and at-cost can be covered by 60% of units in a given building being market rent.

(The Vienna model again) ...more or less.

****

For those on OW, I would similarly advocate for a much higher sum, for argument's sake 2,400k per month, with 30% RGI being equal to $720 rent. OW recipients would need flexibility on spending, and also to have the poverty trap substantially mitigated. (higher earnings exemption from clawbacks and a lower clawback rate, incentivizing and rewarding work).

This is, overall, affordable, on the assumption that higher rents and more market units in public ownership partially offset the costs, and that there are further, substantial savings to be had by reducing the number of shelter beds (only after we ensure sufficient capacity that no one is turned away), essentially removing one shelter bed for 3 new affordable units we create,

The balance would be funded by net new provincial dollars, and should be fundable with a 1% rise in the sales tax.
 
Last edited:
HousingNowTO said:
Yes, there are -- TCHC "Social Housing" apartments serve households with an average Gross Annual Income that is less than $20,000 per year.


View attachment 631579

On average, in 2023 -- those "Rent-Geared-to-Income" (RGI) households pay only ~$485 / month in rent... which is why those TCHC buildings are literally falling-apart...

If you want the HOUSING NOW program to deliver those kinds of new build apartments that rent at TCHC / RGI rents of under $500 /month -- then somebody needs to FUND the $600 to $1,700 monthly rent-gap on each of those RGI apartments ($7,200 - $20,400 per year / per apartment) , and also Index that rent-subsidy to (at least) CPI inflation for the next 99-years.
Click to expand...
Since I believe adequate housing is a human right, absolutely…

…however, I am open how to best achieve that.

Either way, thanks for explaining this.
 
“Proposed Development” signs are up — the site is currently used as construction staging for the new ETOBICOKE CIVIC CENTRE next door — so any materials and equipment you see in the photos are unrelated to the current proposal.

IMG_0771.jpeg


IMG_0769.jpeg
IMG_0772.jpeg


IMG_0774.jpeg
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top