adma
Superstar
How about a faux version of Dickinson's Regent Park blocks at twice or three times the height?
- Thread starter ProjectEnd
- Start date
AKS
Senior Member
Let me get this straight. You're against the design of a subsidized building for several reasons, most of which are based in the size of this complex. You also take issue with the design, which you believe to be 'too luxurious', 'too nice' etc., but then suggest that (the hideous, hateful) 38 Avenue, a pretentious, faux mashup of past 'luxury' style would be a better model? And what nouns of derision will you yell at the selfish, lazy poor when they emerge from this failed attempt at palatial extravagance?
What I'm suggesting is a concept. I don't mean to follow anything 100%. I'm putting up ideas for building blocks. Ways to stack things. I think having a tunnel go across the building is not a bad idea. When it rains, the people who are walking in the park can run for shelter (an extreme example maybe like the sudden tornado that hit downtown. It rained so hard. Assume if someone was out in the field and the tornado suddenly hit. They would need immediate shelter). Also maybe some public bathrooms under the tunnel across too. There's no shelter and no bathrooms. How exactly it will be built, structure, material, design is up for debate. What I'm trying to say is, there are many ways to stack lego blocks. There's no need to totally block westone's west view. You can block part of it or spread it out over the area of the block, at least it will be a negotiation. Otherwise it's like the city doesn't care. We build what we like. To hell with what others think. There's not just one single design.
Also, the community centre would be better used if the facilities are shared with the school. School class runs 8am-3pm. The community activities run around 6-9pm weekdays and all day weekends to use the schools empty rooms. Much like central tech. I've taken general interest courses there. They occupy the space after classes are over.
As for balconies. I believe there should be balconies for most if not all to use. I find balconies are useful. The sliding door ones of course with the net. It will keep mosquito out. However you can open the balcony sliding door to let in the lake air. At the top, it's quite cool in the summer so you don't need to turn on a/c. If it's too hot, I sometimes leave the door to the lobby slightly open to let in cool air. I never turn on a/c. I never turn on heaters in the winter either because I have the curtains covering the window. The curtains help keep the cold out out a bit. Also if the sides are sealed properly, very little cold air will seep in unless you're right beside the window. I think big balconies would be nice if it's possible to implement. But it's not the most important thing. Rather than have large balconies for selected families, having smaller balconies for most families to enjoy is better. Also those tall protective balconies I saw is a good and bad idea. If they're so high, they will keep out the wind which would help keep their room cool in the summer when there's a breeze or when it rains (there's a breeze too). It's good for cooling the unit. I don't know why there's a need for such tall balcony coverage. However having it slightly higher than normal might be good for preventing people from falling over if they're tall.
I've always liked the idea of designing the external box with balcony design. I really like absolute tower. Using balconies to create shape is indigenous. U condo also makes use of balcony design to create a kind of bamboo stick design. I don't know why not many people do that.
Other issues with balcony for example. At west one, there's a slight space between the floor and the balcony glass (to keep from falling over). Neighbours above me sometimes smoke and throw cigs down. It's bad because if there are kids and they walk outside, they might pick it up. Also, with the slit if the kids's feet is tiny, their feet might fall through. I've seen ones where they bend in under the balcony and cigs accumulate there. Not sure if there would be hazard for fire.
Last edited:
Hypnotoad
Senior Member
This is laughable. It is not 'human nature' to be bitter that the building next to you is more luxurious than yours. It is small mindedness. CityPlace is a highrise district. No matter how you package your complaint it still smells bad.
I'm glad you think poor people are just like all of us. Two sweeping generalizations in that comment that assume that all poor people are the same and all of "us" are the same, who ever we all are.
But I will ask myself what you asked me to ask myself, and that is:
I wouldn't give a $hit. For one, I would have been smart enough to know ahead of time that the vacant land beside my condo could potentially, one-day be developed into a highrise condo. I would haven't known this for two reasons. The first, the plans stated as much. Second, I would have realized that once upon a time the condo I was living in was once undeveloped land and if it could be more than 40 storeys then all reason begged that the land next to mine would be too.
Your posts are not subtle. You do not like poor people and you don't want them to have what you consider to be better things than you. But don't worry, there are a lot of "poor people" in this world, millions of them, who have significantly less than you. No need to worry.
caltrane74
Senior Member
Wow!!.. Thatz an "effing" an amazing post. No need to dilly dally, just get straight to the point.
call it, like you see it.
call it, like you see it.
drum118
Superstar
Oct 18
tkip
Active Member
Yes....
"Your posts are not subtle. You do not like poor people and you don't want them to have what you consider to be better things than you. But don't worry, there are a lot of "poor people" in this world, millions of them, who have significantly less than you. No need to worry."
Sadly there are more than a few million of poor people on this planet. Probably well over a billion or so. And Rangostar has a raging hate for poor people. We can see it in his posts. What's more insulting though is his attempts to mask this behind this pathetic arguement with his opposition to the tower being built.
But I'm glad that someone else decide to take this guy to task for obviously being a bigot and hiding behind this with his laughable objections to this proposed tower. Yes, he hates poor people. Yes, he doesn't want them in his neighborhood. Yes, he hates seeing poor being provided after and yes this guy is jealous beyond rational thought.
At least he should have the guts to just state his discomfort with poor in "his" neighborhood and living in a building that he wishes he was living in.
Despite this I'm not that angry with him for being bigoted towards the poor even though I think it's morally wrong. That he won't admit to this is what really gets me going. If you don't like something, just say you don't like it. It's obvious he has a problem with the poor.
It's everywhere in his posts.
"Your posts are not subtle. You do not like poor people and you don't want them to have what you consider to be better things than you. But don't worry, there are a lot of "poor people" in this world, millions of them, who have significantly less than you. No need to worry."
Sadly there are more than a few million of poor people on this planet. Probably well over a billion or so. And Rangostar has a raging hate for poor people. We can see it in his posts. What's more insulting though is his attempts to mask this behind this pathetic arguement with his opposition to the tower being built.
But I'm glad that someone else decide to take this guy to task for obviously being a bigot and hiding behind this with his laughable objections to this proposed tower. Yes, he hates poor people. Yes, he doesn't want them in his neighborhood. Yes, he hates seeing poor being provided after and yes this guy is jealous beyond rational thought.
At least he should have the guts to just state his discomfort with poor in "his" neighborhood and living in a building that he wishes he was living in.
Despite this I'm not that angry with him for being bigoted towards the poor even though I think it's morally wrong. That he won't admit to this is what really gets me going. If you don't like something, just say you don't like it. It's obvious he has a problem with the poor.
It's everywhere in his posts.
Last edited:
Irishmonk
Senior Member
Rango, does it ever occur to you that if there were no poor people--i.e. people who made less money than you--then you would be poor? Just thought I'd blow your mind with that concept.
SP!RE
°°°°°°
Oh well, I am not going to put any time into reading Rangostar's point of view anymore. I am just dying for this new project to go up!!!
I am, however, glad to see that most people in Toronto (or at least on urbantoronto it seems) have the sense and compassion to realize that the poor deserve to be taken good care of, just as the wealthy do.
I am comforted knowing that Rangostar (et al.) are in the minority.
I am, however, glad to see that most people in Toronto (or at least on urbantoronto it seems) have the sense and compassion to realize that the poor deserve to be taken good care of, just as the wealthy do.
I am comforted knowing that Rangostar (et al.) are in the minority.
Automation Gallery
Superstar
greenleaf
Senior Member
From Adam Vaughan's newsletter:
(The renderings of this building look fantastic! I think this will be the best looking building in Cityplace. Also, 10-12 foot deep balconies. WHOA!)
431 Fort York Boulevard (Railway Lands West Block 31)
On October 14th Toronto Community Housing Corporation (TCHC) presented plans and received feedback about a proposed development in the Railway Lands West at a public meeting hosted by the City of Toronto City Planning division. TCHC is a city-owned corporation that manages the city’s portfolio of publicly owned, affordable rental housing.
About 150 residents attended the meeting where Peter Zimmerman of TCHC and architect Peter Clewes of architectsAlliance presented the proposal for the site, which is a large block of land in the Railway Lands West, located immediately to the east of the new community park designed by Douglas Coupland.
The proposal includes two schools (TDSB and TCDSB) that would serve students between Junior Kindergarten and Grade 7, a daycare centre that would be operated by the City of Toronto, a community centre, and two residential buildings with 322 housing units [9-storey, 60 unit seniors’ housing building, and a 43-storey tower that would be composed of 262 affordable rental units].
This meeting was a formal community consultation on the re-zoning application submitted by the developer. In most cases discussions at this type of meeting focus on the built form design and potential shadow impacts of the structures proposed. Due to the public uses and public investment in the site participants raised many questions about the internal uses of the proposed buildings which are outside the jurisdiction of the planning process.
Block 31 is a large parcel of land. The design includes mid-block connections and view corridors throughout the site. The interior of the site would include a courtyard that would also serve as a school yard.
East-west pedestrian connections mid-block through the site will allow people to easily cross through the site to reach the community park, and also to continue the existing view corridor from the community park to Spadina Ave to the east.
A north-south view corridor from north of the railway tracks to the lake would also be maintained on the west side of the site.
The Southern Linear Park just to the north of the Gardiner Expressway would continue through the site, allowing pedestrians and cyclists to travel through to the park.
The entire project is being designed with very sustainable buildings, which include green roofs, geothermal wells under the site, and opportunities for solar harvesting. They are aiming for LEED Gold certification on this project.
The proposed 43-storey tower is very thin with a small floor plate. The units are being designed for families, with 111 one-bedroom units, 92 two-bedroom units, and 119 units that have three-bedrooms or larger. The tower would be located at the south-east side of the site. Within the building design “sky gardens’ have been organized around the elevator cores, to provide natural ventilation and a social hub for residents to interact. These gardens would stretch over 3-4 storeys at various points in the building.
In this design, balconies are only located on the west side of the building facing the park. The balconies proposed are much larger than balconies in most buildings, with depths ranging from 10 – 12 feet. The balconies have tall glass walls to protect against the wind and for safety, and the glass is translucent in sections for privacy.
Parking and loading for the site would all occur below grade, with a single point of entrance at the south-east corner of the site, at the south end of Brunel Court. There would be an underground drop-off location for the daycare, and a school bus turning loop at the south end of Brunel Court.
Many questions have been raised about the designation of the building as “affordable housingâ€. While this was a meeting to receive feedback about the planning aspects of the proposal, some time was dedicated to discussing this issue.
In general zoning approvals do not provide tools for affecting the occupancy, tenancy or tenure of a structure beyond a category of “use†– such as commercial, residential or institutional. The exception is on sites where the City of Toronto’s Official Housing Policies come into play – for example where there is existing rental housing on a site or where the City is securing new affordable housing.
Since the early 1980s, the planning for this site included plans for affordable housing. This was incorporated in a 1994 by-law for this site, which included specific directives about what would be built on this site, including schools, community centre, and affordable housing.
The City of Toronto’s Official Plan definition of “affordable housing†is:
Affordable rental housing and affordable rents means housing where the total monthly shelter cost (gross monthly rent including utilities – heat, hydro and hot water – but excluding parking and cable television charges) is at or below one times the average City of Toronto rent, by unit type (number of bedrooms), as reported annually by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Affordable ownership housing is housing which is priced at or below an amount where the total monthly shelter cost (mortgage principal and interest – based on a 25-year amortization, 10 per cent down payment and the chartered bank administered mortgage rate for a conventional 5-year
mortgage as reported by the Bank of Canada at the time of application – plus property taxes calculated on a monthly basis) equals the average City of Toronto rent, by unit type, as reported annually by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Affordable ownership price includes GST and any other mandatory costs associated with purchasing the unit.
City of Toronto Official Plan
Rent Thresholds for 2009:
Affordable Threshold
Unit Type / Affordable Maximum Limits
Bachelor $ 767
1-bedroom $ 929
2-bedroom $1,104
3-bedroom $1,292
2-bedroom townhouse $1,078
3-bedroom townhouse $1,304
4+ bedroom townhouse $1,417
In Canada, there are limitations on the kind of decision making that can be shared through a democratic process. For example, a neighbour cannot intervene on a real estate transaction or interview potential tenants at a neighbouring property. Residents do not have the right to choose or limit who lives in their neighbourhood. This is protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
That being said, in a spirit of transparency, TCHC as the developer, City staff and my office have openly shared information about the future tenancy and tenure for the proposed buildings.
In the development proposed by TCHC for this site all of the units would be affordable rental units. Rents would be set at about 80% of average rental rates for the City of Toronto, as determined as the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC). All of the units are being planned as “market rental units,†there will be no rent-geared-to-income units planned in this building. This means that in order to qualify for a lease in these units, future residents would need to have an annual income in the range of $35,000 to $65,000.
Numerous other concerns were raised about the proposed height of the tower on the site.
In 1994, all of the sites were zoned as low-rise perimeter block buildings. Since that time, Concord Adex, which has developed most of the Railway Lands, has rezoned their sites and built tall and thin point towers set out in urban design guidelines that TCHC is now following for Block 31. Block 31 is the only site that has not been rezoned in the Railway Lands West. The proposed development would constitute a 12% increase in density over the existing zoning on the site.
The planning issues that were raised and included the shadow impact of the tower on the courtyard and common spaces of neighbouring buildings, the impact on townhouse units on Brunel Court, and traffic congestion on Brunel Court.
Volunteers stepped forward to participate on a working group, to work with TCHC and Councillor Vaughan on the planning concerns about the proposal. Feedback from the public meeting will also be used by City of Toronto planning staff to prepare a report to City Council with recommendations on responses to the application.
(The renderings of this building look fantastic! I think this will be the best looking building in Cityplace. Also, 10-12 foot deep balconies. WHOA!)
431 Fort York Boulevard (Railway Lands West Block 31)
On October 14th Toronto Community Housing Corporation (TCHC) presented plans and received feedback about a proposed development in the Railway Lands West at a public meeting hosted by the City of Toronto City Planning division. TCHC is a city-owned corporation that manages the city’s portfolio of publicly owned, affordable rental housing.
About 150 residents attended the meeting where Peter Zimmerman of TCHC and architect Peter Clewes of architectsAlliance presented the proposal for the site, which is a large block of land in the Railway Lands West, located immediately to the east of the new community park designed by Douglas Coupland.
The proposal includes two schools (TDSB and TCDSB) that would serve students between Junior Kindergarten and Grade 7, a daycare centre that would be operated by the City of Toronto, a community centre, and two residential buildings with 322 housing units [9-storey, 60 unit seniors’ housing building, and a 43-storey tower that would be composed of 262 affordable rental units].
This meeting was a formal community consultation on the re-zoning application submitted by the developer. In most cases discussions at this type of meeting focus on the built form design and potential shadow impacts of the structures proposed. Due to the public uses and public investment in the site participants raised many questions about the internal uses of the proposed buildings which are outside the jurisdiction of the planning process.
Block 31 is a large parcel of land. The design includes mid-block connections and view corridors throughout the site. The interior of the site would include a courtyard that would also serve as a school yard.
East-west pedestrian connections mid-block through the site will allow people to easily cross through the site to reach the community park, and also to continue the existing view corridor from the community park to Spadina Ave to the east.
A north-south view corridor from north of the railway tracks to the lake would also be maintained on the west side of the site.
The Southern Linear Park just to the north of the Gardiner Expressway would continue through the site, allowing pedestrians and cyclists to travel through to the park.
The entire project is being designed with very sustainable buildings, which include green roofs, geothermal wells under the site, and opportunities for solar harvesting. They are aiming for LEED Gold certification on this project.
The proposed 43-storey tower is very thin with a small floor plate. The units are being designed for families, with 111 one-bedroom units, 92 two-bedroom units, and 119 units that have three-bedrooms or larger. The tower would be located at the south-east side of the site. Within the building design “sky gardens’ have been organized around the elevator cores, to provide natural ventilation and a social hub for residents to interact. These gardens would stretch over 3-4 storeys at various points in the building.
In this design, balconies are only located on the west side of the building facing the park. The balconies proposed are much larger than balconies in most buildings, with depths ranging from 10 – 12 feet. The balconies have tall glass walls to protect against the wind and for safety, and the glass is translucent in sections for privacy.
Parking and loading for the site would all occur below grade, with a single point of entrance at the south-east corner of the site, at the south end of Brunel Court. There would be an underground drop-off location for the daycare, and a school bus turning loop at the south end of Brunel Court.
Many questions have been raised about the designation of the building as “affordable housingâ€. While this was a meeting to receive feedback about the planning aspects of the proposal, some time was dedicated to discussing this issue.
In general zoning approvals do not provide tools for affecting the occupancy, tenancy or tenure of a structure beyond a category of “use†– such as commercial, residential or institutional. The exception is on sites where the City of Toronto’s Official Housing Policies come into play – for example where there is existing rental housing on a site or where the City is securing new affordable housing.
Since the early 1980s, the planning for this site included plans for affordable housing. This was incorporated in a 1994 by-law for this site, which included specific directives about what would be built on this site, including schools, community centre, and affordable housing.
The City of Toronto’s Official Plan definition of “affordable housing†is:
Affordable rental housing and affordable rents means housing where the total monthly shelter cost (gross monthly rent including utilities – heat, hydro and hot water – but excluding parking and cable television charges) is at or below one times the average City of Toronto rent, by unit type (number of bedrooms), as reported annually by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Affordable ownership housing is housing which is priced at or below an amount where the total monthly shelter cost (mortgage principal and interest – based on a 25-year amortization, 10 per cent down payment and the chartered bank administered mortgage rate for a conventional 5-year
mortgage as reported by the Bank of Canada at the time of application – plus property taxes calculated on a monthly basis) equals the average City of Toronto rent, by unit type, as reported annually by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Affordable ownership price includes GST and any other mandatory costs associated with purchasing the unit.
City of Toronto Official Plan
Rent Thresholds for 2009:
Affordable Threshold
Unit Type / Affordable Maximum Limits
Bachelor $ 767
1-bedroom $ 929
2-bedroom $1,104
3-bedroom $1,292
2-bedroom townhouse $1,078
3-bedroom townhouse $1,304
4+ bedroom townhouse $1,417
In Canada, there are limitations on the kind of decision making that can be shared through a democratic process. For example, a neighbour cannot intervene on a real estate transaction or interview potential tenants at a neighbouring property. Residents do not have the right to choose or limit who lives in their neighbourhood. This is protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
That being said, in a spirit of transparency, TCHC as the developer, City staff and my office have openly shared information about the future tenancy and tenure for the proposed buildings.
In the development proposed by TCHC for this site all of the units would be affordable rental units. Rents would be set at about 80% of average rental rates for the City of Toronto, as determined as the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC). All of the units are being planned as “market rental units,†there will be no rent-geared-to-income units planned in this building. This means that in order to qualify for a lease in these units, future residents would need to have an annual income in the range of $35,000 to $65,000.
Numerous other concerns were raised about the proposed height of the tower on the site.
In 1994, all of the sites were zoned as low-rise perimeter block buildings. Since that time, Concord Adex, which has developed most of the Railway Lands, has rezoned their sites and built tall and thin point towers set out in urban design guidelines that TCHC is now following for Block 31. Block 31 is the only site that has not been rezoned in the Railway Lands West. The proposed development would constitute a 12% increase in density over the existing zoning on the site.
The planning issues that were raised and included the shadow impact of the tower on the courtyard and common spaces of neighbouring buildings, the impact on townhouse units on Brunel Court, and traffic congestion on Brunel Court.
Volunteers stepped forward to participate on a working group, to work with TCHC and Councillor Vaughan on the planning concerns about the proposal. Feedback from the public meeting will also be used by City of Toronto planning staff to prepare a report to City Council with recommendations on responses to the application.
SP!RE
°°°°°°
Thanks for posting that. I like the use of space, with the courtyard having the potential to be used by the school, etc. (Even though the big park is just outside, hehe).
It will be cool to have the park's sides be built up-- a nice urban edge to a green setting.
It will be cool to have the park's sides be built up-- a nice urban edge to a green setting.
Team Me
Active Member
Are these available online anywhere? I looked on Adam Vaughan's site but didn't see anything.
Team Me
Active Member
Rangostar
New Member
Wow, people are getting this all wrong, I really have nothing against low income earners. After reading some post about the range of income to qualify for TCHC, I am actually consider one. I Just want my investment to be safe, and I just hope the tower can be designed to be less intrusive. I m not sure what all the hate is about.
I was told that there will be no tower in front of west one and now there is. Anyhow, I think They Can lower the floors to maximize the utilities of the all surrounding owners and complaints. Spread it across the the entire lot to make more units.
There is nothing I can do but make my point here, but people are assuming that I do not like "poor" people because of my wording of "poor". Honestly, I think I will just apply for the building at TCHC since I qualify. Since this is how Canada help the people and I should just take it.
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Who told you this? Should they not be the ones you pursue? Also, if you do qualify for the building and feel that subsidized rent is something which will help you achieve your long-term goals, then why not?
Though you state that "there is nothing I can do but make my point here," perhaps you could clarify that point for the rest of us: redefine 'poor' and how you see 'the poor' in your community and perhaps the rest of us will see your original intention(s).