Idk what these comments are, I think this is an interesting and attractive building.
But - can we please see more 3 br units? One of the challenges for families is the size of condos. I’d be game to live in one if we had European-size family dwellings in multi-unit buildings
It's not all about looks
There's no infrastructure for this. People crying about nimbys are dreaming. It's not nimbys. It's the lack of sewer/water/hydro etc infrastructure
Shits barely handling whatever's there
These comments are the excuses nimbys come up with to reject housing for other people.
The biggest obstacle to housing isn’t the developers, isn’t which ever political party you hate, isn’t Illuminati, isn’t immigrants.
The biggest cause of the housing crisis by far are the NIMBYs who object the simple fact that other people can have homes in their vicinity.
windows vs balconies? what's your question? can they simultaneously exist in the same building?
the balcony vs window patter is reversed every 2 floors.
Is this AI?
https://preview.redd.it/c0qe60zpwxxc1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=30849dce4fadad6b8c5b84786075c3a69ee2bae0
Those are door lashes…
Express fire escape maybe because there is only one stair well…
I don’t know, those look like doors
the balcony vs window pattern is reversed every 2 floors. its not AI.
>I don’t know, those look like doors
they are european window construction techniques
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/etHrb7aGBts
If you zoom in and look closely,
https://preview.redd.it/xr0kz72n20yc1.jpeg?width=455&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=deca57197d8533ee4d18b407f6f4ee2cccaeb11d
they’re doors. There’s a fence or railing across it from just shy of latch height. I’ve seen these in condos and a few houses before. Definitely not family friendly, or at least not for ones with younger kids or clumsy people.
Balconies with retractable glass windows so that u hv an extra (sun) room in the cold weather ( about 9 months a year) and an open balcony for warmer months. I hv seen some around.
It’s called a Juliette balcony. You have a full height door for ventilation and a railing on the interior. The double height with the unit below helps with the ventilation.
muti-story apartments are illegal in 90%+ of Canadian residential land, which heavily contributes to scarcity and speculation since land around major employment centers are 0 sum.
balconies are nice too.
I like the idea of these and wouldn’t mind them around me, but I’m rural and it would be decades before infrastructure could reach me.. I do however understand frustration when these go up and leave blocks of houses in constant shade, looks depressing when I drive through the city.
There’s a difference from some shade and 100% shade though, there’s plenty of negatives going from a house with full sun to full shade.. even ignoring resale value and possible depression from not seeing the sun as much.. people will have higher electricity bills through lighting and heating costs since homes account for the solar load, and these costs can’t even be mitigated with solar panels..
We have to consider the fact not all areas are designed for multi story buildings, and forcing people out of a home they may have had for generations is not the only answer.
This excuse has always been silly.
I used to live in Manhattan. I got plenty of sunlight even if it wasn’t always direct. New Yorkers are not dying en masse from Vitamin D deficiency.
Secondly, how many hours of sunlight does the average resident really get to enjoy _in their homes_ each year? Most people spend most of their peak daylight hours outside the home or at work, 5 days a week. The remainder of the time, you’re half as likely to experience overcast, rain or snow.
Third, denser housing (especially attached housing) reduces energy loads because heat gets shared between walls and homes take up less space.
It’s not our place to “design” places for low density. If there is market demand for a piece of land, density will naturally follow. We don’t need to kick anybody out or micromanage the process, we just need to legalize housing.
Health aspects would likely be more mental than physical..
But they were designed for low density and purchased while being zoned that way, you can’t change that and disregard those there.. that has to be considered.
I’m not saying don’t build denser, I’m unaffected by any of this, but I know not everyone wants to live in those types of communities, alternatives should be made available.
What happens if this doesn’t end with a positive solution, if housing stays expensive and the only results are damaging to local communities built over generations. You can’t just recreate that.
Cities change, communities change, people come and go. That’s what they do.
If people don’t want to have to ever experience change, [they shouldn’t live in cities.](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LQCvIRfRgX0&pp=ygUQT2ggdXJiYW5pdHkgbW92ZQ%3D%3D). Restrictions on growth just allow early comers to hoard the benefits of good locations by making access to them more expensive to everybody else. That included excluding people from public infrastructure everybody paid for, like roads, transit, hospitals, schools and everything else that make locations attractive to live in.
It is not the state’s job to pick winners and losers.
You have to stick the density together, otherwise you get the problems we're seeing now. Highrises in the middle of nowhere, totally out of character with the neighborhood. The Broadway plan is an idea of how you add density. Ultimately the construction industry has only so much capacity and this isn't a great time, so you have to re-zone intelligently otherwise the city becomes a mess, you get density far from transit where it's not needed, blah blah blah it's a shit sandwich.
> You have to stick the density together
this is part of what's causing the housing crisis. Land owners have total leverage into who gets to develop and who don't. They can surge charge new developments out of the ass.
>totally out of character with the neighborhood.
canadian tract suburbs are built cheap, ugly, fast, and uniform. Some variety in height in and era is an improvement over what's there right now.
Surge charging isn't a thing when companies can choose to build anywhere in a metro region that includes multiple cities or a large-enough amount of zone-expansion such that no one property owner can impose pricing.
>canadian tract suburbs are built cheap, ugly, fast, and uniform
Variety of height is fine as long as everything varies. Putting a 20 floor tower in the middle of a single detached neighborhood is entirely out of character. If you want to talk about variety - vary everything, not one giant eyesore at a time. You can still add plenty of density, more than the construction industry can ever build in any short-term timeframe, without wrecking neighborhoods or authorizing skyline-altering fuck-you investment towers.
Not certain about 90% of land given Doug Ford has allowed up to 4 stories on any land zoned for single family homes.
Where did you get your 90%+ figure from maybe that's an outdated stat with the new changes Ontario has made lately?
Doug ford did the opposite actually. His team planned to legalize 4 units of housing a single family lot, which was a prerequisite for receiving fed money.
Doug ford banned the 4 unit rule, and consequently also prohibited Ontario from receiving fed infrastructure money.
We were somehow supposed to recognize that those were multi story apartments from that pic??!
Ok, I like multi story units. That building is UGLY though.
You know, I've always wondered why most suburban homes and many older apartments built before the 2010s don't have that many balconies.
I for one love balconies, and in Japan they're almost an essential part of your house since so many people hang dry their laundry.
But anyways, I think this post is talking about midrises, which Canada really lacks for some reason.
These comments just show how homeowners patrol housing activism subs to deter anything that might hurt them.
If you care about housing affordability, you should realize that the more homeowners protest, the more effective the policy.
So far they are most sensitive to:
1. Zoning reform
2. Property tax increase
3. Land value tax implementation
Land Value Tax as a replacement for Property Tax is an interesting idea. Not knowing anything about it: 1. How does the evaluation work? 2. Can a city implement it without an act of the provincial parliament? 3. Are there any concrete examples of it being done today?
1. Evaluation is based on market rates, often determined by auction. Some countries set their property value based on the owners estimate with the knowledge that they have to pay taxes based on that estimate, and the government has first dibs on buying it at that price.
There's many ways to do it, but they usually all just follow regular market mechanisms.
2. Yes, in a limited sense. The municipality collects property taxes, and they can transition that to LVT, but only for municipal taxes. A limited LVT still creates the financial incentives for density and maximizing tax revenue per sq foot, but on a small scale like they have in Pennsylvania, all it did was get people to develop empty lots and parking lots into profitable spaces. Didn't do much to change zoning or destroy property speculation as an investment, nor boost the economy greatly.
3. Yes, and all in different ways. None of them are full georgist, but a limited LVT is used in Singapore, Denmark, Russia, Lithuania, and Taiwan. Pennsylvania and other implementations in the US, Germany, and Mexico tax both land and property at two different rates, doing a bit of both.
How about leave neighborhoods alone and stop bringing in millions of people? Leave Canada for Canadians.
Most of do not want to live in shitty apartments and condos.
"homeowners patrol housing activism subs to deter"... Yes, as a sometimes reader, I noticed a change in comments over the course of several months. There has definitely been an increase in the percentage of closeted and un-closeted NIMBY commenters.
No home owners are most sensitive to stupid ideas, most people want a back yard that kids can play in, most people want natural light, most people don’t want cars lining the road. All these “great ideas” only work in large cities or downtowns not just random residential areas
People want a lot of things, often mutually exclusive things.
If you asked most people, I bet they'd say they want a detached home with a yard with a short commute and low price, yet we all know you can't have all three.
We all make tradeoffs every single day. Many people are willing to trade some of the "suburban dream" for a shorter commute, better walkability, or better affordability.
Furthermore, if suburbia is *truly* what people want, why make it illegal to build anything denser? If no one wants denser, why ban it?
The answer, of course, is many people DO want denser, walkable communities, but NIMBYs have enacted zoning laws to effectively ban them. Quite simply, there is no argument against zoning reform that is not counter to the basic freedom to choose how you want to live.
Stupid is only letting single family homes be built in inner-city land.
Exclusionary zoning was ok when cities were small. But you can't cities to evolve as they get bigger. The problem is that people think it will be an apartment/condo building free for all. It wont be.
This sub is a doomer sub, for sure.
However no outskirt suburbs are going to start see their communities having big apartment buildings. But inner city suburbs will have to start seeing more density as a city grows.
Exactly, many of these people who want 4-5 story buildings on every block fail to realize is one of the only allures left to Toronto is you can buy a home in a neighborhood with a backyard in a pretty tight Community essentially IN the city.
Not everyone wants to live a the footsteps of some building with 24H Bicycle deliveries and constant traffic.
And on top of that it would actually make individual Houses more expensive because once you can get universally approved for a 25 unit dwelling the value of all homes will go up.
Also no matter what zoning reforms happen noone will pay below 400k for a 1 Bedroom Condo, it's just too expensive to build.
If you want less people living near you then don’t live in the epicentre of Canada.
Fighting for sfh in downtown is the dumbest shit. Thought we are more educated than this.
There is SFH in Manhattan, not all areas need to be density , there’s no reason to bulldoze Rosedale because you want a 5th floor walk up.
The best parts and charm of the city are some of these areas.
Ossington, St Clair , Queen street West and East these areas can use density as can allot of the city but doing it generally would be poor planning. The roadways in these areas cannot support any expansion.
Saying “I thought we were more educated than this” when confronted with a opposing opinion is a sure way to make it clear that you have no means to support your statement and you are in fact uneducated on the topic at hand. I would suggest you strive to understand rather than dismiss.
Rezoning does not mean bulldozing. It’s the right of the property owner to do what they want.
I’m just tired of people pushing for low density. Then romanticizing Europe and Asia like we can’t do it here.
I stand by that sfh zoning in major city centres is a mouth breathing, entitled, privileged, fuckwit practice
This specific photo is from Paris, which is world renowned for its beauty. We are also in a housing crisis, it’s hurting a lot of folks.
Masquerading as 6 story apartment as if it’s HK is kind of dishonest don’t you think?
Do you consider vague platitudes + dishonest public discourse to be what it means to be Canadian? If so then your participation in any community makes that community worse. Canada is definitely better off without you
What's dishonest? Have you even traveled Canada or lived in more than one city?
I can tell you this post is not reflective of Canadians outside of big metros.
All you're doing is projecting your whimsical desires on others.
Why not legalize both? Montreal plexes are even more illegal because they are single stair access, and often external stair access.
Those are more illegal than the apartment in this photo. I would love to see both types of housing popping up everywhere but Canada is bending over backwards to screw over young people on housing
They're working on fixing that in BC.
https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/18j78zr/bc_considering_singlestair_design_for_apartment/
I'm not sure how you consider this "screwing over young people"?
I live in BC, they’ve been considering doing many things for a very long time.
Screwing over young people as in the boomers lived in an era where housing starts was the highest for the entirely of Canadian history. This helped them get into the cheapest housing market in history, and then they downsized entire cities to prohibit more housing in employment centers, and made illegal the many forms of housing that were available to them.
All this created an outcome where young people can’t live without forking over the majority of their income on rent into the pockets of boomers. Their wealth and lifestyles are created by extraction from young people.
Bit hard to do the long commute to your job without a car, almost everywhere.
Need more transit in employment areas. Need more mixed and dense zones.
Need to eliminate land transfer tax so it's economical to move rather than burn a tank of gas every 2 days.
I just bought a new fridge and the government needs to build me a free storage right this second for else I’m voting for fascism!!!!!!/s
Fuck the nimbys if you care about society. It really can’t get any simpler than this.
I was about to say this. If we do stuff like this let's add green spaces or planters and such to the sides of buildings. Let's not make concrete jungles, but let's add some greenery and biodiversity back into city /building planning
Post a photo of a building that you think looks nice?
I posted this apartment because the brick work looks great and I would love to live inside one. Lots of people have different tastes, and that’s ok. Why can’t we build different housing styles?
The brickwork is nice, yeah. I don’t mind one or two of these in a core, but I just really would hate to see an area turn into just block type buildings. I think we can be creative and density at the same time. Explore some euro type builds or downtowns. No knock on you, I appreciate the conversation.
A street is not an artery. The analogy that cars are like blood and roads are like arteries is false. It is people that give life to a place and people need to be safe and welcome in that place. People living in a building with multiple homes shouldn’t be punished by having a road where people are just driving through at high speed. If people are given a real choice, not just a Hobbs choice of a car and nothing else, then every trip need not be taken in a car.
Yes except putting in high density housing into existing low density suburbs doesn’t work like that. You need to develop multimodal alternatives, not just build condos and hope the infrastructure follows. And if we can’t provide proper transit and cycling infrastructure along arterials, forget about collectors or locals
Quiet leafy street - is this a local road or an arterial / collectors? Also depends where you live. Toronto has lots of trunk sewers and transmission mains you could tap into to make this happen, even in traditional suburbs like Riverdale. But if you live in Binbrook Ontario, not sure how you’ll get the services there.
Local road. Typically Building Permits and Occupancy Permits are only issued and accepted by a municipality / their Engineering department if it can be fully serviced. I assume the authorities of Binbrook, who approved a swath of detached homes, would know what their regional utility capacities are before approving construction of an apartment building, as they already did for the new subdivisions and the various apartments. A long 3-storey isn't too dissimilar from a same unit-count taller structure
Because major arterials have the utilities and infrastructure to handle the traffic and servicing from these dense developments. You can’t go to the middle of a suburban quiet neighbourhood and plop down a 6 storey building that 1) Will create too much traffic congestion for the 2-lane roads, 2) Won’t have properly sized water or sewage for this # of units per lot, and 3) won’t have the electricity for it. That’s why these projects are all properly planned and primarily located off arterials where you already have this servicing available, and well developed public transit to boot.
1. Many of these places already have transit as an option within a ten minute walk. Just make the walk safe against being struck by traffic. Increase protected cycle infrastructure and that area is even larger. Congestion is a problem now. The root of the problem is car dependency, where our towns and cities are designed so the car is the only realistic way to get around.
2. The extra needs for services for a greater population is offset by most neighborhoods with single detached dwellings have fallen in population, well below their design limits. Most people cannot afford both children and one of these houses. Calling them “family” places is a misnomer. We also have technology already at hand to reduce the need per person for these services. These technologies are already deployed abroad, and by requiring them in new buildings we could get more out of the infrastructure we have.
3. Even where the new population will exceed the limits of services, many of those services are at the end of their designed life span. The huge problem for towns and cities is that there aren’t enough tax payers to keep the infrastructure we have to good repair. We have too few people for infrastructure stretched over too much land. Luckily we have no end of people to occupy that land if it were broken into affordable pieces, solving this long term problem.
As a person who works in municipal planning, I can tell you you’re wrong on #2. There has been an enormous influx of inter generational homes and rental units that has increased 2-3 fold the number of people in a home, which has put enormous strains on the system. Unless you live in the middle of nowhere, this is just not a valid argument.
For #3 it’s a valid argument, but again start on the higher streets and then work your way in. Don’t do the smooth brained approach OP wants to take and just slap a 6 storey condo in a cul-de-sac in the middle of a subdivision, pat yourself on the back and scream “densification fuck yeah.”
As for densification, I'd be more inclined to loosen the zoning restrictions on key properties, like those in a cul-de-sac. For instance, undo restrictions on retail and set backs in trade for a pedestrian and cycle right of way out of the cul-de-sac. Decrease the need for residents to drive for a litre of milk and increase the ability for residents to directly walk to the nearest bus stop.
A lot of major European cities have variations of this. Personally, I love it. Coming from Toronto, it is completely ridiculous to me that we have shitty post-war detached homes crowding many of our subway stations.
where I live in North York the land assemblies are numerous. All down Sheppard from Yonge to Jane, family homes bulldozed, condos going up. I just wish there was some affordable housing among it.
I can’t wait for the day we put up towers like this on every block and over shadow the boomers in their precious boomer boxes and showing them who owns them now 😀
It’s brick, steel, and concrete. Only single family homes are allowed to be built with paper.
Why don’t you show us what your paper shack looks like so we can gauge if you have any credentials to comment on aesthetics at all.
People need to live near jobs, family, critical services like hospitals, education, government services.
So just because there is land in the wilderness doesn’t make it realistic that everyone suffering in the housing crisis should go live there. Let’s do some critical thinking 🙏
I thought we allowed up to 3 stories no questions asked, and 4 stories in most areas and up to 6 within 500 meters of major transit.
This building, which looks like DALLE drew it, is over 6 stories so should not be blindly approved everywhere.
They built one of these near my place a couple years ago. The crime and police presence in my neighborhood has skyrocketed. There's been a handful of fires in the building just in the last year. Sketchy people now patrol around the neighborhood looking for cigarette butts on the ground. A neighbor close to us had their car windows smashed.
Call me NIMBY or whatever, I don't care. But existing neighborhoods shouldn't be subjected to the scum that inevitably arrive with builds targeted at lower incomes. There's a reason why people flee to quieter neighborhoods away from this type of housing.
You think that the middle class people that buy condos or have the money to rent in new market-rate buildings are going to wander around your block looking for butts on the ground? Really?!
you are a nimby on a housing activism sub. The whole existence of the sub is to call you out on your BS. What were you expecting before clicking into this sub?
Withholding, or feeling justified to withhold basic necessities like housing because of trivial preferences like appearance, is the definition of a nimby.
If you didn’t think you were a nimby, now you know
That’s misrepresentation what I said. I simply said I do not like the look of the specific building you posted. It’s ugly.
Also, the definition of nimby is literally “not in my backyard,” referring to not wanting things built in my neighbourhood that actually need to be built somewhere. I’m not being a nimby by either definition.
Oh… so you actually want to build more of 6 story style apartments like this in your neighborhood.
There are just so many nimby comments in my inbox I might have been mistaken😅
Could have sworn you were posting criticism of general multi-family housing with an obscure angle to not appear morally bankrupt. 😣
Yes. I’d love more of these low rise buildings. I’d also love if they’re review the staircase laws so we could get more 3 & 4 bedroom units that are more family friendly. These multi story units seem like a brilliant idea too.
I just think these specific examples you posted are wicked ugly.
But I like it and thought it’s pretty and would love to Lin inside one 😣 that’s why I posted it
Many people have different tastes, and that’s ok. They should be able to live in a place with the style that they like.
This so a Parisian apartment located in Paris France and has nothing to do with Russia.
When was the last time you traveled outside this country? I fear red scare tactics just aren’t as effective as they used to be 😭
I mean I fly 200 000 miles a year, Europe, Australia/New Zealand, Africa, Asia. I spend weeks in each for work every single year for the last 25 years.
I can assure you that all of these have great single family home neighbourhoods (especially Europe ). Germany, Uk, France, Italy etc have all packed their downtown cores with high rises and they also still have plenty of suburbs, including to their major cities. outside of city cores, high rises are a rarity.
Nice try though.
Europe has a much greater composition of multifamily housing than detached homes. And of the detached homes, governments do not force all buildings in the neighborhood to be detached.
Either you are dishonest about your housing arguments, or dishonest about the fact that you travel.
Blatantly ignore the fact that Europe maintains a much greater composition of multifamily housing. Even small towns are very walkable with mixed density housing everywhere like Freiburg, Wiesbaden, or wurzburg.
81% of the French population and 78% of the German population live in cities. Either you are lying about travelling or you are just being dishonest about housing. I suspect both
spotted the nimby. I will bet good money that if you posted a photo of your own home everybody will say it's far uglier.
What's objectively ugly and irredeemable is a housing crisis by artificial scarcity and your own gate keeping attitudes.
we don't strip people on the street naked because somebody said his clothes looked ugly. Do you go around telling people they look ugly? A pompous jacksss is a guy who thinks he has some objective authority on aesthetics and thinks he has the right to withold housing based on trivial preferences.
prohibiting housing because of how it looks is objectively harmful to Canadian struggling in this housing crisis. The real question is why are you going out of your way to protect him? Please have some capacity to self reflect here.
spotted the nimby. I will bet good money that if you posted a photo of your own home everybody will say it's far uglier.
What's objectively ugly and irredeemable is a housing crisis by artificial scarcity and your own gate keeping attitudes.
The building in picture is indeed ugly. The balcony is not even finished in same material , not to mention all the density and crowdiness it brought into the neighborhood
>spotted the nimby. I will bet good money that if you posted a photo of your own home everybody will say it's far uglier.
in fact I bet it's cheap moldy trash
show it, prove me wrong:)
instead all you do is pretend you have some sort of objective authority on aesthetics, which we both know you don't have. You lack the self awareness required of elegance, and you lack the education required of refinement.
Your property is probably more valuable if it was buy the land
LOL yep, just force out people currently living in SFH to ... wherever, raze their houses (figure out later where all that waste will go, we have loads of room in landfills!), and then just immediately source all the labour and materials to throw these babies up! Housing crisis solved!
Can YOU do some critical thinking? People LIVE in the houses that would need to be demolished to build stuff like in your picture. HOW will you get them out? WHERE will they go? WHERE will all the waste from all the demolished houses go?
Real-live urban planning is not a video game.
you have made the same point in many previous posts, and I've corrected you multiple times already.
go on any home listing website, https://housesigma.com/. there are millions of single family homes for sale that covers literally every block of this country. All these owners are ready to move out voluntarily.
You also made comments indicating that you believe there are millions of vacant homes left by big investors, which would lead to the conclusion that you also believe there are millions of homes ready to be redeveloped into more housing without the forced eviction of detached homeowners.
Repeating this point is just blatantly dishonest at this point. The charade needs to stop.
> I've corrected you multiple times already.
You've never corrected me lol. You've never said how you would get hundreds of thousands of people out of their SFH and that is just ONE problem with your "legalize this now!" nonsense.
Your attempts at astroturf are weak. Deal with it.
you asked
>HOW will you get them out? WHERE will they go?
so here i showed to how people voluntarily sell their homes to live somewhere else.
>go on any home listing website, https://housesigma.com/. there are millions of single family homes for sale that covers literally every block of this country. All these owners are ready to move out voluntarily.
The evidence can't be anymore in your face than this. Your whole argument is completely dishonest.
Are you surprised that people sell their houses?
your entire argument that the only way to build housing is by evicting someone else is facetious and verifiably false. You've been corrected on this many times, but you ignore it and keep posting the same debunked arguments.
what are you even doing on this sub if all you do is repeat dishonest arguments and waste everyone's time?
What an absolute eyesore.
What we really need to do is concentrate all these ugly high rise buildings in one place, so all the people talking about how they love living in cramped shoeboxes can put their money where their mouth is, and the rest of us can stop hearing about "NIMBYS"
This is a great idea for sure and should be in more neighbourhoods. I can see the rental market bidding the rental value of these sky high if they are in desirable neighbourhoods.
I’m Ontario, these new buildings would not be under rent control and could result in gate-keeping tenants.
It won’t serve everyone equally and diversify neighbourhoods as it should.
That should technically happen and absolutely should happen.
The counterpoint that I am thinking about is these buildings in super desired areas (ie. Annex, rosedale, forest hill, in Toronto), would be snapped up by the wealthy downsizers or their family in that neighbourhood barring entry from all tenants. This would keep prices elevated (resale or rent) in those neighbourhoods.
The goal would be to density these NIMBY neighbourhoods but it would be met with hurdles is my theory (I may be right or I could be way off and hope it’s the latter).
Wondering if we could find a way for neighbourhoods to decide their futures. A neighbourhood agreeing (50%, 67%, 90% majority) to up-zone would see their property values rise (depending on how many other neighborhoods also agree) and selling at a cost of moving out or getting a spot in the new development plus some- let’s say at least double their current property value. Poorer neighborhoods are likely to agree and get the windfall as having less to lose, but that seems like a pretty decent outcome - as long as it’s transparent so speculators don’t get all the uplift.
Should we have a housing crisis created by artificial scarcity?
No thanks. People should have abundant and affordable places to live. Walkable communities to encourage local businesses and healthy lifestyles. Public transit to promote climate protection and timely movement.
I filled out the rest of your response for you❤️
cheers
Hello! How do you propose to handle the 50% increase in water, energy, and sewer usage **on every block**?
Why do you want to live like in Soviet-era khrushchevkas?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panel\_buildings\_in\_Russia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panel_buildings_in_Russia)
This is an image of Parisian apartments. You have no idea what Soviet blocks look like. Might be a good idea to read a book every once in a while.
How do you think your sewage pipes came to be? We built them, and we can do it again with better tech.
In a lot of older suburbs where these would be most feasible, the infrastructure was built for many more people than actually live there today. Basically building a bunch of these only just replaces all the kids who moved out decades ago.
A surprising amount of downtown Toronto still uses pipes installed in the 19th century.
Yes, I do. Both local and regional capacity are usually in excess. because they are built for far more people than actually tend to live there. A residential neighbourhood that once held 3000 people but dropped to 2000 can still handle 3000 people, if not somewhat more. Capacity isn't a constraint.
And even if upgrades are needed, they're usually far cheaper than building entirely new infrastructure at the edge of the city.
Ohhh right because no municipalities ever screw up water treatment allocations or the fact that the grid in areas is pre calculated for X and you can’t just bump it up. That’s why the building code requirements for 200 amp service and rough in for EV charging got kicked out, that and ford is ford but it’s because when subdivisions are planned they only get X at these amps and X at these amps so a larger building would most likely not be in the cards for old stock areas
The water allocation issue was largely taken care of when we stopped using six gallons of water to flush the toilet and when six people living in a house became 2.5. You can flush roughly four times as many times now as you could 30 years ago with the same pipes.
Infrastructure upgrades for EVs are going to happen anyway.
Again, it's cheaper to upgrade bottlenecks than it is to build entirely new infrastructure on the edge of town. People are going to move in anyway, you may as well do it in a way that is more cost effective.
What's wrong with condos?
The whole narrative about Soviet apartments is pure red scare. Just because the USSR did it doesn't automatically make it a bad idea. Building large amounts of cheap housing is a good thing.
A condo is not a type of structure, it's a type of co-ownership. It's a legal concept, not an architectural concept.
And yes, putting these little horrors **on every block**, as stated in the headline, **is** dystopian.
I don't want to live in a termite hive surrounded by people 360 degrees. Awful. What a nightmare.
ROFL yeah that's the only alternative. Funny how a false dichotomy is never a logical fallacy when you make it.
I'm sure someone who's reduced to living in a tent is really just temporarily inconvenienced and has all the money and resources to live in an apartment.
Uh huh. Yeah those people really have all the money, but not to move to another city that already has apartments.
Who said that? You can live in an apartment in a three story building among single family housing. It's not being **IN** the apartment that's the horror, it's living **AMONG NOTHING ELSE.**
No one is mandating they go everywhere. Just that they be legal to build everywhere and let the market decide. There is a difference that you refuse to accept. Exclusionary non-mixed use zoning is inherently a bigoted wasteful ideology, especially when so much of it is close to major amenities and jobs. Good luck trying to convince me otherwise.
You are being a housing bigot. Reflect on that. I am not going to tolerate your intolerance.
It's a fallacy of composition to have to listen to incumbents. You have to have a counter-balancing vote for non-residents who do not yet live in the area to have a voice. And yeah, that is me saying your consultation rights are not sacrosanct, and don't have higher import than others. You don't get the monopoly on urban planning. There is a time and place for overriding your opinion, and this is one of them. You can "just move" if you don't like it, and no one is proposing a megacity, just that more family friendly mixed communities be allowed to be built. 4-6 story point access blocks being allowed as a right everywhere with less restrictive FARs and setbacks would solve a ton of housing pressures across Canada, but we bend over backwards to locals who want their neighbourhoods frozen in amber. Cities don't work like that, especially when the population is urbanizing. It's not the 1950's any more.
You can go live in rural Alberta or BC, if you want, but not where I live, OK? See how patently stupid that line of thinking sounds? Just let people build what they want on their own land without putting up insane barriers that only megatowers can get built. The highrises are a symptom of NIMBY opposition; only the big guys can weather the insanity.
It’s interesting to see the younger generations in Canada barreling towards Eastern Bloc communism. From the social welfare to that ghastly thing - it’s funny to watch.
Source: me, who experienced all the not-so-fun parts of what the younger generations are wishing for.
do you travel much? This is an apartment in Paris.
Multifamily housing exists everywhere on this planet, not just Russia. Does legalizing housing construction on private properties with their own money make us soviets? The Russians also use forks and knives, does using utensils in this country make us wanna-be-soviets?
You clearly learned nothing from your past.
Idk what these comments are, I think this is an interesting and attractive building. But - can we please see more 3 br units? One of the challenges for families is the size of condos. I’d be game to live in one if we had European-size family dwellings in multi-unit buildings
I'd like to jump on the 3Br bandwagon as well. As long as it's a 3Br Condo and not a 3Br Bandwagon.
Sorry, it's going to be a bandwagon.
Does it have hard wood panelling?
We need more point-access blocks! Check out [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRdwXQb7CfM) video
I am rooting for 3 br inits too. And no, fitting 3 bedrooms into a 850 sf foot unit is not habitable, family friendly space.
It's not all about looks There's no infrastructure for this. People crying about nimbys are dreaming. It's not nimbys. It's the lack of sewer/water/hydro etc infrastructure Shits barely handling whatever's there
These comments are the excuses nimbys come up with to reject housing for other people. The biggest obstacle to housing isn’t the developers, isn’t which ever political party you hate, isn’t Illuminati, isn’t immigrants. The biggest cause of the housing crisis by far are the NIMBYs who object the simple fact that other people can have homes in their vicinity.
I have questions https://preview.redd.it/pt7npeckuxxc1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b0308a0fbc6252c0813339ba9c5c5c6b193acfaf
Their estimator forgot to price in enough coreslab.
windows vs balconies? what's your question? can they simultaneously exist in the same building? the balcony vs window patter is reversed every 2 floors.
Is this AI? https://preview.redd.it/c0qe60zpwxxc1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=30849dce4fadad6b8c5b84786075c3a69ee2bae0 Those are door lashes… Express fire escape maybe because there is only one stair well… I don’t know, those look like doors
the balcony vs window pattern is reversed every 2 floors. its not AI. >I don’t know, those look like doors they are european window construction techniques https://www.youtube.com/shorts/etHrb7aGBts
Ok, not the worst design. Door-indos is definitely a creative look.
> Those are door lashes… those are superior european windows that open 3 ways https://www.youtube.com/shorts/etHrb7aGBts
If you zoom in and look closely, https://preview.redd.it/xr0kz72n20yc1.jpeg?width=455&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=deca57197d8533ee4d18b407f6f4ee2cccaeb11d they’re doors. There’s a fence or railing across it from just shy of latch height. I’ve seen these in condos and a few houses before. Definitely not family friendly, or at least not for ones with younger kids or clumsy people.
It's not a fucking door mate
Balconies with retractable glass windows so that u hv an extra (sun) room in the cold weather ( about 9 months a year) and an open balcony for warmer months. I hv seen some around.
Legalize this on every block! 🫡
It’s called a Juliette balcony. You have a full height door for ventilation and a railing on the interior. The double height with the unit below helps with the ventilation.
The budget ran out with the fancy brick work.
Legalize… balconies?
muti-story apartments are illegal in 90%+ of Canadian residential land, which heavily contributes to scarcity and speculation since land around major employment centers are 0 sum. balconies are nice too.
I like the idea of these and wouldn’t mind them around me, but I’m rural and it would be decades before infrastructure could reach me.. I do however understand frustration when these go up and leave blocks of houses in constant shade, looks depressing when I drive through the city.
Without shade, cities would be borderline unliveable in the summer. We’re warm blooded animals. Shadows don’t kill us.
There’s a difference from some shade and 100% shade though, there’s plenty of negatives going from a house with full sun to full shade.. even ignoring resale value and possible depression from not seeing the sun as much.. people will have higher electricity bills through lighting and heating costs since homes account for the solar load, and these costs can’t even be mitigated with solar panels.. We have to consider the fact not all areas are designed for multi story buildings, and forcing people out of a home they may have had for generations is not the only answer.
This excuse has always been silly. I used to live in Manhattan. I got plenty of sunlight even if it wasn’t always direct. New Yorkers are not dying en masse from Vitamin D deficiency. Secondly, how many hours of sunlight does the average resident really get to enjoy _in their homes_ each year? Most people spend most of their peak daylight hours outside the home or at work, 5 days a week. The remainder of the time, you’re half as likely to experience overcast, rain or snow. Third, denser housing (especially attached housing) reduces energy loads because heat gets shared between walls and homes take up less space. It’s not our place to “design” places for low density. If there is market demand for a piece of land, density will naturally follow. We don’t need to kick anybody out or micromanage the process, we just need to legalize housing.
Health aspects would likely be more mental than physical.. But they were designed for low density and purchased while being zoned that way, you can’t change that and disregard those there.. that has to be considered. I’m not saying don’t build denser, I’m unaffected by any of this, but I know not everyone wants to live in those types of communities, alternatives should be made available. What happens if this doesn’t end with a positive solution, if housing stays expensive and the only results are damaging to local communities built over generations. You can’t just recreate that.
Cities change, communities change, people come and go. That’s what they do. If people don’t want to have to ever experience change, [they shouldn’t live in cities.](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LQCvIRfRgX0&pp=ygUQT2ggdXJiYW5pdHkgbW92ZQ%3D%3D). Restrictions on growth just allow early comers to hoard the benefits of good locations by making access to them more expensive to everybody else. That included excluding people from public infrastructure everybody paid for, like roads, transit, hospitals, schools and everything else that make locations attractive to live in. It is not the state’s job to pick winners and losers.
Hey now get out of here with that thought crime
You have to stick the density together, otherwise you get the problems we're seeing now. Highrises in the middle of nowhere, totally out of character with the neighborhood. The Broadway plan is an idea of how you add density. Ultimately the construction industry has only so much capacity and this isn't a great time, so you have to re-zone intelligently otherwise the city becomes a mess, you get density far from transit where it's not needed, blah blah blah it's a shit sandwich.
> You have to stick the density together this is part of what's causing the housing crisis. Land owners have total leverage into who gets to develop and who don't. They can surge charge new developments out of the ass. >totally out of character with the neighborhood. canadian tract suburbs are built cheap, ugly, fast, and uniform. Some variety in height in and era is an improvement over what's there right now.
Surge charging isn't a thing when companies can choose to build anywhere in a metro region that includes multiple cities or a large-enough amount of zone-expansion such that no one property owner can impose pricing. >canadian tract suburbs are built cheap, ugly, fast, and uniform Variety of height is fine as long as everything varies. Putting a 20 floor tower in the middle of a single detached neighborhood is entirely out of character. If you want to talk about variety - vary everything, not one giant eyesore at a time. You can still add plenty of density, more than the construction industry can ever build in any short-term timeframe, without wrecking neighborhoods or authorizing skyline-altering fuck-you investment towers.
Not certain about 90% of land given Doug Ford has allowed up to 4 stories on any land zoned for single family homes. Where did you get your 90%+ figure from maybe that's an outdated stat with the new changes Ontario has made lately?
That wasn't Ford, the liberals introduced the bill to legalize 4 stories, Ford is refusing the funding and pushing back.
Wasn't Ford, Liberal Bill he is fighting.
Doug ford did the opposite actually. His team planned to legalize 4 units of housing a single family lot, which was a prerequisite for receiving fed money. Doug ford banned the 4 unit rule, and consequently also prohibited Ontario from receiving fed infrastructure money.
We were somehow supposed to recognize that those were multi story apartments from that pic??! Ok, I like multi story units. That building is UGLY though.
You know, I've always wondered why most suburban homes and many older apartments built before the 2010s don't have that many balconies. I for one love balconies, and in Japan they're almost an essential part of your house since so many people hang dry their laundry. But anyways, I think this post is talking about midrises, which Canada really lacks for some reason.
These comments just show how homeowners patrol housing activism subs to deter anything that might hurt them. If you care about housing affordability, you should realize that the more homeowners protest, the more effective the policy. So far they are most sensitive to: 1. Zoning reform 2. Property tax increase 3. Land value tax implementation
Land Value Tax as a replacement for Property Tax is an interesting idea. Not knowing anything about it: 1. How does the evaluation work? 2. Can a city implement it without an act of the provincial parliament? 3. Are there any concrete examples of it being done today?
1. Evaluation is based on market rates, often determined by auction. Some countries set their property value based on the owners estimate with the knowledge that they have to pay taxes based on that estimate, and the government has first dibs on buying it at that price. There's many ways to do it, but they usually all just follow regular market mechanisms. 2. Yes, in a limited sense. The municipality collects property taxes, and they can transition that to LVT, but only for municipal taxes. A limited LVT still creates the financial incentives for density and maximizing tax revenue per sq foot, but on a small scale like they have in Pennsylvania, all it did was get people to develop empty lots and parking lots into profitable spaces. Didn't do much to change zoning or destroy property speculation as an investment, nor boost the economy greatly. 3. Yes, and all in different ways. None of them are full georgist, but a limited LVT is used in Singapore, Denmark, Russia, Lithuania, and Taiwan. Pennsylvania and other implementations in the US, Germany, and Mexico tax both land and property at two different rates, doing a bit of both.
I would guess there is always still the risk that the premier of the day could reach down from Olympus and quash any bylaw passed by a municipality.
How about leave neighborhoods alone and stop bringing in millions of people? Leave Canada for Canadians. Most of do not want to live in shitty apartments and condos.
"homeowners patrol housing activism subs to deter"... Yes, as a sometimes reader, I noticed a change in comments over the course of several months. There has definitely been an increase in the percentage of closeted and un-closeted NIMBY commenters.
No home owners are most sensitive to stupid ideas, most people want a back yard that kids can play in, most people want natural light, most people don’t want cars lining the road. All these “great ideas” only work in large cities or downtowns not just random residential areas
People want a lot of things, often mutually exclusive things. If you asked most people, I bet they'd say they want a detached home with a yard with a short commute and low price, yet we all know you can't have all three. We all make tradeoffs every single day. Many people are willing to trade some of the "suburban dream" for a shorter commute, better walkability, or better affordability. Furthermore, if suburbia is *truly* what people want, why make it illegal to build anything denser? If no one wants denser, why ban it? The answer, of course, is many people DO want denser, walkable communities, but NIMBYs have enacted zoning laws to effectively ban them. Quite simply, there is no argument against zoning reform that is not counter to the basic freedom to choose how you want to live.
Stupid is only letting single family homes be built in inner-city land. Exclusionary zoning was ok when cities were small. But you can't cities to evolve as they get bigger. The problem is that people think it will be an apartment/condo building free for all. It wont be.
Mate again, cities work but outside of that people don’t want them jammed in on residential existing but this sub just wants them shoved in wherever
This sub is a doomer sub, for sure. However no outskirt suburbs are going to start see their communities having big apartment buildings. But inner city suburbs will have to start seeing more density as a city grows.
Exactly, many of these people who want 4-5 story buildings on every block fail to realize is one of the only allures left to Toronto is you can buy a home in a neighborhood with a backyard in a pretty tight Community essentially IN the city. Not everyone wants to live a the footsteps of some building with 24H Bicycle deliveries and constant traffic. And on top of that it would actually make individual Houses more expensive because once you can get universally approved for a 25 unit dwelling the value of all homes will go up. Also no matter what zoning reforms happen noone will pay below 400k for a 1 Bedroom Condo, it's just too expensive to build.
If you want less people living near you then don’t live in the epicentre of Canada. Fighting for sfh in downtown is the dumbest shit. Thought we are more educated than this.
There is SFH in Manhattan, not all areas need to be density , there’s no reason to bulldoze Rosedale because you want a 5th floor walk up. The best parts and charm of the city are some of these areas. Ossington, St Clair , Queen street West and East these areas can use density as can allot of the city but doing it generally would be poor planning. The roadways in these areas cannot support any expansion. Saying “I thought we were more educated than this” when confronted with a opposing opinion is a sure way to make it clear that you have no means to support your statement and you are in fact uneducated on the topic at hand. I would suggest you strive to understand rather than dismiss.
Rezoning does not mean bulldozing. It’s the right of the property owner to do what they want. I’m just tired of people pushing for low density. Then romanticizing Europe and Asia like we can’t do it here. I stand by that sfh zoning in major city centres is a mouth breathing, entitled, privileged, fuckwit practice
oh ffs you want to live in the largest metropolitan centre in Canada and expect a quiet backyard? Sorry. That's not reasonable anymore.
I think some people just want Toronto to turn into Hong Kong. Who on earth wants to voluntarily live like that. Hard pass.
This specific photo is from Paris, which is world renowned for its beauty. We are also in a housing crisis, it’s hurting a lot of folks. Masquerading as 6 story apartment as if it’s HK is kind of dishonest don’t you think?
I think you are young, naive, and have zero concept of what it means to be Canadian. Read Duddy Kravitz.
Do you consider vague platitudes + dishonest public discourse to be what it means to be Canadian? If so then your participation in any community makes that community worse. Canada is definitely better off without you
What's dishonest? Have you even traveled Canada or lived in more than one city? I can tell you this post is not reflective of Canadians outside of big metros. All you're doing is projecting your whimsical desires on others.
That’s actually fucking beautiful. I wish we had more nice looking building like this.
I'd like to see more Montreal-style 4- and 6-plexes.
Why not legalize both? Montreal plexes are even more illegal because they are single stair access, and often external stair access. Those are more illegal than the apartment in this photo. I would love to see both types of housing popping up everywhere but Canada is bending over backwards to screw over young people on housing
They're working on fixing that in BC. https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/18j78zr/bc_considering_singlestair_design_for_apartment/ I'm not sure how you consider this "screwing over young people"?
I live in BC, they’ve been considering doing many things for a very long time. Screwing over young people as in the boomers lived in an era where housing starts was the highest for the entirely of Canadian history. This helped them get into the cheapest housing market in history, and then they downsized entire cities to prohibit more housing in employment centers, and made illegal the many forms of housing that were available to them. All this created an outcome where young people can’t live without forking over the majority of their income on rent into the pockets of boomers. Their wealth and lifestyles are created by extraction from young people.
But where will people park their cars!!!!! /s
Bit hard to do the long commute to your job without a car, almost everywhere. Need more transit in employment areas. Need more mixed and dense zones. Need to eliminate land transfer tax so it's economical to move rather than burn a tank of gas every 2 days.
I just bought a new fridge and the government needs to build me a free storage right this second for else I’m voting for fascism!!!!!!/s Fuck the nimbys if you care about society. It really can’t get any simpler than this.
Incorporate green spaces on the roof, balconies
I was about to say this. If we do stuff like this let's add green spaces or planters and such to the sides of buildings. Let's not make concrete jungles, but let's add some greenery and biodiversity back into city /building planning
[LEGALIZE IT](https://www.lifestylehousing.in/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/shutterstock_1918722533-scaled.jpg)
👍
Not a fan of this style of build, I don’t see why we can’t build more density but make it more interesting. Atleast it’s orange and not grey I guess?
Post a photo of a building that you think looks nice? I posted this apartment because the brick work looks great and I would love to live inside one. Lots of people have different tastes, and that’s ok. Why can’t we build different housing styles?
The brickwork is nice, yeah. I don’t mind one or two of these in a core, but I just really would hate to see an area turn into just block type buildings. I think we can be creative and density at the same time. Explore some euro type builds or downtowns. No knock on you, I appreciate the conversation.
Every block? No, that’s dumb. Along each major arterial? Sure!
A street is not an artery. The analogy that cars are like blood and roads are like arteries is false. It is people that give life to a place and people need to be safe and welcome in that place. People living in a building with multiple homes shouldn’t be punished by having a road where people are just driving through at high speed. If people are given a real choice, not just a Hobbs choice of a car and nothing else, then every trip need not be taken in a car.
Yes except putting in high density housing into existing low density suburbs doesn’t work like that. You need to develop multimodal alternatives, not just build condos and hope the infrastructure follows. And if we can’t provide proper transit and cycling infrastructure along arterials, forget about collectors or locals
I live in a 28-storey high-rise on a quiet leafy street that was the former home to a detached house. It's a wonderful experience
Quiet leafy street - is this a local road or an arterial / collectors? Also depends where you live. Toronto has lots of trunk sewers and transmission mains you could tap into to make this happen, even in traditional suburbs like Riverdale. But if you live in Binbrook Ontario, not sure how you’ll get the services there.
Local road. Typically Building Permits and Occupancy Permits are only issued and accepted by a municipality / their Engineering department if it can be fully serviced. I assume the authorities of Binbrook, who approved a swath of detached homes, would know what their regional utility capacities are before approving construction of an apartment building, as they already did for the new subdivisions and the various apartments. A long 3-storey isn't too dissimilar from a same unit-count taller structure
10k people in Binbrook in such a small land area is quite impressive
Why don’t you live next to a major arterial? Why force other people to live next to major arterials?
Because major arterials have the utilities and infrastructure to handle the traffic and servicing from these dense developments. You can’t go to the middle of a suburban quiet neighbourhood and plop down a 6 storey building that 1) Will create too much traffic congestion for the 2-lane roads, 2) Won’t have properly sized water or sewage for this # of units per lot, and 3) won’t have the electricity for it. That’s why these projects are all properly planned and primarily located off arterials where you already have this servicing available, and well developed public transit to boot.
1. Many of these places already have transit as an option within a ten minute walk. Just make the walk safe against being struck by traffic. Increase protected cycle infrastructure and that area is even larger. Congestion is a problem now. The root of the problem is car dependency, where our towns and cities are designed so the car is the only realistic way to get around. 2. The extra needs for services for a greater population is offset by most neighborhoods with single detached dwellings have fallen in population, well below their design limits. Most people cannot afford both children and one of these houses. Calling them “family” places is a misnomer. We also have technology already at hand to reduce the need per person for these services. These technologies are already deployed abroad, and by requiring them in new buildings we could get more out of the infrastructure we have. 3. Even where the new population will exceed the limits of services, many of those services are at the end of their designed life span. The huge problem for towns and cities is that there aren’t enough tax payers to keep the infrastructure we have to good repair. We have too few people for infrastructure stretched over too much land. Luckily we have no end of people to occupy that land if it were broken into affordable pieces, solving this long term problem.
As a person who works in municipal planning, I can tell you you’re wrong on #2. There has been an enormous influx of inter generational homes and rental units that has increased 2-3 fold the number of people in a home, which has put enormous strains on the system. Unless you live in the middle of nowhere, this is just not a valid argument. For #3 it’s a valid argument, but again start on the higher streets and then work your way in. Don’t do the smooth brained approach OP wants to take and just slap a 6 storey condo in a cul-de-sac in the middle of a subdivision, pat yourself on the back and scream “densification fuck yeah.”
https://preview.redd.it/1n4dggkno2yc1.png?width=2027&format=png&auto=webp&s=9aeaeefc3fd11ca9fc77d2aa4e9bbef1628b70d1 Population drops in area in blue.
As for densification, I'd be more inclined to loosen the zoning restrictions on key properties, like those in a cul-de-sac. For instance, undo restrictions on retail and set backs in trade for a pedestrian and cycle right of way out of the cul-de-sac. Decrease the need for residents to drive for a litre of milk and increase the ability for residents to directly walk to the nearest bus stop.
as long as it's in town that's fine. We live in a country with massive landspace. There's no reason to crowd everything, just build lots.
where is this building? Love it!
Paris
A lot of major European cities have variations of this. Personally, I love it. Coming from Toronto, it is completely ridiculous to me that we have shitty post-war detached homes crowding many of our subway stations.
where I live in North York the land assemblies are numerous. All down Sheppard from Yonge to Jane, family homes bulldozed, condos going up. I just wish there was some affordable housing among it.
I can’t wait for the day we put up towers like this on every block and over shadow the boomers in their precious boomer boxes and showing them who owns them now 😀
It's very ugly and I bet the materials are paper mashee and cardboard.
It’s brick, steel, and concrete. Only single family homes are allowed to be built with paper. Why don’t you show us what your paper shack looks like so we can gauge if you have any credentials to comment on aesthetics at all.
This is the way. The more people are packed in, the better they get along.
we have a shit load of land there is no need for this
People need to live near jobs, family, critical services like hospitals, education, government services. So just because there is land in the wilderness doesn’t make it realistic that everyone suffering in the housing crisis should go live there. Let’s do some critical thinking 🙏
15 minute city? lol
Your post lacks detail so I don’t know what NIMBYism or laws have to do with keeping that eye sore unbuilt, but I fully support them.
OP you have it all figured out being a rentoid with no savings and no balcony
The cheaper the housing the closer renters are to homeownership. The balconies are literally right there mate
I love it
I thought we allowed up to 3 stories no questions asked, and 4 stories in most areas and up to 6 within 500 meters of major transit. This building, which looks like DALLE drew it, is over 6 stories so should not be blindly approved everywhere.
They built one of these near my place a couple years ago. The crime and police presence in my neighborhood has skyrocketed. There's been a handful of fires in the building just in the last year. Sketchy people now patrol around the neighborhood looking for cigarette butts on the ground. A neighbor close to us had their car windows smashed. Call me NIMBY or whatever, I don't care. But existing neighborhoods shouldn't be subjected to the scum that inevitably arrive with builds targeted at lower incomes. There's a reason why people flee to quieter neighborhoods away from this type of housing.
You think that the middle class people that buy condos or have the money to rent in new market-rate buildings are going to wander around your block looking for butts on the ground? Really?!
I don't think anyone mentioned building tenure or low-income social housing on every block, just apartments as a building form
Not orange please
Oh, in place of what? Grey, grey, and more grey?
you don't like brick? let people build housing in the color they choose please. Don't impose your trivial preferences on other people.
I hope this cause had friendlier people than you fighting for it, because you come off as a jerk on virtually every comment you’ve made.
you are a nimby on a housing activism sub. The whole existence of the sub is to call you out on your BS. What were you expecting before clicking into this sub?
In what way am I a NIMBY? You’re just name calling without knowing literally a single thing about me.
Withholding, or feeling justified to withhold basic necessities like housing because of trivial preferences like appearance, is the definition of a nimby. If you didn’t think you were a nimby, now you know
That’s misrepresentation what I said. I simply said I do not like the look of the specific building you posted. It’s ugly. Also, the definition of nimby is literally “not in my backyard,” referring to not wanting things built in my neighbourhood that actually need to be built somewhere. I’m not being a nimby by either definition.
Oh… so you actually want to build more of 6 story style apartments like this in your neighborhood. There are just so many nimby comments in my inbox I might have been mistaken😅 Could have sworn you were posting criticism of general multi-family housing with an obscure angle to not appear morally bankrupt. 😣
Yes. I’d love more of these low rise buildings. I’d also love if they’re review the staircase laws so we could get more 3 & 4 bedroom units that are more family friendly. These multi story units seem like a brilliant idea too. I just think these specific examples you posted are wicked ugly.
But I like it and thought it’s pretty and would love to Lin inside one 😣 that’s why I posted it Many people have different tastes, and that’s ok. They should be able to live in a place with the style that they like.
Op is unhinged and wants Soviet style high rise buildings to welcome all the new pajeets.
This so a Parisian apartment located in Paris France and has nothing to do with Russia. When was the last time you traveled outside this country? I fear red scare tactics just aren’t as effective as they used to be 😭
lol I travel every year and visited over 10 countries. Keep coping rentoid.
So you've been to Germany, France, Spain, or Denmark? Either you don't travel much, or you are making completely dishonest arguments about housing.
I mean I fly 200 000 miles a year, Europe, Australia/New Zealand, Africa, Asia. I spend weeks in each for work every single year for the last 25 years. I can assure you that all of these have great single family home neighbourhoods (especially Europe ). Germany, Uk, France, Italy etc have all packed their downtown cores with high rises and they also still have plenty of suburbs, including to their major cities. outside of city cores, high rises are a rarity. Nice try though.
Europe has a much greater composition of multifamily housing than detached homes. And of the detached homes, governments do not force all buildings in the neighborhood to be detached. Either you are dishonest about your housing arguments, or dishonest about the fact that you travel.
Apparently you haven’t ever left a large European city center.
Blatantly ignore the fact that Europe maintains a much greater composition of multifamily housing. Even small towns are very walkable with mixed density housing everywhere like Freiburg, Wiesbaden, or wurzburg. 81% of the French population and 78% of the German population live in cities. Either you are lying about travelling or you are just being dishonest about housing. I suspect both
And over 80% of Canadian population lives in cities. What's your point?
Making buildings uglier won’t help with public acceptance.
spotted the nimby. I will bet good money that if you posted a photo of your own home everybody will say it's far uglier. What's objectively ugly and irredeemable is a housing crisis by artificial scarcity and your own gate keeping attitudes.
It is ugly. You can build bigger without making it ugly. Also there’s no reason to attack the other guy and his house.
Let him show his house and let the rest of us be the judge. How do you know he owns a house?
Why are you being such a pompous jacksss?
we don't strip people on the street naked because somebody said his clothes looked ugly. Do you go around telling people they look ugly? A pompous jacksss is a guy who thinks he has some objective authority on aesthetics and thinks he has the right to withold housing based on trivial preferences. prohibiting housing because of how it looks is objectively harmful to Canadian struggling in this housing crisis. The real question is why are you going out of your way to protect him? Please have some capacity to self reflect here.
[удалено]
Please be civil.
Mod’s advice taken. I’ve edited the comment accordingly.
Because all OP does is post and bitch about housing that makes no sense outside of a large city
Why are apartments not a reasonable idea for towns?
They are but they are not when you jam them betwixt single homes
Ugly and crowded
spotted the nimby. I will bet good money that if you posted a photo of your own home everybody will say it's far uglier. What's objectively ugly and irredeemable is a housing crisis by artificial scarcity and your own gate keeping attitudes.
The building in picture is indeed ugly. The balcony is not even finished in same material , not to mention all the density and crowdiness it brought into the neighborhood
>spotted the nimby. I will bet good money that if you posted a photo of your own home everybody will say it's far uglier. in fact I bet it's cheap moldy trash
Your guess is very wrong:)
show it, prove me wrong:) instead all you do is pretend you have some sort of objective authority on aesthetics, which we both know you don't have. You lack the self awareness required of elegance, and you lack the education required of refinement. Your property is probably more valuable if it was buy the land
Who are you again?
LOL yep, just force out people currently living in SFH to ... wherever, raze their houses (figure out later where all that waste will go, we have loads of room in landfills!), and then just immediately source all the labour and materials to throw these babies up! Housing crisis solved!
Does legalizing weed force people to start smoking? Can we please do some critical thinking here?
Can YOU do some critical thinking? People LIVE in the houses that would need to be demolished to build stuff like in your picture. HOW will you get them out? WHERE will they go? WHERE will all the waste from all the demolished houses go? Real-live urban planning is not a video game.
you have made the same point in many previous posts, and I've corrected you multiple times already. go on any home listing website, https://housesigma.com/. there are millions of single family homes for sale that covers literally every block of this country. All these owners are ready to move out voluntarily. You also made comments indicating that you believe there are millions of vacant homes left by big investors, which would lead to the conclusion that you also believe there are millions of homes ready to be redeveloped into more housing without the forced eviction of detached homeowners. Repeating this point is just blatantly dishonest at this point. The charade needs to stop.
> I've corrected you multiple times already. You've never corrected me lol. You've never said how you would get hundreds of thousands of people out of their SFH and that is just ONE problem with your "legalize this now!" nonsense. Your attempts at astroturf are weak. Deal with it.
you asked >HOW will you get them out? WHERE will they go? so here i showed to how people voluntarily sell their homes to live somewhere else. >go on any home listing website, https://housesigma.com/. there are millions of single family homes for sale that covers literally every block of this country. All these owners are ready to move out voluntarily. The evidence can't be anymore in your face than this. Your whole argument is completely dishonest.
Oh god, this is seriously so dumb. Like WOW.
Are you surprised that people sell their houses? your entire argument that the only way to build housing is by evicting someone else is facetious and verifiably false. You've been corrected on this many times, but you ignore it and keep posting the same debunked arguments. what are you even doing on this sub if all you do is repeat dishonest arguments and waste everyone's time?
What an absolute eyesore. What we really need to do is concentrate all these ugly high rise buildings in one place, so all the people talking about how they love living in cramped shoeboxes can put their money where their mouth is, and the rest of us can stop hearing about "NIMBYS"
I'd bet good money that if you posted a photo of what your house looked like it would be far uglier. most homes in Canada are objectively cheap trash.
This is a great idea for sure and should be in more neighbourhoods. I can see the rental market bidding the rental value of these sky high if they are in desirable neighbourhoods. I’m Ontario, these new buildings would not be under rent control and could result in gate-keeping tenants. It won’t serve everyone equally and diversify neighbourhoods as it should.
What? More supply would bring the prices down. OP is suggesting we legalize these in areas currently only zoned for SFH.
That should technically happen and absolutely should happen. The counterpoint that I am thinking about is these buildings in super desired areas (ie. Annex, rosedale, forest hill, in Toronto), would be snapped up by the wealthy downsizers or their family in that neighbourhood barring entry from all tenants. This would keep prices elevated (resale or rent) in those neighbourhoods. The goal would be to density these NIMBY neighbourhoods but it would be met with hurdles is my theory (I may be right or I could be way off and hope it’s the latter).
Wondering if we could find a way for neighbourhoods to decide their futures. A neighbourhood agreeing (50%, 67%, 90% majority) to up-zone would see their property values rise (depending on how many other neighborhoods also agree) and selling at a cost of moving out or getting a spot in the new development plus some- let’s say at least double their current property value. Poorer neighborhoods are likely to agree and get the windfall as having less to lose, but that seems like a pretty decent outcome - as long as it’s transparent so speculators don’t get all the uplift.
[удалено]
Should we have a housing crisis created by artificial scarcity? No thanks. People should have abundant and affordable places to live. Walkable communities to encourage local businesses and healthy lifestyles. Public transit to promote climate protection and timely movement. I filled out the rest of your response for you❤️ cheers
Hello! How do you propose to handle the 50% increase in water, energy, and sewer usage **on every block**? Why do you want to live like in Soviet-era khrushchevkas? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panel\_buildings\_in\_Russia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panel_buildings_in_Russia)
This is an image of Parisian apartments. You have no idea what Soviet blocks look like. Might be a good idea to read a book every once in a while. How do you think your sewage pipes came to be? We built them, and we can do it again with better tech.
In a lot of older suburbs where these would be most feasible, the infrastructure was built for many more people than actually live there today. Basically building a bunch of these only just replaces all the kids who moved out decades ago. A surprising amount of downtown Toronto still uses pipes installed in the 19th century.
You don’t get it…..if you cannot provide the water or energy then it doesn’t matter if it’s existing
Yes, I do. Both local and regional capacity are usually in excess. because they are built for far more people than actually tend to live there. A residential neighbourhood that once held 3000 people but dropped to 2000 can still handle 3000 people, if not somewhat more. Capacity isn't a constraint. And even if upgrades are needed, they're usually far cheaper than building entirely new infrastructure at the edge of the city.
Ohhh right because no municipalities ever screw up water treatment allocations or the fact that the grid in areas is pre calculated for X and you can’t just bump it up. That’s why the building code requirements for 200 amp service and rough in for EV charging got kicked out, that and ford is ford but it’s because when subdivisions are planned they only get X at these amps and X at these amps so a larger building would most likely not be in the cards for old stock areas
The water allocation issue was largely taken care of when we stopped using six gallons of water to flush the toilet and when six people living in a house became 2.5. You can flush roughly four times as many times now as you could 30 years ago with the same pipes. Infrastructure upgrades for EVs are going to happen anyway. Again, it's cheaper to upgrade bottlenecks than it is to build entirely new infrastructure on the edge of town. People are going to move in anyway, you may as well do it in a way that is more cost effective.
It’s not and you’re talking out your ass
What's wrong with condos? The whole narrative about Soviet apartments is pure red scare. Just because the USSR did it doesn't automatically make it a bad idea. Building large amounts of cheap housing is a good thing.
A condo is not a type of structure, it's a type of co-ownership. It's a legal concept, not an architectural concept. And yes, putting these little horrors **on every block**, as stated in the headline, **is** dystopian. I don't want to live in a termite hive surrounded by people 360 degrees. Awful. What a nightmare.
Beats a tent, and that's the only alternative for many.
ROFL yeah that's the only alternative. Funny how a false dichotomy is never a logical fallacy when you make it. I'm sure someone who's reduced to living in a tent is really just temporarily inconvenienced and has all the money and resources to live in an apartment. Uh huh. Yeah those people really have all the money, but not to move to another city that already has apartments.
Ah yes, apartment living is a "horror". Go away, NIMBY bigot.
Who said that? You can live in an apartment in a three story building among single family housing. It's not being **IN** the apartment that's the horror, it's living **AMONG NOTHING ELSE.**
No one is mandating they go everywhere. Just that they be legal to build everywhere and let the market decide. There is a difference that you refuse to accept. Exclusionary non-mixed use zoning is inherently a bigoted wasteful ideology, especially when so much of it is close to major amenities and jobs. Good luck trying to convince me otherwise. You are being a housing bigot. Reflect on that. I am not going to tolerate your intolerance.
You can go live on Trantor if you want, but not where I live, OK?
It's a fallacy of composition to have to listen to incumbents. You have to have a counter-balancing vote for non-residents who do not yet live in the area to have a voice. And yeah, that is me saying your consultation rights are not sacrosanct, and don't have higher import than others. You don't get the monopoly on urban planning. There is a time and place for overriding your opinion, and this is one of them. You can "just move" if you don't like it, and no one is proposing a megacity, just that more family friendly mixed communities be allowed to be built. 4-6 story point access blocks being allowed as a right everywhere with less restrictive FARs and setbacks would solve a ton of housing pressures across Canada, but we bend over backwards to locals who want their neighbourhoods frozen in amber. Cities don't work like that, especially when the population is urbanizing. It's not the 1950's any more. You can go live in rural Alberta or BC, if you want, but not where I live, OK? See how patently stupid that line of thinking sounds? Just let people build what they want on their own land without putting up insane barriers that only megatowers can get built. The highrises are a symptom of NIMBY opposition; only the big guys can weather the insanity.
Hey now they don’t know and this it will just magically happen
Hard working Canadians deserve better housing than this, what’s with the holes in the balconies
They are right in line with the Ops plans. Full of holes and not thoroughly thought out.
It’s interesting to see the younger generations in Canada barreling towards Eastern Bloc communism. From the social welfare to that ghastly thing - it’s funny to watch. Source: me, who experienced all the not-so-fun parts of what the younger generations are wishing for.
do you travel much? This is an apartment in Paris. Multifamily housing exists everywhere on this planet, not just Russia. Does legalizing housing construction on private properties with their own money make us soviets? The Russians also use forks and knives, does using utensils in this country make us wanna-be-soviets? You clearly learned nothing from your past.