Thanks.
They call it "non-market housing", but don't specify what type.
I would have concerns if a non-profit society is tasked with managing a 28-29 storey tower.
I think Feathered Friend has listed the provisional allocation of units by income. It will be non-profit societies running each of the buildings, as that who has to run them to meet the definition of social housing. Affordable Housing Societies manage C-Side, which is 30 storeys and a mix of market (1 and 2 bedroom apartment) and subsidized family (apartments and townhouse units). New Jubilee House on Richards is only 13 storeys, but has 162 units, so a pretty substantial building, that's non-market rental with a similar mix to the proposed towers. The MCYH Multigenerational Housing society tower on Richards will be 39 storeys and will have 193 units of social housing.
I guess they just have to be very careful who the operator is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feathered Friend
The proposal targets 40% of all non-market housing
units for families. Subject to Provincial funding approval,
affordability targets include:
» 20% at shelter and pension rate;
» 50% below Housing Income Limits; and
» 30% at Low End of Market.
» Additional deepened affordability for women fleeing
violence and Indigenous people
Thanks.
That's not really very clear though.
If 40% is for families, then the remaining 60% is carved up into the percentages listed?
or do the categories overlap? (i.e. 50% below Housing Income Limits and 30% Low End of Market could be families)
I guess they just have to be very careful who the operator is.
Thanks.
That's not really very clear though.
If 40% is for families, then the remaining 60% is carved up into the percentages listed?
or do the categories overlap? (i.e. 50% below Housing Income Limits and 30% Low End of Market could be families)
40% will have 2 or more bedrooms. They could be allocated to people in any of the three categories of income (shelter/pension rate, below HILs, Low end of Market).
This is ridiculous, short, squat and ugly, even compared to the other two sites.
The other two sites are larger. This has two other towers on the block, and one immediately across Strathmore Mews (which I think is the facade you can see in the image). It's the scale the plan contemplated years ago, so it doesn't need rezoning, and there shouldn't be any valid objections from the residents of the three towers. That wouldn't be the case if they tried to squeeze another tower in.
Yeah, exactly there. I see no problem with the location, it's no closer to the ramp than other buildings in the area. Looking at you Arc https://goo.gl/maps/biy3gztEgK5LR3Jw7
Yeah, exactly there. I see no problem with the location, it's no closer to the ramp than other buildings in the area. Looking at you Arc https://goo.gl/maps/biy3gztEgK5LR3Jw7
Sorry I meant the angle of the render. I would expect to see it from Expo or Pacific, or where they merge.
Presumably no windows on the noisey firehall side?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Changing City
990 Beatty (with firehall and childcare)
The 1050 Expo Blvd render IS weird, but I think they straightened out the bridge ramp to show 990 Beatty.
The huge mass to the right of that is a complete fabrication.
Agreed, though, that they should show it from the angle most people will see it from.
Last edited by officedweller; Feb 24, 2023 at 7:20 AM.
So many questions about this one. Why isn't the firehall not integrated under a podium for more density? Why is the tower at Expo/Nelson rather than Expo/Beatty - wouldn't the Expo/Beatty corner be better for tower separation from 939 Expo?
Prev
I would expect to see it from Expo or Pacific, or where they merge.
Linear Mode
