The Future Of Toronto Housing? Introducing Parkshore

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 24 чер 2024
  • BlogTo: www.blogto.com/real-estate-to...
    Parkshore: www.parkshoreto.com/
    P.S. Whenever you’re ready there are 3 ways we can connect.
    1 - Book an appointment with me 📅
    calendly.com/tomstorey
    2 - 💾 DOWNLOAD Our FREE Buyer's Guide: tinyurl.com/3zwv7px3
    💾 DOWNLOAD Our FREE Toronto Seller's Guide tinyurl.com/mssbtpnz
    3 - Check out my weekly podcast, “The Tom Storey Show” 🎙️
    / @thetomstoreyshow
    Video Chapters
    00:00 🏗️ Parkshore Development Introduction
    01:12 🌆 Master Plan Overview
    03:01 📈 Housing and Development Strategy
    04:11 🚧 Infrastructure and Public Space Planning
    06:07 🏙️ Traffic and Infrastructure Impact.
    07:01 🔄 Community Engagement and Feedback
    08:11 🤝 Political and Social Engagements.
    10:01 🌍 Future Steps and Impact
    The opinions expressed herein are solely that of Tom Storey, not Royal LePage or the TRREB and should not be misconstrued as advice or the basis of an agency relationship whatsoever. Please consult your professional advisor prior to taking action on any decisions relating to the matters discussed in these videos. This communication is not intended to cause or induce breach of an existing agency agreement. This is not financial advice.
  • Розваги

КОМЕНТАРІ • 21

  • @kevinn1158
    @kevinn1158 21 день тому +7

    The city has never done a development like this without completely screwing it up. All you have to do is look at Regent park and Atkinson coop to understand that none of these people are interested in good overall design. These developments while they look ok from the "architectural" standpoint, did nothing to address the density of the public housing element of those areas. Meaning, they created the gang environment but decided to ignore it when they approved the redevelopment. (Go ask the police about Regent park violent crime during the past 15 yrs. Hint crime is not changed in Regent park area.) High density public housing/poverty/troubled families all in one area equals disaster. Not only did they do nothing to diversify the economic demographic of these areas, in particular the Atkinson coop, they added NO market family housing units to the areas. Market family dwellings is what the city needs desperately. But the city councillors want to virtue signal by giving the poor everything nobody else can afford. Think I'm exaggerating? Again, look at Atkinson coop development. The city is building 350 townhouses for the public housing residents on the most expensive land in Canada in downtown Toronto and creating NO family market housing.
    They did the same thing in southern Etobicoke just east of Brown's line. Pile in public housing and little else.
    The only good development in the past 40 yrs is the one in the distillery district area and that was run by the province. They had a master planner, hired great architects, and probably didn't stick their nose into the process much. But again, it didn't bring family dwellings into the city.
    Which brings me back to the idiotic councillors at city hall. We have hundreds of kilometres of main streets that are built up with 2 or 3 storey structures, yet the city councillors have consistently teamed up with the local NIMBYs to block every boutique condo proposed for the last 30 years I've lived in downtown. They even block development over 39' on city core side streets... they block anything that isn't their pet project public housing garbage.
    Good Luck getting anything done through the city. They are completely clueless.

    • @vert911
      @vert911 21 день тому +1

      sounds accurate

  • @al3220
    @al3220 21 день тому +2

    We need stronger public transportation to support all of these developments. It's not just about building # units, it's about building a MOVING, BREATHING community.

  • @roseoverdose6451
    @roseoverdose6451 21 день тому +2

    i love people like this. out here thinking big and making life better for others.

  • @RelaxedPoo
    @RelaxedPoo 20 днів тому +1

    Umm okay cool. Hopefully this can include waterfront restaurants and cafes. Like one of those cool restaurants you can pull your jet-ski right up to and have lunch. Maybe an underwater restaurant similar to the aquarium tunnel where you can see local aqualife like the asian carp, green algae, and discarded plastic bags. As a matter of fact you could dike the water AROUND the buildings like a moat, and have a drawbridge that leads to the conceirge. and you can fill the moat with freshwater crocodiles who wear tuxedos and stuff.
    Anyways just my 2 cents.

  • @robbieboyrobbieboy2877
    @robbieboyrobbieboy2877 20 днів тому +4

    Sorry I dont like this plan. There is no transit planned for the area and you are eliminating great green space

  • @Picklemedia
    @Picklemedia 21 день тому +1

    The very first sentence is a fallacy.
    @Tom how many people per home right now? How many people per home in the year 2000?

  • @vert911
    @vert911 21 день тому +9

    yes lets build more on the waterfront where nobody can afford. actually, its canada, so lets build a luxury condo and let refugees live in it for free. take what the rents would be and just subtract it from the tax the developer owes... no big deal right?

    • @CanadaHomeFinancing
      @CanadaHomeFinancing 20 днів тому

      Its not even about affordability because that whole área Is already unaffordable. That area is a well used green space where people from all over the GTA come to enjoy.
      lakeshore is already over crowded and there is not enough transit to manage more people.
      It would be much easier to convert the low rise residential land just a few blockS north into high rise. That way the transit is already there as well as restaurans, supermarkets, shops and services just on Roncesvalles and Dundas and Queen St.

  • @venesafecteau6158
    @venesafecteau6158 21 день тому

    💯

  • @howy3333
    @howy3333 21 день тому +1

    I dont get it. Who is he developing this plan for at the moment? The city? For fun?

    • @vert911
      @vert911 21 день тому +1

      clearly not for developers interested in affordable housing

  • @DummMoney-rr1fi
    @DummMoney-rr1fi 19 днів тому

    They cut rates, way to go Tiffy....Steve was wrong

  • @vert911
    @vert911 21 день тому

    right, like Torontonians were so proud of cityplace.

    • @howy3333
      @howy3333 21 день тому +1

      Cityplace did turn out wonderful after the initial bad buzz

    • @vert911
      @vert911 21 день тому

      @@howy3333 maybe if you like your neighbors using their bathtub to store living fish they will shortly kill to eat, or stepping outside into a homeless encampment, or leaving your parking spot only to drive into gridlock most hours of the day

    • @kevinn1158
      @kevinn1158 21 день тому

      I’m old enough to remember when there was a driving range where city place is. I remember when they built Skydome. The whole area was open to Liberty Village. I actually went to talk to Adam Vaughn about this area and the Atkinson coop redevelopment. I said, is there a plan to build a subway to Liberty village at least? It’s all open. His response was, oh streetcars will service these areas. What a Moron. I asked about parking. He said take the streetcar. Parking isn’t a priority. People buying these condos won’t use cars.

    • @howy3333
      @howy3333 14 днів тому

      @@kevinn1158 You know I lead the resident group that convinced Vaughn to move the housing at cityplace

    • @kevinn1158
      @kevinn1158 14 днів тому

      @@howy3333 Move what housing at City Place?

  • @user-qz9vq8iu2g
    @user-qz9vq8iu2g 20 днів тому

    Not For Profits are very political… sad.. but that’s just the facts 🙄