Interesting Article

bunmanchi

bunmanchi

Banned
Forum Sponsor
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...ides_community.html?google_editors_picks=true



lets see if this makes sense. a developer is making a bunch of houses.

People are saying the homes that the developer are buliding are too small for the amount of people that want to live in them.

rather than look for a larger house somewhere else, they are demanding the developer change all their plans, and build larger homes ?


lets put it into another scenario..

Guy walks into a Mcdonalds, looking for a big hamburger.... sees the Big Mac.

says to counter guy. That Big Mac is too small for me, Im really hungry. can you please make a bigger bun, and bigger patties ?

Counter guy says Sorry, this is our planned menu, However if you wish to eat at another place, im sure you can find what you want.

Guy says. NO. I want to eat here !

lol


If they want a bigger home, Buy it, No-one is making you live in Springdale.
 
Actually, what Dhillon is saying is that the planned townhouses are too small for the people that THEY want to live in them.

It is Springdale after all.
 
It sounds to me that they don't want the property values of their already overpriced houses to go down.
 
I am not familiar with Springdale but this sounds like a case of wanting to eat their cake, and have it too.

Let smaller houses be built. IF smaller cheaper houses are available, couples, or professional singles can move into the area. What is this idea of allowing only like-families to move in?

Even from the architectural point of view, why do they want to build the same houses over and over again? That is not diversity, I hate when neighborhoods (including mine) look too homogeneous, all houses exactly the same size, like they were made with only two cookie cutters, every other house is the same.
 
Translation. Build bigger houses so we can split and sublet the whole house. Then the people renting the basement, will sub-rent their closets. A high mortgage becomes affordable and drives the prices way up. Screw the cultural tradition of young couples buying a small house.
 
daught said:
Translation. Build bigger houses so we can split and sublet the whole house. Then the people renting the basement, will sub-rent their closets. A high mortgage becomes affordable and drives the prices way up. Screw the cultural tradition of young couples buying a small house.
Click to expand...

Exactly, straight from the horse's mouth.

“Every house here has two or three families. The Punjabi community lives in joint families and no joint family can fit in a townhouse.”

I guess thats how they are able to afford these houses, and hey saves on property tax too eh?



This is what i really dislike about people like this. They are the first ones to claim racism but what they are doing is trying to dictate to the builders what to build so that people of their RACE will be able to live comfortably. What about people like me who don't want to live with 3 other families, and instead would prefer a smaller place like the builder has proposed?
If you don't like the houses, go else where. Its pretty simple, but this coming from a group of people who don't normal conform to the ways of canada, but instead constantly try to change the laws/ways to fit their lives.
 
bunmanchi said:
People are saying the homes that the developer are buliding are too small for the amount of people that want to live in them.

rather than look for a larger house somewhere else, they are demanding the developer change all their plans, and build larger homes ?

If they want a bigger home, Buy it, No-one is making you live in Springdale.
Click to expand...

A cursory look at the article reveals your assessment to be true. This kind of blatant commandeering of whole neighbourhoods by certain groups of people seems wrong.
 
N3WMAN said:
Free babysitting, housecleaning, and gourmet food service as well.
Click to expand...

Them having that doesn't cost their neighbors anything though
 
and our Politicians will pander.
Nobody has the balls to stand up and say enough.
You came to Canada, Canada did not come to you.
 
Chaos said:
Am I the only one that really doesn't care that 2-3 families live in the same house?
Click to expand...

It's not good to be next door to the more extreme situations like that, particularly if the driveways and parking were not designed to accommodate it and the streets were not designed for that traffic load if EVERY house in the whole subdivision is like that. BUT ... With the price of housing in the Toronto area being what it is, there is almost no choice but for younger folks to live with their parents for a long time.

I don't think it's right that city council is attempting to influence the cultural backgrounds of its neighborhoods. Let there be supply and demand. Let there be a mixture of single-family and townhouse and bigger houses designed for multi-family. Let supply and demand sort out how many of which get built.
 
Brian P said:
It's not good to be next door to the more extreme situations like that, particularly if the driveways and parking were not designed to accommodate it and the streets were not designed for that traffic load if EVERY house in the whole subdivision is like that. BUT ... With the price of housing in the Toronto area being what it is, there is almost no choice but for younger folks to live with their parents for a long time.

I don't think it's right that city council is attempting to influence the cultural backgrounds of its neighborhoods. Let there be supply and demand. Let there be a mixture of single-family and townhouse and bigger houses designed for multi-family. Let supply and demand sort out how many of which get built.
Click to expand...

I don't deny it'd be a major pain in the arse to live beside one of said neighbours, but short of creating/enforcing a law that determines a maximum number of people per square ft (which is not likely to happen), what can you really do? With respect to the car issue, I know there are cities that have bi-laws with respect to the maximum number of cars allowed on a driveway. Additionally, a city can implement/enforce street parking rules to combat congestion.

I totally agree with your latter statement.
 
Chaos said:
I don't deny it'd be a major pain in the arse to live beside one of said neighbours, but short of creating/enforcing a law that determines a maximum number of people per square ft (which is not likely to happen), what can you really do? With respect to the car issue, I know there are cities that have bi-laws with respect to the maximum number of cars allowed on a driveway. Additionally, a city can implement/enforce street parking rules to combat congestion.

I totally agree with your latter statement.
Click to expand...

And the same people will show up in force to protest such legislation or essentially tell their politician that they will not vote for them if this happens. Nobody is really interested in the greater good, we are becoming an every man for himself society just like the US. It is rather sad because this country was never like this from what I heard before.

One would think they can get around and deem certain things as fire hazards.

It is very interesting how the GTA is dissected.
 
Just a thought. Could this be about control too? Keep every one under one roof, have everyone in your grip.
 
BuckWild said:
And the same people will show up in force to protest such legislation or essentially tell their politician that they will not vote for them if this happens. Nobody is really interested in the greater good, we are becoming an every man for himself society just like the US. It is rather sad because this country was never like this from what I heard before.

One would think they can get around and deem certain things as fire hazards.

It is very interesting how the GTA is dissected.
Click to expand...

"Nobody is interested in the greater good" That an interesting thought. What is the greater good in this case? You can make a case that having multiple families living in the same house is the greater good, and case that that it is not.

The fire hazard argument has some merit, but I think the only entity that can use that effectively is insurance. There is a premium on home insurance based on occupancy. Of course, that would only work if the owner wants/needs insurance in the first place.
 
kellen said:
City Services for three families and only paying property tax for one. Sweet deal.
Click to expand...

It used to be almost like that for white people too, at least from where I'm from. The parents used to have 12 kids ish, and the last kid always get the farm and the old parents. Then, the old parents were there to help with the next bunch of way too many kids until they die (which wasn't a long wait) and the wheel keep turning. It sucked to be the last one but at least you got the farm for free :D

Anyway, I read this too on thestar, and its pretty stupid, its a private company and they can built it the way they want....
 
It becomes a terrible situation for anyone living in the area. In my high-school of about 3000 kids there was 112 white kids. Not great when there is fighting based on race/social groups. It was also a bit stupid how we had so many kids in our school but the funding for most after school activities was not available. I am going to take a wild guess here and say that the amount of funding is based on number of houses in the school boundary lines and not the number of residents at school age.

On my street almost every night these idiots park on the street on both sides. Even if there are other spaces to prevent this. It ALWAYS causes major traffic jambs and sometimes they even park in the middle of the road to run into the house to pick up kids or old people. They then have the nerve to give me a dirty look when i beep the horn to get them to move.
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom