06-09-2021, 07:12 AM
(06-08-2021, 04:30 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: Edit: You said “If those duplex units are to be rented then yes, elevator.” I just don’t see how this is compatible with being concerned about affordability. If not enough units get built because it is illegal to build affordable units then that doesn’t help anybody.
One of my core principles is that accessibility is a right. That's fundamentally in opposition to the compromises you are willing to make in service of affordability, which I do agree is also a right. I respect that there's compromises that would have to be made to fulfill my goal but it's also not some discrete change to make to the world, it goes part in parcel with the changes to society that mostly I think we agree about.
What's the actual percentage of affordable *rental* housing that makes up the difference between the relatively small 3 or 4 story type buildings we agree about, and these sorts of small units about which we disagree? Yes, it would limit the types of affordable housing that is available, not everyone would be able to buy that sort of property. That's a compromise I'm okay making for accessibility. I understand if that is off-putting to you.
Lots more types of affordable dwellings should still be built, it's not as though there is only one format possible. Yes, it means that people who cannot afford to purchase these smaller units would be priced out of that market. They are also priced out of mansions, penthouses in condos, single dwelling homes anywhere in Southern Ontario, and numerous other forms of housing that can't be made affordable.
You've decided to create some kind of zero sum game between affordable and accessible housing. Along the way you've filled your posts with invective and personal attacks. 100% accessible entry for rental units does not equate to elimination of all affordable housing.