TEK Tower (30 Francis) | 45 fl | U/C

[cherrypark]

> Adding stock won't help the affordability crisis.
> There are too many investors crowding out a constrained seller's market.

How is this dichotomy still a debate? The lack of "yes, and..." to build more and also build affordable/low-income housing, public or otherwise, and instead just holding up an unsolvable affordability crisis as the reason to block anything but low cost housing will never, ever compute for me.

Not sure if this was a response to my last post or not, but I have no opposition to this development. 

...

Nothing wrong with the development (I actually attended the neighbourhood meeting and voiced my approval), however their sales tactics are not exactly ideal for our local housing market.

Sorry - should have been a little more clear: this was just a general statement towards a common talking point in the KW discourse (less so on here) that building more won't solve affordability issues. It won't on its own necessarily, but I also think we have a lot of catch up to do while we work out a way to incentivize or pay for the other stock we need.

I found that their marketing specifically hinging on that as a selling point felt gross but indicative of the root of the problem with a supply constrained market. Sure, we could maybe do better on the types of new supply and not having them all be stacked into towers chasing "tallest" status, but there are still people buying/renting 1 beds or that could choose to fit into them instead of competing for larger housing units.

Really appreciate the insights on that disparate pricing too as it takes a bit of leg work to contact their sales to see the differences. I don't get a great feeling from anything IN8 does, so not particularly surprised... good points above that it will be interesting to see how units priced so aggressively will convert into rental prices. If it means some investors eating a loss and reselling because they are sitting vacant, not a big let down in my mind!