368 Ottawa Street South | 8 fl | Proposed

[dtkvictim]

I would almost go so far as to say that it makes no sense to make “affordable” housing with motor vehicle parking. By definition, affordable housing needs to leave out the fancy expensive upgrades: you wouldn’t put SubZero refrigerators or avant garde lighting fixtures in an affordable unit, so why would you put parking there?

At the same time I recognize that it’s precisely the people who need affordable housing who might need a space for their low-end car. But looking at the big picture it would make sense to have at least one area of the city where we make sure that a car truly isn’t needed, and put the affordable housing in areas that are designed that way. Of course, we don’t get to design the whole city all at once, which makes this harder.

I don't see why a car can't be a positive financial investment. A lot of jobs are still inaccessible without a car, and if you don't have in-demand skills you don't want to be closing any doors... I know plenty of university educated people who routinely go through the process of 400+ job applications just to get a single offer. A lot of solid low education or on the job training occupations may also be completely car dependent (trades, construction, landscaping, etc).

For those seeking multiple jobs to make ends meet, it may be impossible without a car as well, simply due to the sensitivity of timing multiple shift schedules.

It's fair to argue none of this should be the case (inaccessible jobs, needing multiple jobs), but that's the reality of our country and city.

Just as an FYI, my work allows me to make a lot of observations about vehicles in relation to Cooperative housing and 'affordable" house. You would be very surprised at the amount of high end vehicles parked in these lots. I often ask myself, how the heck do they afford these vehicles that I cant afford.... but I know the answer...

Actually, I’m not particularly clear on what you are alleging.

Re: car usage, I think it depends in part on what we mean by “affordable housing”. If we’re talking about an alternative to homelessness, it’s obvious that parking should not be included: it makes more sense to get 50 people off the street with no parking than 40 with parking (who probably can’t afford a vehicle anyway). But if we’re just talking about making sure that accommodation is available at a lower price point than it is in the larger market, then as ac3r points out many of these people don’t have good alternatives to vehicle use.

I don't know if it's what he is alluding too, but financial illiteracy and cultural pressures can easily put someone into a bad situation. I don't think the boomer avocado toast argument is too helpful, but the general idea of financial illiteracy is a non-0 factor in many people's poverty. It may not be the most significant factor, but it's still something worth addressing for those who need it.

If you're living in Kitchener and working in Cambridge in a factory (...)

... you may also consider finding housing closer to your workplace so that you don't need to drive a car. I certainly know people who do that (or find work closer to their housing).

1) Is this even an option if you are looking at affordable housing? Do you get to choose? Genuinely curious here.
2) This comment feels a little out of touch. Moving isn't free, perhaps more expensive than someone living paycheck-to-paycheck can afford. A lot of low paying jobs are also not anywhere close worth moving for between inconsistent (or malicious) scheduling, and poor working conditions, that will force you to look for new work after not too long.