News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 4.7K     0 

N

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
31,715
Reaction score
88,721
Report to next week's Planning and Housing Ctte recommends moving forward with a consultation on an Inclusionary Housing by-law.

It recommends a general requirement of 3-10% of gross floor area in residential development be required to be affordable housing, the number for purpose-built-rental being lower than condo proposals.

Report here: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2020/ph/bgrd/backgroundfile-156401.pdf

Draft Zoning by-law here: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2020/ph/bgrd/backgroundfile-156402.pdf

And here: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2020/ph/bgrd/backgroundfile-156403.pdf

From the above:

"13. To increase the supply of affordable housing for low to moderate income households, continue to support a diverse range of housing supply and support the development of more inclusive and equitable communities, new development containing residential units and subject to an inclusionary zoning by-law, outlined in Section 5.1.8 of this Plan, will not be approved unless:

a)for development that is located in a strong market area identified on Map 37:

i.if a condominium development is proposed, a minimum of 10% of the totalnew residential gross floor area shall be secured as affordable ownershiphousing or affordable rental housing; or

ii.if a purpose-built rental development is proposed, a minimum of 5% of thetotal new residential gross floor area shall be secured as affordable rentalhousing;

b)for development that is located in a moderate market area identified on Map 37:

i.if a condominium development is proposed, a minimum of 5% of the totalnew residential gross floor area shall be secured as affordable ownershiphousing or affordable rental housing; or

ii.if a purpose-built rental development is proposed, a minimum of 3% of thetotal new residential gross floor area shall be secured as affordable rentalhousing;

c)the affordable housing shall be secured at affordable rents or affordableownership prices, with at least 10% of the residential gross floor area required inPolicy 3.2.1.13 a) and b) secured at 80% of affordable rents where affordablerental housing is provided, for a period of at least 99 years f rom the date of firstresidential occupancy of the unit; and

d)the unit mix of the affordable housing reflects the market component of thedevelopment, as appropriate, t o achieve a balanced mix of unit types and sizesand support the creation of affordable housing suitable for families
 
Very interesting.

I'm particularly interested in how Yorkville developments will react. Since that area is part of the Downtown Secondary Plan, they would get the exemption for buildings with fewer than 100 units. Think we'll see a bunch very thin 50 floor, 2000sqft per floor? Or would they build a rental + condo combination with separate entrances and amenity spaces instead? Or perhaps we'll see 20 floor residential on 20 floors of retail/office?
 
I'm all for this. I think its a great move. I imagine that costs will be shifted to condo buyers but I think thats appropriate in this case.

However, I do wonder.... if the goal is to improve the amount of affordable housing in the city, shouldn't we abolish Residential Detached zoning throughout the city? Allowing housing density and commercial across all streets in Toronto opens up new opportunities.
 
How does the affordable rental housing work? Is it below-market rents, with some sort of income-tested eligibility? Or just stripped down and de-contented so it can be rented for less?
 
dusk said:
However, I do wonder.... if the goal is to improve the amount of affordable housing in the city, shouldn't we abolish Residential Detached zoning throughout the city?
Click to expand...
Everyone knows this is sensible, and plenty have called for it (see very discussion on the Yellowbelt) - but it’s politically hard, so it’s easier for TO Planning to force more requirements onto condo builders.

If you want to see how politically hard it is, read TO Planning’s weak-sauce report on the missing middle. At the end they simply ask for more studies and consultation before making changes. So incredibly frustrating.
 
afransen said:
How does the affordable rental housing work? Is it below-market rents, with some sort of income-tested eligibility? Or just stripped down and de-contented so it can be rented for less?
Click to expand...

From the reports I linked above:

(2)Affordable Ownership Housing Unit DefinitionFor the purposes of Section 600.30, affordable ownership housingunit means adwelling unit which is priced at or below an amount where the total monthly sheltercost does not exceed 30 percent of gross annual income for households within the moderate income range, defined as the 30th to 60th income percentiles, depending on dwelling unit size, and which must be affordable to:
(A) households with incomes no higher than the 30th percentile, for bachelor dwelling units;
(B) households with incomes no higher than the 40th percentile, for one bedroom dwelling units;
(C) households with incomes no higher than the 50th percentile, for two bedroom dwelling units; and
(D) households with incomes no higher than the 60th percentile, for three bedroom dwelling units.

In this report: http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2020.PH16.6

Which is also heading to the next Planning & Housing committee mtg.

The definition would calculate affordability based on a set income percentile paying no more than 30 percent of income towards shelter costs (inclusive of utilities).


 
allengeorge said:
Everyone knows this is sensible, and plenty have called for it (see very discussion on the Yellowbelt) - but it’s politically hard, so it’s easier for TO Planning to force more requirements onto condo builders.

If you want to see how politically hard it is, read TO Planning’s weak-sauce report on the missing middle. At the end they simply ask for more studies and consultation before making changes. So incredibly frustrating.
Click to expand...
Couldn't we do some thin edge of the wedge on this... less desirable neighbourhoods or big lot/small home post-war neighbourhoods that are being redeveloped into McMansions.
 
I believe Councillor Brad Bradford is pushing for Missing Middle pilots in his ward. But as far as I know he's the only one who's visibily willing to make changes on the ground wrt. this.
 
Ladies and Gents..............your Inclusionary Zoning By-Law has arrived at Planning and Housing Ctte as at October 28th, 2021.

Report here: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2021/ph/bgrd/backgroundfile-172118.pdf

I'll also link to the intro section, as there are multiple attachments in addition to the report: http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2021.PH28.1

****

Short and long of it:

Applies to developments of 100 units or greater

Will require 5-10% of units initially

That will rise to 8-22% by 2030

Lots more to it, which I will come back to if others don't first!

In what feels like an act of repetition (because it is) , I think @HousingNowTO will want to take note of this.
 
Last edited:
Is the City planning to increase the number of units it approves to help lessen the cost of inclusionary zoning? Or will all these costs just end up being passed on directly to the buyers (IE. the vast majority of people)?
 
I've always hugely supported IZ in principle and the trick is getting it to work in practice.

Off-hand, it seems like something they put a lot of thought into. The trick is that you want to hit a sweet spot where forcing the developers to provide those affordable units doesn't result in driving up the cost of the other units so you have a "lower class" and an "upper class" and no "middle class."

The developers are going to complain, because that's their thing but I wonder if it will take a 5-10 years before we really have a sense of how this is actually working in practice. It will also be interesting to see how other GTA municipalities with MTSA's start doing their own policies. York Region, for example, says in their Official Plan that 35% of all housing in their growth centres should be affordable. Hard to imagine they can set an IZ target in a place like VMC or along the Yonge Subway anywhere in that vicinity; not when Toronto is maxing out at less than 10%.
 
That's fine, if the sole objective is to create more towered housing. But it doesn't address residential neighbourhoods that will remain low rise or could be infilled without adding towers.

I just got back from Edmonton, where the concept of "skinny houses" (severed lots with two houses) is being very constructively applied, in a way that would be fought tooth and nail by most Toronto residents' associations.

Too many lots in Toronto are being converted from modest single family to 5,000 square foot single family.... where those same 5,000 square feet (or 50 feet of frontage) could house multiple residences. Basement apartments are not the same as appropriately divided 2-3 story dwellings that resemble houses but have multiple units.

- Paul
 
Last edited:
crs1026 said:
That's fine, if the sole objective is to create more towered housing. But it doesn't address residential neighbourhoods that will remain low rise or could be infilled without adding towers.

I just got back from Edmonton, where the concept of "skinny houses" (severed lots with two houses) is being very constructively applied, in a way that would be fought tooth and nail by most Toronto residents' associations.

Too many lots in Toronto are being converted from modest single family to 5,000 square foot single family.... where those same 5,000 square feet (or 50 feet of frontage) could house multiple residences. Basement apartments are not the same as appropriately divided 2-3 story dwellings that resemble houses but have multiple units.

- Paul
Click to expand...

I mean, the article literally says this in the second paragraph...
1635191811317.png


Anyway, I think this is the really interesting point...

1635192154459.png


...but developers will definitely say it's not true (and that other jurisdictions provide more incentives) even though you'd think, at least at a macro scale, it does indeed somehow balance out...
(It's worth noting that developers make these same arguments about how they hate to pass on the costs to homeowners with Development Charges or any other external costs, but for a project that is viable, you'd think, again, the cost does balance out and they can't, say, charge $1.2M for a house the market values at $1M just because the DCs went up.
 
Last edited:
The worst part is that current policy will have us blast through that 700,000 figure 20 years earlier than the above estimate.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top