[Kat_YYZ]

Oh look, a rebuttal (from the Star):

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...hit-back-at-developers-for-bending-rules.html

Har har, she even mentioned the value of the property - not just her own, but the projected value of the new development. I am sure she was possessed at the time she made the comments.

AoD

"Developers propose setbacks of between 6.5 and 7.5 metres from the street. The minimum required by law is nine metres."

I can agree about this, I really hate how everything is being built so close to the sidewalk/street.

But yeah, the attempted damage control is pretty funny. There are probably all sorts of legitimate discussions that can be had over development, and these fools have now made it about one stupid thing. And some people will even side with developers just to spite these elitists, rather than hold developers to account over important issues.

Edit: ha! didn't see your post, Cooper, as I was typing mine, but I think we're on the same page.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

"Developers propose setbacks of between 6.5 and 7.5 metres from the street. The minimum required by law is nine metres."

I can agree about this, I really hate how everything is being built so close to the sidewalk/street.

But yeah, the attempted damage control is pretty funny. There are probably all sorts of legitimate discussions that can be had over development, and these fools have now made it about one stupid thing. And some people will even side with developers just to spite these elitists, rather than hold developers to account over important issues.

Edit: ha! didn't see your post, Cooper, as I was typing mine, but I think we're on the same page.

In Barbados, houses are built right on the street with bigger backyards. In France, a property is often surrounded by 3m wall. A 7m setback versus 9m seems like a weird hill to die on. 80 units, maybe. Lack of parking, maybe. But a 6 foot difference in the grass front lawn?

 

[W. K. Lis]

There are no rules protecting single detached housing per se. The Neighbourhoods designation in the Official Plan requires new development to be in keeping with the built form of the area, so what you can build depends on what's already there. In the case of this section of Keewatin, it's already very mixed with semis and apartments as well as detached houses.

Zoning is just a tool to implement the Official Plan. A rezoning is easy to get as long as it conforms to OP policies and isn't bending the rules. The rules (policy) are in the OP, not the Zoning By-law.

However, once some land is zoned for something, it could be changed to allow something that wouldn't normally get in. However, when they do get in, and other surrounding land is to be used for the intended zoning, they can get very upset. See the McNicoll bus controversy. See link.

 

[howl]

Lost of irritating zoning variances have been allowed in my neighbourhood despite the lack of detached housing — extra height allowances, reduced setbacks, bar patios with tiny setbacks from peoples' yards etc. I don't sympathsize much with the Density Creep crowd's opposition to the new townhouses, but they do have a point about enforcing the standards set out in the OP. The city doesn't do that consistently, IMO, which is one of the reasons the OMB has reputation for running roughshod over the the local planning process. If the city is going to establish rules, it should follow them.

As MisterF pointed out "There are no rules protecting single detached housing per se. The Neighbourhoods designation in the Official Plan requires new development to be in keeping with the built form of the area." But that does NOT mean that the existing built form must be maintained. "In keeping" means it must compliment the existing neighbourhood, but it can be denser if that can be accomplished without having a negative impact on the neighbourhood, so townhouses and low-rise apartment buildings would certainly be allowed in the Keewatin area as long as they were sensitive to the surrounding buildings. The Province also has rules which encourage density and infill development in urban areas that actually superseded the City's policies. Therefore the City obliged to allow higher density infill development as long as it can be blended into the neighbourhood.

I think the "Density Creep" people may have some valid arguments about how the proposed townhouse development fits into the neighbourhood (e.g. front yard setbacks etc.), but they don't have a valid argument about the density or built-form. The whole concept of 'density creep' is actually a legitimate way to grow a healthy and vibrant city.

 

[Cooper]

As MisterF pointed out "There are no rules protecting single detached housing per se. The Neighbourhoods designation in the Official Plan requires new development to be in keeping with the built form of the area." But that does NOT mean that the existing built form must be maintained. "In keeping" means it must compliment the existing neighbourhood, but it can be denser if that can be accomplished without having a negative impact on the neighbourhood, so townhouses and low-rise apartment buildings would certainly be allowed in the Keewatin area as long as they were sensitive to the surrounding buildings. The Province also has rules which encourage density and infill development in urban areas that actually superseded the City's policies. Therefore the City obliged to allow higher density infill development as long as it can be blended into the neighbourhood.

I think the "Density Creep" people may have some valid arguments about how the proposed townhouse development fits into the neighbourhood (e.g. front yard setbacks etc.), but they don't have a valid argument about the density or built-form. The whole concept of 'density creep' is actually a legitimate way to grow a healthy and vibrant city.

Absolutely. The style of construction is a matter of taste and can't be regulated. The building "envelopes" are the issue. If those proposed for Keewatin conform to parameters for height, setbacks, usage, transition to scale etc. as per the OP, I have no particular sympathy for Density Creep. Cities and neighbourhoods change over time. On the other hand, if the developer is pushing his/her luck on assuming zoning variances, DC has a case to make.

Personally, I think they should relax or at least focus on their issues in terms of the OP. We've had a huge wave of condo development in my neighbourhood and, for the most part, I'd say the results have been positive. The only real downside, IMO, has been crowding on transit, which is a fixable problem (T.O. transit politics aside). It was weird (and a bit spooky at first), trying imagine all these new buildings. But once they got going, it didn't long to start seeing them part of the neighbourhood.

 

[aquateam]

I think the "Density Creep" people may have some valid arguments about how the proposed townhouse development fits into the neighbourhood (e.g. front yard setbacks etc.), but they don't have a valid argument about the density or built-form. The whole concept of 'density creep' is actually a legitimate way to grow a healthy and vibrant city.

+1

Density creep is actually how we want to grow the city. No towers sprouting out of nowhere. Low-cost townhomes and low-rise apartment buildings that allow us to affordably house new city residents in areas that already have services and amenities. Neighbourhoods aren't meant to be frozen in time like some kind of disneyland exhibit. With the tremendous growth in the GTA, and with the multi-billion dollar Eglinton LRT under construction nearby, it makes sense that the Mount Pleasant and Eglinton area would see intensification.

Look at it this way: for every resident that settles in the city, near transit, you get another transit user and another customer to support the local business base. For every resident that settles in the suburbs you get another X square meters of countryside swallowed by urban sprawl, and another car-dependent suburbanite adding to the congestion and transport problems of the GTA. Reurbanization and density creep is the best way to accommodate the growing population.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

Precisely aquateam.

Here is an excellent website with lots of information about this form of city building. http://missingmiddlehousing.com/

 

[doug]

Density creep is actually how we want to grow the city.

Then why would the city reduce density allowances form 1.25X to 1X in the moss park neighbourhood?

 

[Kat_YYZ]

In Barbados, houses are built right on the street with bigger backyards. In France, a property is often surrounded by 3m wall. A 7m setback versus 9m seems like a weird hill to die on. 80 units, maybe. Lack of parking, maybe. But a 6 foot difference in the grass front lawn?

1. You didn't just compare Toronto to Barbados, right? Cause a major North American city and a tiny Caribbean island with 1/10th the population of T.O. have so much in common! Pretty sure what's right for Barbados isn't necessarily right for Toronto.

2. You misread my comment. I said I thought many new developments were built too close to the road. The Keewatin development hasn't been built yet. So I wasn't making a statement about 7 metres vs 9 metres. My comment was of a general nature, referring to things I've seen around -- some of which were definitely not 9 metres from the road, nor even 7 (maybe they don't need to be, though; different zoning rules for different areas/types of buildings).

Heck, maybe even 9 metres isn't enough for me!! -- I don't know, I haven't taken a tape measure out to see if the ones I didn't like conformed to that rule. I'm just saying: I've seen a bunch of stuff built that -- IMHO -- is too damn close to the road.

 

[doady]

It reminds of the protests against that townhouse development in Brampton a while back. It's sad, people just want homogeniety. White only want to live beside white people, and brown people only want to live beside brown people.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

1. You didn't just compare Toronto to Barbados, right? Cause a major North American city and a tiny Caribbean island with 1/10th the population of T.O. have so much in common! Pretty sure what's right for Barbados isn't necessarily right for Toronto.

2. You misread my comment. I said I thought many new developments were built too close to the road. The Keewatin development hasn't been built yet. So I wasn't making a statement about 7 metres vs 9 metres. My comment was of a general nature, referring to things I've seen around -- some of which were definitely not 9 metres from the road, nor even 7 (maybe they don't need to be, though; different zoning rules for different areas/types of buildings).

Heck, maybe even 9 metres isn't enough for me!! -- I don't know, I haven't taken a tape measure out to see if the ones I didn't like conformed to that rule. I'm just saying: I've seen a bunch of stuff built that -- IMHO -- is too damn close to the road.

Kat - pro tip - if you're not commenting on a quote, don't quote it. And, I compared Toronto to both Barbados and France, which is a country of 20x the population of Toronto. Both comparisons were made to say that maybe protesting this setback - that you quoted - was unreasonable.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Being close to any heavy-rail subway means there is demand for high density buildings. Don't want high density buildings, don't put in a heavy-rail subway. Those plans for a heavy-rail subway in the low-density areas Scarborough will mean that high-density buildings will be coming to those neighbourhoods. Those neighourhoods may want a heavy-rail subway, but the cost (to them) will be high-density buildings will also be coming.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Being close to any heavy-rail subway means there is demand for high density buildings. Don't want high density buildings, don't put in a heavy-rail subway. Those plans for a heavy-rail subway in the low-density areas Scarborough will mean that high-density buildings will be coming to those neighbourhoods. Those neighourhoods may want a heavy-rail subway, but the cost (to them) will be high-density buildings will also be coming.

That's the one thing I'm really loving about the Scar sub -- the YEARS of construction followed by YEARS of construction of condos/apartment towers to put shadows over all those backyards. It'll really be an interesting NIMBYfest.

 

[ChesterCopperpot]

Did this story belong here?

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/toronto-million-dollar-home-hyrdo-pole-809202

 

[someMidTowner]

Those GIFs are beyond priceless.