[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Ontario Newsroom

news.ontario.ca

So the short of it is that the developers here have agreed to pay for Royal Orchard Station in exchange for the approvals here. That leaves only Drewry as the remaining unfunded station on the extension.

If Royal Orchard gets built and Drewry doesn't.. man, what a miss that would be.

Well, almost. The developers agree to pay the Province, who uses it to build the station. It doesn't matter to the landowners at Bridge/High Tech if the Province uses that money for a station somewhere else or not, so the quid pro quo isn't that direct. .
As to it going to Royal Orchard over Drewry, that's likely where politics comes in. Maybe they'll make a big deal at Steeles and then there's TOC money they can spend on Drewry? It's not dead yet, so who knows?

 

[innsertnamehere]

well yea, if you get into the technicalities of how it's delivered.

The political optics of using money from development in York Region to pay for a station in Toronto wouldn't be great, so I get it.

Perhaps the Centrecourt mall redevelopment could help finance Drewry? Unfornately a lot of the density around Drewry itself already has entitlements.

 

[innsertnamehere]

also - to give an idea of size of this, North York Centre had a population of about 58,000 people in 2021. These two developments on either side of the 407 will have about 68,000 people - So 20% larger than NYCC is today. NYCC will likely remain larger over time as it continues to grow.. but it gives you an idea of the densities involved here.

 

[Undead]

It that you, John Wayne, is it me? We're using development to fund transit stations? Pinch me because I must be dreaming. Nothing else to say other than "finally!!"

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

also - to give an idea of size of this, North York Centre had a population of about 58,000 people in 2021. These two developments on either side of the 407 will have about 68,000 people - So 20% larger than NYCC is today. NYCC will likely remain larger over time as it continues to grow.. but it gives you an idea of the densities involved here.

Even there, at 40,000 housing units, you might be low-balling the population a bit. And it's important to remember that the TOC's are not the entire growth centre(s). I haven't done the math but it looks like Bridge TOC is about 60% of the Langstaff Gateway area and High Tech is, mmm, maybe a bit more than that out of Richmond Hill Centre? So you're likely talking well over 80,000 people just in the 2 growth centres. That doesn't account, since we're comparing to North York Centre, the stretch of Yonge from, say, Finch to Highway 7. Looking at the proposals already on the table for 2 of the corners of Yonge-Steeles, I'm thinking you're talking at least another 80,000 there.

It's a bit of apples-to-oranges but I think they'll dwarf NYCC when all is said and done. Don't forget, NYCC had to be zoned in increments. It's mostly built out now, though there are definitely still some sites. But this is blank slate and a done deal. It'll get built out as fast as the market allows and the peak heights are almost 2X what's in NYCC.

It's, like, a lot.

 

[innsertnamehere]

I assumed 1.7 people per unit, which is pretty typical for apartment units.

And yea, the reality is that there are already several thousand people living around the High Tech station and many thousand additional units proposed further east along Langstaff.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

I'm too lazy to find the Bridge thread and cross-post but if anyone cares to read through them, the MZOs are posted on the Ontario Environmental Registry website. There are links here to the maps and to the MZOs themselves.

High Tech is here:

Ontario Regulation 344/22 Minister's Zoning Order in the City of Richmond Hill | Environmental Registry of Ontario

On April 14, 2022, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing filed a Zoning Order, made pursuant to clause 47(1)(a) of the Planning Act, with the Registrar of Regulations as Ontario Regulation 344/22. The Minister of Infrastructure requested that the Minister consider making the Zoning Order.

ero.ontario.ca

And Bridge is here:

Ontario Regulation 345/22 Minister's Zoning Order in the City of Markham | Environmental Registry of Ontario

On April 14, 2022, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing filed a Zoning Order, made pursuant to clause 47(1)(a) of the Planning Act, with the Registrar of Regulations as Ontario Regulation 345/22. The Minister of Infrastructure requested that the Minister consider making the Zoning Order.

ero.ontario.ca

 

[gilboman]

I don't see how that's any different from the subway being extended to VMC to benefit the land owners in that area or the Kirby GO shenanigans. Or that LPC MP in BC who flipped 21 houses. We need to stop pretending as if there's a party immune from this.

did the province bypass municipal review for Zoning, site plan, OPA, school boareds, trca, region etc in VMC?

 

[WislaHD]

I haven't seen the MZO's yet but they will have (or should have) parking rates. It'd be shocking if they're not at least in that 0.3 spaces/unit range, if not lower. I mean, this is allegedly a transit-oriented community, right?

If this MZO is basically just the province given the developer land-owners whatever they want, then I would imagine that the developers would request a fairly low parking ratios. Parking stalls are expensive.

I doubt the party hacks writing these MZOs have any clue what it is that they are approving, but I would imagine the developers involved and their consultants do.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

If this MZO is basically just the province given the developer land-owners whatever they want, then I would imagine that the developers would request a fairly low parking ratios. Parking stalls are expensive.

I doubt the party hacks writing these MZOs have any clue what it is that they are approving, but I would imagine the developers involved and their consultants do.

First of all, I doubt "party hacks" are involved in this level of detail. I'd assume it was collaboration between MMAH planning staff and the developers (or their planning consultants which, based on the engagement materials, are Bousfields and WND).

And we don't have to speculate about the parking ratios because they're in the MZOs and I'll just paste them below. Yes, underground parking is expensive but because Langstaff Gateway is ramping up (not sure about High Tech but looks like it?) they can build the parking above ground or without digging very deep. And the other caveat is marketability - how much do the people you're selling to want a parking space? If they do, you don't want a municipality telling you you can't provide them. (And if you can sell them, who cares if they're expensive to build? 80 storey towers are also expensive to build, after all!))

BRIDGE:
(18) There are no minimum required parking spaces per dwelling unit.
(19) A maximum of 0.5 parking spaces are permitted per dwelling unit.
(20) A minimum of 0.06 visitor parking spaces are required per dwelling unit.
(21) There are no minimum required parking spaces for non-residential uses.
(22) A maximum of 2.25 parking spaces are permitted per 100 square metres for non-residential uses.

And HIGH TECH:
10. For buildings with dwelling units, a maximum of 0.4 parking spaces are permitted per dwelling unit.
11. Parking spaces allocated for residential visitors or non-residential uses may be provided as part of a commercial parking lot in accordance with the following requirements:
i. a maximum of 0.06 parking spaces per dwelling unit for residential visitors, and
ii. a maximum of 0.5 parking spaces per 100 square metres of non-residential gross floor area in the building for non-residential visitors.

As you can see, the style/organization differs between the 2 MZOs, so probably the consultants wrote them.

Anyway, 0.4/0.5 is ambitious for a suburb (and no minimums is good!) but given the number of units here, I wonder if it's ambitious enough.

 

[Undead]

If VMC can support 0.3, so can this place.