News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.7K     0 

Ever think the city would allow people to sell their laneway property, but keep the main property?
 
Isn't it perfectly legit to sub-divide lots?

And actually, I recently worked on an infill project that had 3 seperate units in the main building (side-by-side) and another unit on a floor built above the garage in the rear. All sold seperately.
 
Isn't it perfectly legit to sub-divide lots?

And actually, I recently worked on an infill project that had 3 seperate units in the main building (side-by-side) and another unit on a floor built above the garage in the rear. All sold seperately.
Huh, I remember reading that the laneway unit couldn't be sold separately, but maybe that was regarding a specific case and not generally. Cool!
 
62 Croft Street in the Bathurst & College area:


1592794018214.png

1592794060479.png

1592794094856.png
 

Attachments

  • 1592794019129.png
    1592794019129.png
    1.2 MB · Views: 438

The histrionics from the NIMBYs in this article! I especially love grasping on to the straw of "decolonialism" to object to one particular laneway housing development. "We can't let good get in the way of perfect. Each new housing unit must solve all of the worlds problems."
Don't laugh too hard though. The kind of people who object to increased density in Toronto have a correlation to G&M subscribers, and you can bet that discourse will arrive here soon.
 
Last edited:

The histrionics from the NIMBYs in this article! I especially love grasping on to the straw of "decolonialism" to object to one particular laneway housing development. "We can't let good get in the way of perfect. Each new housing unit must solve all of the worlds problems."
Don't laugh too hard though. The kind of people who object to increased density in Toronto have a correlation to G&M subscribers, and you can bet that discourse will arrive here soon.
Jesus christ, what on earth is this article and those hot takes contained within them.

I especially like this part:
"She says that rather than just saturating the market to address affordability, it would be more effective to take an intersectional approach to planning. Current mainstream discussions around density ignore social determinants of health, income, race and disability, which effectively exclude large segments of Vancouver’s population and heighten the housing crisis, Ms. Moffatt says."

Let me translate this. So the solution is to not address housing supply in her white and wealthy neighbourhood without first talking about it ad nauseum for a decade before finally rallying all her white and wealthy neighbours to oppose said development to BC's OMB equivalent, in order to prevent potential offense to intersectional population groups that can't afford to enter her white and wealthy neighbourhood in the first place, due to the lack of housing supply.
 
^that's what you get when progressive politics as pushed in the schools goes mainstream. she's just using the same rubbish rhetoric as the leftists, but in the service of her particular biases. anyone can play the victim/intersectional game. the rest of us have been warning you about this for years lol
 

The histrionics from the NIMBYs in this article! I especially love grasping on to the straw of "decolonialism" to object to one particular laneway housing development. "We can't let good get in the way of perfect. Each new housing unit must solve all of the worlds problems."
Don't laugh too hard though. The kind of people who object to increased density in Toronto have a correlation to G&M subscribers, and you can bet that discourse will arrive here soon.
^that's what you get when progressive politics as pushed in the schools goes mainstream. she's just using the same rubbish rhetoric as the leftists, but in the service of her particular biases. anyone can play the victim/intersectional game. the rest of us have been warning you about this for years lol
It started with the anti-gentrification movement, but recently I have literally seen rhetoric about how pedestrianization and reducing car traffic is ableist for those who can't walk, and also racist because it makes buses slower being passed around by ultra-leftist Twitterati.


It even extends to articles like these:


And yes, intersectionalism is the du jour cudgel used by the power-hungry nowadays.
 
Last edited:
62 Croft Street in the Bathurst & College area:


View attachment 252915
great idea , but just guessing by the photo and Toronto prices , the main house would sell for 1.1 Million and this modern back alley home looks like 1.4 million , still not affordable option for most families or car enthusiasts in Toronto lol...

https://housesigma.com/
seems land only for sale

$1,250,000 priced dropped
$1,149,000
62 CROFT ST
Toronto, Ontario M5S2N9

MLS® Number: C4924551
 
Last edited:
Laneway Suites have access from the laneway, but Garden Suites will likely have access from the main house side yard. If you had your choice, which would you prefer to build?
 
Laneway Suites have access from the laneway, but Garden Suites will likely have access from the main house side yard. If you had your choice, which would you prefer to build?
Depending on your lot, you often won't have a choice. Not many streets in Toronto have laneway access, however, most neighbourhoods have backyards able to support garden suites.

Well, there is no choice anyway, since the City of Toronto explicitly prohibits garden suites in its zoning. Toronto is lagging behind other jurisdictions which have allowed it such as Ottawa.

I would welcome the Province coming out and forcing municipalities to adopt garden suites in their next comprehensive zoning reviews.
 

Back
Top