[afransen]

Great example by Craig Race Architects. 10 units where single family house stood. 367 HowlandStreet northeast of DuPont and Bathurst. View attachment 489984View attachment 489985View attachment 489986

I would be okay with relaxing height limits to allow 3-3.5 storeys and sloped roofs. Flat roofs and our climate are not a good mix.

 

[allengeorge]

Is it correct to say that we will see less of 6-9 units now as Development charges will have to be paid for all units, versus being waived off for upto 5 units?

I didn’t realize this changed.

 

[bclair001]

I didn’t realize this changed.

Yeah, I am not sure why they decided to do it as such. If somebody develops a 6 unit building, they have to pay 6 Development charges. But for 5 units, they have to pay none. So it kills the incentivize to develop anything b/w 6-10 units. I believe over 10 units, you might be able to make sense of the extra charges.

 

[afransen]

Yeah, I am not sure why they decided to do it as such. If somebody develops a 6 unit building, they have to pay 6 Development charges. But for 5 units, they have to pay none. So it kills the incentivize to develop anything b/w 6-10 units. I believe over 10 units, you might be able to make sense of the extra charges.

From a mechanism design standpoint, usually one should try not to create such huge cliffs as it distorts incentives. An alternative would be to phase in dev charges after 5 units, perhaps at 1.1x the per unit rate until 55 units. Honestly, policy makers should all have some required education in mechanism design. Just like software developers are always thinking about edge cases, policy makers should be thinking about how policy distorts behaviour at the margins and think about whether that is desirable or not.

 

[allengeorge]

Yeah, I am not sure why they decided to do it as such. If somebody develops a 6 unit building, they have to pay 6 Development charges. But for 5 units, they have to pay none. So it kills the incentivize to develop anything b/w 6-10 units. I believe over 10 units, you might be able to make sense of the extra charges.

Oh - I misread your comment. IIRC, staff originally wanted there to be adjusted (higher DCs on all units). Ana Bailao had a motion to exempt the first 4 units from DCs which, obviously, passed.

I do agree that charges need to be eased in, without a cliff; it’s a huge disincentive.

 

[Undead]

Long and narrow with a lack of windows. Works for a larger, multi-level home. Not sure it will be as great as flats. Reminds me of slightly less cramped apartments being built downtown. The number of bathrooms tells me the target is not to create affordabile homes. More million plus dollar units. Will it actually result in more people living in the same structure? Isn't that the point? Is the excitement iabout multi-family vs single family? I don't see much to be excitied about here.

Great example by Craig Race Architects. 10 units where single family house stood. 367 HowlandStreet northeast of DuPont and Bathurst.

Unfortunately not affordable: they want $3,580 monthly.

 

[afransen]

Unfortunately not affordable: they want $3,580 monthly.

The way to think about this is that expanding the housing supply with new units triggers a cascade of moves that improves affordability at the low end as people trade up to better units.

 

[Undead]

It's not a supply issue.

 

[afransen]

It's not a supply issue.

Say what? You mean we are producing more than enough housing for everyone who wants to live in Toronto?

 

[Undead]

I've covered this before elsewhere on the forum, so I'll be brief here. Essentially, there's no way supply can keep up the way the Feds have been pumping money into the economy and people into the country over the last 5-10 years. Until the excessive demand and financialization of housing are addressed, supply is a red herring.

You mean we are producing more than enough housing for everyone who wants to live in Toronto?

There's two sides to the equation: supply and demand. Everyone always talks about the former, but there's unfortunately a massive taboo on the later.

Note: I'm not opposed to gentle and midrise density.

And yes, we're building an extreme number of units (20k per year in Toronto, albeit of poor quality). When was the last time, if ever, we built that many?

 

[emphurent]

I've covered this before in the zoning reform thread so I'll be brief. Essentially, there's no way supply can keep up the way the Feds have been pumping money into the economy and people into the country over the last 5-10 years.

Is it not still a supply issue then by all accounts..? Looking at immigration as a metric that isn't real (or as if it doesn't count towards the supply imbalance) because it can be 'shut off' is just disagreeable. Blocking immigration full stop is a non starter idea if that's the implication, there will always be some level of incoming population, which, will lead to supply issues when other parts of the system stay broken.

I just wish the whole "it's not a supply issue" bit would stop. The infighting it causes is just miserable for everyone involved, lets house people please.

 

[Undead]

I'll respond in the zoning reform thread.

 

[afransen]

I've covered this before elsewhere on the forum, so I'll be brief here. Essentially, there's no way supply can keep up the way the Feds have been pumping money into the economy and people into the country over the last 5-10 years. Until the excessive demand and financialization of housing are addressed, supply is a red herring.

There's two sides to the equation: supply and demand. Everyone always talks about the former, but there's unfortunately a massive taboo on the later.

Note: I'm not opposed to gentle and midrise density.

And yes, we're building an extreme number of units (20k per year in Toronto, albeit of poor quality). When was the last time, if ever, we built that many?

I was not commenting on the form (low, mid or highrise) just on the implication that only new 'affordable' housing helps affordability generally. This doesn't seem to be the case, even high end housing frees up older, more affordable units when people move into them.

I will also add that I agree that it is extremely irresponsible to suddenly increase immigration rates without coherent planning on infrastructure and housing development and the capacity to produce both at a rate that would support that development.

 

[allengeorge]

I was not commenting on the form (low, mid or highrise) just on the implication that only new 'affordable' housing helps affordability generally. This doesn't seem to be the case, even high end housing frees up older, more affordable units when people move into them.

Yeah - also, filtering with housing is definitely a thing, but it takes a long while.

 

[allengeorge]

And yes, we're building an extreme number of units (20k per year in Toronto, albeit of poor quality). When was the last time, if ever, we built that many?

Statscan’s data service is down, but I googled a bit, and apparently in and around 1972 we were starting as many houses in Canada as today with around half the population.