[rbt]

Any new tax will be sucked into the bowels of the public sector wage increases or EA's that are for a Minister to get into the local paper that never goes anywhere....it will never actually result in increased transit spend.

This is what the electorate demands. Every municipal election there is at least 1 person who promises to focus on efficient execution of previous mayoral promises (Pantalone, Soknaki) and adds few if any new things; they rarely get more than 5% of the vote. The person who promises to throw the baby out with the bath water (Miller, Rob Ford, Tory all promises non-trivial changes to numerous plans) wins more often than not in modern Toronto.

 

[aquateam]

None of those things are going to happen if the Avenues strategy is respected. It was calibrated to deliver the housing levels needed by the city.

This ties in to the myth of zoned capacity, the idea that you can parcel out a set amount of permissible units, regardless of the economics of building those units, and expect that to meet future housing needs without price increases.

Think of this: let's say the entire city was nothing but 2 story buildings and you "upzoned" it to 3 stories. In theory, you've added 50% to the amount of permissible housing! That should be enough for half a century! But to add new housing, you could have to: a) buy an existing house, b) demolish it, c) construct a new unit. What would the price be for a unit in that new building, given the costs to do all that plus a profit margin? Even with 50% more room, you can bet that prices per person would be much higher.

The true, empirical, measure of whether there is enough housing being delivered is the price of housing, not a calculated amount of legally permissible units.

The Avenues strategy is a step in the right direction because it is a large-scale de-zoning, but they still picked the easiest targets: noisy, commercial arterials at the boundaries of "stable" neighbourhoods. It's just like what happened with The Kings and Liberty Village, the city de-zoned industrial areas because they were easy targets, and the explosive growth in those areas is the direct result.

Density is necessary but that doesn't mean it should be pushed to the limit.

The sad thing is that you wouldn't see so many high-density proposals if it weren't for restrictive zoning. Midrises are cheaper to build, and less risky to sell out. But when swathes of the city are off-limits to development, and anything over 5 stories guarantees a risky approval process and lengthy court challenges, "go big or go home" becomes a necessity to accommodate the risk.

The Official Plans are not meant to be a starting point from which negotiaion begins with the sky the limit.

Ideally, this would be the case, where buildings could be built as-of-right without spot rezonings and court cases. But most of the city is deliberately under-zoned in order to a) placate NIMBY homeowners, b) to allow the city to extract concessions out of developers, getting new residents to pay for amenities that current residents won't pay to keep taxes low.

These limits should be respected. This is about greed, not city building.

- Paul

Greedy developers make for a convenient scapegoat: they do have the profit motive. But so do all the homeowners who are looking to protect their ballooning housing values by preventing people from moving into their community. Who is greedier, the developer who earns a profit by selling an essential good at market value, or the homeowners using legal measures to prevent people from moving into their community?

It's important to look at who is indirectly affected by a policy, and not just those who are directly affected (the so-called "Forgotten man"). We see the people at Yonge-Eglinton who are traumatized by the "creeping density" of townhomes, but you don't see the people who are priced out of the area and end up moving to a car-dependent suburb instead because it fits their budget.

It's deeply dysfunctional that Toronto is closing schools for lack of students, when GTA suburbs are exploding with demand. And that in a region trying to deal with out-of-control sprawl and housing prices, that every unbuilt unit downtown is celebrated as a victory.

 

[muller877]

The sad thing is that you wouldn't see so many high-density proposals if it weren't for restrictive zoning. Midrises are cheaper to build, and less risky to sell out. But when swathes of the city are off-limits to development, and anything over 5 stories guarantees a risky approval process and lengthy court challenges, "go big or go home" becomes a necessity to accommodate the risk.
.

The 5-8 story building are actually deceivingly expensive.

1-4 stories can be build with wood and without elevators (townhome or stacked townhome deign).

As soon as you reach a certain height you have to switch to concrete and include an elevator and public hallways. The costs increase significantly. The cost of these offset the increased density at some point. The developer will want around 10. Small enough that it is quick to build but the last 2-3 stories are profit for them.

 

[TOareaFan]

The 5-8 story building are actually deceivingly expensive.

1-4 stories can be build with wood and without elevators (townhome or stacked townhome deign).

As soon as you reach a certain height you have to switch to concrete and include an elevator and public hallways. The costs increase significantly. The cost of these offset the increased density at some point. The developer will want around 10. Small enough that it is quick to build but the last 2-3 stories are profit for them.

As of Jan 1, 2015........6 storeys are now allowed to be wood frame in Ontario....nothing higher.

 

[innsertnamehere]

you still need elevators above 4 floors though, which means internal hallways. That is where a ton of expenses come by. The cheapest to highest density form of construction is 4 storey wood stacked towns.

 

[kEiThZ]

It is just unfair that people who happen to live close to the DVP/Gardiner/Allen may only travel 2km but pay a tool yet someone can drive from Quebec City to Windsor on a freeway thru the entire GTA and not pay a cent.

Why is that unfair? If they are driving from Quebec City to Windsor, they aren't really contributing to traffic congestion in the downtown core. Also, I am fairly sure they would bypass the city if given the option. Instead they are forced to suffer the traffic on the 401 in the GTA.

Tolls are not usually meant to target thru drivers. They are meant to target those who contribute to the problem.

There are many options but I still think the easiest to implement is also the best...........gas taxes.

Cars are getting more fuel efficient and we're less than a decade away from electrics becoming competitive with gas (at least for urban users). Vehicle electrification is a trend that will cut fuel consumption:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonath...ication-is-much-bigger-than-evs/#668e975e7146

At least for North American cities. So we really should figure out an alternative to gas taxes and implement them. Congestion doesn't go away with EVs.

 

[ssiguy2]

Fair comment about more electric vehicles coming on stream and it's potential for continuing decline in gas tax revenue.

As far as the tolls I don't really have a problem with them for totally new infrastructure like the 407 as the highway wasn't there before people choice their commuting options to live there in the first place. Putting tolls on existing infrastructure seems to be picking winners and losers.

 

[crs1026]

The true, empirical, measure of whether there is enough housing being delivered is the price of housing, not a calculated amount of legally permissible units.

The Avenues strategy is a step in the right direction because it is a large-scale de-zoning, but they still picked the easiest targets: noisy, commercial arterials at the boundaries of "stable" neighbourhoods. It's just like what happened with The Kings and Liberty Village, the city de-zoned industrial areas because they were easy targets, and the explosive growth in those areas is the direct result.

The sad thing is that you wouldn't see so many high-density proposals if it weren't for restrictive zoning. Midrises are cheaper to build, and less risky to sell out. But when swathes of the city are off-limits to development, and anything over 5 stories guarantees a risky approval process and lengthy court challenges, "go big or go home" becomes a necessity to accommodate the risk.

I get that, in theory anyways, but in practice it's confounded with this whole concept of relying on wealth to determine what gets built. Even price is confounded with what developers choose to build. What says that the added stories and added density will be targeted towards "affordable" housing? More likely, they will be targeted to an upscale market that can afford to buy close to transit and who want more amenities in their residences. In just about any scenario, what gets built in a transit corridor will not be entry level and likely not "affordable" without a better than median family income.

Ideally, this would be the case, where buildings could be built as-of-right without spot rezonings and court cases. But most of the city is deliberately under-zoned in order to a) placate NIMBY homeowners, b) to allow the city to extract concessions out of developers, getting new residents to pay for amenities that current residents won't pay to keep taxes low.

I can't buy this. It may be the result, as seen through the developers' eyes....but...I don't agree the whole thing is under-zoned. Or that it's done to extract money from developers. If the city can absorb the growth incrementally, then why should it open things up further and swallow the results, when the developers' self interest is the sole driving factor in how far things go. The limits the city is imposing are reasonable and help assure a liveable result. If we put the onus on the city to demonstrate that another storey or two won't harm things, we might as well not have an urban plan.

Greedy developers make for a convenient scapegoat: they do have the profit motive. But so do all the homeowners who are looking to protect their ballooning housing values by preventing people from moving into their community. Who is greedier, the developer who earns a profit by selling an essential good at market value, or the homeowners using legal measures to prevent people from moving into their community?

I agree, it is silly to focus out about the density of the buildings along an Avenue and not look at what is happening even one property-width away from the Avenue. If we install higher order transit on a corridor, the increased density needs to spill out beyond the single street into the whole corridor. That impacts the neighbourhoods along the route.

Central Etobicoke (my part of town) is a good example. There is a lot of community activism over proposed development on Bloor. The residents who abut this development are busy up-sizing their single family dwellings and simultaneously complaining about the proposed height and size of the new buildings that their property is next to. If anything, we should be rezoning the first 100 meters from the transit corridor and allowing lot severances, renovation into multi unit dwellings, while freezing or banning upsizing of those properties as single family dwellings. That spillover is the inevitable effect of building the transit in the first place. It's amazing that the Bloor subway extension in Etobicoke is approaching 50 years old and the neighbourhoods have fended that impact off for this long.

What's disappointing about these proposed developments is they are predominantly single bedroom or at best two bedroom, and not priced for entry level. We have a whole residential area full of aging people who are ready to downsize and who have the equity in their homes to trade for a three bedroom condo. But no such units are being built. So people stay put and maybe do more renovations, which only make the homes less affordable for the next buyer. The development is not meeting anyone's needs, first time buyers or affluent retirees.

If you thought the "War on the Car" was bad, fast forward a few years. We may see a "War on the single family residential neighbourhood". That will be hugely acrimonious, but it's hard to rationalise the continued existence of low density single-family dwelling neighbourhoods in areas where we are assuming density and investing in transit.

My objection to buildings being higher than the Avenues guidelines is that our streets are just pretty narrow. Allow buildings to reach 10-12 stories, with minimal attention or developer pushback to setbacks, and you have shadowy caverns where you want walkable streets. The no-higher-than-the-street-is-wide rule has a lot of merit. But the density has to go somewhere, I agree.

- Paul

 

[muller877]

Central Etobicoke (my part of town) is a good example. There is a lot of community activism over proposed development on Bloor. The residents who abut this development are busy up-sizing their single family dwellings and simultaneously complaining about the proposed height and size of the new buildings that their property is next to. If anything, we should be rezoning the first 100 meters from the transit corridor and allowing lot severances, renovation into multi unit dwellings, while freezing or banning upsizing of those properties as single family dwellings. That spillover is the inevitable effect of building the transit in the first place. It's amazing that the Bloor subway extension in Etobicoke is approaching 50 years old and the neighbourhoods have fended that impact off for this long.

What's disappointing about these proposed developments is they are predominantly single bedroom or at best two bedroom, and not priced for entry level. We have a whole residential area full of aging people who are ready to downsize and who have the equity in their homes to trade for a three bedroom condo. But no such units are being built. So people stay put and maybe do more renovations, which only make the homes less affordable for the next buyer. The development is not meeting anyone's needs, first time buyers or affluent retirees.

If you thought the "War on the Car" was bad, fast forward a few years. We may see a "War on the single family residential neighbourhood". That will be hugely acrimonious, but it's hard to rationalise the continued existence of low density single-family dwelling neighbourhoods in areas where we are assuming density and investing in transit.

My objection to buildings being higher than the Avenues guidelines is that our streets are just pretty narrow. Allow buildings to reach 10-12 stories, with minimal attention or developer pushback to setbacks, and you have shadowy caverns where you want walkable streets. The no-higher-than-the-street-is-wide rule has a lot of merit. But the density has to go somewhere, I agree.

- Paul

Etobicoke it 100x better than the Danforth though. 50% of the stations have high density (Kipling and Islington) while 50% are developing with reluctance (Old Mill and Royal York). But they are developing. But you are right. They should permit lot splitting to increase density within 500m of each station (even if they decide 3 stories is the max height after a certain distance from Bloor).

Imagine if they proposed a 10 story building in the heart of the Danforth (say Donlands). The kicking and screaming that would happen. Or smaller lots in Playter Estates?

 

[innsertnamehere]

Etobicoke it 100x better than the Danforth though. 50% of the stations have high density (Kipling and Islington) while 50% are developing with reluctance (Old Mill and Royal York). But they are developing. But you are right. They should permit lot splitting to increase density within 500m of each station (even if they decide 3 stories is the max height after a certain distance from Bloor).

Imagine if they proposed a 10 story building in the heart of the Danforth (say Donlands). The kicking and screaming that would happen. Or smaller lots in Playter Estates?

There is a 9 storey building on the Danforth at Greenwood that just got approved.

There is more market demand on the Etobicoke side since it is a more expensive area. The few midrises going up along the Danforth right now are all very much so budget projects - the price per square foot is simply too low.

 

[nfitz]

There is a 9 storey building on the Danforth at Greenwood that just got approved.

There's also that new 9-story building at Woodbine/Danforth. The new 7-story building at Woodbine/Gerrard. And I'm not sure how tall those 2 new buildings at Queen/Woodbine are.

There's some noise, but nothing massive; I think the days of that are gone, mostly. I think there was more disgust for the Danforth/Woodbine one that the developer got put in jail for murder in relation to him having had the previous building, but when he was released, proceeded with the development anyway. I've never understood how someone could stomach buying a condo at a murder scene, when the murder was done by the guy building the condo. In addition to the impact on value, wouldn't it raise questions of how far the developer would go to cut corners, if he was willing to let someone die?

 

[aquateam]

I get that, in theory anyways, but in practice it's confounded with this whole concept of relying on wealth to determine what gets built. Even price is confounded with what developers choose to build. What says that the added stories and added density will be targeted towards "affordable" housing? More likely, they will be targeted to an upscale market that can afford to buy close to transit and who want more amenities in their residences. In just about any scenario, what gets built in a transit corridor will not be entry level and likely not "affordable" without a better than median family income.

Absolutely! Developers aim for the high end of the market first, then if that is saturated they go for lower-end housing. But that's how it's supposed to work. And it reduces prices through a process called filtering.

Let's say you build new high-end housing. People looking to up-size want all the new features and the location and whatever makes it so expensive so they buy and move in. But in the process they leave their old house, which is now another, more affordable unit on the market, increasing supply and bringing prices down.

Let's say you don't build new high-end housing. Wealthier people can't move into the neighbourhoods that they want to move into, so instead they find existing, fix-me-up properties to bid on, renovate with additions, and to drive up prices. This is gentrification.

So to be clear, it isn't just the shiny new housing that was meant to be affordable. It's the existing housing stock that becomes more affordable by opening up the higher end of the market.

In any city across the US, most people find "affordable" housing, not through the euphemistic term for subsidized housing, but from market rate housing that was originally built for middle-to-upper income people that gradually became cheaper as they aged, as the former high income occupants moved into trendier, more modern homes in “better” neighborhoods. As higher income households move on, the now somewhat older homes or apartments they formerly occupied are sold or rented to people with more modest incomes.

The limits the city is imposing are reasonable and help assure a liveable result.

I think you should check out the "ridiculous NIMBYism" thread if you think that the limits that the city imposes are always reasonable.

If we put the onus on the city to demonstrate that another storey or two won't harm things, we might as well not have an urban plan.

I'm challenging the idea that we need to hyper-regulate the property market, given that the world's great cities mostly developed organically with a minimum of regulation.

 

[salsa]

http://munkschool.utoronto.ca/imfg/...al_fiscal_autonomy_enidslack_july_25_2017.pdf

 

[CITY_LOVER]

I think the best idea for municipalities to have more control over their finances is for the provincial government to allow municipalities to have a value-added-tax (VAT) or municipal sales tax (MST) at 1%, which can be layered on to the current HST. This way, the provincial government would be less burdened by the demands of cities and towns and these cities and towns will have more say in shaping their destiny. So, if the city of Toronto was able to implement a 1% MST, making the overall HST 14%, the city could reap nearly $2 Billion in revenue per annum. And if the vast majority of this revenue was dedicated to transit, it would tremendously help the city catch-up and then maintain the level of transit investment that is required for Toronto's size, anticipated population growth and stature. This type of additional funding would also make citizens feel that the additional 1% tax is worth it as they would see an improvement in the city's infrastructure. And finally, if the federal government ever announced funding initiatives where they would support 1/3 of the total cost (like they recently did with $4.8 billion in funds if the province and the city match it), Toronto would easily be able to put up and match its 1/3 share.

 

[Juan_Lennon416]

Berlin and Frankfurt have a Dog Tax. That's interesting.

Toronto should implement an Entertainment Tax by the end of this year. I would not mind spending a bit more on a ticket to see the Raps, Blue Jays or a movie.