I wonder if such a proposal would also include the 2 houses just south of the Inglewood Arms.
 
Taking out yet another SRO hotel. I'm not opposed to a condo or higher-income rental development here in principle, but I would really like a strategy for housing people displaced from rooming houses, SROs, and cheap tiny apartments in East Downtown. This part of town lost several and will lose more due to construction in the Dundas/Jarvis neighbourhood.
 
I hope not. Those two houses are actually nice examples of architecture and have been well-maintained over the years.
 
Thernan said:
I hope not. Those two houses are actually nice examples of architecture and have been well-maintained over the years.
Click to expand...

Yeah, id keep them, they're beautiful:cool:

upload_2017-1-3_12-48-18.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2017-1-3_12-48-18.png
    upload_2017-1-3_12-48-18.png
    2.7 MB · Views: 3,228
ShonTron said:
Taking out yet another SRO hotel. I'm not opposed to a condo or higher-income rental development here in principle, but I would really like a strategy for housing people displaced from rooming houses, SROs, and cheap tiny apartments in East Downtown. This part of town lost several and will lose more due to construction in the Dundas/Jarvis neighbourhood.
Click to expand...

Is it possible for the city to demand a certain percentage of units allocatd to low income?

I do think the Dundas/Jarvis development is a great thing and should not be stopped, after all, downton east should look and function like that forever. For the issue often brought up concering the poor, maybe part of the solution is to provide some units in those new buildings, which are a lot bigger than the old ones they replace, and part of it to relocate some of them somewhere else (again, I don't think "displacement” is necessarily a bad thing). In general, I am not sad to see downtown east's poor population disperse a bit. We don't want Vancouver's DTES.
 
ksun said:
Is it possible for the city to demand a certain percentage of units allocatd to low income?

I do think the Dundas/Jarvis development is a great thing and should not be stopped, after all, downton east should look and function like that forever. For the issue often brought up concering the poor, maybe part of the solution is to provide some units in those new buildings, which are a lot bigger than the old ones they replace, and part of it to relocate some of them somewhere else (again, I don't think "displacement” is necessarily a bad thing). In general, I am not sad to see downtown east's poor population disperse a bit. We don't want Vancouver's DTES.
Click to expand...

The new official plan for this part of Toronto already includes a provision that new residential developments include a certain percentage of affordable housing (I think it's 10% but I don't remember) The problem is that it's easy pickings for developers to request the city drop as a requirement in negotiations for less density or more section 37 cash. Very similar to how lots of developers just pay to opt out of Toronto's green roof standards.
 
ilikemilk said:
The new official plan for this part of Toronto already includes a provision that new residential developments include a certain percentage of affordable housing (I think it's 10% but I don't remember) The problem is that it's easy pickings for developers to request the city drop as a requirement in negotiations for less density or more section 37 cash. Very similar to how lots of developers just pay to opt out of Toronto's green roof standards.
Click to expand...
There's no new official plan.

The City is generally looking for affordable housing everywhere now through their "Action Plan", but it's not a blanket requirement in particular areas yet that I know of. The Province has just allowed cities to require affordable housing through inclusionary zoning, but Toronto has not acted on that, and there's no indication when they might.

I don't believe that you're correctly characterizing how Section 37 negotiations go. No developers ever negotiate for less density, as more density is the whole reason for the negotiations in the first place. It's the City though the Planning Department and the ward Councillor who negotiate Section 37 benefits for the added density that the developer wants, and the City decides where the funds be allocated. They can go to a number of improvements, based on what the City feels the area is most in need of. Sometimes it's park or community centre renewal, better sidewalks, repaved streets are possible… and affordable housing units are becoming an increasing component of the mix. Sometimes they are in the new development being negotiated, sometimes they are built offsite.

Finally, developers pay to opt out of green roof standards? As best as I can find, the only option they have is to go with a white reflective "cool roof", but nearly everyone is going green. @ilikemilk, where do you believe the developers have opted out of this system by paying?

42
 
interchange42 said:
Finally, developers pay to opt out of green roof standards? As best as I can find, the only option they have is to go with a white reflective "cool roof", but nearly everyone is going green. @ilikemilk, where do you believe the developers have opted out of this system by paying?
42
Click to expand...

He could be referring to the cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication. Nothing to do with the greenroof.

AoD
 
That's the only cash-in-lieu I know of beyond the apportioning of Section 37 funds (where the developer may be building all of the benefits directly into their building), and it doesn't get you out of green roofing.

42
 
interchange42 said:
There's no new official plan.

The City is generally looking for affordable housing everywhere now through their "Action Plan", but it's not a blanket requirement in particular areas yet that I know of. The Province has just allowed cities to require affordable housing through inclusionary zoning, but Toronto has not acted on that, and there's no indication when they might.

I don't believe that you're correctly characterizing how Section 37 negotiations go. No developers ever negotiate for less density, as more density is the whole reason for the negotiations in the first place. It's the City though the Planning Department and the ward Councillor who negotiate Section 37 benefits for the added density that the developer wants, and the City decides where the funds be allocated. They can go to a number of improvements, based on what the City feels the area is most in need of. Sometimes it's park or community centre renewal, better sidewalks, repaved streets are possible… and affordable housing units are becoming an increasing component of the mix. Sometimes they are in the new development being negotiated, sometimes they are built offsite.

Finally, developers pay to opt out of green roof standards? As best as I can find, the only option they have is to go with a white reflective "cool roof", but nearly everyone is going green. @ilikemilk, where do you believe the developers have opted out of this system by paying?

42
Click to expand...

Sorry not a new official plan, revision to the official plan for the garden district based on a study the city has been doing for the last few years. I believe this is still in the final stages of approval with the OMB but this is the standard the city is using for this area.

http://www1.toronto.ca/City Of Toro...town East Draft_OPA_Garden_district_Final.pdf

I meant that the city negotiates for either less density or more section 37 cash, not the developer.

From the city website - http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/c...6318061410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD#exceptions

"Can I get an exemption?
For all development where a green roof is required under the Bylaw, the applicant may apply for a Variance or an Exemption where the requirement is not met. A Variance allows a smaller amount of green roof than is required under the Bylaw, provided that a cash-in-lieu payment of $200/m2 is made for the reduced green roof area, and the application is approved by the Chief Planner. An Exemption from the green roof requirement is necessary when a green roof is not proposed for a development. An Exemption requires the approval of the Chief Planner and a cash-in-lieu payment of $200/m2 if the application is approved. Contact the Community Planner assigned to your application for further details on the Green Roof Bylaw Variance or Exemption process."
 
In regards to density and Section 37, no-one at the City would characterize the negotiations as "less-density-unless-you-fork-over-more-funding". The densities, height, massing are all worked out by Planning with the developer in ways that satisfy the City first. Once the City believes they have a good proposal on their hands, they then ask for Section 37 funding based on the relative increase the proposal represents over existing zoning.

Thanks for the green roof link. Do you have examples of where that has been applied?

42
 
interchange42 said:
In regards to density and Section 37, no-one at the City would characterize the negotiations as "less-density-unless-you-fork-over-more-funding". The densities, height, massing are all worked out by Planning with the developer in ways that satisfy the City first. Once the City believes they have a good proposal on their hands, they then ask for Section 37 funding based on the relative increase the proposal represents over existing zoning.

Thanks for the green roof link. Do you have examples of where that has been applied?

42
Click to expand...

That's how it's supposed to work. That's not quite how it actually works. Yes section 37 is figured out after the submission is generally approved, but it is very much in the discussion from almost the start of the planning process and most definitely used as a negotiating tactic by both developers and the city.

As for examples of green roof exemptions - most residential or commercial building that have gone through the approval process within the last 8 years or so that doesn't have a green roof would have paid for the exception.
 
You've still got it wrong if you think that the City says "more Section 37 if you want that much density". It does not work like that.

Can you name some residential or commercial buildings that have gone through the approval process within the last 8 years or so which don't have a green roof? (Or a "cool roof".)

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top