An interesting Twitter thread on this project, or specifically the desirability of retaining the parking lot.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1366099306801893377

From said thread:

1614712147202.png


1614712192626.png

1614712220122.png


***

I will note, in fairness, that these satellite shots are only taken during the day; and that peak usages is typically early evening.
 
From the Twitter feed of @HousingNowTO a segment of a discussion led by Brad Bradford in which MZOs are discussed.

The position taken (by Housing Now) will surprise no one.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1366881210782408706

I'm of mixed feelings on this; as I strongly support this housing program; and agree that the typical planning process for such developments is arduous.

On the other hand; I feel as though MZOs are problematic, not only for the situations in which they are overtly being used to circumvent good planning (development of wetlands, unserviced farmland or heritage sites); but also
for their general use to end-run any public opinion or consultation.

I have no time whatever for the 'but think of the children' set; but I do worry that in running over public opposition, repeatedly, what may be achieved is the defeat of progressive councillors and the squashing of the program all together.

It strikes me that what this ought to trigger is a wholesale re-think of the Planning process itself, which has become almost legendary for its cumbersomeness in general; and in particular, the harmful effects that has on the development
of supportive, affordable and purpose-built rental housing in general.

For instance, how about, as apart from the important issue of addressing adequate height/density permissions; we simply allow multi-residential housing and supportive housing, as-of-right, everywhere in the City that isn't in the floodplain or in a heavy-industry area.

How about we get on with fixing the general height permissions, particularly on main streets, even modestly, by lifting everything to 5 storeys or what is now, the higher of the two?

Further, let's ditch parking minimums.

If we can ditch the OPA (Official Plan Amendement) associated with projects like this entirely; minimize the liklihood of requiring ZBA (Zoning by-Law Amendment); so that proposals were only subject to an SPA (Site Plan Approval); we could expedite a lot of worthwhile projects without the MZO.

*****

One other note...........It's M ZED Os..........none of this yankee Zee business!
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
It strikes me that what this ought to trigger is a wholesale re-think of the Planning process itself, which has become almost legendary for its cumbersomeness in general; and in particular, the harmful effects that has on the development
of supportive, affordable and purpose-built rental housing in general.
Click to expand...
Strongly agreed. The fact that an MZO is necessary here speaks to the state of Toronto planning - and I'm sad that we're in this spot.
 
Northern Light said:
It strikes me that what this ought to trigger is a wholesale re-think of the Planning process itself, which has become almost legendary for its cumbersomeness in general; and in particular, the harmful effects that has on the development
of supportive, affordable and purpose-built rental housing in general.
Click to expand...

Although I still believe this is the wrong site for the project, and I still believe that the single-use nature of this development is a terrible way to build a strong community, I've stopped speaking against the project after witnessing the rhetoric of my neighbours.

But I firmly agree with you that there is a larger problem with our planning. Far too many projects require extended processes that shouldn't be necessary, and our planning regime is, in large part, responsible for the elusive "missing middle" of housing. It shouldn't be so hard to build duplexes and triplexes. It shouldn't be so hard to add secondary units. It should be a simple bit of paperwork to build a 4-5 storey building on a main throughfare. And then to turn around and appeal to MZOs as a way to circumvent the problem, rather than dealing with the actual issue, is only going to turn communities against affordable housing. We're only at the point where we're forcing modular buildings to be thrown up on tight timelines because the government has failed to address its own role in creating the housing crisis.
 
whatever said:
Although I still believe this is the wrong site for the project, and I still believe that the single-use nature of this development is a terrible way to build a strong community, I've stopped speaking against the project after witnessing the rhetoric of my neighbours.

But I firmly agree with you that there is a larger problem with our planning. Far too many projects require extended processes that shouldn't be necessary, and our planning regime is, in large part, responsible for the elusive "missing middle" of housing. It shouldn't be so hard to build duplexes and triplexes. It shouldn't be so hard to add secondary units. It should be a simple bit of paperwork to build a 4-5 storey building on a main throughfare. And then to turn around and appeal to MZOs as a way to circumvent the problem, rather than dealing with the actual issue, is only going to turn communities against affordable housing. We're only at the point where we're forcing modular buildings to be thrown up on tight timelines because the government has failed to address its own role in creating the housing crisis.
Click to expand...
Changing this all comes down to convincing enough City Councillors to upzone the City overall… and they've never agreed to that yet, convinced they won't be reelected if they did upzone it. (New mechanisms would also need to be put in place for the community benefits that get negotiated for in the current process.) So, maybe you (all readers) need to convince your neighbours that upzoning overall would be a good thing, and that they should only vote for councillors who campaign on a platform of reforming our zoning system.

42
 
Well in all fairness, those images are missing the police cars. Seriously. I decided to pop by the Macey Ave site the other day to check it out, and there were three cruisers parked in front of the building, with officers escorting someone out. Not the greatest endorsement for this initiative, that's for sure. And no, it wasn't a one-off situation. My brother runs a business a block away, and has seen police there a few times a week since the building opened, and it's not even at half capacity yet.
 
I saw three police cars on my over to Cabbage Town yesterday afternoon. I suppose it's not the greatest endorsement of the route I take there. And the streets weren't even that busy...not sure why I should be concerned though, as they weren't after me. Nor why they should be included in every render, including this one...
 
xeo said:
Well in all fairness, those images are missing the police cars. Seriously. I decided to pop by the Macey Ave site the other day to check it out, and there were three cruisers parked in front of the building, with officers escorting someone out. Not the greatest endorsement for this initiative, that's for sure. And no, it wasn't a one-off situation. My brother runs a business a block away, and has seen police there a few times a week since the building opened, and it's not even at half capacity yet.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to suggest any misrepresentation here; but as someone who lives not that far from Macey; and passes by with some regularity, I have yet to see a police car out front once.

You'll have to forgive me if I'm a tad skeptical as to whether there's an exaggeration involved.

Be that as it may; and assuming there is none, we lack information on why the police were there; we don't know if the suggested repeat visits were for one person, multiple times, or different people.

But to the extent that that is an issue; there is a way to ask the proponent a thoughtful, moderate question; while still being supportive of this very needed housing.

ie. " Anecdotally, I'm aware there have been some requirement for police attendance at one of the existing sites built under this program. In light of that experience, will any action be taken
in regards to improved screening of potential tenants to mitigate this issue. ?"

I think you'll find if you come out supportive of the housing; the proponent and staff will give a carefully worded question all the attention it deserves.

Where the issue raised appears to be raised simply to oppose the housing; I think you'll find the concern gets less attention.
 
To take the "Modular" and even the TRENTON site out of our general-support for using MZO's to delivery new Affordable-Housing quickly, this Hamilton example is instructive. It took an MZO for them to convert a low-density Office-Building to accommodate 15-units of new Affordable-Housing within the Federal timelines for funding.

The best thing about the Rapid-Housing Funds is that it forces Ontario municipalities to act rather than dither... and MZO's are a core part of that action.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1368184631397384195
 

Toronto city council approves modular housing initiatives backed by Mayor Tory​


March 10, 2021

Toronto city council has given the go-ahead for building 128 units of modular housing at neighbourhood sites in North York and East York after Mayor John Tory threw emphatic support behind the plan.

Councillors voted overwhelmingly in favour of the plan to build the affordable housing projects at 175 Cummer Ave. in Willowdale and a lot at the corner of Trenton and Cedarvale avenues in East York, despite letters of opposition from residents, neighbouring property owners and a media organization speaking on behalf of residents worried about the influx of recently homeless people into their neighbourhoods.

---------
The site at 175 Cummer Ave. is in front of the Toronto Community Housing-owned Willowdale Manor seniors’ residence. In East York, the site is a parking lot in the Woodbine Avenue/O’Connor Drive area.

Councillors for the wards where the projects were proposed, Willowdale Coun. John Filion and Beaches-East York Coun. Brad Bradford, both voiced strong support for the projects.

Also supportive of the project was Scarborough-Guildwood Coun. Gary Crawford, whose ward was the site of Toronto’s first modular housing project at 11 Macey Ave.

He said that concerns similar to those voiced about these new projects were quickly dispelled with further community consultation.

“The dialogue with community was absolutely key,” he said. “Being the first place in Toronto where modular housing was put in place, our initial community meetings were very negative. But what ended up happening over a very quick period of time, the same individuals started to turn around. We started a liaison committee and they finally all got together, went out and bought houseplants for the individuals coming in.”
Click to expand...

www.toronto.com

Toronto city council approves modular housing initiatives backed by Mayor Tory

Toronto City Council has given the go-ahead for building 128 units of modular housing at neighbourhood sites in North York and East York after Mayor John Tory threw emphatic support behind the plan.
www.toronto.com www.toronto.com
 
Those who oppose this should approach the federal government department that is charge of handing out the funds. One of the main reasons, this process was expediated is to get access to the federal funds. If no action is taken immediately, then we should file a joint lawsuit against this construction.
 
fashcoll said:
Those who oppose this should approach the federal government department that is charge of handing out the funds. One of the main reasons, this process was expediated is to get access to the federal funds. If no action is taken immediately, then we should file a joint lawsuit against this construction.
Click to expand...
The main reasons this process was expedited is because we have [a] a Housing-Crisis, (b) the COVID emergency and [c] the City's own approved (pre-COVID) targets for creating Affordable-Housing are "40,000 new units (w/ 18,000 supportive units) by 2030".

Both Mayoral candidates in 2018 ran on explicit platforms for rapidly-creating new Affordable-Housing all around the City.

Honestly, @fashcoll - our volunteers would welcome your suggested "joint lawsuit against this construction" - as it would just prove exactly WHY we need the Province to use MZOs on almost all of these new Affordable-Housing sites.

www.thestar.com

Are John Tory and Jennifer Keesmaat’s affordable housing plans achievable?

The first in a series where The Star fact-checks major policy promises from top mayoral candidates in the 2018 municipal election.
www.thestar.com www.thestar.com
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top