[aquateam]

Oh joy. That just means places even further away from the actual station will have mid-rise proposals that get shot down by the local community.

This is something the municipalities need to fix, through revising their definitions of low-density and medium-density, and other smaller-scale changes that are appropriate for their growth objectives. Slapping down developer-friendly regulations won't fix the real issue here.

I don't understand your point. The LPAT (I think @NoahB meant OMB) has final say, not the local community.

Mid-rises 800 meters away from a station are a solid improvement considering you get significantly taller buildings built in parts of the GTA where no one uses transit. For a quality 100% grade-separated line like Eglinton West, you could probably extend the TOD area even further (people are willing to walk further for faster transit.)

And unfortunately, "local control" through the municipalities is the opposite of what we need. Local counselors are beholden to noisy NIMBYs. It took zoning on a national level in Japan in the 1990s for them to fix their affordability crisis. Those "developer-friendly regulations" are why Japan has such an enviable level of public transit use, the only profitable private public transit companies in the world, and are how Tokyo manages to be a growing city of 30 million that is more affordable than Toronto.

 

[north-of-anything]

I don't understand your point. The LPAT (I think @NoahB meant OMB) has final say, not the local community.

Mid-rises 800 meters away from a station are a solid improvement considering you get significantly taller buildings built in parts of the GTA where no one uses transit. For a quality 100% grade-separated line like Eglinton West, you could probably extend the TOD area even further (people are willing to walk further for faster transit.)

And unfortunately, "local control" through the municipalities is the opposite of what we need. Local counselors are beholden to noisy NIMBYs. It took zoning on a national level in Japan in the 1990s for them to fix their affordability crisis. Those "developer-friendly regulations" are why Japan has such an enviable level of public transit use, the only profitable private public transit companies in the world, and are how Tokyo manages to be a growing city of 30 million that is more affordable than Toronto.

My mistake, I had the order of authority mixed up.

 

[ProjectEnd]

I know the purpose of your post is to point out how broken the zoning is around the Eglinton West LRT extension, but it looks just as bad further south around the Bloor-Danforth line.

The bigger question is: why should the yellow belt exist at all? The city needs to eliminate all legal distinctions between single family and multi-family ("missing middle") homes.

It's certainly not much better, but it's hardly 'as bad'. Bloor at least has a strip of CR nearly along its entire length while Eglinton has the ROW, then backyards, hence my pointing out the 'development sites' on that map. Absolutely the YB shouldn't exist, but that's the current reality within which we live. Especially poignant since I believe that growth should generally be directed away from our precious retail streets, not towards them.

And @NoahB's point about the change in the definition of TOD is absolutely not the panacea he's making it seem.

 

[NoahB]

I don't understand your point. The LPAT (I think @NoahB meant OMB) has final say, not the local community.

The OMB was morphed into the LPAT by the Wynne gov. If I remember correctly, the Ford gov reverted the LPAT's rules back to OMB's, but kept the name.

 

[NoahB]

And @NoahB's point about the change in the definition of TOD is absolutely not the panacea he's making it seem.

Look at Humber Bay West. That whole area is unsanctioned by the city. The only reason it exists as it does today is that the OMB allowed it.

Similar things could and will happen when developers buy enough land along the route. Most new developments in Toronto are from rezoned lands. The developers would apply for city rezoning, the city would say no or doesn't respond within the legal window and then the case gets sent to the LPAT, where the developer will always win if it fits the Ontario Places to Grow, which now states TOD areas are at least 500m for small transit and 800 for major transit. (subways)

 

[ProjectEnd]

Thanks @NoahB, I do know how the Board works. The issue I'm taking is that you're hugely oversimplifying everything, from the applicability of relevant planning policy through the entire development process itself. More than that though, I think you're seeing 'great sites' where I'm just not.

So here: go with a bit more granularity along Eglinton from Martin Grove to Scarlett and let me know which sites you would go for if it were your money. Maybe I'm just missing them...

 

[NoahB]

Thanks @NoahB, I do know how the Board works. The issue I'm taking is that you're hugely oversimplifying everything, from the applicability of relevant planning policy through the entire development process itself. More than that though, I think you're seeing 'great sites' where I'm just not.

So here: go with a bit more granularity along Eglinton from Martin Grove to Scarlett and let me know which sites you would go for if it were your money. Maybe I'm just missing them...

I never mentioned anything about 'great sites'. Frankly, I'm a little confused about what that means. Toronto isn't some greenfield village. Existing parking lots probably could be infilled around Scarlet. A lot of the rowhouses and low rise buildings near the street can be bought and assembled.

It's true that I don't have enough knowledge about the processes. But I do know that developers pay people to buy and assemble land. A Google maps doodle by me will not prove you right, nor prove me wrong. So asking me to spring out some crayons is not productive.

 

[Northern Light]

We seem to be on a land-use tangent here in relation to this project.

I got on the same wave in the Richview Thread today.

From that thread, I made this image:

What I said about the above was:

I placed red 'x's through recent low-density development. These are grossly inappropriate to their location. It's so incredibly wasteful to imagine tearing them down again already; but it's an even worse waste to leave them standing.

The yellow encircles areas that are not recent, but should be redeveloped with mid to high density. Two plazas and some yellowbelt SFH.

In the case of the latter, draw a new east-west street across that block to divide the remaining SFH from the higher density area along Eglinton.

Draw at least one new mid-block N-S road to create more granular access to the area (walkability from the subdivision to shopping/transit and vice versa.)

 

[ProjectEnd]

I never mentioned anything about 'great sites'. Frankly, I'm a little confused about what that means. Toronto isn't some greenfield village. Existing parking lots probably could be infilled around Scarlet. A lot of the rowhouses and low rise buildings near the street can be bought and assembled.

It's true that I don't have enough knowledge about the processes. But I do know that developers pay people to buy and assemble land. A Google maps doodle by me will not prove you right, nor prove me wrong. So asking me to spring out some crayons is not productive.

Exactly! I'm trying to help you realize that regardless of how one arrives at an 'approval', a number of things are still needed to get there. As illustrated in my diagram, everything along this corridor is either already spoken for, isn't going to be changed (regardless of what some believe about the powers of the Board / LPAT) or is cut off from Eglinton itself by the east-west bike trails and linear park (which the City will not let go of). Even if we take "isn't going to be changed" as malleable (it isn't), you'd need to assemble a number of houses and get them OPA'd and rezoned (4 years +?). In that process though you'd also need to figure out servicing, access, loading, parking, etc. happen, all from the suburban road network as the City doesn't allow access from primary streets. The list of problems goes on and on.

The point is that the majority of stuff along here isn't changing and we're spending untold billions tunneling a ridiculous LRT because 'the folks' around here can't countenance being held up for 30 seconds.

 

[ADRM]

There are two other practical, on-the-ground perspective points I think worth making on the land use side of things. First, the City is effectively balking at the Province's 800M mandate; they're effectively just ignoring it in practice, and that is more or less their strategy at the moment and there is no indication that it will change anytime soon. The closest they've gotten is "consulting on a pilot" for density transition zones around the Danforth, which they have laddered onto the Danforth Planning Study.

And this flows to the second point, which is that the LPAT isn't the escape valve from the City's unfortunate and misguided TOD obstinance because it's effectively a brand new era of uncertainty -- developers can't confidently price land acquisitions along the Yellow parts of this corridor because they have no idea what the Board will wind up approving, and it could take years to burst through that uncertainty.

Meanwhile, post-Covid, the city will likely continue to add, at the least, thousands -- but more likely tens of thousands -- more citizens every year than units of housing will be built, worsening an already insane housing affordability crisis. That's why any discussion about suburban transit expansion in the GTHA cannot be effectively divorced from a consideration of the land use planning regime.

 

[NoahB]

Exactly! I'm trying to help you realize that regardless of how one arrives at an 'approval', a number of things are still needed to get there. As illustrated in my diagram, everything along this corridor is either already spoken for, isn't going to be changed (regardless of what some believe about the powers of the Board / LPAT) or is cut off from Eglinton itself by the east-west bike trails and linear park (which the City will not let go of). Even if we take "isn't going to be changed" as malleable (it isn't), you'd need to assemble a number of houses and get them OPA'd and rezoned (4 years +?). In that process though you'd also need to figure out servicing, access, loading, parking, etc. happen, all from the suburban road network as the City doesn't allow access from primary streets. The list of problems goes on and on.

The point is that the majority of stuff along here isn't changing and we're spending untold billions tunneling a ridiculous LRT because 'the folks' around here can't countenance being held up for 30 seconds.

You made a map with your opinion of the process as the main assumptions. I'm not sure how your process is more correct. Do you have a background in planning? because that would be great and I would trust your judgment more. But so far all I see is "there are houses already there" and "building condos require a lot of work" which are so obvious and matter of fact that I don't know how this part supports your argument.

For example:

you'd need to assemble a number of houses and get them OPA'd and rezoned (4 years +?). In that process though you'd also need to figure out servicing, access, loading, parking, etc.

Your "4 years+" is laughable because almost all condo projects in Toronto take 5-10 years to create from land acquisition to construction.
All the things you mentioned above would just be a checklist in the project schedule of every single project in this city. None of the above is prohibitive of starting a project. Many of the projects downtown and in the inner suburbs are created on land assembled from several sites that are zoned for midrises. It takes years to assemble and construct and to go through the planning/LPAT process. (how do I know that? I read actual city docs laughably directing staff/councilors to oppose developments at the OMB/LPAT after failing to respond to in each case) yet they still do it because there is a market for such projects.

everything along this corridor is either already spoken for, isn't going to be changed (regardless of what some believe about the powers of the Board / LPAT) or is cut off from Eglinton itself by the east-west bike trails and linear park (which the City will not let go of)

Many of the projects in Toronto happen at existing lots as either in-fill or a replacement of an existing structure. Toronto is running out of parking lots to build on. It's obvious that developers will start looking at buying lots close to Eglinton to assemble over time. And there is nothing saying that these lots need to connect directly to Eglinton. They can have entrances facing Eglinton but have all vehicle access (and mailing address) on the street their lots officially face.

Finally, I can count on my hands the number of mid-rises and high-rises I've read on Urban Toronto that continues to construction without a rezoning application that ends up at the LPAT. The city literally does not answer (reject or approve) many of these applications and ends up going to the LPAT for a settlement.

The only thing stopping a developer from doing the above is that there are easier sites elsewhere probably. But that area now officially is getting a 'subway to the airport'. That will definitely push up the area's attractiveness for redevelopment.

Don't forget that the construction lands for the EWLRT will be sold to developers also.

 

[ProjectEnd]

You made a map with your opinion of the process as the main assumptions. I'm not sure how your process is more correct. Do you have a background in planning? because that would be great and I would trust your judgment more. But so far all I see is "there are houses already there" and "building condos require a lot of work" which are so obvious and matter of fact that I don't know how this part supports your argument.

For example:

Your "4 years+" is laughable because almost all condo projects in Toronto take 5-10 years to create from land acquisition to construction.
All the things you mentioned above would just be a checklist in the project schedule of every single project in this city. None of the above is prohibitive of starting a project. Many of the projects downtown and in the inner suburbs are created on land assembled from several sites that are zoned for midrises. It takes years to assemble and construct and to go through the planning/LPAT process. (how do I know that? I read actual city docs laughably directing staff/councilors to oppose developments at the OMB/LPAT after failing to respond to in each case) yet they still do it because there is a market for such projects.


Many of the projects in Toronto happen at existing lots as either in-fill or a replacement of an existing structure. Toronto is running out of parking lots to build on. It's obvious that developers will start looking at buying lots close to Eglinton to assemble over time. And there is nothing saying that these lots need to connect directly to Eglinton. They can have entrances facing Eglinton but have all vehicle access (and mailing address) on the street their lots officially face.

Finally, I can count on my hands the number of mid-rises and high-rises I've read on Urban Toronto that continues to construction without a rezoning application that ends up at the LPAT. The city literally does not answer (reject or approve) many of these applications and ends up going to the LPAT for a settlement.

The only thing stopping a developer from doing the above is that there are easier sites elsewhere probably. But that area now officially is getting a 'subway to the airport'. That will definitely push up the area's attractiveness for redevelopment.

Don't forget that the construction lands for the EWLRT will be sold to developers also.

Would it help to learn that I'm a developer who does indeed have a background in planning, both academic and as a consultant?

You're painting with a mighty broad brush and making a lot of assumptions about what you profess to know from reading some stuff online. It's not so much that 'houses are there', it's that 'houses are there and the city isn't going to be doing anything to reverse policy to allow folks to assemble and build larger, denser structures where they currently lie'.

So let's break down your post a little more:

You made a map with your opinion of the process as the main assumptions. I'm not sure how your process is more correct. Do you have a background in planning? because that would be great and I would trust your judgment more. But so far all I see is "there are houses already there" and "building condos require a lot of work" which are so obvious and matter of fact that I don't know how this part supports your argument.

I made a map based on what I know to be true of current policy and the absence of any political will to do anything to change things (especially in that particular area).

All the things you mentioned above would just be a checklist in the project schedule of every single project in this city. None of the above is prohibitive of starting a project. Many of the projects downtown and in the inner suburbs are created on land assembled from several sites that are zoned for midrises. It takes years to assemble and construct and to go through the planning/LPAT process. (how do I know that? I read actual city docs laughably directing staff/councilors to oppose developments at the OMB/LPAT after failing to respond to in each case) yet they still do it because there is a market for such projects.

What do you know about risk profile? Why would a developer take on a site with all of the financial burden that entails if they have a ~10% chance of success? Maybe you're just more of a gambler than am I...

Many of the projects in Toronto happen at existing lots as either in-fill or a replacement of an existing structure. Toronto is running out of parking lots to build on. It's obvious that developers will start looking at buying lots close to Eglinton to assemble over time. And there is nothing saying that these lots need to connect directly to Eglinton. They can have entrances facing Eglinton but have all vehicle access (and mailing address) on the street their lots officially face.

Why is this 'obvious' to you? Again, I'll go back to my earlier question - take a closer look along this ROW - which sites would you go for? Also, the City almost never allows entrances directly onto parks - the only salient, recent, example is the food hall at Waterworks exiting onto St. Andrew's Playground, and that was an enormous pain in the ass. In short, no, the city would not allow access off of Eglinton except in a few areas that aren't traversed by cycle paths or parks.

Finally, I can count on my hands the number of mid-rises and high-rises I've read on Urban Toronto that continues to construction without a rezoning application that ends up at the LPAT. The city literally does not answer (reject or approve) many of these applications and ends up going to the LPAT for a settlement.

I don't have a clue what you're getting at here.

The only thing stopping a developer from doing the above is that there are easier sites elsewhere probably. But that area now officially is getting a 'subway to the airport'. That will definitely push up the area's attractiveness for redevelopment.

Again, no it won't. In any way.

Don't forget that the construction lands for the EWLRT will be sold to developers also.

What 'construction lands'?

 

[NoahB]

Would it help to learn that I'm a developer who does indeed have a background in planning, both academic and as a consultant?

You're painting with a mighty broad brush and making a lot of assumptions about what you profess to know from reading some stuff online. It's not so much that 'houses are there', it's that 'houses are there and the city isn't going to be doing anything to reverse policy to allow folks to assemble and build larger, denser structures where they currently lie'.

So let's break down your post a little more:

I made a map based on what I know to be true of current policy and the absence of any political will to do anything to change things (especially in that particular area).

What do you know about risk profile? Why would a developer take on a site with all of the financial burden that entails if they have a ~10% chance of success? Maybe you're just more of a gambler than am I...

Why is this 'obvious' to you? Again, I'll go back to my earlier question - take a closer look along this ROW - which sites would you go for? Also, the City almost never allows entrances directly onto parks - the only salient, recent, example is the food hall at Waterworks exiting onto St. Andrew's Playground, and that was an enormous pain in the ass. In short, no, the city would not allow access off of Eglinton except in a few areas that aren't traversed by cycle paths or parks.

I don't have a clue what you're getting at here.

Again, no it won't. In any way.

What 'construction lands'?

Construction staging lands.

Also, you probably know more than me so I will stop with this discussion. I guess I now have no idea why my friend (and his neighbors) who lives in the yellow built near Eglinton is getting unsolicited all-cash offers for their houses by "developers".

We will have to wait and see I guess.

 

[ProjectEnd]

I am incredibly curious which 'developers' are making those offers, it sure isn't me.

One of the fun things about UT is everyone brings their knowledge base and connections to the discussion. Happy to engage further or leave it there, @NoahB. Cheers!

 

[NoahB]

I am incredibly curious which 'developers' are making those offers, it sure isn't me.

One of the fun things about UT is everyone brings their knowledge base and connections to the discussion. Happy to engage further or leave it there, @NoahB. Cheers!

Well I don't have the knowledge to go any deeper. haha

I'll ask my friend if he has that pamphlet he mentioned left in their mailbox. Would be interesting to see if it is real.