|
|
|
AIUI, it doesn’t pay to make low rise.
Largely driven by crazy bureaucracy and long time lines for approvals. If it pays to build McMansions, shouldn't it also pay to intensify old post-war bungalows on big lots?AIUI, it doesn’t pay to make low rise.
No, or just a tiny single elevator probably helped.How was it possible to build the low rise apartments from circa 100 years ago in the older parts of the city? Less restrictive zoning at the time, I guess?
tl;dr: preserve the status quo of ossified yellow belt and pockets of intense density. Put the nutters in charge of the asylum when it comes to determining whether there should be more density on their street. I would be willing to consider letting neighbourhoods decide whether to intensify if they had to fully fund their infrastructure burden through taxes. It's a little too convenient for them to insist on no increased housing density (and often declining population density) as long as the new condo dwellers on the other side of town are footing the bill to fill their potholes and replace their water mains. Just don't cast a shadow on my hydrangeas!New piece by John Sewell:
Province drops a real doozy with proposal for new law allowing four-storey buildings across city
Here are some real ideas for housing reform in Torontostreetsoftoronto.com