News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.1K     0 

Question to the knowledgeable folks here. Does something like as-of-right zoning limit or prevent nimby power? If not, I fear those wishing to live a cottage country lifestyle in the middle of a 6M+ metropolis will continue to wield outsized power.
 
Question to the knowledgeable folks here. Does something like as-of-right zoning limit or prevent nimby power? If not, I fear those wishing to live a cottage country lifestyle in the middle of a 6M+ metropolis will continue to wield outsized power.

@allengeorge is quite correct.

There are many different barriers to ease of development.

As-of-right zoning certainly reduces the barriers to certain development, but it doesn't eliminate them.

That said, lets remember this City is subject to tons of development.

That includes yellow-belt type intensification, albeit at a smaller scale than most here would prefer.

Take a look at the Talara Drive application where a 27 storey tower is proposed to replace a 3-storey building next to single family homes.

To a near certainty, barring a calamitous change in Toronto's fortunes, that entire SFH neighbourhood (Sheppard to 401, Bayview to Bessarion) will disappear over the next decade and a half.

Nimbys don't hold the power you imagine here.

Ask those North Toronto ratepayers who fought tooth and nail to keep the Minto Towers from happening..........and have seen a dozen more proposals since (if not more).

To be sure, Nimbys can delay development and increase its price by extracting concessions; but LPAT's tendency to side with developers means relatively little gets outright stifled, if it gets proposed.

The bigger issue is all the proposals that never happen.

***

As-of-zoning, in combination w/some relaxed planning requirements will allow more development to go ahead in areas that need it, particularly smaller proposals where the economics of a long drawn out planning process don't work.

- As of right permission for 4-plexes
- As of right permission for 5 stories on main streets
- As of right permission for purpose-built rental
- No minimum parking requirements


(while not lowering any existing permissions, would do wonders)
 
My former hometown has been making some moves on changing the zoning in what would be considered "stable neighbourhoods" or yellowbelt areas here in Toronto. It's slow and steady, but some interesting ideas.

They are focusing with a plan to upzone swaths of Westboro, which is facing significant development pressure due to proximity to downtown, transit, and simply being a livable urban neighbourhood.

The following image was posted to Linkedin by the City's Zoning Program Manager David Wise. I could not locate it anywhere else for citation purposes:

1612838240431.jpg


I think that this image presents the evolution of the earlier findings reported here:

https://documents.ottawa.ca/sites/documents/files/westboro_proposedzoning_en.pdf

Depending on how well things go in Westboro, this may be incorporated into other areas by way of an upcoming city-wide review of zoning in Ottawa.

I would love to see similar (or more ambitious) rezoning proposed in yellowbelt areas in Toronto. Upzoning along avenues (in Ottawa, similar roads are called main streets), a more moderate upzoning along collectors and in transition zones behind avenues, and a yet smaller upzoning to allow triplexes, etc. at corners in neighbourhoods and local collectors. I would also love to see more permissive zoning in terms of use in neighbourhoods, permitting commercial use in some of the upzoned locations.
 
I think the notion that NIMBYs don't hold that much power because Toronto approves a lot of condo development is more nuanced than that. NIMBYs hold an extreme amount of influence in most yellowbelt areas.


Toronto has guided development into very select neighbourhoods that correlate negatively with the high-income yellowbelt neighbourhoods that NIMBYs live in.

I was not suggesting that I was satisfied w/the status quo, nor that Nimbys are powerless.

Rather, that their power is over-stated.

Development is not occurring along many major roads, because it isn't permitted as of right, or faces inordinate fees or requirements such as minimum parking.

There are no proposals to oppose in that case; they simply aren't coming forward.

****

Its true that Nimbys had some effect at various points on the planning regulations that created the above circumstance; but that really isn't the current issue.

I think its fair to say Nimbys are a greater force in opposing small-scale intensification in neighbourhood interiors; where 4 plexes or low-rise apartments don't materialize as proposals, or, if they do,
they die a quick death.

But while I oppose that, and support measures to combat that; that isn't where the largest number of new units will ever come from.

The demand isn't there for a mid-rise on a side street 1/2 way between McCowan and Brimley, south of Lawrence.

The key is the major roads.

I think in many cases the community would support small scale intensification there.

I think it would also be beneficial in some cases to build out the grid; which has excessive distances between major through roads in parts of the City; such projects should, if they occur, be directly tied to upzoning.

There would doubtless still be opponents; but I think the barriers are more economic than political.
 
Apologies, didn't mean to sound like I was pointing the figure at you but rather just wanted to point out that development in Toronto has been lopsided and limited to very narrow corridors and areas where NIMBYs don't actually has as much influence as developers.

The yellowbelt could double/triple/quadruple its density tomorrow if you allowed 2/3/4-plexes by-right. That's a ton of development potential, and I actually believe would be exactly where the largest of new units can come from. Toronto sees tons of redevelopment by small developers, the problem is those are mainly older single family houses that are flipped into larger single family units because that is all that is permitted. If plexes were allowed by-right you'd see that it's more profitable for those many small developers to partition lots or build more units in those same neighbourhoods. This is exactly where NIMBYs yield the greatest amount of influence as evidence by the report I linked on where Toronto sees growth in population.

No apologies required.

Thoughtful discussion is always welcome!

I don't disagree w/you on the need for the permissions you state.

I'm not sure I agree on what portion of supply that would generate.........but it would be material either way.

But I might suggest to you that Nimbys are often more concerned about McMansions going up that tower over their bungalow/2-storey vs a property being made into a duplex at a height that doesn't overwhelm.

I think where we may be differing is simply that I don't think most people are all that caught up in the quirks of zoning and planning regulations.

They just don't want their house dwarfed.

Again, I'm over simplifying and generalizing, but that's merely to avoid a 40-page thesis on all the exceptions.
 
Some of those McMansions are ridiculous. In my area, there's one the size of a 1920s low rise apartment building LOL

It could have easily been a comfortable fourplex.

One concern I have with yellow belt densification is that almost every single lot in a given subdivision would need to get a three pack townhouse or fourplex to produce a substantial boost in housing stock. A few isolated redevelopments will make no difference. But it can't hurt to try!
 
I have a question: why is the city's "Avenues" designation sold short? I mean, why didn't they fully designate all major roads as such? It seems arbitrary and based on various local "concerns" (I can't take a lot of people seriously, including myself ;) ).

Just one example is my section of King Street in Parkdale. I'm talking especially Dufferin-Jameson. It isn't desiganted as an "Avenue" but if you look at even just the current built form....

I'm kinda moaning because I reckon it needs more retail.

Anyway, if anyone could elucidate us on the reasons for the Avenues plan being so apparently deficient, I'd appreciate it, kthxbye! :D
 
I’m not in the industry, but my understanding is that zoning is only part of the picture: there are planning requirements such as setbacks, height restrictions etc. that can limit viability or allow neighbours to push back against projects.

I am in the industry and this^ is a fact.
 
I have a question: why is the city's "Avenues" designation sold short? I mean, why didn't they fully designate all major roads as such? It seems arbitrary and based on various local "concerns" (I can't take a lot of people seriously, including myself ;) ).

Just one example is my section of King Street in Parkdale. I'm talking especially Dufferin-Jameson. It isn't desiganted as an "Avenue" but if you look at even just the current built form....

I'm kinda moaning because I reckon it needs more retail.

Anyway, if anyone could elucidate us on the reasons for the Avenues plan being so apparently deficient, I'd appreciate it, kthxbye! :D

This is the 'official' explanation. I took it from the Avenue study for Bloor West Village; hence the geographical references:

1613101175942.png
 
Yeah, so that second paragraph beautifully illustrates my point about the whole plan being a sham with arbitrary cut offs.

And my section of King Street (I don't own it, by "my" I mean I live here! :p ) is still a perfect example of this.
 
I have a question: why is the city's "Avenues" designation sold short? I mean, why didn't they fully designate all major roads as such? It seems arbitrary and based on various local "concerns" (I can't take a lot of people seriously, including myself ;) ).

Just one example is my section of King Street in Parkdale. I'm talking especially Dufferin-Jameson. It isn't desiganted as an "Avenue" but if you look at even just the current built form....

I'm kinda moaning because I reckon it needs more retail.

Anyway, if anyone could elucidate us on the reasons for the Avenues plan being so apparently deficient, I'd appreciate it, kthxbye! :D
Also seems to be an idea that Avenues should only be densified immediately on the Avenue itself. Is it such a bad idea to drop some midrises just off them? They may not need ground floor retail--maybe they can be live work units at grade, or back to back townhouses with apartments above, or more institutional uses at ground floor like libraries, community centres, daycares, elementary schools. All of which you don't really want on high auto-traffic streets for pedestrian safety.
 
Yeah, that's a very good observation on yet another shortcoming of the whole plan.

I don't know, the whole thing seems typically incremental and half baked. Are they sure they don't want to run a pilot project?
 
First they need to do an EA and BCR analysis.
And then an election needs to happen and the new powers-that-be need to change the scope/plan/idea/reinvent the wheel.

And then they need to do an EA and BCR analysis.

....wait a minute. ;)
 

Back
Top