afransen
Senior Member
This supposes that the property tax revenues raised in these neighbourhoods is sufficient to maintain them, which is not typically the case in low density sprawl.
|
|
|
- Thread starter A Torontonian Now
- Start date
allengeorge
Senior Member
I’ll try to find the tweet, but IIRC, Kingston just did a study, and SFH did not “pay its way”. I wonder if that’s true in Toronto. (I hope I’m remembering correctly!)
Northern Light
Superstar
That will certainly be true some of the time; but not all of the time.
It will depend, on level of taxation, level of service, user-pay/toll options, lot size, tax allocation (how tax is allocated between various use-types as opposed to simply global amount) etc. etc.
dusk
Active Member
Question for the well informed here. What's everyone's thoughts on Ministerial Zoning Orders (MZOs)? Do folks think that might be a way to ignore nimbys throughout Toronto and build the type of built form that allow our citizens to find the home right for them? Any cons with MZOs? Do other parties outside the conservatives support MZOs?
Northern Light
Superstar
MZOs are not needed to amend Official Plans which the province already controls (an Official Plan is signed off by the Minister); and which could be amended in other ways by Ministerial prerogative.
MZOs are essentially the Minister bypassing/overriding the rules.
They have a legitimate place, but its rare. They should be used in circumstances that are extremely urgent, where going through the process would have a materially adverse impact; not routinely for ordinary development.
If the province wants to allow 3-plexes as-of-right, or multi-family housing, as-of-right, it can pass that law/regulation. MZOs are about specific sites/proposals.
Put simply, they are a 'hammer', and over-used, everything else is a nail.
Widespread use would make a mockery of the entire planning process.
Which, to be sure, needs some lampooning and reform; but exceptions to rules by Ministerial fiat.............only sparingly.
Last edited:
dusk
Active Member
Ahh okay this is useful info! I wasn't aware that the province could allow 3-plexes or any other built form as-of-right. Are there any parties that have brought this up as a solution? Trying to figure out where to vote and I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere by anyone.
Northern Light
Superstar
The province binds Municipalities through legislation such as 'The Places to Grow Act'
And through various policies with which cities/towns are to make their Official Plans compliant.
I'm not sure if the regulatory mechanisms already on offer would allow a change by regulation; others may know better.
But certainly it is within the province's legislative purview to simply pass a bill saying 'No Municipality shall prohibit in area where residential zoning is permissible, multi-family housing/multi-residential zoning.'
It can similarly dictate no parking minimums, or 1-storey height limits etc etc.
It can also qualify those .............shall permit except where the design criteria of a Heritage Conservation District designate otherwise .....or w/e.
Better to make systemic change than to have the Minister signing off on arbitrary one-offs.
I remembered the Green Party's housing policy for next year's platform is in fact out, after I posted this.
I have quoted from it and linked to it below.
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
I thought about it for a few seconds..............and I remembered reading the Provincial Green Party's Housing Platform which is out.....................and yes......it does touch on this.
Their housing policy paper is here:
dusk
Active Member
I'm going to give this a read, thank you! The party that does the most on this gets my vote for sure.
allengeorge
Senior Member
Alex’s response:
I was actually annoyed by parts of the video, which implied that the changes to development were ‘free’ and that low-rise (I interpreted that to mean ‘single family’) was ideal.
I do think Toronto needs something more than our tall and sprawl model, but if this video is any guide, TO Planning does not seem particularly invested in changing that trajectory.
Northern Light
Superstar
I'll just tack some news on here that's from California..........seems they are making some, modest progress on permitting intensification.
smably
Senior Member
This seems to have flown under the radar, but the city is holding its final round of consultations on updates to parking requirements for new development: https://www.toronto.ca/city-governm...-of-parking-requirements-for-new-development/
The third of the three meetings will be held tomorrow at 1pm to 3pm. I was at tonight's session and it seemed to be sparsely attended -- probably no more than a half dozen questions and it wrapped up after one hour instead of two.
The good news is that the proposal has evolved from its original June form. Staff are now recommending that parking minimums be removed city-wide, not just in areas close to higher-order transit. In their place will be parking maximums, with the maximum amount depending on the parking policy area, as shown in this map (tightest maximums in the orange/purple areas, somewhere in the middle for the green areas, and least restrictive maximums everywhere else):
Staff expect that some developments will exceed the maximums, but it will now require a negotiation with the city, so there will be more leverage to extract concessions.
The exceptions are visitor parking and accessible parking, for which the minimums will be maintained.
Staff are also proposing doubling the amount of short-term bike parking required in the central part of the city (looks like the Humber to Victoria Park, south of Lawrence -- map is in the presentation slides) but allowing half of the short-term parking to be payment-in-lieu. Those payments could go toward city-built bike initiatives, whether it be bike parking or maybe even more serious infrastructure.
My main quibble with proposed changes is that they are not removing the requirement that existing parking be maintained when changing uses. So existing uses with an over-supply of parking won't be able to easily remove that parking. Apparently they are worried about sudden reductions to the parking supply. Personally, I think we should let the market decide how much parking is enough.
Anyway, the presentation slides are worth a read if you have any interest in parking policy. And please fill out the survey if you care about this stuff! Next step, this is off to the Planning and Housing Committee.
The third of the three meetings will be held tomorrow at 1pm to 3pm. I was at tonight's session and it seemed to be sparsely attended -- probably no more than a half dozen questions and it wrapped up after one hour instead of two.
The good news is that the proposal has evolved from its original June form. Staff are now recommending that parking minimums be removed city-wide, not just in areas close to higher-order transit. In their place will be parking maximums, with the maximum amount depending on the parking policy area, as shown in this map (tightest maximums in the orange/purple areas, somewhere in the middle for the green areas, and least restrictive maximums everywhere else):
Staff expect that some developments will exceed the maximums, but it will now require a negotiation with the city, so there will be more leverage to extract concessions.
The exceptions are visitor parking and accessible parking, for which the minimums will be maintained.
Staff are also proposing doubling the amount of short-term bike parking required in the central part of the city (looks like the Humber to Victoria Park, south of Lawrence -- map is in the presentation slides) but allowing half of the short-term parking to be payment-in-lieu. Those payments could go toward city-built bike initiatives, whether it be bike parking or maybe even more serious infrastructure.
My main quibble with proposed changes is that they are not removing the requirement that existing parking be maintained when changing uses. So existing uses with an over-supply of parking won't be able to easily remove that parking. Apparently they are worried about sudden reductions to the parking supply. Personally, I think we should let the market decide how much parking is enough.
Anyway, the presentation slides are worth a read if you have any interest in parking policy. And please fill out the survey if you care about this stuff! Next step, this is off to the Planning and Housing Committee.
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
Ty for posting this; I was aware it was ongoing, but hadn't been keeping up with it.
Excellent synopsis, and really, a lot of positive progress from staff, even if they have a bit further left to go!
allengeorge
Senior Member
Oh wow! That’s an incredibly welcome evolution. Sucks to hear that they aren’t allowing an easy reduction of oversupply, but - overall, incredibly positive news.
Truly hoping this makes it past committee and, more worryingly, Council.
Truly hoping this makes it past committee and, more worryingly, Council.
Undead
Senior Member
Just a small quibble--they should have included 2WAD GO stations in the same vein as the subway stations.