[allengeorge]

It would be ironic if the proposed parking maximums allowed the infamous daycare in Cabbagetown to be built. Didn't Councillor KWT throw another roadblock in front recently that hinged around parking?

City postpones decision on whether to allocate parking for proposed Cabbagetown daycare

Robert Ulicki, owner of Celeste Wealth Management Inc., wants to transform two semi-detached historical homes at 459-461 Sackville St., at the corner of Amelia St., into a daycare for up to 80 children. Some residents oppose the plan.

www.thestar.com

 

[allengeorge]

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/

...

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.

I looked at the presentation slides (thanks for the link!) and here's the note around why existing parking can't be reduced:

Separately, while short-term bike parking and cash-in-lieu for BikeShare stations is very useful, I believe what Toronto needs to really start pushing bike modeshare (especially downtown) are many more bike lanes. And, while paint isn't infrastructure, I'll take that to start. (No use having parking if people don't feel safe getting from Point A to Point B).

 

[smably]

Just a small quibble--they should have included 2WAD GO stations in the same vein as the subway stations.

Definitely mention that if you fill out the survey! During the meeting they also mentioned that they were using a very conservative 100m radius around frequent surface transit stops for Policy Area 2. I suggested expanding it to 200m (a 2-3 minute walk) since that seems pretty ambiguously within the realm of "well-served by transit".

 

[michael.hain]

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.

Thank you for calling attention to the work and spreading the word about the survey! Broad public support will help the proposals be adopted. If you have comments that don't fit the survey questions, feel free to email me.

The concern about sudden changes in parking supply is that they can be very disruptive to individuals and businesses. By maintaining those regulations, the City can require more study before allowing existing parking to be removed. We do not intend for the City to oppose applications which remove parking if there is an existing oversupply or if good auto-alternatives are available in the area.

Just a small quibble--they should have included 2WAD GO stations in the same vein as the subway stations.

The standard we used was 10min all day service. None of the GO Stations currently meet that standard. The map will be updated as new transit facilities come online and may be adjusted through the rezoning exercises associated with the MTSAs.

I appreciate all the comments.

 

[Northern Light]

Thank you for calling attention to the work and spreading the word about the survey! Broad public support will help the proposals be adopted. If you have comments that don't fit the survey questions, feel free to email me.

The concern about sudden changes in parking supply is that they can be very disruptive to individuals and businesses. By maintaining those regulations, the City can require more study before allowing existing parking to be removed. We do not intend for the City to oppose applications which remove parking if there is an existing oversupply or if good auto-alternatives are available in the area.


The standard we used was 10min all day service. None of the GO Stations currently meet that standard. The map will be updated as new transit facilities come online and may be adjusted through the rezoning exercises associated with the MTSAs.

I appreciate all the comments.

Thank you for participating here Michael. I know I speak on behalf of many forum members in saying its really helpful to gain insight into why things are proposed/done the way that they are; and helps us as community members give better feedback.

 

[innsertnamehere]

and future LRT stations as well. The crosstown opens in a year - I suspect staff will not be updating the policy areas 12 months from now to reflect this.

 

[TRONto]

and future LRT stations as well. The crosstown opens in a year - I suspect staff will not be updating the policy areas 12 months from now to reflect this.

Definitely this! I'd go as far as saying wherever contracts have been signed in addition to what's under construction (Finch LRT, Eg West, Scarborough Subway, Yonge Extension, Ontario Line)

 

[Northern Light]

New Zealand just did something:

Exceptions will be allowed for natural hazards and heritage designation.

 

[afransen]

In terms of reducing existing oversupply of parking, I heard one anecdote of a development, I think in Buffalo, where a new development proposed using the parking of a neighbouring building that had more parking than it required. As it turned out, few of the new residents of the new building opted for parking.

 

[TRONto]

In terms of reducing existing oversupply of parking, I heard one anecdote of a development, I think in Buffalo, where a new development proposed using the parking of a neighbouring building that had more parking than it required. As it turned out, few of the new residents of the new building opted for parking.

You are right. I think I saw it one of these threads (I might have posted it?)

 

[allengeorge]

Toronto Planning has put up a survey on multiplexes. Questions include whether and where you would like to see multiplexes legalized, parking requirements, etc. I strongly recommend filling it out if you care about density and a diversity of housing styles in the city:

Expanding Housing Options in Neighbourhoods

On May 10, 2023, City Council adopted the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit multiplexes citywide. These amendments are in effect as no appeals were received. Visit the Multiplex study more information. Expanding Housing Options in Neighbourhoods is a City of Toronto...

www.toronto.ca

Finally, thanks to Toronto Planning for starting on this front. I truly hope for a day (soon) where SFH-only _zones_ do not exist in Toronto.

 

[allengeorge]

John Tory suffered a rare loss at Toronto council over legalizing rooming houses. An inside look at a move that baffled and outraged housing critics

City staff will bring back a new proposal to legalize rooming houses in 2022, possibly after the fall municipal election.

www.thestar.com

Details the saga behind the rooming house vote. A missed opportunity.

 

[Northern Light]

Toronto Planning has put up a survey on multiplexes. Questions include whether and where you would like to see multiplexes legalized, parking requirements, etc. I strongly recommend filling it out if you care about density and a diversity of housing styles in the city:

Expanding Housing Options in Neighbourhoods

On May 10, 2023, City Council adopted the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit multiplexes citywide. These amendments are in effect as no appeals were received. Visit the Multiplex study more information. Expanding Housing Options in Neighbourhoods is a City of Toronto...

www.toronto.ca

Finally, thanks to Toronto Planning for starting on this front. I truly hope for a day (soon) where SFH-only _zones_ do not exist in Toronto.

Thank you for pointing that out.

I have filled it out; needless to say, advocating for as-of-right zoning for 'plexes' in neighbourhoods, and while accepting some rules around 'neighbourly design', specifically arguing for reasonable flexiblity so that as-of-right isn't symbolism w/o substance.

I argued for removing the parking minimums, but had to pick other to point out that the City is the party responsible for reducing demand for parking by encouraging/facilitating carsharing and raising permit fees to the point where it cools demand.

 

[allengeorge]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1453874144882352128

Link to the report: https://t.co/okl4licxu1?amp=1

I find the transition zones laughably underwhelming. It’s almost like Toronto Planning didn’t bother trying. Go team.

EDIT: As far as I can tell, the shaded areas are the new transition zones:

 

[Northern Light]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1453874144882352128

View attachment 359125

Link to the report: https://t.co/okl4licxu1?amp=1

I find the transition zones laughably underwhelming. It’s almost like Toronto Planning didn’t bother trying. Go team.

EDIT: As far as I can tell, the shaded areas are the new transition zones:

View attachment 359126

I don't think this is anywhere need as bad as Alex suggests.

His argument at first blush amounts to, if you're not prepared to tear down everything with 1km either way and rezone it for 40s, you've failed.

We'll just have to disagree.

Let's start with the baseline proposition, which is that much of Danforth will go to as-of-right for either 7s or 8s, on both sides. That is not a small change.
Its significant and positive. It should be said, that doesn't preclude greater height, as we see with dozens of applications all over the City, every year. This is simply re-baselining.

The image above would leave the impression that new density is entirely limited to Danforth, but in fact the transition zone, which varies, is generally envisioned to run up to 100M north from Danforth (2-3 lot width beyond the parks/Green P lots.

Notwithstanding the above.............note this question the City asks:

There is a 'Go Higher' option............

*********

But for all of that...............if anyone the prospect of the above lacked ambition............ note this:


MTSA's that are much larger (go further from the Danforth and will certainly allow greater height are also en route)

Planning is also looking at additional permissions/intensification for major N-S cross streets, that simply isn't covered in this exercise.

Keep in mind as well that the City is inching towards as-of-right for 4-plexes.......which would be great, and permit lots of intensification here as well.

****

My only real quibble is that I don't see any indication of an MTSA at Coxwell, which I think there should be.

Its got every 10-minute or better bus service, 24-hour bus service, some large properties fronting Danforth, large amounts of land in public ownership.