afransen
Senior Member
I would say there is no reason I can think of that 6s midrise should be disallowed anywhere in the city.
|
|
|
- Thread starter A Torontonian Now
- Start date
WislaHD
Superstar
There would be no need to put 40 storey towers on-top of stations in the Danforth if we allowed a consistent 6-storey built form as-of-right on all streets in a 1km radius of Danforth.
But since touching the Neighbourhoods designation is not feasible in our political/planning regime, I think we are failing as a city if we disallow high-rises along Danforth.
But since touching the Neighbourhoods designation is not feasible in our political/planning regime, I think we are failing as a city if we disallow high-rises along Danforth.
michael.hain
New Member
For those of you interested in the City’s parking standards, we will be reporting to the November 25 Planning and Housing Committee meeting with recommended amendments to the parking standards in the city-wide Zoning By-law (569-2013). Recommendations will include:
- removing most minimum parking standards city-wide;
- introducing maximum parking standards where they do not already exist, for most uses;
- maintaining accessible parking requirements; and
- introducing requirements for electric vehicle infrastructure.
Updating the City's parking standards to better manage auto dependency and achieve a better balance between building too much or too little parking ultimately contributes to building more sustainable and healthy communities. Using more strategic, thoughtful management of the parking supply will contribute to addressing major challenges the City is currently facing, including: a climate emergency, decreasing housing affordability and increasing demands for mobility.
The recommended Zoning By-law Amendments will be available on the project website on November 10. The report will be available in full on the City Clerk's website November 18.
If you would like make your views known to the Committee, you can do so by sending written comments to the City Clerk or by addressing the Committee directly. If you have strong feelings about the City's parking regulations, I encourage you to make them known to the Committee.
- removing most minimum parking standards city-wide;
- introducing maximum parking standards where they do not already exist, for most uses;
- maintaining accessible parking requirements; and
- introducing requirements for electric vehicle infrastructure.
Updating the City's parking standards to better manage auto dependency and achieve a better balance between building too much or too little parking ultimately contributes to building more sustainable and healthy communities. Using more strategic, thoughtful management of the parking supply will contribute to addressing major challenges the City is currently facing, including: a climate emergency, decreasing housing affordability and increasing demands for mobility.
The recommended Zoning By-law Amendments will be available on the project website on November 10. The report will be available in full on the City Clerk's website November 18.
If you would like make your views known to the Committee, you can do so by sending written comments to the City Clerk or by addressing the Committee directly. If you have strong feelings about the City's parking regulations, I encourage you to make them known to the Committee.
WislaHD
Superstar
Deputy Mayor Denzil Minnan-Wong is simply saying out loud what the progressive councilors in Toronto think privately.
allengeorge
Senior Member
@michael.hain I really appreciate your work and that of your colleagues in the Planning division to update the parking guidelines. I hope the reduction/removal of parking minimums makes it through the committee and Council.
Northern Light
Superstar
I wish to add my thanks to those of @allengeorge above for your work, and that of your colleagues on this file; both in substance and communication.
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
I want to take a moment to remind my fellow UT'ers when looking at the above posts by @michael.hain that as much as we righteously complain about the need for change; there really are
City staff who feel exactly the same way and are working to make it happen.
Each and every one of us owes it to them and ourselves to support this change when it comes to committee, both directly through deputation/submission, and/or by contacting our councillors and the mayor.
City staff who feel exactly the same way and are working to make it happen.
Each and every one of us owes it to them and ourselves to support this change when it comes to committee, both directly through deputation/submission, and/or by contacting our councillors and the mayor.
Last edited:
AlbertC
Superstar
For well situated main streets just outside of traditional downtown core borders like Christie, projects like [287 Christie] should be a no-brainer. Especially with it being served by a bus route, and within reasonable distance to its own subway station along the Bloor line. If anything, streets like Christie, Bathurst and Ossington have been under-intensified and utilized in terms of potential for large parts of them through the years.
Last edited by a moderator:
evandyk
Senior Member
No kidding! Bathurst and Christie are mostly single family homes!
dusk
Active Member
Understatement of the century! None of those streets should have a single family home on them.
evandyk
Senior Member
I was thinking of the popular part of Ossington when I wrote that, which is mostly businesses, but of course Ossington north and south of Bloor is just single family homes as well.
dusk
Active Member
Call me a radical but no street east of Roncesvalles should have a house on it (side streets included and historical considerations aside).
evandyk
Senior Member
I am fine with having single family houses, they just shouldn't be protected. I don't understand why you can't buy up three of them and put up something like the many already existing three story apartment buildings in the city?
egotrippin
Senior Member
I think our Victorian and Edwardian stock outside of larger streets should be off limits. There's a balance between increasing density and heritage preservation to be found, which could include laneway housing for instance. Toronto has the largest collection of intact Victorian housing in North America and our leafy residential streetscapes are a big part of what makes Toronto interesting; while I get we need more housing, there are plenty of under-utilized properties to target.
Perhaps a future compromise could be keeping the heritage houses while building behind them in what used to be the backyards or garages, etc. I suppose the pressure for housing might eventually outweigh the heritage arguments but I still feel there's something to be said for maintaining the general look and feel of the older residential streets.
Perhaps a future compromise could be keeping the heritage houses while building behind them in what used to be the backyards or garages, etc. I suppose the pressure for housing might eventually outweigh the heritage arguments but I still feel there's something to be said for maintaining the general look and feel of the older residential streets.
Northern Light
Superstar
That would destroy one of Toronto's best traits.
I would certainly call it radical to call for tearing down most of the mature trees in the City and the majority of its heritage housing stock.......sigh.
That to me is not only an undesirable outcome, I would call it an abomination.
Last edited: