[Northern Light]

Even with zoning reform, it's the developers in my view that have the last call on what type of housing they want to build. There's very little that can be done to prod developers to build certain types of housing. Even the provincial government admits that it's challenging to nudge developers to building certain housing stock, these developers just won't bend over and take a loss; they will either build what they like or just sit on their hands and land and wait it out.

I do often wonder if it might be appropriate for the city/municipality/Government to get into the development game and start their own construction company to build what is needed instead of waiting for developers to come to the table. Would this be a possible solution? It's mentioned here and there but never seems to go beyond a comment or two.

So we have to break this into a couple of pieces.

1) Can government incent or compel different development forms? The short answer is yes. However, if the development is staying within the private sector field of build in order to sell or rent at a profit, this requires both the stick (what you can't build, and what you can/should) but also the carrot, why it makes financial sense to do so.

In the 1950s, 60s and early 70s we saw lots of private sector, purpose-built rental housing that was lower-mid, mid and upper-middle market.

Aside from favourable zoning, the government did one big thing, it used CMHC, the federal agency to offer below-market mortgages to developers who built the desired type of product.

The incentive was significant. It represented savings of several % interest (as example, at a time when a Commercial lending rate might have been 8%, CMHC might have stepped in with a 3% mortgage.

Depending on what percentage of a project was financed vs direct owner's capital, that could literally cut the cost of a project in 1/2. That savings would allow both a profit to be made on said development, but also
lower rents to be offered, and there was competition for renters because of the large amount of construction.

Likewise, funding of this sort was available for Co-ops (see St. Lawrence neighbourhood) and public housing providers such as MTHA (the predecessor of TCHC) and City Home (a smaller agency controlled by the old City of Toronto.

****

2) In addition to the above, one can also provide direct construction dollars for deeply affordable housing, (rent-geared-to-income) which was also done, in the same time-window as the above, for projects like Regent Park and many others.

I don't see any advantage to an agency like TCHC being its own general contractor, though, if it gets back to more active building it would benefit from having some greater in-house expertise in architecture and planning etc.
That said, I absolutely do believe that greater involvement by public agencies in building this type of housing is one very important part of the solution.

3) As ever, we need to also address the income side of the equation as well, affordability is both about supply and demand; and the demand side problem is that too many people make too little money. Raising the minimum wage, substantially, and raising disability payments and the like as well as traditional welfare are all important pieces of the puzzle.

 

[afransen]

A solution could be a land value tax. The tax would tend to correspond to the highest permitted use of the site.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I expect by the 2030s my little low rise bastion of Cabbagetown will face pressure to abandon or significantly modify its heritage designation and allow mid-rise and mid-high rise condos within the residential area beyond Parliament and Gerrard Sts.

 

[christiesplits]

I'm not sure that's 100% true. There are a lot of rich people in Toronto who live in condos (think of John Tory for example). But they definitely don't live in the 500sf one bedrooms that make up most of the new stock.

Also depends a lot on the industry. I work in the creative sector and it appears most of the upper crust in these circles (mostly DINKs) live in large downtown condos, even though many could afford a detached home in Bedford Park.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Also depends a lot on the industry. I work in the creative sector and it appears most of the upper crust in these circles (mostly DINKs) live in large downtown condos, even though many could afford a detached home in Bedford Park.

Here in Cabbagetown where I live I think most of my neighbours are in the creative sector. I wonder if they're eyeing a move to condo life.

One of my mates used to live in a SFH in south Etobicoke. He bought a condo downtown to be closer to work (Metrolinx), but kept the house as a rental, with provision that the garage remains solely his, for motorcycle storage.

 

[allengeorge]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1644152206436777985

Thoughts on the latest housing bylaw from City staff. Big news: removal of FSI limits on plexes!

I truly hope this survives Council. I’m not optimistic, but I can hope.

 

[Northern Light]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1644152206436777985

Thoughts on the latest housing bylaw from City staff. Big news: removal of FSI limits on plexes!

I truly hope this survives Council. I’m not optimistic, but I can hope.

Excellent to highlight that, I've read Sean's comments, generally agreed, though need to see the actual report. I have bookmarked the underlying by-law and will report back tomorrow.

 

[jje1000]

I expect by the 2030s my little low rise bastion of Cabbagetown will face pressure to abandon or significantly modify its heritage designation and allow mid-rise and mid-high rise condos within the residential area beyond Parliament and Gerrard Sts.

So we have to break this into a couple of pieces.

1) Can government incent or compel different development forms? The short answer is yes. However, if the development is staying within the private sector field of build in order to sell or rent at a profit, this requires both the stick (what you can't build, and what you can/should) but also the carrot, why it makes financial sense to do so.

In the 1950s, 60s and early 70s we saw lots of private sector, purpose-built rental housing that was lower-mid, mid and upper-middle market.

Aside from favourable zoning, the government did one big thing, it used CMHC, the federal agency to offer below-market mortgages to developers who built the desired type of product.

The incentive was significant. It represented savings of several % interest (as example, at a time when a Commercial lending rate might have been 8%, CMHC might have stepped in with a 3% mortgage.

Depending on what percentage of a project was financed vs direct owner's capital, that could literally cut the cost of a project in 1/2. That savings would allow both a profit to be made on said development, but also
lower rents to be offered, and there was competition for renters because of the large amount of construction.

Likewise, funding of this sort was available for Co-ops (see St. Lawrence neighbourhood) and public housing providers such as MTHA (the predecessor of TCHC) and City Home (a smaller agency controlled by the old City of Toronto.

I think that Cabbagetown will remain intact because it is a beautiful space (which will draw people to defend it), but will become an-ever detached bastion of wealth ringed by highrises.

Toronto did not inherit a large inventory of heavy-lifting multi-unit housing to grow into, like Montreal and New York did between their prewar greenfield days and postwar recovery periods, and so it will need to work with what typology it has- IMO the likeliest path out of the housing crisis is not necessarily going to be through carpeting our downtown with highrises, it will be through the incremental transformation of the single-family pre-cul-de-sac* Yellow Belt into a solid swathe of multi-unit housing; through renovations within the current housing typology (additions/renovation) or through piecemeal intensification.

Large-Parcel Intensification = Large-scale land assembly ($) + top-down planning review ($) + amenities & aspirational pricing ($) + time (inflation $), and can only add its large numbers of units to the housing market in large increments, with a longer delivery period.

Small-Parcel Intensification = Taking the constant redevelopment processes naturally occurring in neighborhoods, and redirecting it via policy/culture into multi-unit housing rather than mansionization. If every house redevelopment/renovation easily transforms a SFH house into one with an accessory unit/basement apartment, and every redevelopment of a row of bungalows delivers stacked townhouses rather than just detached houses, there would be a lower-profile, but more regularized inflow of units coming onto the market.

A reasonably-sized, affordable unit in future will be more likely found through an old Earlscourt couple whose contractor son adds a sh*tty-looking EIF-ed addition and basement unit to their existing house or some two-bit developer who tears down a Willowdale bungalow and adds a deep row of townhouses, rather than some Tridel giga-block.

It's been posted ad-nauseum, but even if it isn't perfect, IMO this is what the most transit-accessible midtown suburbs should be transforming into (though it would be beneficial coupled with an increase in public green space and cornershop commercial spaces); Houston 2002-2022:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1557402644565504000

Houston took this winning approach to adding housing. Could DC do the same?

Though DC has been adding lots of housing, new development is concentrated in large, expensive buildings in neighborhoods that are running out of empty lots to build on. Houston’s approach to densification — replacing detached single family homes with townhouses — offers some important lessons...

ggwash.org

Toronto missed the boat on that one- imagine what the inner city would have looked like with this level of intensification occurring during this same period of time, rather than 1-on-1 swaps of old postwar houses with stamp-sized mansions?

*Dealing with the post cul-de-sac suburbs in Don Mills, Scarborough, and Etobicoke will be far more difficult, IMO.

 

[Northern Light]

Excellent to highlight that, I've read Sean's comments, generally agreed, though need to see the actual report. I have bookmarked the underlying by-law and will report back tomorrow.

Completely forgot to report back............

But @allengeorge I think you'll be happy with the Final Report on permitting multiplexes City-wide, which goes to next week's Planning and Housing Ctte meeting.

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2023/ph/bgrd/backgroundfile-235829.pdf

I see Sean's finger prints and my own in the above report and I'm pretty darn pleased with the outcome.

Beyond the obvious, that Multiplex's would now be permitted in all residential areas city-wide.

Yes, FSI would be abolished with respect to this form.

There's also more good stuff lurking in there.

The maximum size for balconies/terraces is out, so that people can actually have useful space (applies only to multiplexes for now, not apartments)

On the restrictive side, there is one thing I also favour, which is that the City will not allow a proposal to as-of-right remove a tree that would be protected by the tree-protection by-law. (Consideration to remove said tree may be given)

***

The plan aims for 10M/3s as-of-right.

Where height over 10M is currently permitted this will remain the case, but area less will all the get 10M

Staff discuss being open to 4s but not going there for now, on the basis that the OBC requires an elevator for buildings 4s and up and that makes the form prohibitive for a 4-unit build.

However, they are open to talking to the province about altering the OBC to allow for this, in which case they will revisit their own proposal to allow 4s.

Staff acknowledge the need for even greater height in neighbourhoods near MTSAs, and that will apparently be the subject of a future report.

 

[Sunnyside]

Completely forgot to report back............

But @allengeorge I think you'll be happy with the Final Report on permitting multiplexes City-wide, which goes to next week's Planning and Housing Ctte meeting.

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2023/ph/bgrd/backgroundfile-235829.pdf

I see Sean's finger prints and my own in the above report and I'm pretty darn pleased with the outcome.

Beyond the obvious, that Multiplex's would now be permitted in all residential areas city-wide.

Yes, FSI would be abolished with respect to this form.

There's also more good stuff lurking in there.

The maximum size for balconies/terraces is out, so that people can actually have useful space (applies only to multiplexes for now, not apartments)

On the restrictive side, there is one thing I also favour, which is that the City will not allow a proposal to as-of-right remove a tree that would be protected by the tree-protection by-law. (Consideration to remove said tree may be given)

***

The plan aims for 10M/3s as-of-right.

Where height over 10M is currently permitted this will remain the case, but area less will all the get 10M

Staff discuss being open to 4s but not going there for now, on the basis that the OBC requires an elevator for buildings 4s and up and that makes the form prohibitive for a 4-unit build.

However, they are open to talking to the province about altering the OBC to allow for this, in which case they will revisit their own proposal to allow 4s.

Staff acknowledge the need for even greater height in neighbourhoods near MTSAs, and that will apparently be the subject of a future report.

I’m pretty sure in Waterloo we have 3-4
storey apartment buildings built onto single family lots near UW, so it is doable. Whether or not these have elevators, it shows they’ve been financially viable to build under existing systems.

Found some to show this, maybe others can clarify if I’m right about these being the same thing as what is under discussion:

They certainly aren’t all pretty, but their definetely at the lower end. If implemented in Toronto im sure they’d be more tasteful, and they integrate well into communities already. Might be most appropriate near transit stations.

 

[evandyk]

There are quite a few stacked townhouses in Toronto that are four levels without an elevator, but I guess the standard is if you need to enter your unit on the fourth floor or higher?

 

[allengeorge]

@Northern Light - thank you for your observations. The staff proposal is a massive step forward. What is your sense of this actually making it through Council without it getting watered down? Of course Robinson and Holyday will vote against it. Probably Burnside as well…

 

[jje1000]

@Northern Light - thank you for your observations. The staff proposal is a massive step forward. What is your sense of this actually making it through Council without it getting watered down? Of course Robinson and Holyday will vote against it. Probably Burnside as well…

My guess is that it could potentially depend a lot on the next mayor.

 

[Northern Light]

@Northern Light - thank you for your observations. The staff proposal is a massive step forward. What is your sense of this actually making it through Council without it getting watered down? Of course Robinson and Holyday will vote against it. Probably Burnside as well…

I haven't counted heads at this point.

I think it gets through, but I don't guarantee 'bump-free'

Bradford had Tory's backing on this, he should have McKelvie's you would think.

My guess is that it could potentially depend a lot on the next mayor.

Unless there are a whole lot of deferrals, it will not. Assuming it escapes Planning and Housing (I think it will), this will be on the agenda of the May 10th City Council meeting, well before the election.

 

[just east of the creek]

I have heard and read a little on the housing/zoning reform legislation the NDP government has introduced in B.C. I have nothing to offer as my information is still too sketchy, but wondered if anyone on the forum had insight into the proposed changes?