[allengeorge]

Its a start, I suppose.

Heh. The best reaction to this.

This is a request for a review, and super annoying. I feel like these ideas have been studied to death, and there’s a wealth of evidence that points out that parking minimums make housing more expensive and subsidize cars. Just make the change already. Reduce the minimums. Drop em if you’re within 200m of a subway station.

 

[allengeorge]

There is nothing challenging about this; it does not require an RFP process FFS.

Unfortunately, it was obvious given the EHON report that TO Planning would be slow-rolling this. Removing RD, simplifying permitting, making multi-unit conversion straightforward and as-of-right everywhere would go a long way, but there’s no political or departmental appetite for that. And it’s frustrating.

I feel like TO Planning should have come out strongly against the status quo. Yeah - maybe they wouldn’t get those changes, but it would lay out a vision for what good planning looks like for the city.

 

[Northern Light]

Unfortunately, it was obvious given the EHON report that TO Planning would be slow-rolling this. Removing RD, simplifying permitting, making multi-unit conversion straightforward and as-of-right everywhere would go a long way, but there’s no political or departmental appetite for that. And it’s frustrating.

I feel like TO Planning should have come out strongly against the status quo. Yeah - maybe they wouldn’t get those changes, but it would lay out a vision for what good planning looks like for the city.

To me, just doing that in Beaches-East York would have been fine, as a start.

The local Councillor is willing to wear the political heat.

Political cover exists.

It doesn't need to apply to other wards right away (even if it should)

 

[allengeorge]

Speaking of transition zones - and how it’s playing out in the Danforth, two interesting points:

1. Population change along the Danforth

https://twitter.com/x/status/1348856555706454021

2. I thought transition zones along the Danforth were new, but apparently they already exist?

 

[ADRM]

Another agenda item for that P&H meeting is a request for a report on parking minimums, which is of course long overdue and should include a clear recommendation to eliminate minimums at least in the core and along transit.

 

[Northern Light]

When Toronto is out-progressived by.....................................South Bend, Indiana..........

 

[allengeorge]

Milwaukee, Oregon, South Bend - there are plenty of examples of jurisdictions that have been very progressive on parking-minimums and as-of-right zoning.

For all the talk of ‘affordable housing’, the city is way behind the curve on this front.

 

[dusk]

Beyond the obvious zoning discussion, one thing that has always bugged me about nimby-ism in toronto is just how powerful it is. For instance, suppose we zoned neighbourhoods in the 416 appropriate to allow all types of density, why should neighbours have ANY say as to what is built next to them? Assuming they meet safety criteria, are not one of a few types of construction (heavy industry, heavy manufacturing), why can't people simply be told to f*** off? Am I missing something? Without addressing the power of local residents, and their desire to live in a city like Toronto but pretend its 1820 and not 2020, nothing will ever get built.

 

[Northern Light]

Beyond the obvious zoning discussion, one thing that has always bugged me about nimby-ism in toronto is just how powerful it is. For instance, suppose we zoned neighbourhoods in the 416 appropriate to allow all types of density, why should neighbours have ANY say as to what is built next to them? Assuming they meet safety criteria, are not one of a few types of construction (heavy industry, heavy manufacturing), why can't people simply be told to f*** off? Am I missing something? Without addressing the power of local residents, and their desire to live in a city like Toronto but pretend its 1820 and not 2020, nothing will ever get built.

Well now.........

On this forum, you won't find too many defenders of Nimby'ism; or people who don't think it ought to be actively curtailed....

That said; this proposal would be the extreme opposite.

If I bought a home in the middle of a quiet neighbourhood; 500M from the nearest transit stop; and my neighbour decides they want to build a restaurant with 100-seat patio; I might be irked.

If they wanted a 40-storey building, likewise.

Some restrictions are reasonable; Toronto has too many; and too many that are too restrictive. But there is a healthy medium.

*****

Also, you take away from your argument suggesting 'nothing will get built'............this is Toronto, where more gets built than anywhere else in North America. So lets dial back the hyperbole.

****

Lastly, I can't resist showing the perspective of Toronto that some Americans over on SSP have:

 

[dusk]

Well now.........

Of course I was being hyperbolic. I'm just frustrated with the planning decisions we make in this city. Obviously building a 40 story building next to a single detached home is a bit aggressive. However, why aren't we rubber stamping 4-8 story developments next to a detached home? With materials like CLT, we can put up a nice looking building quickly. Why should the owner of the lot you mention have so much power over the future of an entire city.

I don't care that we're building more than other cities. We should be looking at how we can be better.

 

[Northern Light]

Of course I was being hyperbolic. I'm just frustrated with the planning decisions we make in this city. Obviously building a 40 story building next to a single detached home is a bit aggressive. However, why aren't we rubber stamping 4-8 story developments next to a detached home? With materials like CLT, we can put up a nice looking building quickly. Why should the owner of the lot you mention have so much power over the future of an entire city.

I don't care that we're building more than other cities. We should be looking at how we can be better.

I agree.

Though I'm most frustrated by what I see as the low-hanging fruit that isn't being picked.

I'd support what you're talking about; but before we even get there........

How about just waiving parking minimums and as-of-right zoning for 5 storeys and FSI of 5.0 on every single inch of every 'Avenue' / major road. (at minimum and not reducing any existing permissions)

Yes, that's conservative; too much so, to be sure.

But it should be politically easy, its entirely practical; it would make a meaningful difference; and should be sell-able to locals as likely reducing the risk of block-busting 40-storey towers; because it would easier/cheaper just to do a 5-floor on a small lot.

Yet somehow we can't get even that done.

 

[allengeorge]

should be sell-able to locals as likely reducing the risk of block-busting 40-storey towers; because it would easier/cheaper just to do a 5-floor on a small lot.

I think that's the actually nutso thing about the current environment. By preventing intensification of small lots by making it onerous (regulations, fees or planning hurdles) you end up with exactly what people don't want: block-busting towers. And yet...neither TO Planning nor 'progressive' councillors push to change the status quo.

For example, with the Danforth if you made it trivial to turn any lot into a triplex or quadplex with minimal fees and no CoA etc you'd:

• get more people to the neighbourhood
• make businesses more viable
• ensure that there's less demand for 9-storey buildings on the Danforth itself (since the surrounding area can intensify quite a bit and eat up demand)

Maybe the city is addicted to development funds [shrugs].

 

[afransen]

Need to do something to fix the current zoning mess, where if you are applying for variance, you are going all the way to a 40s tower. Should be a lot easier to add slightly more density than the existing built form. Something like anything that is within 50% or 100% over the FSI and height of the surrounding neighbourhood and should be as of right. That would let neighbourhoods evolve over time, without the drastic contrast of SFHs being demolished to make way for 60s towers.

 

[Undead]

But given land prices, is anything under 20 storeys even affordable? I keep harping about this because I don't believe we'll get much more midrise even if we simplify regulations. The economics just aren't there most of the time for developers. Am I missing something?

 

[allengeorge]

But given land prices, is anything under 20 storeys even affordable? I keep harping about this because I don't believe we'll get much more midrise even if we simplify regulations. The economics just aren't there most of the time for developers. Am I missing something?

Buildings under 20 storeys are being built, so presumably they are feasible for some developers in some locations. But I've no idea how the economics work across the city. There are two things that seriously impact housing cost that the city could control:

1. Fees (both city and province). This apparently can account for as much as 25% to the cost of a unit.
2. Time from project conception to project start (i.e. time you're stuck waiting for the city to actually evaluate and approve your project)

Good question tho.