afransen
Senior Member
I would consider it a win if more low-rise development was shifted from the urban fringe (Caledon, etc.) to the existing built up area.
|
|
|
- Thread starter A Torontonian Now
- Start date
jje1000
Senior Member
Interesting:
afransen
Senior Member
Wasn't sure where to put this, but it is a good summary of how suburbs can be developed that are more dense, less car oriented, and more affordable while remaining mostly ground oriented and low rise.
Northern Light
Superstar
A report to next week's planning and housing community seeks approval to study simplifying, modernizing and harmonzing zoning by-laws as they apply to secondary units, townhomes and lowrise apartment buildings.
The general intent would be to be more permissive in respect of building depth, main wall height, and frontage requirements while also moving away from FSI as a regulatory vehicle for these types of building forms.
The current intent is deliver the first implementation report in Q4 of this year.
The general intent would be to be more permissive in respect of building depth, main wall height, and frontage requirements while also moving away from FSI as a regulatory vehicle for these types of building forms.
The current intent is deliver the first implementation report in Q4 of this year.
Northern Light
Superstar
As part of the EHON - Missing Middle policy changes the City undertook to find a site in Beaches-East York under City ownership where they could test out their ideas in order to inform future plans.
I'm frankly not sure how necessary this is, but its a 'demonstration' site for the Missing Middle concept and here's the good news, it will come at the expense of a Green P Parking lot 250M from Woodbine Station.
From the above report, we see the site they settled on is at 72 Amroth, which is immediately south of Danforth-fronting retail, just east of Woodbine.
Per Streetview, this is the site as is:
This is the City's preliminary idea:
Site is designed to mostly conform w/current zoning (Neighbourhoods)
Next Steps:
Other project notes:
Also of note, the City will still have to get ZBA for this site, and if for that reason and no other, they are still musing about going taller here, perhaps as high as six storeys.
For that reason, @HousingNowTO may wish to follow this project along.
@AlexBozikovic may also have thoughts to share.
I will give this its own building thread in due course if no one beats me to it.
I'm frankly not sure how necessary this is, but its a 'demonstration' site for the Missing Middle concept and here's the good news, it will come at the expense of a Green P Parking lot 250M from Woodbine Station.
From the above report, we see the site they settled on is at 72 Amroth, which is immediately south of Danforth-fronting retail, just east of Woodbine.
Per Streetview, this is the site as is:
This is the City's preliminary idea:
Site is designed to mostly conform w/current zoning (Neighbourhoods)
Next Steps:
Other project notes:
Also of note, the City will still have to get ZBA for this site, and if for that reason and no other, they are still musing about going taller here, perhaps as high as six storeys.
For that reason, @HousingNowTO may wish to follow this project along.
@AlexBozikovic may also have thoughts to share.
I will give this its own building thread in due course if no one beats me to it.
Last edited:
HousingNowTO
Senior Member
Northern Light
Superstar
If you could bring that forward, t'would be appreciated. The business having to sign in to Twitter to look at Tweets (new as of last week) is a royal pain.
allengeorge
Senior Member
Big, if true:
www.thetrillium.ca
I’ve heard stories like this before (anyone remember the excitement before the province’s first housing bill?) - so who knows what will actually come to pass.
Province expected to mandate greater density in Toronto: sources
Big changes could be coming to neighbourhoods around transit stations
www.thetrillium.ca
I’ve heard stories like this before (anyone remember the excitement before the province’s first housing bill?) - so who knows what will actually come to pass.
Northern Light
Superstar
Big, if true:
Province expected to mandate greater density in Toronto: sources
Big changes could be coming to neighbourhoods around transit stations
I’ve heard stories like this before (anyone remember the excitement before the province’s first housing bill?) - so who knows what will actually come to pass.
Big yes, good? TBD
I went for one of my big walks yesterday, the evidence of which will be posted in due course.
I started out at Bloor/Dundas West and walked back to downtown, ending at College/University.
I have to say, the subway was crowded the whole way, including the first 1/2 where I was travelling counter-peak; and this, on a Friday, (the slow office day) and w/schools all out for the year.
Run more trains you say? Agreed; but Dundas West Station was a zoo with the existing number of trains. Whose paying for its complete reconstruction? It needs its mezzanine doubled in size today.
Equally, walking down College, I found the sidewalks really narrow at times, west of Manning, its streetcar tracks and 2 curb lanes w/parking. but cycle tracks will be entering the mix in 3 years or so.
There is little room to widen those sidewalks.
I'm really concerned that we're approving density without a holding by-law tied to infrastructure catch-up.
That where we're approving density has less to do with what's sensible than what developers have the current government's ear.
Its not that I oppose more density in neighbourhoods, its that I want politicians to stop over-riding the decisions of professionals without understanding their basis, and without putting the requisite funds in for the needed infrastructure FIRST.
The City is building a giant diversion tunnel for storm water in the Lower Don.......it was not sized to handle triple density. It can't be changed now, its a bored tunnel
Policy should not be made on the fly or the whim; but thoughtfully.
Its not just hard infrastructure, its hospital beds and doctors.........we're short now. Need hip surgery? Cancer Treatment? My sincere best wishes, but you may be waiting, in pain and worry far too long. Need the ER? Likewise. The answer to which is not more people.
I would, in fact, argue for banning condos entirely in order to compel construction of purpose-based rental; then likewise downzone all whitebelt lands to agriculture/open-space.
Growth for its own sake is literally killing people now, hundreds or more each year (homelessness, poverty, dying on waiting lists for medical care)
More density doesn't really fix that if we keep building investor-owned small boxes on a for-profit business model; and fail to provide the necessary supports for healthy living.
Last edited:
Sunnyside
Active Member
I agree that this is was a pretty on-the-fly decision that is good in principle, but may actually overwhelm Toronto… not that the province cares. That’s likely the point. As you and many others have informed us over the last while, the problem with delivering housing isn’t necessarily zoning (especially now), it’s the construction industry’s capacity. Without being able to build more at any one time, we’re just changing the rules of what’s allowable and where. That’s great, but we would need to ensure housing typologies actually require less labour per unit to build, which I haven’t seen be a core component of any recent directions. I’m curious to see what you think on this front, because going all-in on zoning reforms is getting to the point of missing the forest for the trees, which is not how people felt maybe a year ago; Zoning was the forest.
I do wonder how intertwined construction capacity for buildings vs. Infrastructure is (I’m certain forum members know the answer to this). If half the industry is gobbled up in development and the other in transit, you can’t prioritize one without becoming unable to build (more of) the other, despite them (especially development in this case) needing each other. So, we end up being unable to keep up with growth, as it’s impossible to deliver things simultaneously anymore; the two factors draw from the same well. As a result, any zoning change like this one is developer minded; it improves their business plans and prospects by creating new places to easily build, but they still can’t do it any faster- the net housing outcomes can only come in the very long term. It’s more of a security deposit, as the publicly-minded outcome is impossible.
Edited for better phrasing at the end.
Last edited:
Towered
Superstar
This will potentially break the yellowbelt, which I'm very surprised to see being considered by someone like Doug Ford...
Undead
Senior Member
This right here is the problem in Canada. I think most people don't understand why immigration is so heavily promoted and accepted in this country: raise property prices, create more demand for goods and services, and lower wages. Aka greed.
I suggest you read my post addressing this issue in this thread: https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/zoning-reform-ideas.28286/page-59#post-1956566
This is an emotional statement with no meaning. It contributes nothing to understanding the issues, the nuances, incorrect dominant narratives and potential solutions which are discarded for ideological reasons.
emphurent
Active Member
My point isn't supposed to be that deep, supply is the issue because, however it's framed immigration will always exist, as it should. Targets being turned down won't fix the multitude of systems that are broken at every level of government.
This is just directing the conversation into something that is more ideological and that is just frankly, not what I wanted to talk about.
It's out of frustration, the amount of times I see people rip each other apart over a small point of contention, while agreeing on almost everything else is just waste. We agree we want more housing options, we just don't agree on why, the end result is still the same in this scenario.
And, many of the people I have in my circle have immigrated from somewhere, so your arguments very quickly feel personal, even if you don't mean them to.
Edit: softened phrasing
This is just directing the conversation into something that is more ideological and that is just frankly, not what I wanted to talk about.
It's out of frustration, the amount of times I see people rip each other apart over a small point of contention, while agreeing on almost everything else is just waste. We agree we want more housing options, we just don't agree on why, the end result is still the same in this scenario.
And, many of the people I have in my circle have immigrated from somewhere, so your arguments very quickly feel personal, even if you don't mean them to.
Edit: softened phrasing
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
I'm going to have to take a different side here.
@Undead is likewise from a family of immigrants.
The notion is not one of being anti-immigration, but one of math.
Its not an idea that immigration would be reduced to zero, its that we would have an honest accounting of the more than 1.2M people we invited into the country last year, instead of pretending it were less than 500,000, and conceding there are not options available to construct enough housing to meet that demand level in the near-term.
To suggest its ideological is to suggest that an immigrant opposes immigration 'just cause'. Which isn't very reasonable. I know you to be a reasonable person.
I imagine you're reflexive reaction is because some people who want lower immigration levels want that for cultural reasons or due to outright bigotry.
But that need not the be reason for such a view.
Its not about turning the tap off entirely, its about reducing it to where it was only 10 years ago; which was still one of the highest levels of immigration of any developed nation on earth.
I don't think anyone really wants to cut the number of doctors or engineers immigrating, providing we are able to give them a short path to credential recognition.
The concern is over diploma-mill students, and temporary foreign workers, both being brought in to work at Tim Hortons and drive down entry-level wages while inflating the housing market.
There's no question there's a need for zoning reforms; but there is equally a need to say that those alone won't solve much, if one is increasing demand for housing faster than the industry can or will be able to meet.
Undead
Senior Member
I am an immigrant and all of my friends are immigrants. Almost everyone in my circle is opposed to excessive immigration because it's putting too much strain on the system.
And for context, immigrants actually tend to be more socially conservative than Westerners. This includes being against immigration.
Well sure, I get where you're coming from. It is indeed often the case that the "little people" (you and I) tear at each other while leaving untouched the big people who actually pull the levers. But if you're arguing that excessive demand is not a major part of the problem, you're playing into the overlords' hands who want more consumers (and make things worse for you and I).
Just because the schools, media, big biz and big gov have mislead us into believing so, doesn't mean it's true. Many people have frankly been brainwashed into believing this. There are solid economic reasons why this shouldn't be the default state of affairs.
The excessive targets being driven by corporate greed is a major part of what's broken with the system. Big gov are just enablers for big biz greed. And the high targets are significantly exacerbating the problems to which you allude.
Not really, because the pro-supply side of the argument completely ignores the demand side. Good luck solving the problem if you're looking at only half the equation.
My point isn't that deep either, ya know. It's abundantly clear the demand side of things is out of control. That's it. But we're unable to have a rational conversation about it because this country's made such a taboo (the ideology you're referring to) about it.