Good concept. Wrong location...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:
View attachment 489766
This is the City's preliminary idea:
View attachment 489767
Site is designed to mostly conform w/current zoning (Neighbourhoods)
View attachment 489770
View attachment 489771
View attachment 489772
Other project notes:
View attachment 489773
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 its own building thread in due course if no one beats me to it.
Good concept. Wrong location...
Big, if true:
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.
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.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.
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.Looking at immigration as a metric that somehow isn't real (or as if it doesn't count towards the supply imbalance) because it can be 'shut off' is just disagreeable. Blocking immigration full stop is a non starter idea, so there will always be some level of incoming population, which, will lead to supply issues.
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.I just wish the whole "it's not a supply issue" bit would stop. The infighting it causes is just miserable to listen to, lets house people please.
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.
My point isn't supposed to be that deep, supply is the issue because, however you frame it 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.
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, many of the people I have in my circle have immigrated from somewhere, so your ideological arguments very quickly feel personal, even if you don't mean them to.
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).If that's how it is.
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.
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.as it should
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.Targets being turned down won't fix the multitude of systems that are broken at every level of government.
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.we just don't agree on why, the end result is still the same in this scenario.
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.This is just directing the conversation into an ideological direction that is just frankly, not what I wanted to talk about.