News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.3K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.5K     0 

The others, assuming I can muster an intelligent analysis, will have to wait; the last one is non-starter.

You're right on top of Toronto's brand new sewage outfall, and its venting system. For that reason alone it would be a no. You're also intercepting sand that moves from the bluffs area to the Spit currently, which may have erosion issues that result.
Correct. Grenadier Pond used to be a bay off Lake Ontario, until silt from the Scarborough Bluffs deposited a sandbar in front of it and several other ponds (formerly bays) around it. The city and railways made the sandbar bigger to handle 2 tracks, and later 4 tracks. The city then added more landfill to create Sunnyside Amusement Park, before it was demolished for the Gardiner Expressway.
 
Ok

Ok, if it helps here are some locations I had in mind:

Port credit:
View attachment 501773

Near Ontario Place (can be moved to avoid Billy Bishop air impacts)
View attachment 501775

And somewhere in this vicinity leveraging the sandbar perhaps:

View attachment 501774
Interesting. But for a start why not just extend/ enlarge the Leslie Street Spit and perhaps twin it with a new site extending from the Humber river projects. Extension of transit into the areas should be ‘easy‘ and a bonus of gaining a % of valuable lakefront parkland alongside housing closer to a city where housing demand and demand for affordable housing is high.

I assume the same general idea is in play in Port Credit.

The Hamilton idea seems puzzling. There is no shortage of land within the city of Hamilton and large %’s of underdeveloped lands. Plus you are offshore of some pretty nice existing beaches and parklands. This concept seems less needed.

Which then begs the question of the environmental effects - plus, minus, or over time, negligible either way. And how would it be built? Dredged? (and is that possible, this is not Dubai) (also thinking of the stone hookers working offshore from Port Credit and Brontë in another era) Or landfill? (Although you could divert trucks to existing piers east and west of the city and use self dumping barges to move large volumes into position)

I have lived and worked in the Netherlands and nothing beats hiking or biking along the numerous dykes protecting the country on a brisk North Sea day! Followed by a shot or two of Jenever. Could we hope for the same?
 
Interesting. But for a start why not just extend/ enlarge the Leslie Street Spit and perhaps twin it with a new site extending from the Humber river projects. Extension of transit into the areas should be ‘easy‘ and a bonus of gaining a % of valuable lakefront parkland alongside housing closer to a city where housing demand and demand for affordable housing is high.

I assume the same general idea is in play in Port Credit.

The Hamilton idea seems puzzling. There is no shortage of land within the city of Hamilton and large %’s of underdeveloped lands. Plus you are offshore of some pretty nice existing beaches and parklands. This concept seems less needed.

Which then begs the question of the environmental effects - plus, minus, or over time, negligible either way. And how would it be built? Dredged? (and is that possible, this is not Dubai) (also thinking of the stone hookers working offshore from Port Credit and Brontë in another era) Or landfill? (Although you could divert trucks to existing piers east and west of the city and use self dumping barges to move large volumes into position)

I have lived and worked in the Netherlands and nothing beats hiking or biking along the numerous dykes protecting the country on a brisk North Sea day! Followed by a shot or two of Jenever. Could we hope for the same?
The idea with the Hamilton proposal was more or less to “push out” the beach and try to create land adjacent to all that infrastructure nearby (good for freight or residential, especially as an offshore island). Fair that it is redundant for the current environment- this is mostly an example of where I thought people might be inclined to look first if land prices go high enough.

I can’t really speak to whether landfill or dredging is better, either, but simply extending the Leslie spit isn’t a bad idea. All the options are just concepts of where landfill would be appropriate as far as I could imagine- near other infrastructure that can be easily “pre-planned”. I think you got my idea on the nail.
 
Btw London, Ontario just increased unit maximum for single family lots to four this week. It was done to allow it to qualify for a federal housing subsidy. Interesting how quickly this is spreading. Also of note is word out of New Zealand that the relaxing of zoning across much of the country has indeed resulted in a decrease in the price of housing.
 
Btw London, Ontario just increased unit maximum for single family lots to four this week. It was done to allow it to qualify for a federal housing subsidy. Interesting how quickly this is spreading. Also of note is word out of New Zealand that the relaxing of zoning across much of the country has indeed resulted in a decrease in the price of housing.

I'll have to read that study; I'm somewhat suspicious. I think you may find (but I will read the study) that it has decreased the size of housing by 'x' ft2, which has resulted in a lower price, for a smaller house/condo/apartment.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, to be clear; but it does pose some issues if you pay less, because you're getting less.

An example of that in Toronto with ever smaller condos at sub 500ft2 is that units aren't getting full kitchens, which in turn forces people to order in/eat out at considerably greater cost; the complete absence of storage space, has also seen the boon of the self-storage sector, and those storage units aren't free.
 
Btw London, Ontario just increased unit maximum for single family lots to four this week. It was done to allow it to qualify for a federal housing subsidy. Interesting how quickly this is spreading. Also of note is word out of New Zealand that the relaxing of zoning across much of the country has indeed resulted in a decrease in the price of housing.

Ok, I just read the study. Yes, I did, the whole damned thing, LOL


Its under 30 pages, and a fair few of those are graphs.

So....sorry to say, but the headline is a bit misleading.

1) The measure they chose to use was rents. Using that measure, in the period in question (2016-2022), you actually have a rise of just over 11%. (post zoning reform)

2) The argument made is the increase would have been higher but for said reform. This is, to be clear, utterly impossible to prove. What they did was create a synthetic (hypothetical model, control group) in which they assume rents would have followed their pre-2016 trajectory in essence, but for said reforms.

That is an enormous assumption; Aukland, which is the City the specifically examines went through enormous population growth in the 2011-2016 period. Clearly there is a correlation between population growth and real estate demand, all other things being equal. (many other issues come into play such as age demographics, short-term vacation rentals, foreign student populations etc etc.)

Now, here's the thing, according to NZ's own population statistics, the City of Aukland actually shrank in population from 2020-2022. Clearly correlated to the pandemic, though its unclear how much of that is Covid deaths, people moving to rural areas, lack of foreign visitors/students etc.).

The authors are convinced their model does show a statistical benefit in terms of reduced rental price increase; it may, though I find their evidence less than conclusive; after all rents rose, when population shrank.

Also, I don't see any clear evidence on whether average unit size declined/stayed the same/increased.
 
Last edited:
The draft proposals for zoning reform along 'major streets' is out.

@HousingNowTO will want to make note.

The high-level link first:


This is the key bit:

1695303644632.png


Six storeys as-of-right is actually more than I was expecting; I wonder if Planning did that so that the compromise on the floor of Council will still be 5.

The 30-unit limit seems odd to me.

If I had a choice, I'd rather lose a floor and pick up as-of-right permission for 60 units.

The highlighted area reflects portions of Major streets currently designated 'Neighbourhoods'

1695303831481.png


1695303936928.png

1695303968053.png


1695303989455.png


Maps link: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2023/ph/bgrd/backgroundfile-239321.pdf

I'll edit this as I read further, lots of reports to weed through.

:mad:

UT went down while I was editing this post and took down content that it took me 15 minutes to add.

I will add it back later, work to do!

****

Back to this between slurps of lunch-time soup.

The main detailed report is here:


From the above:

1695313882549.png

1695313941622.png


Here's the rationale on the unit count:

1695313984580.png

1695314004016.png


Not sure I agree on the above.; I see the loading requirement is identified as an issue; but I'm inclined to think about elevators being amortized over only 30 units. Hmmm

*****

@ADRM 's favourite unit in City Planning; Urban Design got their teeth into this too.

They did conceptual modelling.

That can be found here:


1695314174205.png


1695314207531.png


****

Comments, overall, very much the right direction, in the above images, the setback from the sidewalk is gratuitous, Even if you wanted 6M in every case, for argument's sake, I'd much rather have a 2-3M blvd that can support trees, and buffer pedestrians from traffic and then a smaller area in front of any building w/o retail that afforded room for some landscaping.

That said, the 6M doesn't make universal sense; I'm not clear if its the intent to require this across the board, or in areas where this is the current norm.

Example: Woodbine Avenue:

1695314438552.png



Even in more suburban locales, I'm concerned that a deep set back like this precludes adding additional retail areas; and stifles the 15-minute city idea.

I'm open to setbacks like this if there's a clear understanding that retail is not viable and will not be in the foreseeable future on a stretch of road; but lets not start from the premise that we're insisting on all residential ground floors.
 
Last edited:
It affects fewer places than I would have expected.

The maps are not what what is being upzoned, the maps are what was yellowbelt.

To my understanding, the proposal is for as-of-right on every major road.
 
The maps are not what what is being upzoned, the maps are what was yellowbelt.

To my understanding, the proposal is for as-of-right on every major road.
Oh - my bad, absolutely right: they’re highlighting the parcels in Neighborhoods that would now benefit from this new “as-of-right” zoning.

I’m really puzzled by the unit cap. I read through the rationale, and was not particularly swayed. I’m fine with 6 storeys, and hope that doesn’t get chopped. All in all, the unit cap and setbacks are my biggest objections here. Kudos to TO Planning for continuing to push intensification.
 
Oh - my bad, absolutely right: they’re highlighting the parcels in Neighborhoods that would now benefit from this new “as-of-right” zoning.

I’m really puzzled by the unit cap. I read through the rationale, and was not particularly swayed. I’m fine with 6 storeys, and hope that doesn’t get chopped. All in all, the unit cap and setbacks are my biggest objections here. Kudos to TO Planning for continuing to push intensification.

The only rationale I saw for the unit cap was that over 30 units you have to have a loading zone.

To my way of thinking:

1) That's a builders call, if they can't deliver one with what is otherwise permitted, then they won't build over 30 units, let them figure that out.

2) At six storeys you face certain costs around elevators, among other things, that you would not at 3s or less. The ability to amortize those costs over more units is material.
 
To my way of thinking:

1) That's a builders call, if they can't deliver one with what is otherwise permitted, then they won't build over 30 units, let them figure that out.

2) At six storeys you face certain costs around elevators, among other things, that you would not at 3s or less. The ability to amortize those costs over more units is material.
Agreed.

In general, I think the fewer constraints we put in, the better, because it gives the proponent the flexibility to decide what they want to push for and deal with. If they want a loading zone/elevator and believe they can amortize the costs over the units and that the market will pay for it - go for it.
 

Back
Top