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

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

1695303831481.png

Can anyone explain why the west side of Roncesvalles isn't highlighted? It is for sure "neighbourhoods" in the official plan:
Screenshot 2023-09-22 at 10.33.37.png


Is it because Roncesvalles is considered an Avenue? And if so, does that mean that six-storey apartment buildings already permitted as-of-right on the west side?
 
Can anyone explain why the west side of Roncesvalles isn't highlighted? It is for sure "neighbourhoods" in the official plan:
View attachment 508435

Is it because Roncesvalles is considered an Avenue? And if so, does that mean that six-storey apartment buildings already permitted as-of-right on the west side?

@innsertnamehere shall be summoned to opine on the zoning permissions in place here.
 
As the provided maps illustrate, this change covers a relatively widespread niche of SFHs along arterials. It might not be perfect, but this grabs a fairly low-hanging fruit in the built environment to change. These types of sites wouldn’t see the pressure to develop more intensely that would have been necessary prior. I really wish we could see this in Hamilton, where like Scarborough and Etobicoke, the arterials are compact, leaving lots of major streets where SFHs aren’t appropriate but aren’t really conducive for bigger projects.

I agree that it isn’t a golden goose, but this feels directed at the “forgotten” places where their stasis is most obviously unecessary. I always thought living right on an arterial like such in a detached would be undesirable anyway. Busy street but none of the livelihood to compensate. Hopefully townhome assemblies become prolific soon.
 
We really should be working to eliminate driveways on arterials as well. Direct access off arterials impairs throughput through turning movements, and increases conflict points for pedestrians and cyclists. It is crazy to see lots of SFHs with driveways off of fast-moving arterials.

One way to do this is to create frontage/access streets flanking the arterial that can do double-duty of providing low-speed access to adjacent properties while providing a cycle path/parking off the arterial. Bonus points if you can reduce the arterial prtion of the ROW to one lane per direction for traffic calming (no passing).
 
Last edited:
Is it because Roncesvalles is considered an Avenue? And if so, does that mean that six-storey apartment buildings already permitted as-of-right on the west side?
OK, I think I've answered my own question. It sounds like a report on as-of-right midrise zoning on Avenues is coming soon: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2023/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-234817.pdf

Screenshot 2023-09-23 at 10.26.32 AM.png


I do find it a little strange that the city is contemplating as-of-right midrise zoning on non-Avenue major streets first. The Avenues feel like an obvious starting point and I wonder why the city isn't doing them first.
 
OK, I think I've answered my own question. It sounds like a report on as-of-right midrise zoning on Avenues is coming soon: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2023/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-234817.pdf

View attachment 508669

I do find it a little strange that the city is contemplating as-of-right midrise zoning on non-Avenue major streets first. The Avenues feel like an obvious starting point and I wonder why the city isn't doing them first.
Striking while the iron is hot? Perhaps it is precisely because rezoning the avenues is such a imperceptible change that they are pursuing the “big things” to get them out of the way. These changes are all coming back to back, after all. Has Toronto ever modified its zoning so rapidly in such a short timeframe?
 
Striking while the iron is hot? Perhaps it is precisely because rezoning the avenues is such a imperceptible change that they are pursuing the “big things” to get them out of the way. These changes are all coming back to back, after all. Has Toronto ever modified its zoning so rapidly in such a short timeframe?

There are better historians of such things here, @ProjectEnd .........

But in my memory, City-wide policy, I would say 'no'.

At least not since the introduction of modern zoning in the first place.
 
Is there still the appetite/will to get all these changes through Council? I ask, because I don't get the sense that either Mayor Chow or Councillor Perks are supply-siders.
 
Is there still the appetite/will to get all these changes through Council? I ask, because I don't get the sense that either Mayor Chow or Councillor Perks are supply-siders.

Something here is likely to get passed, in the general vein of what's been proposed, will it be entirely the same; in scope and scale? Maybe not.

I expect the townhouse proposal should pass w/o too much fuss, and I think 4s is a pretty easy sell. Holyday will vote against, LOL, and probably a few others.........but I don't think that should be that tough...

I think the 6s maybe more challenging.

I expect some Councillors will try to remove specific spots from the changes.
 
There are better historians of such things here, @ProjectEnd .........

But in my memory, City-wide policy, I would say 'no'.

At least not since the introduction of modern zoning in the first place.
'Modified' is the wrong phrasing because it only allows for some limited ineptitude when 'we totally screwed the pooch and needed to revert' is more accurate, but when the City first moved from 438 to a new, harmonized, zoning bylaw, many forget that it wasn't straight to 569. There was 1156-2010 which was the original intended replacement, however it was so thoroughly bungled, it was quickly repealed and three years later 569-2013 came into effect.

Funny enough, it still somehow exists online: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/bylaws/2010/law1156-Schedule-A.htm
 
These changes are all coming back to back, after all. Has Toronto ever modified its zoning so rapidly in such a short timeframe?

Short answer: not in 50 years.

The first complete Toronto zoning didn’t exist until 1954, and then there were a lot of changes, many of them specific to particular places, through the 1960s. The “Reform council” made the last big round of changes, which were restrictive, in 1974-75.
 
Short answer: not in 50 years.

The first complete Toronto zoning didn’t exist until 1954, and then there were a lot of changes, many of them specific to particular places, through the 1960s. The “Reform council” made the last big round of changes, which were restrictive, in 1974-75.
Thanks for the explanation, Alex. When would you say that contemporary reforms could be said to have started then? I imagine sometime after amalgamation, around the time of 'avenues' receiving special zoning designations? Obviously, the province's pace has been quite different and operating in parallel. Doesn't help that the jurisdiction(s) seem to blur with time.
 
Thanks for the explanation, Alex. When would you say that contemporary reforms could be said to have started then? I imagine sometime after amalgamation, around the time of 'avenues' receiving special zoning designations? Obviously, the province's pace has been quite different and operating in parallel. Doesn't help that the jurisdiction(s) seem to blur with time.

'The Avenues' were awhile ago; notwithstanding a positive intent around the idea and a decent about of urban area covered in linear km, the program made remarkably little difference.

Other key rules remained obstacles.

****

I would argue the elimination of parking minimums is a good place to start measuring this era, because its a the first substantial move towards relaxed/permissive zoning, as-of-right, on a wider basis.

You then have successive moves to permit 4-plexes/apartments, and to relax significantly the angular plane.

That's really where we're at now.......with the next step being the as-of-right on major streets.

*****

Speaking of the latter..............

I've had some discussions w/City staff.........and there is a school of thought that this proposal (Major Streets) while not bad, is a bit underwhelming and behind the times.

The unit cap, an issue I raised is getting particular push back within the department.............because the argument used to justify the 30-unit limit has to do w/the required loading space.

But I am told that requirement now kicks in at at 60 units, not 30, so the rationale for the 30 unit limit, if it had any merit to begin with, has vanished.

I may have some other insights to share in due course..........but we'll stop there for tonight.
 
But I am told that requirement now kicks in at at 60 units, not 30, so the rationale for the 30 unit limit, if it had any merit to begin with, has vanished.
Well - that’s bizarre. I still claim that the unit count max should be nixed entirely. Maybe they’re worried about shoebox apartments, but I feel like other rules/market pressures may be the real solution there.
 
Well - that’s bizarre. I still claim that the unit count max should be nixed entirely. Maybe they’re worried about shoebox apartments, but I feel like other rules/market pressures may be the real solution there.

I don't know of any particular motivation.........

I would decline to ascribe one where I am unaware of any.

That said, this feels like 'Urban Design' spending time modelling, finding something they like, and then seeking to impose that template.

There are some good people with some good intentions in that unit, but they are not a popular lot..........they're just seen as a bit too officious and 'rules, because what's a world without rules' ?

I value many of the things they seek to protect through rules, but I'm inclined to agree they are overly reliant on this type of thinking.
 

Back
Top