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

courtesy of HIP Development with this unique proposal!

@Northern Light @ProjectEnd @HousingNowTO Feedback appreciate with this "uniquely" concept of making retail free for the building.

Bold idea. I think the general idea of moving alot of building amenities to the ground floor and making that your 'common spaces' for businesses to occupy at a cheap rate makes sense. Making it free doesn't sound like its particularly feasible in the real world, but I guess I wouldn't know better than them. In any case, I think we'd need a more robust and realistic idea of what this could look like, but for a developer to say it's possible sounds pretty good to me.
 
courtesy of HIP Development with this unique proposal!

@Northern Light @ProjectEnd @HousingNowTO Feedback appreciate with this "uniquely" concept of making retail free for the building.

How does the space get allocated, if it is free? Can Rexall, Subway or CIBC claim that free space?

Are the condo residents perpetually burdened with maintaining that space without any offsetting revenue? Seems like it might be a tough sell.
 

Oh man this is gonna get a lot of people showing up!

Short-Term Rental Implementation Update​

ShareThis Page
Print Translate
Provide feedback on the bylaw and your experience with the implementation at a virtual public consultation meeting on October 17 and in-person meeting (opens in new window) on October 24.

The City is evaluating the implementation of the short-term rental bylaw to examine its progress and identify areas for improvement. Get involved at public consultations on October 17 and 24 or share your feedback through an online survey (opens in new window). Subscribe below to receive key updates on the short-term rental bylaw.
 
How does the space get allocated, if it is free? Can Rexall, Subway or CIBC claim that free space?

Are the condo residents perpetually burdened with maintaining that space without any offsetting revenue? Seems like it might be a tough sell.
I get the sense that the implication is this is for small, independent businesses only- franchises aren’t really in that vein, somewhat “independent” as they might be.

If condo residents have to pay for upkeep is an interesting question, but I think if they are involved then it gives them say over what gets put in. I think that’s a good mechanism to ensure this fills the same niche as in-building private amenities; so long as it’s the kind of service residents want, and perhaps can access for free, then they won’t mind a similar fee as with the status quo. the difference is that, if all else is actually the same, then external customers might actually be a net gain for the business/condo. A gym on the third floor that’s for residents only won’t see any external revenue compared to one that’s publically accessible (for a membership/fee) on the ground floor.

Again, if this is *really* just reshuffling existing floor space, then it should be viable. My only concern is where this makes sense- it seems best for projects that aren’t planning retail anyhow, because if they were it must be profitable to do so already ONTOP of those same amenities that would be “turned into” businesses.
 
I get the sense that the implication is this is for small, independent businesses only- franchises aren’t really in that vein, somewhat “independent” as they might be.

If condo residents have to pay for upkeep is an interesting question, but I think if they are involved then it gives them say over what gets put in. I think that’s a good mechanism to ensure this fills the same niche as in-building private amenities; so long as it’s the kind of service residents want, and perhaps can access for free, then they won’t mind a similar fee as with the status quo. the difference is that, if all else is actually the same, then external customers might actually be a net gain for the business/condo. A gym on the third floor that’s for residents only won’t see any external revenue compared to one that’s publically accessible (for a membership/fee) on the ground floor.

Again, if this is *really* just reshuffling existing floor space, then it should be viable. My only concern is where this makes sense- it seems best for projects that aren’t planning retail anyhow, because if they were it must be profitable to do so already ONTOP of those same amenities that would be “turned into” businesses.
I don't think the business model would pencil out for the desirable retail amenities in every building, even with zero/nominal rent. Goodlife and the like wouldn't be able to support a location in every building with paying clientele. How would other businesses work? Cafes/restaurants give a 10-20% discount to residents, or each resident gets a certain amount in gift cards from the business in lieu of rent? Free/cheap rent can only do so much to make a business pencil out. I think the worthiness of the 'right' kind of tenant is difficult to determine in practice. Starbucks is no, but independent coffee shop is yes? What if most residents actually prefer Starbucks. Goodlife is no but independent gym is yes? Rabba is no but independent convenience store is yes?

I'm not sure this should displace amenity space.
 
So this just happened...


Good thread for a cross-post, but already discussed when it broke yesterday; in the Doug Ford thread:

 

This is the kind of thing that opponents of higher density will bring up to reinforce their ideas that higher density infill is a bad idea.

This is the most horrid looking bunker I have ever seen and is the poster child of bad urban infill. It's not only ugly but, more importantly, doesn't fit in with the character of the neighbourhood in the slightest. It sticks out like a sore thumb and if I lived in the neighbourhood I wouldn't want it either and who the hell would? This is akin to a developer telling the community they are putting up a small pharmacy and then when it opens they find out that "pharmacy" really meant a safe injection site.

This kind of monstrosity is partly why people fight against higher density in their zoning. The last thing they want is this kind of thing built in their community and if I had to live near this thing and another similar sized housing proposal was made, I would fight it too.
 

Canadians want denser housing so long as that triplex isn’t next door, poll finds​


About 60 per cent of Canadians say they support increasing density in cities across the country, according to polling data published today by Pollara Strategic Insights, a market research group. However, when asked how they would feel if a single-family home on their block was converted into a triplex, only about 20 per cent said it would be a “good thing.”
 
The pace of zoning reform is gaining speed now that the Federal government is on board. At some point we are going to have the majority of the population living in areas with progressive zoning!

 
Disappointing vote this afternoon in Mississauga. Two of the councillors who opposed the motion, Dipika Damerla and Brad Butt, could be eyeing the mayor's chair if Crombie wins the Liberal leadership race.

View attachment 512435


I don't see anyone mentioning it, but Bonnie overrode that decision with her strong mayor power:

 
Sad, but expected. People are mostly ok with change, as long as it won’t affect them.

I don't think that's an entirely fair read.

Lets start by looking at the piece says;

1699124619496.png


So, that would mean 57% of Canadians would not view it as a bad thing and neither would 1/2 of all homeowners.

I think that's an important observation when you're saying 'mostly'. I don't see a clear majority in the NIMBY space here.

The second thing I would note is that is fear of change (not any particular change) is common, and its the fear of the unknown. The fear of undetermined impacts.

These questions (in respect of loosened zoning) can be answered, and really ought to be. I'm pro multiplex etc. but I do understand the need to sell change.

We all know the worries:

- Property Values
- Renters perceived as transient, less stake in the community.
- Higher density may create more anonymity (less of knowing your neighbour)
- Association between people of lower income levels and crime (applies more to rent than ownership, but exists across the board in some measure)
- Neighbourhood character (in the appearance sense, architecturally cohesive look)

Each of these can be addressed in some measure, with both an honest admission of what will change; and actions taken to lessen people's concerns, both justified and unjustified.

That all of that appears to not affect 50% of homeowners and a clear majority overall, I think is stunningly good news, rather than something about which to be pessimistic.

I have no time for bias against renters ( I am one) ; but I also think we can admit to communities that exemplify people's fears, admit why those communities have not worked out as well as one might have hoped without demonizing
current or past residents; and talk about why lessons learned can help better meet the housing needs of a range of residents across income spectrum and tenure type and that this need not result in the next 'challenged area'
 
So, that would mean 57% of Canadians would not view it as a bad thing and neither would 1/2 of all homeowners.

I think that's an important observation when you're saying 'mostly'. I don't see a clear majority in the NIMBY space here.
In a second, closer reading of the article I realized that I was reacting to this quote:

“About 60 per cent of Canadians say they support increasing density in cities across the country, according to polling data published today by Pollara Strategic Insights, a market research group. However, when asked how they would feel if a single-family home on their block was converted into a triplex, only about 20 per cent said it would be a “good thing.”” (emphasis mine)

I will point out that your reading is more hopeful than mine. Assuming that we take that 20% as the ceiling for homeowners (it’s likely that the actual percentage is lower) what we have is something like:

Impression of triplexes replacing a SFH on your block by homeowners:

Good thing: 20%
Don’t know: 30%
Bad thing: 50%

That’s a clear NIMBY attitude among homeowners. The mushy middle will go either way, and those who think it’s a “bad thing” are, by human nature, incentivized to fight.

Regarding the rest of your post, I largely agree with your points. FWIW, I do think education and outreach is only useful to a point. At some point you simply have to start delivering change, and if done incrementally and well, people will realize that the sky isn’t falling and it’ll slowly become a non-issue.
 

Back
Top