News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.4K     0 

On the Vienna model, if the idea is that government has to provide all the seed capital to procure land and build the housing, why not put some part of surcharge on the existing stock of housing to fund expansion, particularly if it is being rented below market?
 
afransen said:
On the Vienna model, if the idea is that government has to provide all the seed capital to procure land and build the housing,
Click to expand...

This is the idea.

afransen said:
why not put some part of surcharge on the existing stock of housing to fund expansion, particularly if it is being rented below market?
Click to expand...

Vienna does this through its version of the Land Transfer Tax; but you could choose some other means.

Though, a blanket tax on all residential stock each year, would likely be passed on as rent increases, and that may be problematic.
 
Last edited:
rdaner said:
Kitchener has upped its zoning game by removing parking minimums, density restrictions and height restrictions 500m around each lrt station which is a significant area.

Click to expand...

For those interested in digging further, this is the agenda for Kitchener Council when this matter was considered.

Growing Together - Protected Major Transit Station Area Land Use and Zoning Framework, DSD-2024-005 and Follow-up Report DSD-2024-128 - Special Council Meeting - March 18, 2024

pub-kitchener.escribemeetings.com pub-kitchener.escribemeetings.com

Item 6 has applicable attachments.

@innsertnamehere is UT's zoning czar, so we'll see if he has any thoughts on the details. I'll try to have a look-see when I have more time.
 
London, Ontario is looking at refining unused/obsolete industrial lands to high density residential, some of which is in the central area. I know that this can be a controversial topic but at least 2 of these sites are surrounded by residential uses and on arterials to be served by brt such as the land south of the delightfully refurbished Kellogg site.

This likely wouldn’t have been done without changes in zoning in higher levels of government.

lfpress.com

Politicians want homes on industrial land amid push to build 47,000 new ones

London is poised to add land for what may be more than 1,000 new homes as city hall seeks to convert under-used industrial property for residential use.
lfpress.com lfpress.com

On SSP there are helpful maps.

 
Northern Light said:
There's a conflation here between height and fourplexes that makes no inherent sense. A fourplex can be 2-storey.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I live in Cabbagetown and value and support the heritage designation of the community. But there are at least a half-dozen fourplexes I can readily think of here, and they're excellent, correct-scale/style contributions to the neighbourhood. For example, here's 54/56 Metcalfe St and 66 Amelia St, plus this one on Wellesley I photographed today sitting perfectly between SFHs.

IMG_3063.jpeg


Who wouldn't want to live near these lovely buildings? If done right, fourplexes can add beauty to a community while adding housing and density.
 
Last edited:
Admiral Beez said:
Agreed. I live in Cabbagetown and value and support the heritage designation of the community. But there are at least a half-dozen fourplexes I can readily think of here, and they're excellent, correct-scale/style contributions to the neighbourhood. For example, here's 54/56 Metcalfe St and 66 Amelia St, plus this one on Wellesley I photographed today sitting perfectly between SFHs.

View attachment 552923

Who wouldn't want to live near these lovely buildings? If done right, fourplexes can add beauty to a community while adding housing and density.
Click to expand...

You got me taking a closer look at these, and then spilling over a bit...........

Some interesting notes here.

The properties on Metcalf are really quite attractive, but between 54 and 56 there are definitely more than 4 units.

Let me bring that property image forward to show how remarkable the camouflage job is..........

1712068138059.png


The property here goes much further back that you might think; the 54 side is listed as six rental units, I didn't confirm but believe 56 would be similar.

The red flag in the aerial photo below is 54:

1712068270204.png


That's a lot of different roofing styles as the building comes in from Metcalf on the left of the image. Note that there is still room for one or more large trees at the rear of the property.

*****

In looking at the aerial pic, I noted a rear laneway in the next block south, behind Metcalf and decided to take a look-see via Streetview:

Laneway Housing:

1712068583196.png


1712068604375.png


A very different style of laneway housing:

1712068650917.png


I wish the garages weren't there, love the windowbox flowers over the door way. The bright blue and pink leads the way here w/visual interest. I might choose something more sedate, but I like the pop of colour here.

Would be nice to see the lane done in interlock.
 
Last edited:
www.pm.gc.ca

Growing communities and building more homes, faster

One of the biggest pressures on young people right now is housing. Faced with a shortage of housing options and increasingly high rent and home prices, it feels like the deck is stacked against them.
www.pm.gc.ca www.pm.gc.ca
  • Launching a new $6 billion Canada Housing Infrastructure Fund to accelerate the construction and upgrading of critical housing infrastructure. This includes water, wastewater, stormwater, and solid waste infrastructure to support the construction of more homes. This fund will include:
    • $1 billion available for municipalities to support urgent infrastructure needs that will directly create more housing.
    • $5 billion for agreements with provinces and territories to support long-term priorities. Provinces and territories can only access this funding if they commit to key actions that increase housing supply:
      • Require municipalities to broadly adopt four units as-of-right and allow more “missing middle” homes, including duplexes, triplexes, townhouses, and other multi-unit apartments.
      • Implement a three-year freeze on increasing development charges from April 2, 2024, levels for municipalities with a population greater than 300,000.
      • Adopt forthcoming changes to the National Building Code to support more accessible, affordable, and climate-friendly housing options.
      • Require as-of-right construction for the government’s upcoming Housing Design Catalogue.
      • Implement measures from the Home Buyers’ Bill of Rights and Renters’ Bill of Rights.
    • Provinces will have until January 1, 2025, to secure an agreement, and territories will have until April 1, 2025. If a province or territory does not secure an agreement by their respective deadline, their funding allocation will be transferred to the municipal stream. The federal government will work with territorial governments to ensure the actions in their agreements are suitable to their distinct needs.
Click to expand...
  • Announcing that, to access long-term, predictable funding for public transit through the federal government’s forthcoming public transit fund, municipalities will be required to take action that will directly unlock housing supply. This includes measures to:
    • Eliminate all mandatory minimum parking requirements within 800 metres of a high-frequency transit line.
    • Allow high-density housing within 800 metres of a high-frequency transit line.
    • Allow high-density housing within 800 metres of post-secondary institutions.
    • Complete a Housing Needs Assessment for all communities with a population greater than 30,000.
Click to expand...
 
chrisw said:
www.pm.gc.ca

Growing communities and building more homes, faster

One of the biggest pressures on young people right now is housing. Faced with a shortage of housing options and increasingly high rent and home prices, it feels like the deck is stacked against them.
www.pm.gc.ca www.pm.gc.ca
Click to expand...

  • Announcing that, to access long-term, predictable funding for public transit through the federal government’s forthcoming public transit fund, municipalities will be required to take action that will directly unlock housing supply. This includes measures to:
    • Eliminate all mandatory minimum parking requirements within 800 metres of a high-frequency transit line.
    • Allow high-density housing within 800 metres of a high-frequency transit line.
    • Allow high-density housing within 800 metres of post-secondary institutions.
    • Complete a Housing Needs Assessment for all communities with a population greater than 30,000.
Click to expand...

How does this compare to the province's plans for density near transit lines?
 
christiesplits said:
How does this compare to the province's plans for density near transit lines?
Click to expand...

1712088356497.png

1712088385025.png


From: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/b27b774fe9f04047b14956f689a7762f


****

I would read the key differences in language as thus:

1) The federal requirement seems absolute at 800M, where the provincial one says generally about 500-800M

2)The province requires that a minimum density target be established, but doesn't dictate the form; (to be clear, in practice, most City of Toronto MTSAs are allowing high density at least in part of the zone in question); what's different wordring wise is 'shall' allow high density.

Others may have some added observations.

There are other conditions here around the National Building Code to be noted as well, and the new housing catalogue.

****

Also notable is essentially requiring the equivalent of MTSA's next to all college/university campuses, if imposed universally at 800M that could be a radical change in Toronto. It depends in part on whether the 800M is radial from the centre of a campus or from the edge.

This is 800M centred on University College at U of T:

1712088881275.png


Centred on the Centennial College campus at Mortimer near Pape

1712088972532.png


UTSC:

1712089034829.png


Centennial - Progress Campus:

1712089092427.png
 
Last edited:
Towered said:
Another great example I can think of is Wineva Rd in the Beaches, south of Queen St towards the lake. It's lined with beautiful multiplexes that are only 2 storeys in height.
Click to expand...
Definitely. I think the surrounding streets (Hammersmith, Scaboro Beach and Hubbard especially) are useful as proof multiplexes aren't imposing or out of place in primarily SFH or low height neighbourhoods. Some of the old fourplexes have even been converted into semis, making it hard to even tell which is which. If you want to go really crazy you could even mention the apartment and condo buildings like 42 Hubbard or 15 Glen Manor, not to mention the 2-4 story apartments on Queen. The range of housing types in that small of an area is something I hope to see us return to at some point.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top