[evandyk]

I don't think people are very happy with the current range of typologies on offer. Given the limited number of SFHs in the region (basically fixed at this point), the remaining options are small condos and rental apartments. Quite aside from the problem of affordability, I think many are looking for more options in terms of housing typologies.

I think the changes to allow laneway/garden houses and multiplexes will generate a bunch of new ideas that are more family friendly than the condos/rentals being built in highrises. We're currently living in one that wouldn't have been possible a few years ago - an arrangement we could never afford by buying a house, but is rare to find in a condo/apartment. But the numbers will never really be there relying only on those.

 

[goodcitywhenfinished]

I think the changes to allow laneway/garden houses and multiplexes will generate a bunch of new ideas that are more family friendly than the condos/rentals being built in highrises. We're currently living in one that wouldn't have been possible a few years ago - an arrangement we could never afford by buying a house, but is rare to find in a condo/apartment. But the numbers will never really be there relying only on those.

We need laneway apartments. Laneway single-stair multiplexes would be great for Toronto. This would allow us to reconcile with any heritage concerns that currently surround building new housing within older neighbourhoods.

we can keep older victorians intact while adding 4-6 storey laneway apartments behind them.

More ambition is needed on the laneway housing file!

 

[evandyk]

Allowing people to sever and combine laneway lots would help a lot with the ability to experiment with new forms.

 

[rdaner]

Where is Ontario with single-stair legalization?

B.C. looks to change building code to develop single-stair apartment buildings

Housing advocates have been pressing for the change for years while firefighter associations and disability-advocacy groups have expressed concerns

www.theglobeandmail.com

 

[Northern Light]

Where is Ontario with single-stair legalization?

B.C. looks to change building code to develop single-stair apartment buildings

Housing advocates have been pressing for the change for years while firefighter associations and disability-advocacy groups have expressed concerns

www.theglobeandmail.com

Before we get to that............

Did you read the article?

It raises many important questions on issues of accessibility, fire/smoke risk and whether the change actually provides any cost savings at all, when the offsetting regulations are considered:

(from the article)

On the cost question:

The above is important, as its the only way I would consider supporting the change..........but depending on what you impose, a developer may not be any better off building than they are with two staircases.

*****

Now, to answer your original question..............the idea is on the table here.........but so far the province has elected not to proceed.

So there is no regulatory shift to the code currently underway here.......... but it will probably come, the only question will be the details.

The proposal circulated in Ontario initially is identical to the one BC is poised to move forward.

Its a very specific concept, 4 unit per floor limit, and 6 storeys.

***

Watch-list - California is considering action on this file and if they move, many jurisdictions will likely follow.

 

[rdaner]

Of course I read the article.

 

[Northern Light]

Of course I read the article.

I wasn't meaning to be insulting, you shared nothing from the article that couldn't be gleaned from the headline.

Did, you note, btw, that I answered your question.

 

[Northern Light]

Ha, at the same time BC is discussing moving ahead with Single Egress stairs, they are doing to require that all new housing units be accessible to the disabled. This will add more than $50,000 to typical unit construction costs and obliterate any savings from single-egress and then some.

B.C. to require new homes to be adaptable for disabilities, prompting concern from developers

Developers say the new rules will add thousands in costs, while disability advocates say the estimates are exaggerated

www.theglobeandmail.com

To be clear, I'm not in full support or opposition to the change, nor cheering more expensive housing......... I am, however, amused at people who were rah-rah about BC leading the way, including many developers who are suddenly jeering and the disability advocates who opposed single-egress are now cheering.

From the article.

****

Easy come, easy go.

Of course, I will now add, it really doesn't make much sense to require a unit to be accessible that can't be reached by an elevator............should that mandate change.........

*****

Both sides here, as with those advocating single-egress and more tend toward simple arguments, extreme positions and ignore risks/consequences while cheerleading their preferred pet cause.

Nuance, is always the better way........

 

[chrisw]

The 4 units per floor is a nice limitation that incentivizes bigger units.

Door performance (fire) codes currently only require 20 mins for units while 60 mins for the front door of a house.

It could mean an extra room or 100 sqft per floor. They estimate the impact is 7% on profitability.

Re-Housing the Yellowbelt

Cargo

rehousing.ca

 

[Northern Light]

The 4 units per floor is a nice limitation that incentivizes bigger units.

Door performance (fire) codes currently only require 20 mins for units while 60 mins for the front door of a house.

It could mean an extra room or 100 sqft per floor. They estimate the impact is 7% on profitability.

Re-Housing the Yellowbelt

Cargo

rehousing.ca

I find the 7% figure exceedingly unlikely because offsetting conditions will be imposed. The question is which ones and how much of the savings they eat up.

I also note the accessibility standards BC has introduced utterly obliterate any savings from the egress change.

 

[rdaner]

It is all a work in progress! And with the concern that multiplexes will lead to complete demolition of heritage houses in the Annex most that I see on my walks are tasteful additions in matching materials/colours!

 

[Northern Light]

It is all a work in progress! And with the concern that multiplexes will lead to complete demolition of heritage houses in the Annex

Who expressed this concern?

most that I see on my walks are tasteful additions in matching materials/colours!

This is what I would expect, the cost of demo'ing a large home in order to replace it with multiplex of comparable size (there are lot coverage and setback requirements that dictate this) would not provide a good ROI in most cases.

I would expect repurposing of existing and modest rear additions as space permits.

Only I don't expect a huge amount of this, as I don't expect most existing owners wish to convert/cash-out.

 

[Northern Light]

The single egress issue is the subject of a report to next week's Planning and Housing Ctte, I will post the high level link so everyone can access the staff report and a third party conducted feasibility study:

Agenda Item History 2024.PH14.7

Agenda Item History 2024.PH14.7

secure.toronto.ca

I'll post from the high level intro here:

The recommendations are as follows:

Now I will take info directly from the Study:

Good Report - Direct link here: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2024/ph/bgrd/backgroundfile-247234.pdf

Only 30'ish pages.......give it a go.

 

[Northern Light]

Caledon's mayor has used all the Planning/Zoning reforms to push through 2,000 acres of new sprawl on ecologically sensitive and agricultural lands; and there's no recourse to the OLT.

This @HousingNowTO is the problem with subverting democracy for a good cause........once you break the rules and wipe out the checks and balances....everyone gets to play that way.

https://www.thestar.com/real-estate/caledon-quickly-approved-11-zoning-changes-despite-opposition-from-peel-and-the-province-critics-say/article_b98c7a42-3563-11ef-8e6a-a78a940d66e0.html'

From the above:

 

[chrisw]

According to the town’s reports, the 11 parcels rezoned from agriculture to mixed-density residential would have “holding symbols” placed on the land so development could not proceed “until the listed conditions have been satisfied.” The holding symbol “allows development planning to progress but must be cleared before the zoning bylaws are in force,” according to the report.

Groves said council did not approve developments with this vote, but enacted “conditional zoning” that would allow development to continue through the planning process.

Coun. Sheen says that despite the contentious decision by council, it’s not “like the sky is going to fall. We will still have to bargain, negotiate and hammer out what these communities will look like.” The only immediate effect, he said, is that the “lands went from being zoned agriculture to residential and so these land values went up, probably quite a bit.”

Some other quotes about it being conditional zoning.