[afransen]

Interesting discussion on elevator regulations in Canada (and US), why they are far more expensive in Canada that much of the rest of the world, and thus there are far fewer elevators per capita. This has a knock-off effect of making small-scale midrise buildings uneconomical.

The policy suggestion is to allow elevators that meet the European/global standard to be used in Canada. This would allow much lower cost elevators, and enable companies that manufacture that standard to make the market in North America more competitive.

The downside is that there are potential concerns around accessibility for wheelchairs, as they are smaller than NA elevators that allow wheelchair users to turn around inside rather than backing in. The argument being that making accessibility requirements so expensive to meet is that it crowds out housing forms that could be more accessible (5-6 story walkups with an elevator) and make it so only townhouses are feasible until high rise can be justified, and townhouses are clearly not very accessibly

On the flip side, I feel like we are not having the right conversations around what accessibility requirements are doing to construction costs and limiting the viability of new development and just generally raising cost of living for everyone. I'm also thinking of the absurd ~20x20' single-occupant accessible washrooms that would make many small establishments infeasible from a cost standpoint.

 

[rdaner]

I am surprised that more arterials aren’t being considered but maybe this is the most realistic way forward for now?

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

 

[allengeorge]

I really appreciated the MNTO analysis. I’m curious what @Northern Light and @innsertnamehere think of them.

Link from @rdaner ’s post above:

Avenues for Change

www.moreneighbours.ca

 

[chrisw]

On the consultations page there's a Draft from June 2024 for 'proposed new avenues'.

Housing Action Plan: Avenues, Mid-rise and Mixed Use Areas Study

The Planning & Housing Committee will review the final report on As-of-Right Zoning for Mid-rise Buildings on Avenues without Avenue Studies on October 30, 2024. The event details are listed in Meetings & Events. For further information, please see the Official Notice. This webpage provides a...

www.toronto.ca

 

[Northern Light]

Interesting discussion on elevator regulations in Canada (and US), why they are far more expensive in Canada that much of the rest of the world, and thus there are far fewer elevators per capita. This has a knock-off effect of making small-scale midrise buildings uneconomical.

The policy suggestion is to allow elevators that meet the European/global standard to be used in Canada. This would allow much lower cost elevators, and enable companies that manufacture that standard to make the market in North America more competitive.

The downside is that there are potential concerns around accessibility for wheelchairs, as they are smaller than NA elevators that allow wheelchair users to turn around inside rather than backing in. The argument being that making accessibility requirements so expensive to meet is that it crowds out housing forms that could be more accessible (5-6 story walkups with an elevator) and make it so only townhouses are feasible until high rise can be justified, and townhouses are clearly not very accessibly

On the flip side, I feel like we are not having the right conversations around what accessibility requirements are doing to construction costs and limiting the viability of new development and just generally raising cost of living for everyone. I'm also thinking of the absurd ~20x20' single-occupant accessible washrooms that would make many small establishments infeasible from a cost standpoint.

Its an interesting discussion, and there's certainly room for some improvement...............but

Setting aside 'accessibility' in the conventional sense.........the issue of not being being able to accommodate a full (normal) size stretcher is not insignificant; as someone who had a heavy-set parent, whose knee completely blew out, who needed to be stretchered and the challenges presented merely by an inaccessible apartment.......(it was a massive effort with serious risks to get my father onto a chair that could be wheeled to the door where he could then be placed onto a stretcher).....

I'm not keen on the argument that a sub-standard elevator is the solution, . Its a very small cost issue in the context of most buildings, and I'm going to take the view that if you can't build a safe building, you generally shouldn't build an unsafe one that's cheaper.

That has all the virtue of skipping smoke detectors, or hood vents over ovens, or fire suppression systems (which I think should be mandatory). There are costs in building one can extract.........but taking off 2-4% by reducing accessibility, by increasing serious health risks, and by making it a lot more difficult and expensive to move does not strike me at the right path.

The right path is to make Europe and the world adopt the North American standard.

****

Side note, having Canada disconnect from the U.S. standard would not likely save us much money, as no one is building dedicated infrastructure (Manufacturing or warehousing ) just for our market......so we'd be increasing shipping costs.....

On top of that.......we'd make it more expensive to service existing elevators that now become stranded by the new standards.

 

[rdaner]

I am relieved to see the updated Avenues map that has more candidates on it than the one that I posted. And on the subject of elevators and accessibility I empathize with both sides but will add that making all units in the country accessible to all situations is unrealistic. If someone is in such bad shape that they can no longer function in a standard living space then they should be helped into more suitable apartments that don't punish the families.

 

[afransen]

Its an interesting discussion, and there's certainly room for some improvement...............but

Setting aside 'accessibility' in the conventional sense.........the issue of not being being able to accommodate a full (normal) size stretcher is not insignificant; as someone who had a heavy-set parent, whose knee completely blew out, who needed to be stretchered and the challenges presented merely by an inaccessible apartment.......(it was a massive effort with serious risks to get my father onto a chair that could be wheeled to the door where he could then be placed onto a stretcher).....

I'm not keen on the argument that a sub-standard elevator is the solution, . Its a very small cost issue in the context of most buildings, and I'm going to take the view that if you can't build a safe building, you generally shouldn't build an unsafe one that's cheaper.

That has all the virtue of skipping smoke detectors, or hood vents over ovens, or fire suppression systems (which I think should be mandatory). There are costs in building one can extract.........but taking off 2-4% by reducing accessibility, by increasing serious health risks, and by making it a lot more difficult and expensive to move does not strike me at the right path.

The right path is to make Europe and the world adopt the North American standard.

****

Side note, having Canada disconnect from the U.S. standard would not likely save us much money, as no one is building dedicated infrastructure (Manufacturing or warehousing ) just for our market......so we'd be increasing shipping costs.....

On top of that.......we'd make it more expensive to service existing elevators that now become stranded by the new standards.

It is certainly possible for people who have greater accessibility needs to live in highrise apartments with large elevators. I'm not sure making small-scale, livable midrise building impossible through overly onerous elevator requirements is a win. How do you stretcher someone from the third floor of a townhouse?

 

[MrGoose]

NO PEASANTS ALLOWED NEAR THE BRIDAL PATH

YOU MUST BE THIS RICH TO LIVE IN ROSEDALE

 

[Northern Light]

It is certainly possible for people who have greater accessibility needs to live in highrise apartments with large elevators. I'm not sure making small-scale, livable midrise building impossible through overly onerous elevator requirements is a win. How do you stretcher someone from the third floor of a townhouse?

A couple of things.....

1) Currently, we don't require elevators at all in buildings 3 storeys or less. So where this lowering of an existing standard is advocated as a way to incentivize creation of this form........that simply isn't true. An elevator requirement doesn't exist as a requirement today.

2) You know my father (now deceased) used to be young and healthy. I find this idea that people who require mobility aids can just choose their housing weird..........the vast majority of people who use mobility aids today, did not used to do so. They had an accident, and/or, one day woke up unable to get themselves down a set of stairs. So eliminating a usable elevator is the same as telling them to move. (including from a rent controlled apartment).

Full sized stretchers are likewise used to move people who were perfectly able-bodied an hour earlier.

3) Modifying an elevator to be smaller such that you can't move a mattress or any number of large furniture items makes much of the housing impossible to live in for many. In Europe, this is often offset by using cranes and removing windows to move furniture into low/midrise units. There is no such culture here and even attempting to arrange such a service here would be challenging.

4) The argument that we should cheapen accommodation by making it less safe and less accessible is a real problem me, again, we're talking new builds here and not sparing a heritage building that can't be retrofitted from demo. Why don't we just skip smoke detectors? Why not remove rise over run requirements and allow super steep stairs many would find unsafe? How about we reduce fire worthiness or in earthquake prone areas we remove requirements that buildings be made resilient?
I'm not buying that the answer to unaffordable housing is unlivable and unsafe housing.

5) The argument's made here don't actually show that a cost savings is likely in any change from the status quo, for reasons I've outlined in my previous post.

 

[Northern Light]

View attachment 576245
NO PEASANTS ALLOWED NEAR THE BRIDAL PATH

I happen to agree with the idea of tearing down the entire Bridle Path.......... So I certainly won't defend the urban form as it is...... I happen to think most of it is unattractive to boot.

But I'm not sure what the point of your observation is..........there is no scenario in existence in which there are no rich neighbourhoods entirely; and if there were, it require policy changes at the Federal and Provincial levels that prevented wealth accumulation/retention.

Much of Central Park West has condos/apartments, but virtually no one with an income under 2M per year can afford them. A 2brm apt can run you $6k USD per month, and more.

I mean this listing, at $70,000 per month isn't exactly in everyone's budget:

25 E 77th St #1204, New York, NY 10075 | Zillow

This is a 3 bedroom, 3.5 bathroom, Apartment home. It is located at 25 E 77th St #1204, New York, NY.

www.zillow.com

View attachment 576246
YOU MUST BE THIS RICH TO LIVE IN ROSEDALE

This, actually isn't true, entirely, as there are purpose-built rentals in Rosedale that are rent controlled.

However, its certainly true that the area isn't filled with hirises and that it has robust heritage protection.

But I would note equally, that the bulk of Rosesale has no or very poor transit, and no walkable grocery.

I'm all for it being a more mixed income community, but I would suggest to you that change will not be achieved successfully just w/simple zoning reform.

 

[smably]

On the consultations page there's a Draft from June 2024 for 'proposed new avenues'.

Housing Action Plan: Avenues, Mid-rise and Mixed Use Areas Study

The Planning & Housing Committee will review the final report on As-of-Right Zoning for Mid-rise Buildings on Avenues without Avenue Studies on October 30, 2024. The event details are listed in Meetings & Events. For further information, please see the Official Notice. This webpage provides a...

www.toronto.ca

View attachment 576173

Seems like this would turn basically every "major street" into an Avenue (which is great, don't get me wrong!). Assuming this gets approved, what was the point of going through the major streets study?

 

[Northern Light]

Seems like this would turn basically every "major street" into an Avenue (which is great, don't get me wrong!). Assuming this gets approved, what was the point of going through the major streets study?

Not even close.

The Major streets designation covers a lot more roads.

Everything that's on the map above in any colour is a 'major street' the majority iof what you see in light blue is not and will not be considered an Avenue, and that's true for a lot of the dark blue as well.

Take a look at my area (Beaches-EY) and you can see all the major streets that aren't Avenues:

Mortimer, Cosburn, Woodbine, Dawes etc.

 

[Undead]

View attachment 576245
NO PEASANTS ALLOWED NEAR THE BRIDAL PATH


View attachment 576246
YOU MUST BE THIS RICH TO LIVE IN ROSEDALE

Of course you noted that plenty of yellowbelt in lower income NW Etobicoke and NE Scarborough is similarly off limits

 

[MrGoose]

Of course you noted that plenty of yellowbelt in lower income NW Etobicoke and NE Scarborough is similarly off limits

Restricting development to the sides of stroads is a concession to SFH owners in the first place. Being close to stroads and highways is an undesirable factor for real estate.

Who would want to live next to a busy stroad and breath in car exhaust, tire dust and have to bear listening to motorcycles and fart cans racing late at night.

Lower Income != Lower Wealth.

Restricting even this most tepid of zoning changes to the least desirable locations, by not even allowing them within the vicinity of the wealthiest zipcodes in the country is just adding insult to injury.

Rosedale hurts even more because it is so close to downtown.

 

[MrGoose]

Of course you noted that plenty of yellowbelt in lower income NW Etobicoke and NE Scarborough is similarly off limits

Just for you, I will note that Willowdale will continue to have their cake and eat it too.

The absurdity that is the North York Center urban form lives on.