Undead
Senior Member
I don't know about the claim that it's a concession: there are SFH lining almost the entire length of every single suburban arterial. Clearly the SFH people have been okay with that for decades.
|
|
|
- Thread starter A Torontonian Now
- Start date
Northern Light
Superstar
Again, I'm not opposed to intensifying a bit here. But the clear absence of any rapid transit or easy access to same within the interior of the community is a real issue.
If you didn't address that you'd be asking for some very car-centrc building.
Certainly there's some space on Crescent Road near Rosedale Station that could be at least gently intensified.........
But after that......
Also important to add that there is some density in the right spots now:
Mt. Pleasant near Branksome Hall.
Sherbourne just north of Rosedale Valley:
Is there room to a do a bit more? Sure............ But with very limited bus service in most of the area, no through E-W roads between St. Clair and Bloor, much of the area isn't well suited to high density.
I'm no defender of enclaves out of my price range, LOL; but I do think its important to address the urban planning viability of any large-scale intensification you might imagine here.
Towered
Superstar
Ooo, Islington and Kipling in central Etobicoke are slated to become avenues! I hope I live to see the annoying bungalows they're lined with replaced with streetwalls of midrises with retail...
Northern Light
Superstar
Hey Biking Booty Shorts.............. you're still young, and by all accounts, unhealthily healthy, LOL
I think you can make a pretty safe bet that alot of what you dislike will go while you're still around to see it, with more than a few years to spare.
afransen
Senior Member
Is the claim, though, that the rest of the world can't evacuate people from tall buildings on stretchers, or are there different solutions?
This seems like a chicken and the egg problem. Legalize smaller elevators, and the moving services would become available.
We're not talking 3-storey buildings here. These wouldn't have elevators period. It is for mid-rise buildings, particularly single stair.
This is a bit hyperbolic. Given that this is just allowing the elevator standard in use in the rest of the world (~7/8th of the global population follow this standard), I'm having a hard time accepting that it is inherently unsafe, with the proviso that following this alternative standard may require some enhanced safety measures in other areas (same as single stair may necessitate such changes). Removing smoke detectors is not being proposed by anyone, for good reason. Some reason no one is suggesting eliminating stairs altogether and telling people to use rope ladders out a window.
Northern Light
Superstar
There are some, depending on the nature of the injury/illness a person has experienced, their size/weight etc.
Though our EMTs are not equipped w/most of those solutions here, and there isn't likely room for that kit in a typical ambulance.
One option is called a 'Stair Chair'........ I've heard EMTs describe this as 'hateful equipment'.
Another is a 'scoop stretcher' in which a patient is strapped in, in such a way as to allow the emt to stand them up.
Both of these can be problematic for a range of patients and challenging for EMTs.
Option 3 is a Stokes Basket:
Source: https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-b44827eb9bea60acafea67973722267d-lq
The latter option, however requires a balcony and/or removable window. Its very common in Europe to have full size widows w/no screens that can fully open, this is not done here.
No they would not. In Europe those services remove your entire window in order to get your furniture in/out, they also block traffic entirely in front of your premise, for hours, as they use a crane to hoist furniture.
****
It really does amaze me sometimes how people think you can just wave a magic wand and change something when an entire set of industries and neighbourhoods are all built around that one thing as it is.........
Its not so easy.
I don't think so. Its fair to say we prioritize things differently. I think there are obstacles you have yet to face in your life (I'm happy for you) that leave you w/the impression they aren't such a big deal.
As noted above, that different standard has been offset by a range of other choices not made here.........its rather complex to unscramble the egg.
Not unsafe, less safe.
Less convenient.
All for very little savings, and considerable new costs..........whose paying to give out all the new kit to Ambulance services? Whose paying those movers, by the way? Many people today move themselves with the help of friends and a U-Haul......People will not be renting their own cranes, or taking out their own windows. You've just driven up the cost of an entry level move from maybe $1,500 to at least $4,000
Not great if you're trying to open up more housing options for folks on a budget.
afransen
Senior Member
I think they use exterior moving elevators, not cranes.
At the end of the day, there are reasons why midrise development, particularly the smaller scale, more livable kind (not double loaded corridors and block long buildings) barely exists here. The choices of lowrise (fully inaccessible without chair lifts, etc.) and high rise (very high construction cost psf and lack of family sized units) aren't really fully meeting the needs of the market. Waiting for SFHs to be assembled into large plots to site 40s condo towers for >$1000/sf condos doesn't seem like much of a plan. I guess the alternative for people who want to start a family is move outside of Toronto, Ontario or Canada for that matter.
Northern Light
Superstar
The housing here was quite affordable 30 years ago.
What changed was financialization of housing and levels of immigration that were unsustainable (the rate, not the total number) along with wage stagnation due to cheap labour) and inordinate growth in too few cities.
Demand Management:
Send the majority of TFWs home as soon as their permits expire, drastically cut the number of foreign students, and prices/rents will fall by 25% minimum immediately. It'll put a whole bunch of folks under water and I'm fine w/that. Particularly investors.
Literally, in Toronto, we could drop 50,000 foreign students and the same in TFWs that's 100,000 people, that's a lot of empty apartments.........
(to be clear, I'm not suggesting nixing long time seasonals in agriculture or the best/brightest getting their PhD at U of T. I'm talking about sending home everyone going to Seneca/Centennial/Humber etc. who is not a long term permanent resident/citizen. (I'd actually let anyone finish out their diploma whose here, but zero new entrants).
Tie the level of immigration each year to the number of housing completions from the previous year. The level of construction to be calculated based on bedrooms and m2, and the number of people approved for entry, when factoring for any natural population growth, should aim for 96% occupancy of newly built units until the vacancy rate in the market hits 4%, at which point, you aim for matching demand to unit supply.
Financialization of Housing:
No more principle residence exception, Capital gains on residences to be treated like normal income 100% taxable.
Minimum 20% down on all purchases of housing, no exceptions, ever.
No pre-construction sales of condos, Zero. Sales happen when you get occupancy permits (yes this would see many projects converted to rentals, which is exactly what I had mind)
******
Wage Stagnation:
The reduced supply of workers should send entry level wages rocketing w/o minimum wage rises, nonetheless, those should rise to be comparable to Australia or Scandinavia or California which would broadly dictate a shift to a range of $22-26 CAD per hour.
*****
There you go, problem solved. No new housing typologies required, no lowering of standards required, no 300-storey buildings.......
What changed was financialization of housing and levels of immigration that were unsustainable (the rate, not the total number) along with wage stagnation due to cheap labour) and inordinate growth in too few cities.
Demand Management:
Send the majority of TFWs home as soon as their permits expire, drastically cut the number of foreign students, and prices/rents will fall by 25% minimum immediately. It'll put a whole bunch of folks under water and I'm fine w/that. Particularly investors.
Literally, in Toronto, we could drop 50,000 foreign students and the same in TFWs that's 100,000 people, that's a lot of empty apartments.........
(to be clear, I'm not suggesting nixing long time seasonals in agriculture or the best/brightest getting their PhD at U of T. I'm talking about sending home everyone going to Seneca/Centennial/Humber etc. who is not a long term permanent resident/citizen. (I'd actually let anyone finish out their diploma whose here, but zero new entrants).
Tie the level of immigration each year to the number of housing completions from the previous year. The level of construction to be calculated based on bedrooms and m2, and the number of people approved for entry, when factoring for any natural population growth, should aim for 96% occupancy of newly built units until the vacancy rate in the market hits 4%, at which point, you aim for matching demand to unit supply.
Financialization of Housing:
No more principle residence exception, Capital gains on residences to be treated like normal income 100% taxable.
Minimum 20% down on all purchases of housing, no exceptions, ever.
No pre-construction sales of condos, Zero. Sales happen when you get occupancy permits (yes this would see many projects converted to rentals, which is exactly what I had mind)
******
Wage Stagnation:
The reduced supply of workers should send entry level wages rocketing w/o minimum wage rises, nonetheless, those should rise to be comparable to Australia or Scandinavia or California which would broadly dictate a shift to a range of $22-26 CAD per hour.
*****
There you go, problem solved. No new housing typologies required, no lowering of standards required, no 300-storey buildings.......
Last edited:
rdaner
Senior Member
I am satisfied with this for two reasons: 1) the proposal is a massive shift in the right direction and 2) the entire city has been up-zoned to 4 units per lot.
Btw, BC just legalized single stair mid-rises. Are we far behind?
Btw, BC just legalized single stair mid-rises. Are we far behind?
Last edited:
afransen
Senior Member
This is probably more complicated than it appears on the face. Do we allow people to add the cost of improvements to the adjusted cost base? Otherwise, if a property rises in value due to improvements, are we not then taxing that investment as income. Are you suggesting that all capital gains have an inclusion rate of 100%, or just primary residences?
Just condos, and not SFHs? I think this would go over like a lead balloon. If we're trying to be consistent, it should apply to SFHs as well, otherwise it seems like we are taking away options for home ownership at the entry level while preserving optionality for wealthier people.
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.
smably
Senior Member
This chart I saw in the Globe today feels relevant:
www.theglobeandmail.com
Inside the crisis facing Canada’s dysfunctional housing market
From any angle you look at it, Canada’s housing market is badly broken. The problems can seem staggering, but solutions exist – even if relief is likely a long way off
www.theglobeandmail.com
Towered
Superstar
I'm inspired by your confidence, but what is it based on? Please share if you have some insider info...
I was just thinking that even if this were approved tomorrow, SFH's along those streets would still need to be cobbled together into larger assemblies (which isn't cheap), proposals would have to be drafted, negotiations with the city, multiple public meetings, appeals, revisions, successful sale periods (no guarantee there will be enough of a market), then finally demolition/excavation/construction. So yes, although admittedly I remain youthful and robust, I have a tough time imagining any dramatic change in the streetscape in this suburban area in the next 20 years based on that. PLEASE TELL ME I'M WRONG.
Northern Light
Superstar
I'm inspired by your confidence, but what is it based on? Please share if you have some insider info...
I was just thinking that even if this were approved tomorrow, SFH's along those streets would still need to be cobbled together into larger assemblies (which isn't cheap), proposals would have to be drafted, negotiations with the city, multiple public meetings, appeals, revisions, successful sale periods (no guarantee there will be enough of a market), then finally demolition/excavation/construction. So yes, although admittedly I remain youthful and robust, I have a tough time imagining any dramatic change in the streetscape in this suburban area in the next 20 years based on that. PLEASE TELL ME I'M WRONG.
Your wrong.
Don't get me wrong, it won't all change in that time window, but large bits of it will.
goodcitywhenfinished
Active Member
I think that it would be perfectly reasonable to allow 6-8 storeys on every residential street in neighbourhoods adjacent to downtown. Also the Annex, Chinatown, and Baldwin Village.
evandyk
Senior Member
Aren't those "adjacent to downtown"? Anyways, the Annex has many beautiful buildings that are 3 storeys but cover lots a bit bigger than SFH lots, and a bunch more of those would be really great additions to the neighbourhood.
