[Northern Light]

Is it really that relevant to have "massive density" concentrated around transit stations now that city-wide zoning reforms are being implemented to bring missing-middle style density to all the major streets as of right?

There will be added density around transit nodes regardless. This is already being proposed by developers and generally supported by the City.

But it won't (at least in the near term) happen under the MTSA banner.

There could be some modest reductions in height ambition.........but that's not a given, at least where the City is receptive.

Spreading density along major corridors makes sense, but its not an either / or proposition so much as an 'and' proposition.

 

[guavadelic]

I am not over concerned by this as 1)it’s BlogTO and 2)another signal that an election is coming up and everything will resume after.

Ontario backtracking on its plan to bring 'massive density' around transit

Transit-oriented communities have been integral to Ontario's growth strategy, focusing the development of housing and jobs around forthcoming transpo…

www.blogto.com

Pausing vitally important housing reforms due to the politics around an election is something that should disappoint everyone, especially during a housing crisis.

Also, not entirely convinced this is just a pause and not Ford giving in to the vocal NIMBY voters.

 

[guavadelic]

Is it really that relevant to have "massive density" concentrated around transit stations now that city-wide zoning reforms are being implemented to bring missing-middle style density to all the major streets as of right?

If we're to believe the hints from the province last year regarding their MTSA plans, they were planning to impose much more density around the stations than what the city was planning:

The Ford government is due to weigh in soon on Toronto’s plan for developments around major transit stations, and sources close to the matter say they’re expecting it to overrule the city and impose a "firehose" of density.

https://www.thetrillium.ca/news/mun...ord government is due,a "firehose" of density.

 

[Northern Light]

The Consolidated Midrise Design Guidelines will be going to this week's Design Review Panel for comment.

https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/8e0a-CityPlanning-UrbanDesign-DesignReviewPanel-Agenda-18September2024.pdf

@HousingNowTO may take an interest.

A lot of what's in there is already public and already in working effect........but.....things as they are, until there's an official policy change, these things will vary by applicant and by planner.

 

[guavadelic]

The Consolidated Midrise Design Guidelines will be going to this week's Design Review Panel for comment.

https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/8e0a-CityPlanning-UrbanDesign-DesignReviewPanel-Agenda-18September2024.pdf

@HousingNowTO may take an interest.

A lot of what's in there is already public and already in working effect........but.....things as they are, until there's an official policy change, these things will vary by applicant and by planner.

Read a report that this includes "Rear Transition Performance Standards". Assuming this is addressing the angular plane guidelines that result in the "wedding-cake" built form of Toronto mid-rises?

 

[Northern Light]

Read a report that this includes "Rear Transition Performance Standards". Assuming this is addressing the angular plane guidelines that result in the "wedding-cake" built form of Toronto mid-rises?

Its more than that, but yes, that's in there too.

 

[goodcitywhenfinished]

Vancouver looks to fast-track 18-storey social housing projects in certain areas

Responding to council's direction to speed up affordable housing, staff propose enabling social housing towers across big chunks of the city

vancouversun.com

Vancouver is considering as-of-right zoning reform for social housing and non-profit co-op housing projects in large swaths of the city. The proposal calls for some neighbourhood cores of the city to effectively allow 18 storey social housing with no rezoning required, while some "Village" areas (read: SFH residential areas) will see as-of-right zoning for social housing of up to 6 storeys.

City of Vancouver press release here: https://vancouver.ca/news-calendar/...social-and-co-operative-housing-sep-2024.aspx

Draft map of areas and proposed height allowances:

https://syc.vancouver.ca/projects/social-housing/vancouver-social-housing-draft-map.pdf

Anyone wondering why Vancouver's densest areas are excluded, see below explanation from Vancouver's Chief Planner:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1836531404332732563

 

[T-Bor]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opi...ontario-can-learn-from-alberta-about-housing/

Behind a paywall, but the title explains it. Ontario has more strict zoning rules, and has fewer housing starts. Alberta has much more loose zoning laws, and has way more housing starts as a result.

Nothing new that hasn't been discussed here before, but does show some interesting year/over/year housing stats

 

[Northern Light]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opi...ontario-can-learn-from-alberta-about-housing/

Behind a paywall, but the title explains it. Ontario has more strict zoning rules, and has fewer housing starts. Alberta has much more loose zoning laws, and has way more housing starts as a result.

Nothing new that hasn't been discussed here before, but does show some interesting year/over/year housing stats

Unfortunately, the Globe gets this one dead wrong.

Toronto's pace for zoning approvals is very comparable to either Calgary or Edmonton, on average, at this point.

Moreover, there are literally 10's of thousands of approved units which aren't being built.

That's not to suggest there isn't room for some additional reforms, but that is not the issue here in terms of the difference in housing starts.

The issues are two-fold:

1) Alberta's economy is stronger with higher wages, meaning there are buyers for new housing.

2) Alberta's housing costs are considerably lower than Toronto's. This is a function of historically lower demand (though that is changing with recent growth); but also nearly unchecked sprawl.

Edmonton and Calgary both have much lower population density than Toronto. (roughly 1/3)

Median House Price - Edmonton -$485,000
Median House Price - Calgary - $454,000
Median House Price - Toronto $1,300,000

 

[T-Bor]

Unfortunately, the Globe gets this one dead wrong.

Toronto's pace for zoning approvals is very comparable to either Calgary or Edmonton, on average, at this point.

Moreover, there are literally 10's of thousands of approved units which aren't being built.

That's not to suggest there isn't room for some additional reforms, but that is not the issue here in terms of the difference in housing starts.

The issues are two-fold:

1) Alberta's economy is stronger with higher wages, meaning there are buyers for new housing.

2) Alberta's housing costs are considerably lower than Toronto's. This is a function of historically lower demand (though that is changing with recent growth); but also nearly unchecked sprawl.

Edmonton and Calgary both have much lower population density than Toronto. (roughly 1/3)

Median House Price - Edmonton -$485,000
Median House Price - Calgary - $454,000
Median House Price - Toronto $1,300,000

Were zoning approvals always comparable, or is this a function of reforms over the last 18 months or so? If it has always been comparable, that's surprising.

If it's only recently been comparable, I'd argue that the market needs time to adjust. New companies forming that focus on infills, workers to move based on their skills being in demand, etc etc. You aren't going to see this happen in a year. But over a decade, you'll see an impact, as you've seen out there.

Also, as of the most recent data, Alberta has a higher unemployment rate than Ontario (7.7 v 7.1). Weekly wages are higher, yes, 3.5% - but not exactly a mammoth difference.

 

[Northern Light]

Were zoning approvals always comparable, or is this a function of reforms over the last 18 months or so? If it has always been comparable, that's surprising.

Toronto has sped up alot in the last 2 years, I don't have historical data for Edmonton and Calgary, but they may well have been faster, sooner.

If it's only recently been comparable, I'd argue that the market needs time to adjust....

Sure, I'd agree; but Toronto has had a huge number of latent approvals for years now. Construction lags approvals in Ontario significantly.

Also, as of the most recent data, Alberta has a higher unemployment rate than Ontario (7.7 v 7.1). Weekly wages are higher, yes, 3.5% - but not exactly a mammoth difference.

I used Median Hourly Wage for comparison purposes, there's no absolute right answer, of course, but that's about 10% higher in Alberta..........

But the much bigger difference is that income to price ratio. Housing prices in Edmonton and Calgary are running just over 1/3 of those in the GTA.

So even similar incomes go alot further in house purchasing.

 

[T-Bor]

Toronto has sped up alot in the last 2 years, I don't have historical data for Edmonton and Calgary, but they may well have been faster, sooner.

I think this part is the kicker. I don't know when they liberalized, but from my research it was roughly in the 1990s. Case in point, before I moved back here, my inner-city Calgary semi-detached was built in 2006. Prior to that, it was a small East York-style bungalow. A developer bought it, turned it into 2 semis, sold them as separate units. Now in that neighbourhood (Marda Loop, if anyone is googling) is probably 2/3 new build infills, 1/3 old bungalows

These 'infills' are all over in Calgary and Edmonton, so much so that if you ask people there what they think of 'infills', everyone has an opinion. It's so well known that any house (in most of the city) can be bought and turned into 2 semi-detached houses.

If I'm correct, it's only in the last 2 years that you can do this in Toronto. So that psychology hasn't taken hold yet that supply can increase. I do believe that it'll take time, but over a decade, you'll see a similar effect here. Land prices fall, workers get trained, companies form, etc etc.

But to your other point, yeah, the massive sprawl can't be discounted either. So it's not an exact 1:1 comparison.

 

[goodcitywhenfinished]

Unfortunately, the Globe gets this one dead wrong.

Toronto's pace for zoning approvals is very comparable to either Calgary or Edmonton, on average, at this point.

Moreover, there are literally 10's of thousands of approved units which aren't being built.

That's not to suggest there isn't room for some additional reforms, but that is not the issue here in terms of the difference in housing starts.

The issues are two-fold:

1) Alberta's economy is stronger with higher wages, meaning there are buyers for new housing.

2) Alberta's housing costs are considerably lower than Toronto's. This is a function of historically lower demand (though that is changing with recent growth); but also nearly unchecked sprawl.

Edmonton and Calgary both have much lower population density than Toronto. (roughly 1/3)

Median House Price - Edmonton -$485,000
Median House Price - Calgary - $454,000
Median House Price - Toronto $1,300,000

Also of note - Edmonton and Calgary are still approving multiple new subdivisions every year, and neither city has a "greenbelt"

I do think we can learn a bit from Edmonton on being more ambitious when it comes to multiplex policy though. Edmonton was able to pass a multiplex bylaw that allows more density than the one in Toronto - in a city traditionally viewed as more conservative and car-centric than Toronto.

 

[T-Bor]

Also of note - Edmonton and Calgary are still approving multiple new subdivisions every year, and neither city has a "greenbelt"

I do think we can learn a bit from Edmonton on being more ambitious when it comes to multiplex policy though. Edmonton was able to pass a multiplex bylaw that allows more density than the one in Toronto - in a city traditionally viewed as more conservative and car-centric than Toronto.

I think that's an important point. We'll never be able to build greenfield housing as quick as smaller cities with no natural boundaries. But on multiplexes, there's an incredible amount of yellow room to work with here

 

[runTurtles]

An interesting TVO discussion panel on what needs to change in order build the 1.5 million homes in Ontario (probably more now) featuring Mike Moffat (PLACE Centre) Lisa Helps (Executive Lead, BC Builds) Neil Rodgers (Strategic Advisor, Ontario Home Builders Association) and Jag Sharma (Toronto's Deputy City Manager of Development and Growth Services).
Some zoning related ideas that are discussed

• Lowering development fees / restructuring municipal finances
  • they say only possible if they are alternate revenue streams for cities besides fees, development charges and property taxes for all municipal funding
    • some ideas they float are: getting a portion of HST generated in city back, putting road infrastructure fees on cars instead of housing
  • Ontario Home Builders advisor says of $1.3 million avg house 500k is in government fees (taxes, charges, fees, etc.). Moffat mentions development charges have increased from 5k to 100k in 20 years.
• Speed up permitting process and more predictable timelines
  • Sharma brings up that recent efforts have resulted in a few new applications (non-profit and for profit) being done in 90 days, down from the expected 500-600 days
• Innovation in building to lower cost + labour
  • modular housing, factory production and mass timber (not sure how mass timber is innovative in reducing labour, but maybe it can be built more in winter?)
  • more government support of startups that die in recessions
  • different financing for factory production needed
• Standardizing zoning and planning across municipalities
  • Would make factory production a lot more viable, as there would only be a lot less targets to meet for each panel/module
    
  • builders can operate in more locations more effectively
• Building code updates (briefly mentioned at end)

maybe nothing radically new, but I do think it is good as a single piece that touches on a lot of various factors and worth a listen to, even if in the background.