News   Apr 23, 2024
Shimmy
 193     0 
News   Apr 22, 2024
Ferris + Associates Merges with NAK Design Group, Reshaping the GTA Landscape
 928     0 
News   Apr 22, 2024
UrbanToronto Webinars: Building Sustainably — Industry and Individuals
 297     0 

Laneway Housing and Garden Suites

Laneway housing could result in a lot of new development and density in established neighbourhoods without clearing the existing housing stock or reducing larger house sizes and thereby making it harder for families to stay in the area. The city should look into buying smaller emergency vehicles like the kind that must obviously exist to service the tens of thousands of older cities in Europe and Asia with narrow streets.
 
dob467 said:
Any chance we could get a preview of your project?
Click to expand...

The actual maps will be added to the community maps on the Ward 20 website. We catalogued things such as width, vegetation, bike racks, fences, garages, existing housing built on lanes, street lighting, named lanes, etc.
 
We've lived in a laneway around Trinity Bellwoods for over 2 years in one of 3 workman's cottages that date to the 1850s. One day we plan on building up. So thanks for sharing, I'll be following your project for sure!
 
I have stumbled across a lot of interesting laneway housing the last few months. Pictures taken May 2013.

IMG_4521_1_1-L.jpg


IMG_4524_1-L.jpg


IMG_4522_1-L.jpg


IMG_4417_1-L.jpg


IMG_4418_1-L.jpg


IMG_4400_1-L.jpg


IMG_3683_1-L.jpg


IMG_5802_1-L.jpg


IMG_3441_1-L.jpg


IMG_3435_1-L.jpg


IMG_2283_1-L.jpg


IMG_2281_1-L.jpg


IMG_2280_1-L.jpg


IMG_2267_1-L.jpg


IMG_2158_1-XL.jpg
 
The house is at the back of a lot on Jones just north of Boultbee, the photo was taken on the curve on Boultbee just east of jones
 
I have a laneway land in little italy, and was planning to build a laneway home of an 800 sq ft footprint 3 years ago.

But I dropped the project, as it was too expensive to bring services into the laneway. Also, unlike Vancouver, city of Toronto does not yet support this type of housing due to political oppositions, such as having to purchase smaller fire vehicles and ambulances that can fit in the laneways.
 
Whatever it takes to increase single family housing. Also have no issue with rezoning some lots to be multi-family houses. Being from Montreal, there were a lot of duplexes and triplexes. Need to start thinking outside the box.
 
TheKingEast said:
Whatever it takes to increase single family housing. Also have no issue with rezoning some lots to be multi-family houses. Being from Montreal, there were a lot of duplexes and triplexes. Need to start thinking outside the box.
Click to expand...

Agreed. All detached houses in downtown and the west/east ends (without heritage value) need to be available for redevelopment into duplexes, triplexes, and stacked townhomes. Hopefully this will be part of the #yellowbelt discussion.
 
I wish I'd known this forum existed prior. A lot of my concerns for the 'high rise densification' of the High Park neighbourhood are more aptly posted here, and one that few have mentioned, since it's so obvious as to be overlooked, is *light*!

The high rise 'infill' proposed for High Park http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2017/01/high-park-ave-high-rises-tabled-fill-tower-park-block not only overtaxes some utilities and services, it will block light to adjacent buildings, high rise or otherwise.

It's past time to consider moving to mid-rise, or more correctly, moving *back* to mid-rise instead of high-rise to retain, sustain, and promote healthy neighbourhoods. Toronto is already hosting some very tasteful and sensibly designed mid-rise. It's time to emphasize it more.

narduch said:
Toronto detached homes tend to get rebuilt as McMansion monstrosities.
Click to expand...
That's just pizz-poor planning approval. You wish to throw the baby out with the looming lurid bathwater. What's better? Towering terrors?

As in *many* far better conceived neighbourhoods in far more livable cities, low-rise densification is not only the norm, it has been for centuries. Just consider the favourite tourist cities of Europe for a start...
 
steveintoronto said:
I wish I'd known this forum existed prior. A lot of my concerns for the 'high rise densification' of the High Park neighbourhood are more aptly posted here, and one that few have mentioned, since it's so obvious as to be overlooked, is *light*!

The high rise 'infill' proposed for High Park http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2017/01/high-park-ave-high-rises-tabled-fill-tower-park-block not only overtaxes some utilities and services, it will block light to adjacent buildings, high rise or otherwise.

It's past time to consider moving to mid-rise, or more correctly, moving *back* to mid-rise instead of high-rise to retain, sustain, and promote healthy neighbourhoods. Toronto is already hosting some very tasteful and sensibly designed mid-rise. It's time to emphasize it more.

That's just pizz-poor planning approval. You wish to throw the baby out with the looming lurid bathwater. What's better? Towering terrors?

As in *many* far better conceived neighbourhoods in far more livable cities, low-rise densification is not only the norm, it has been for centuries. Just consider the favourite tourist cities of Europe for a start...
Click to expand...

I think the city doesn't give a hoot because more condos = more taxes. Condos will always be a hit for that reason and likely why builders are allowed to build a lot of the crap they do.
 
TheKingEast said:
I think the city doesn't give a hoot because more condos = more taxes. Condos will always be a hit for that reason and likely why builders are allowed to build a lot of the crap they do.
Click to expand...
It's a fair point, King, but you probably have the wrong guilty party. This string can't ignore the role....the *very prominent role* of the OMB, and the people to change that are at Queen's Park, the present regime desperate to save their zorry azzes. I think you'll find City Planning much more resistant to beanstalk density, or to put it somewhere where it doesn't obliterate a healthy and desired neighbourhood. Toronto still has lots of land to build on, and meantime allow the owners already established in quality neighbourhoods the right to increase density by civilized and fitting ways. And that's exactly what "laneway housing" does. It also means "granny flats" and "boomerang kids conversions" for those applied, and studying, but shut out of the hope of ever having a home of their own.

It all makes too much sense, doesn't it? We've got to stay focused on throwing punches where they belong.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top