News   May 06, 2024
 305     0 
News   May 06, 2024
 923     1 
News   May 03, 2024
 1.4K     1 

Zoning Reform Ideas

Buildings under 20 storeys are being built, so presumably they are feasible for some developers in some locations. But I've no idea how the economics work across the city. There are two things that seriously impact housing cost that the city could control:
  1. Fees (both city and province). This apparently can account for as much as 25% to the cost of a unit.
  2. Time from project conception to project start (i.e. time you're stuck waiting for the city to actually evaluate and approve your project)
Good question tho.

Good answer!

I can add a bit more to it.

First, lets look at the cost of constructing a condo.

This website provides a good ballpark idea.

Note that on straight construction costs, the build per ft2 ranges, but the ranges don't change much between a small build, and a tower till you get over ~39 floors at which point costs accelerate.


Second, lets consider the cost of land acquisition is a huge factor, but not all land in Toronto is priced the same. Land outside the core can still be quite pricey, but not nearly as much as downtown.

That lower land cost means you can amortize your land cost over fewer units.

Third, lets consider that certain construction costs aren't as straight-forward as they seem. Larger developments often trigger higher demands from government (park dedication, amenity spaces etc); but also
many buildings are marketed on that very basis; which may not be the case in a lower-cost or less desirable neighbourhood.

Cutting back on those costs allows a smaller building to work.

Elevators and Tall cranes are both big costs. ( large elevator cores take up lots of room in large building, meaning less sell-able/rentable space per floor)

Buildings that don't require a tower crane, or can be built with a single bank of 2 elevators can be done more cheaply.

Fourth, as per @allengeorge 's observations, sites that require rezoning can delay construction by 1-3 years depending on scale and complexity. (assuming no LPAT issues which could stretch that further)

So, As-of-Right zoning can mean a much quicker move to market.

That saves on debt-financing costs (potentially a lot); but also serves to reduce other 'holding' costs from property tax to insurance etc.
 
To further the discussion on fees; take a look at this:

1610496884583.png


If you divide that cost over a small (2 unit per floor, 2 floor increase); your basically in for no less than 15k per unit in base costs, before the per m2 cost kicks in.

Here, there are 2 ways to change this.

1) Lower the base fee substantially.

2) Remove smaller projects from the need for an Official Plan Amendment with As-of-Right Zoning.

This also eliminates Section 37 costs, which only kick in when asking for additional height/density.
 

Attachments

  • 1610496713820.png
    1610496713820.png
    8.1 KB · Views: 177
Also, stuff like this happens, which torques the cost for small developments:


All of this makes small intensification projects risky, and risk is anathema to someone who isn’t a big developer. I wonder what would happen if we thought of individual landlowners as small businesses: all these problems increase the transaction cost. From an affordable housing perspective: this increases the cost of adding more units.
 
Someone posted the Houston example in this thread where individual SFH owners redeveloped their properties into semis, townhouses, fourplexes and so on. Seems like Toronto's costs/fees/regs would make this kind of redevelopment not viable for individual home owners.
 
Someone posted the Houston example in this thread where individual SFH owners redeveloped their properties into semis, townhouses, fourplexes and so on. Seems like Toronto's costs/fees/regs would make this kind of redevelopment not viable for individual home owners.

An excellent source of info on the challenges of intensification in Toronto is Sean Galbraith who is on Twitter.

This is him: https://twitter.com/PlannerSean

From his feed:

1610582783229.png


An older one.......shows that yes, you can do a 4-plex in Toronto...............but only sometimes, not that often...........

1610582902069.png


1610582927413.png


****

We have a thread on one of this projects..............

 
The Centre for Landscape Research at UofT has been experimenting with the concept of "Flux Codes" an idea that might reconcile the shortcomings of zoning codes and land use planning in dealing with climate change. I would imagine some thing like this would / could also be beneficial in areas that might be threatened by single use suburban sprawl - or in ESA and the green belt - god forbid...

I think they experimented with the idea in South Florida.

https://clr.daniels.utoronto.ca/projects/coding-flux

1610645286608.png

1610645309690.png
 
Need to do something to fix the current zoning mess, where if you are applying for variance, you are going all the way to a 40s tower. Should be a lot easier to add slightly more density than the existing built form. Something like anything that is within 50% or 100% over the FSI and height of the surrounding neighbourhood and should be as of right. That would let neighbourhoods evolve over time, without the drastic contrast of SFHs being demolished to make way for 60s towers.
I love this idea. Simple but could be effective. The only change I'd make is to say 50% to 300% or so. Even a 100% increase on a lot that held a single family detached home would only produce minimal impact.
 
Reminder: Councilor Brad Bradford of Beaches-East York is pushing for a "Missing Middle" pilot in his ward: https://www.bradbradford.ca/supporting-a-missing-middle-housing-pilot-in-beaches-east-york/

If you live in the neighbourhood consider writing to him with your views (I'd say "in support", but...honestly, just get engaged). If this can even slightly move Toronto towards infill in the Yellowbelt it would be awesome. I think the PHC will take up the item on Tuesday (tomorrow), so the deadline for comments is tonight.
 
Last edited:
Sprawl Repair Manual by Galina Tachieva

Its a big file, and download speeds are slow.

Basically, the author advocates for transect based zoning, based on urban density. Within transects a variety of built forms are allowed. Several case studies are shown at different scale on how suburban sprawl can be intensified.

Usually this means demolishing cul-de-sacs and building "places"
 
Why exactly is the system wedded to SFHs? And why are people?

Wouldn't increase in potential lead to an increase in value?

If I had the misfortune of owning a yellowbelt waste of space, I'd be all about intensifying the property.

What's the major hurdle here?

I don't understand the mentality at all.....I'm quite European and even here have lived almost my entire life in multi-unit housing except for a few years in high school and that was on a farm.
 
Last edited:
I suspect people buy SFH because they like that type of neighbourhood, and resist intensification even if it would increase their property values. People put down roots and don't want to move. Maybe a form of loss aversion.

Then there is the idea that more people and 'those people' who live in multi-family dwellings might have other social ills, such as petty crime, homelessness, disorderliness, anti-social behaviour. Beyond the other concerns about congestion, and more people competing for things like parks, etc. I think you get a lot of those things anyway. Just trying to understand why people feel this way. I find it truly bizarre when people worry about a 50s building vs a 40s building. I think an average person would be hard pressed to tell the difference, except so far as shadowing might impact them directly. So if you're getting a tall building at all, worrying about +/- 10 stories seems like a waste of time.
 
Yeah, I can see why people might buy into it, but the outer suburbs are increasingly denser than the inner suburbs, at least if you compare swathes of SFHs, so I'm not sure it can't be unlearnt or easily discouraged.

Why is the system so stuck on it though? Surely our city planners aren't SFH cultists. I know the politicos might be and I guess that's why we're stuck on stupid.

Why does good policy always have to run through a "pilot project"? Get out of here with this incrementalist approach and aversion to positive change.

Well, as with everything else, I guess it's all down to base human psychology; in this context familiarity and comfort derived therein.
 

Back
Top