allengeorge
Senior Member
Wow - great find! That does seem pretty comprehensive. I am curious if it will all pan out: the Mayor is pretty performative, and this file needs action, not just nice-sounding words.
|
|
|
Zoning Reform Ideas
- Thread starter A Torontonian Now
- Start date
allengeorge
Senior Member
If I’m reading this right (and I skimmed it), this includes…provisions for Rooming Houses as of March 2023? I sense a fight looming.
Not to mention, increasing density across the city (the population drop in wards was talked about), coordinating with post-secondary institutions around student housing, including transition zones between main streets and neighborhoods, increasing density on big developments (the Portlands and Waterfront was called out)…
If this actually comes to pass and sticks, it’s be HUGE.
Not to mention, increasing density across the city (the population drop in wards was talked about), coordinating with post-secondary institutions around student housing, including transition zones between main streets and neighborhoods, increasing density on big developments (the Portlands and Waterfront was called out)…
If this actually comes to pass and sticks, it’s be HUGE.
westtoeast
Active Member
The fight with council would largely be irrelevant with the new strong mayor powers (no coincidence between the timing of the two here!). In principle I like a lot of what I see in here, but as you mentioned...who knows where this actually goes.
Northern Light
Superstar
I'm reading here as I type.
So first bit, @allengeorge while you are correct that the report recommends adopting the City-Wide legalization of rooming houses ('multi-tenant housing'); the effective date is actually March 31, 2024.
****
As to the rest, there are certainly many promising components mentioned.........but just so we're clear, except for the Rooming House by-law, nothing else is actually up for approval.
The rest is structured as a Report Request, with that Report due in March '23.
That report is to include details on all the various components, and a timeline for implementation through 2026.
Which means, in all likelihood, there won't be any new by-laws in March either, but rather a series of dates when by-laws/other changes will be brought forward, each of which will have to go through the Council approval process.
****
On the Rooming House by-law, it will pass Council by a majority already, the votes have been counted, I think its slim but its a 1 or 2 vote majority.
****
For everyone else who may not want to click-through or get lost in the weeds, I will copy/paste here the items that are to be in the new Action Plan Report.
Comments: While there is some good stuff above, and I suspect some will come forward (a portion was already in progress inside City Planning); the devil will be in the details.
- I think multi-plex and purpose-built rental permissions are a given (will be proposed and pass) within the 'Neighbourhood' zoning. But the details on permitted heights, densities, setbacks etc will determined a good deal in terms of what's viable economically, and practically; as well as politically.
- I think we'll see upzoning on major roads, the question again is degree, (is it 4s as-of-right, or 6s? etc.) and do we see 'mixed use' across the board? Viability, especially at lower-scales will be, in part, about avoiding the need to do ZBA.
- After that, I think this gets more murky in that a good deal of it is strategy' this and that'. 'Housing Now' is a strategy ++ ; on the other hand, its delivery-rate has been abysmal.
- I would call the above a basis for cautious optimism.
Last edited:
allengeorge
Senior Member
@Northern Light - thank you for the breakdown.
Yeah - I realized last night after a reread that this was only asking for a report and timelines. A report. Ugh. I think Tory talks a good game, but based on his track record I'm truly skeptical about how much will be achieved. I’m also curious how much TO Planning will really do to knock down barriers in terms of building envelopes, setbacks etc.
I’m in “wait and see”, with a lean towards “this is all performative, and not much will be done”. Yes - I’m cynical about housing in Toronto.
Yeah - I realized last night after a reread that this was only asking for a report and timelines. A report. Ugh. I think Tory talks a good game, but based on his track record I'm truly skeptical about how much will be achieved. I’m also curious how much TO Planning will really do to knock down barriers in terms of building envelopes, setbacks etc.
I’m in “wait and see”, with a lean towards “this is all performative, and not much will be done”. Yes - I’m cynical about housing in Toronto.
Northern Light
Superstar
Go read this post, starting a new thread about a development in south-west Etobicoke.
There's a bit towards the end that I think will make you smile a bit:
3807 Lakeshore Blvd W (3807 Lakeshore Holdings, 11s, Smart Density)
This new Application to the AIC comes from the distant wilds of the south-west end, an area some UT'ers refer to as @Amare - land It proposes to redevelop 3 modest 2-storey commercial storefront buildings on Lakeshore Blvd West into an 11-storey building. The addresses involved at 3807-3815...
yrt+viva=1system
Senior Member
Random question regarding the Danforth. Is there any explanation as to why the Danforth hasn’t taken off with the condo building craze? One would expect it to be extremely attractive due to the subway but so far it seems to be left in time to being semi-moribund at certain parts.
I did come across a partial explanation that the Danforth has been for decades restricted from higher density by the City. But is this the only reason? https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6640050
I did come across a partial explanation that the Danforth has been for decades restricted from higher density by the City. But is this the only reason? https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6640050
Northern Light
Superstar
No, this is not the only reason.
There are a series of things at play, both market-oriented (not particularly about the City; and others than are City Planning driven.)
That said, before we talk about the future, lets note that Danforth, particularly further east has seen, is seeing and will see a fair bit of new density.
A few years ago a 9-storey condo was completed at Danforth/Woodbine....
Carmelina Condos | 38.1m | 12s | Tre Memovia | TACT Architecture
New application for Rezoning file with the City. OPA / Rezoning 09 160985 STE 32 OZ 2055 DANFORTH AVE Aug 21, 2009 --- --- Ward-32 South-District --- --- --- --- Rezoning application to permit the development of the vacant parcel...
another 2 towers are already proposed at that intersection by Choice Properties (principally, the Valumart site)
985 Woodbine | 51.5m | 14s | Choice Properties | Turner Fleischer
http://app.toronto.ca/DevelopmentApplications/associatedApplicationsList.do?action=init&folderRsn=4533699&isCofASearch=false&isTlabSearch=false 985 WOODBINE AVE Ward 19 - Tor & E.York District Official Plan and Zoning By-Law Amendments to permit the redevelopment of the site for a 15¬storey...
A midrise condo is already complete at Danforth/Greenwood.
Platform Condos | 31.09m | 9s | Sierra | Kirkor Architects
http://fortressrealdevelopments.com/projects/the-greenwood/ Upcoming 9-storey development with 112 units for the SW corner of the Danforth and Greenwood. Good intensification project, the site is currently a Beer Store and parking lot.
Another is proposed just to the west:
1111 Danforth Avenue | 32.3m | 12s | Core Development | Studio JCI
It seems a condo is inbound for the former St Catherine of Siena Catholic church and the former Trull funeral home, on the south side of Danforth east of Greenwood. Studio JCI for Core Developments.
A 27-storey effort is under construction at Main/Danforth.....
Linx Condominiums | 88.9m | 27s | Tribute | Turner Fleischer
286 MAIN ST Ward 32 - Tor & E.York District ►View All Properties Site Plan Approval to facilitate the development of a 30-storey mixed use building, with retail at the ground floor, a floor of office space and 301 residential units above. The existing public laneway is proposed to be widened...
There's a midrise from just a few years ago mid-way btw Main and Woodbine:
Canvas Condominium | 28.7m | 8s | Marlin Spring | Graziani + Corazza
http://app.toronto.ca/DevelopmentApplications/associatedApplicationsList.do?action=init&folderRsn=3848482&isCofASearch=false The application proposes a new 8-storey mixed use building having a gross floor area of 12,568 square metres with 166 residential units (of which 14 will be rental...
and another hirise is imminent on Dawes, south of Danforth.
The Dawes | 126.48m | 38s | Marlin Spring | Arcadis
� Zoning By-Law Amendment to permit two residential towers including 26-storeys (84.0 metres excluding mechanical penthouse) and 33-storeys (104.54 metres excluding mechanical penthouse) atop a shared 7 storey mixed-use podium (25.7 metres) containing residential...
****
That said, certainly much of the activity is recent, and its almost entirely absent much west of Greenwood.
So, what's been at play? (not exhaustive)
First, from the City-end, the zoning isn't favourable, and the ability to easily build height is impaired in a few different ways by the City, including neighbourhood zoning that's relatively tight to Danforth,
shadowing restrictions on parks (there are many over the subway tunnel north of Danforth), and the midrise guidlines iin place to this point have required an angular plane that is very difficult to achieve without a reasonably deep lot; which many lots on Danforth are not.
There's also the matter of that City property over the subway tunnels north of Danforth which limits assemblies on that side of the street from going much deeper than the Danforth lots themselves.
From a market perspective:
- Many individually owned, small parcels of land, often not that deep, impair easy assembly, its certainly still possible, and indeed has been done in some of the cases I noted above. However, doing so, at a price point that makes economic sense isn't that easy.
Let me afford an example. This is a fairly typical section of Danforth, just west of Coxwell, north side:
The red line is showing the lot depth, which is 31M. One can do tall buildings on smaller sites; but in general, in Toronto, the economics have generally favoured sites with ~40M of depth or greater.
You also typically need a footprint of 12,000ft2 or so (a bit bigger would be preferred) for ease of building.
One reason for greater lot depth, is considering the shadow impacts on the homes/yards immediately across the laneway, even if you waive angular plane rules, you're going to run into a wall of opposition if you put up an 8s, never mind 28s street wall up against that laneway and almost entirely shade every back yard on the street for the majority of the day.
Example:
The above would work out to just under 15,000ft2, but would require assembly of six properties.
- Now suppose you want to build on the site above, but you have to contend with step-backs from Danforth, separation distances from the neighbours, and an angular plane at the rear, with tiered setback.
What you get is that you build something like a 500m2 floor plate, maybe a bit more, maybe not, which isn't really very viable. (well it absolutely could be, but again, given the conditions at play and risk/reward....)
-Until recently, few developers would have considered the Danforth as worth the effort to even try a tall building, assuming you could assemble a viable parcel. The incentive on say Yonge has been that the market conditions were there to support 30s++ at prices that would justify the investment and the risk.
****
In terms of the future new MTSA zoning regulations that will displace the neighbourhood rules in some respects, and unilaterally upzone Danforth will make many builds easier and lower risk.
Avenue Studies already loosened things a bit; and the City is set to ease up on its angular plane/midrise rules as early as the middle of 2023. As these obstacles clear, you will see many more proposals coming forward.
Assemblies are already underway in anticipation of the changes.
Last edited:
DirectionNorth
Active Member
This is definitely, 100%, totally, certainly not nabbed from Skyscraper Page.
Where are you on the spectrum?
Where are you on the spectrum?
Undead
Senior Member
Checked out, definitely that one. On a good day, leaning more bottom right.
Northern Light
Superstar
I'll put this here, though I'm not sure if I would consider it zoning reform per se:
Mississauga Councillor pushing for minimum numbers of 2bdrm+ units and minimum ft2 for 2 and 3 bdrm units in new developments.
He also offers an alternative variation of capping smaller unit numbers.
Mississauga Councillor pushing for minimum numbers of 2bdrm+ units and minimum ft2 for 2 and 3 bdrm units in new developments.
He also offers an alternative variation of capping smaller unit numbers.
TRONto
Active Member
It is unfortunate that the author and the counselor interviewed don't know that this type of regulation exists in Toronto.
Northern Light
Superstar
It true, Toronto does have a minimum 3 bedroom unit quota........
However, we don't have minimum unit sizes so far I'm aware.
We also have to straighten out in any minimum unit size bylaw the matter of 'functional' space, as oppose to hallways that take up 25%+ of a unit.
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
The one, immediate, bold'ish thing in the Mayor's housing package, was the Rooming House legalization move.
That has been watered down, clearly w/the Mayor's blessing and deputy Mayor McKelvie's motions, which passed.
Her motions limit the size of any rooming house in areas where they are now illegal (Etobicoke, North York, and Scarborough) to a maximum of six units; additionally, there were to be no parking minimums
But the minimum will now be .34 spaces per unit.
The means only units with 2 on-site parking spaces will qualify; it also effectively creates a second line of obstruction against going over six units, as the parking standard would have to amended in tandem, otherwise
a home would have to have greater than 2 on site parking spaces.
Motions:
I will detail the balance of any motions passed in a separate post later, if no one beats me to it!
That has been watered down, clearly w/the Mayor's blessing and deputy Mayor McKelvie's motions, which passed.
Her motions limit the size of any rooming house in areas where they are now illegal (Etobicoke, North York, and Scarborough) to a maximum of six units; additionally, there were to be no parking minimums
But the minimum will now be .34 spaces per unit.
The means only units with 2 on-site parking spaces will qualify; it also effectively creates a second line of obstruction against going over six units, as the parking standard would have to amended in tandem, otherwise
a home would have to have greater than 2 on site parking spaces.
Motions:
I will detail the balance of any motions passed in a separate post later, if no one beats me to it!
allengeorge
Senior Member
I read the tweets describing the entire debacle. It’s so upsetting how Toronto manages to water down initiatives time and time again. This one is especially frustrating given that there is data showing that people on lower incomes tend to have fewer cars on a per-capita basis. It’s clearly a way to limit the viability of rooming houses everywhere but the old city. Well - at least something is better than nothing.
Also, as much as I appreciate the motion calling for a report, it’s just a report. I want to see actual implementation, so…I guess I’ve to wait till March of next year and the year after.
Also, as much as I appreciate the motion calling for a report, it’s just a report. I want to see actual implementation, so…I guess I’ve to wait till March of next year and the year after.
Last edited: