Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

[Rainforest]

Of course, if the housing market crashes after they refuse to sell, and then they expropriate, it'll be "market value" at the time.

It is unlikely that areas around the DRL route will see a major drop in house prices, even if the general market crashes. During the U.S. 2008 crash, average prices in New York dropped by 17% only. Sure Toronto isn't New York, but the point is that in high-demand areas, any price correction will be limited.

 

[Palma]

Other way around. Carlaw above. Pape under. Each photo looking north from north of Queen.

does it not make sense to use carlaw. Pape looks like a small residential street

 

[Palma]

I guess the problem is that developers can choose which parsel of land to assemble. If one homeowner would not cell at any price, they can buy another lot and still build their highrise, as long as the zoning rules allow that.

For a subway station, there is much less flexibility because it has to be on the route, straight, horizontal, have space for exits and meet a few more additional requirements.

thats the problem when you have houses on a major street. At some point, traffic increases, and the street re-develops. Sheppard between Dufferin and bathurst, once homes and some still there but not for much longer. The same on sections of Bayview, St Clair. Lots of major streets still have houses. keele St from south of the 401, Finch Ave, Lawrence Ave, etc. I guess at once point in time, sleepy neighbourhoods before advent of the car. But when those lanes are opened up and you now live on a street with 2 lanes in each direction, its only a matter of time before the houses are bought and turned into condos or commercial buildings

 

[WislaHD]

It is unlikely that areas around the DRL route will see a major drop in house prices, even if the general market crashes. During the U.S. 2008 crash, average prices in New York dropped by 17% only. Sure Toronto isn't New York, but the point is that in high-demand areas, any price correction will be limited.

More to the point, I think our zoning bylaws pretty much prevent a serious price correction from taking place in our inner city neighbourhoods.

 

[TransitBart]

Expropriation. Everyone here seems to know what that means.

Note 1: Why the hell is everyone talking about it? I attended two of the recent DRL town halls and the Pape Av residents were going on and on about it. No one has suggested that this would be necessary.

Note 2: If anyone has owned property in cottage country, then you may have come across markers on your land. As it turns out, you bought the surface of the land. Not the ground water and not the mineral rights underneath. It's common for property owners to have mines dug and things extracted from under their land. Why the hell hasn't anyone pointed this out to a resident of Pape Av?

Note 3: Given 1 and 2, why hasn't anyone on the planning team taken the time to communicated in a clear and careful manner what might be necessary?

Summary - instead of communicating in a way to minimize concern and downright fear, the communication is leaving plenty open to interpretation which is not helping.

 

[MisterF]

More to the point, I think our zoning bylaws pretty much prevent a serious price correction from taking place in our inner city neighbourhoods.

Again there's a fundamental misunderstanding on this forum of what a zoning by-law does. The zoning by-law is simply an implementation tool of the Official Plan and is too easily amended to have any kind of significant impact on land values. Zoning is amended routinely as part of the development process as long as the amendment conforms to the OP.

 

[WislaHD]

Again there's a fundamental misunderstanding on this forum of what a zoning by-law does. The zoning by-law is simply an implementation tool of the Official Plan and is too easily amended to have any kind of significant impact on land values. Zoning is amended routinely as part of the development process as long as the amendment conforms to the OP.

Zoning laws limits housing stock supply, artificially preventing the market from reaching equilibrium. If we cannot increase the housing stock to meet the demand of the market, then the property value of the existing stock increases.

There are a lot of people who would like to live in Toronto, and only so many houses in the Annex, Rosedale, Forest Hill, Little Italy, Parkdale, Davisville, Riverdale, etc. This will remain true regardless of a Canada-wide housing market correction. Now, those houses in Courtice, Maple and Brampton with their 45+ minute commutes on the other hand...

 

[MisterF]

Zoning laws limits housing stock supply, artificially preventing the market from reaching equilibrium. If we cannot increase the housing stock to meet the demand of the market, then the property value of the existing stock increases.

There are a lot of people who would like to live in Toronto, and only so many houses in the Annex, Rosedale, Forest Hill, Little Italy, Parkdale, Davisville, Riverdale, etc. This will remain true regardless of a Canada-wide housing market correction. Now, those houses in Courtice, Maple and Brampton with their 45+ minute commutes on the other hand...

No, zoning doesn't do any of that. As I said, it implements the Official Plan. If the OP calls for intensification, the zoning can be easily changed to accommodate a development proposal. The policies that protect stable neighbourhoods come from the OP, not the zoning.

 

[W. K. Lis]

I see very few new duplexes, triplexes, or six-plexes being built. In Toronto, it seems that the cut off point was by the 1960's. After the 1960's, it was either single-family houses or high-rises. I blame zoning for that.

 

[Canadian Chocho]

I see very few new duplexes, triplexes, or six-plexes being built. In Toronto, it seems that the cut off point was by the 1960's. After the 1960's, it was either single-family houses or high-rises. I blame zoning for that.

Passing through Trois-Rivieres, Quebec yesterday I noticed quite a few new low-rise apartment buildings. There are of course several old ones, they are pretty common in Quebec, but it was interesting seeing new ones.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@46.3544...4!1sHdGVOGjgA0h5BEb8CdBlYw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

[pstogios]

I see very few new duplexes, triplexes, or six-plexes being built. In Toronto, it seems that the cut off point was by the 1960's. After the 1960's, it was either single-family houses or high-rises. I blame zoning for that.

Or maybe the free market showed that people hate those type of residences.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Yet people do rent renovated basement apartments in otherwise single-family houses, which what a duplex is. Just a step away from a full apartment on three floors, which is what a triplex is.

 

[aquateam]

I think of the stations being built the only ones that seem to fit the surrounding areas well are downsview, York U and Vaugh. The others should be a much smaller scale to fit in with the area around them But either way they are better than most of the downtown stations that mainly only exist under ground except for Dundas which has a few levels thath interconnect with the north end of the eaton Centre.

Really, if we are going on the utilitarian end of the subway construction scale, there shouldn't be any surface structures except maybe bus bays in some cases. Why bother with the expense of construction and wasted real estate for glorified entrances? Instead the surface rights should be sold to developers and the stations should be built as part of another building, like how most of the downtown stations are incorporated into the basements of office towers. That way the developer pays the price of station construction, commuters get retail at the station, and there are trip generators (jobs/residents) built into the station itself.

Passing through Trois-Rivieres, Quebec yesterday I noticed quite a few new low-rise apartment buildings. There are of course several old ones, they are pretty common in Quebec, but it was interesting seeing new ones.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@46.3544...4!1sHdGVOGjgA0h5BEb8CdBlYw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Those are really popular in Quebec, duplexes/triplexes/apartments everywhere. They're called the "missing middle" housing type in Ontario, since they are the cheapest to build per resident housed but are rarely built in Toronto.

Or maybe the free market showed that people hate those type of residences.

It's a bit of a stretch to blame the free market for a certain class of housing not being built when that class of housing is illegal in the vast majority of Toronto.

Personally, I dislike duplexes/triplexes because I don't like hearing my neighbours or having to worry about them hearing me. Duplexes/triplexes have wooden frame construction and the ones I've seen have been creaky, whereas high rises are more insulated from noise with their concrete construction.

But there are other market distortions with our heavily regulated housing supply. Because of all the overhead, permits, and process required in getting a derogation from our [deliberately underzoned] zoning bylaws, there is a large amount of risk and upfront cost associated with densifying, which basically guarantees that only large projects / high rises get built. That or greenfield development.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Really, if we are going on the utilitarian end of the subway construction scale, there shouldn't be any surface structures except maybe bus bays in some cases. Why bother with the expense of construction and wasted real estate for glorified entrances? Instead the surface rights should be sold to developers and the stations should be built as part of another building, like how most of the downtown stations are incorporated into the basements of office towers. That way the developer pays the price of station construction, commuters get retail at the station, and there are trip generators (jobs/residents) built into the station itself.

No kidding - ECLRT is pretty bad in this regard as well, especially considering the amount of traffic expected. Thankfully I don't think it will be that much of a problem in the case of DRL (and oddly enough, this type of pavilion is useful where it couldn't be built).

AoD

 

[44 North]

Those are really popular in Quebec, duplexes/triplexes/apartments everywhere. They're called the "missing middle" housing type in Ontario, since they are the cheapest to build per resident housed but are rarely built in Toronto.

One of the interesting things about Quebec. Even in rural towns, you still have small duplexes/triplexes as you'd see in urban areas like Montreal. Very European. Other than maybe assisted living homes, it's not very often that we see this type of higher density in rural Ontario.