Toronto 321 Davenport | 36.4m | 9s | Alterra | Giannone Petricone

Ah, that makes much more sense.

I'll just update the scores then.

Galen Weston Jr, -3 points.
Margaret Atwood, 0 points.
Alterra, 5 points.
ADRM, 6 points.
Me, 7 points (sorry ADRM).
Jennifer Keesmaat, 8 points,
Alex Bozikovic, also 8 points.
Steve Paikin, 22 points.

Well done, Steve.

42
 
ADRM said:
The part of her back and forth with Alex Bozikovic that I took special exception to was her all-too-common NIMBY talking point about how developers consistently "ignore" zoning and bylaws. Go to just about any development consultation and you're likely to hear NIMBYs whining about that point as if it has any relevance to anything.
Click to expand...
I've heard it said many times that developers interpret zoning as "what's there", not a guideline to development, which seems to be more in line with land values. Plans are taller and more dense than what is zoned, routinely, no? What percentage of development goes above zoning? Maybe the city needs to get ahead of the game somehow.
 
about 95% are above zoning. But that is because zoning is woefully out of date compared to current planning directions from the city. Something isn't right when you having zoning placing a maximum height of 8 storeys or so when the site is completely surrounded by 45 storey towers - like you see in the entertainment district. As of right zoning is very, very rarely higher than 30m, even in the middle of the financial core.
 
Alex L said:
I've heard it said many times that developers interpret zoning as "what's there", not a guideline to development, which seems to be more in line with land values. Plans are taller and more dense than what is zoned, routinely, no? What percentage of development goes above zoning? Maybe the city needs to get ahead of the game somehow.
Click to expand...

The short answer is that the city needs to undertake a significant revision of not only citywide zoning, but probably also the manner in which it approaches zoning.

The current model really only works for interest groups who are interested in preserving the horrible status quo and, unfortunately, there is no political will to undertake such an exercise. Notably, that's a sad reality that crosses ideological lines (and I say that as an unabashed progressive).

To your first point, from a developer's standpoint, the current regime also makes it exceedingly difficult to assess land values, which is an inherent inefficiency that doesn't help anyone (again, except the NIMBYs).

In all, none of it works and it's all awful and has a whole bunch of crappy offshoots too.
 
The Planning Department tried years ago to update zoning, but City Councillors stopped that from happening since they feared they'd face a backlash from voters at the next election who didn't like the new numbers. That's why we've got the system we do now.

42
 
City Council has voted to ask the OMB for Mediation on this file at the earliest possible date.

42
 
By the time all these OMB appeals get heard there could easily be a new government that would reinstate the old OMB regime.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top