Northern Light
Superstar
Things are not always as they seem.
|
|
|
Zoning Reform Ideas
- Thread starter A Torontonian Now
- Start date
Things are not always as they seem.
afransen
Senior Member
I could be sympathetic to this kind of NIMBYism if we had a land value tax.
IsaacKhouzam
New Member
I don't expect this will change anybody's mind, but I'd like to chime in with some counter examples of 4+ storey buildings that make no attempt to "fit in" to lower-rise contexts and yet do not prevent their surrounding neighbourhoods from being vibrant and livable. See the following from New York, Chicago, London, Paris, Amsterdam, and Montreal:
evandyk
Senior Member
There are plenty of examples of this in Toronto as well. The Annex has a bunch, as do places like Yonge and St. Clair.
Northern Light
Superstar
The proposal to allow a wider range of retail services in negihbourhood interiors has been largely killed by Planning and Housing:
www.thestar.com
It was Chair Gord Perks who made the motion that de-scoped interiors for the most part, in favour of only allowing the bulk of changes on 'Major Roads'.
This appears to have been done in order to get something, anything, through committee as I think there was a fear of a total loss otherwise.
Also surviving was a bit more latitude on home-based businesses in neighbourhood interiors.
Cllr. Matlow also quoted that he thinks even the revised proposal maybe D.O.A. at Council.
City hall wanted to see more small retail in the heart of its neighbourhoods. Their proposal was just deferred — again
Toronto’s Planning and Housing committee on Thursday instead green-lit proposed changes only along major streets and to rules for home-based businesses.
www.thestar.com
It was Chair Gord Perks who made the motion that de-scoped interiors for the most part, in favour of only allowing the bulk of changes on 'Major Roads'.
This appears to have been done in order to get something, anything, through committee as I think there was a fear of a total loss otherwise.
Also surviving was a bit more latitude on home-based businesses in neighbourhood interiors.
Cllr. Matlow also quoted that he thinks even the revised proposal maybe D.O.A. at Council.
christiesplits
Senior Member
That's my read on it, too, as I suspect Perks and Chow's allies know they don't have the votes on council. Even the more moderate suburban councillors like Kandavel and Ainslie came out swinging against the proposal.
Northern Light
Superstar
To me, this would be potentially sensible spot to pull what they did with sixplexes and just adopt it in Toronto/East York for now, and any suburban ward where the councillor supports it.
txlseries4
Active Member
Does anyone have a sense what the membership sizes of some of these residents associations are? They're clearly influential and ones like FoNTRA say they have 30 member RAs but for all I know that could be 30 people. My gut is skeptical that their memberships are made up of a significant number of people who live in the areas they represent, and that an investigative piece about their obsession with preserving neighbourhoods would dig up ties to Big Amber.
A clip of the deputation from the chair of the Beaconsfield Village RA was shared to the Toronto Reddit. Enough insane NIMBY stuff gets said at these deputations that make me wonder if showing people video clips would do more to engage the public and draw support for these policies.
A clip of the deputation from the chair of the Beaconsfield Village RA was shared to the Toronto Reddit. Enough insane NIMBY stuff gets said at these deputations that make me wonder if showing people video clips would do more to engage the public and draw support for these policies.
PL1
Senior Member
I saw the Badiali clip on Threads this morning. These people are unhinged! Why live where you can got to nearby restaurants and then get mad when others also choose to come to them?
evandyk
Senior Member
Because your great neighbourhood should be frozen in the state in which you bought in, to make sure that only people with $1.8M to spend on a house can live there.
christiesplits
Senior Member
This doesn't seem good amid a housing crisis. There's something really poetically nimby about it being where Jane Jacobs lived (69 Albany), all homes at most a 10 minute walk from a subway entrance.
West Annex Phase II Heritage Conservation District Study
On Tuesday October 21, Heritage Planning hosted a Community Consultation Open House for the West Annex Phase II HCD Study. For more information, please see the ‘Meetings & Events’ and the ‘Get Involved’ drop-down tabs below. The West Annex Phase II Heritage Conservation District (HCD) Study is...www.toronto.ca
"On Tuesday October 21, Heritage Planning is hosting a Community Consultation Open House for the West Annex Phase II HCD Study at the Native Canadian Centre of Toronto, 16 Spadina Rd., from 4:30 to 7 p.m. Join us to ask questions of the project team and share your feedback. This is a family friendly, drop-in event."
View attachment 689014
New @AlexBozikovic column on the West Annex HCD study:
Will heritage stop housing development in the Annex?
If a new heritage district is created, it should acknowledge the tradeoffs and explicitly define how the area will change
www.theglobeandmail.com
Excerpt:
IsaacKhouzam
New Member
Apologies if this has been posted already, but I just came across this and felt that it would be appreciated here. Anyone who is interested in the possibilities of urban change in Toronto should take a look: https://impossibletoronto.ca/
artyboy123
Senior Member
Thank for this! this was done by the folks at Gabriel Fain Architect, Studio VAARO & Brandon Donnelly!
just east of the creek
Senior Member
I was catching up on my reading and ran across the following in the Globe & Mail. I do not think it has been posted as yet to UT?
The era of the shoebox condo is over. Here’s how Canada can build livable apartments
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/inv...e-apartments-condos-rentals-rulebook-housing/
Interesting graphics, i thought well written, does not necessarily break new ground for UT readers, but nicely encapsulates the thoughts of many.
Yes, I know, paywalled, but you should pay for good journalism. And there is a deal currently for $0.49 cents per week for 24 weeks . And if i figure out how to grab the article with the graphics, i will post.
The era of the shoebox condo is over. Here’s how Canada can build livable apartments
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/inv...e-apartments-condos-rentals-rulebook-housing/
Interesting graphics, i thought well written, does not necessarily break new ground for UT readers, but nicely encapsulates the thoughts of many.
Yes, I know, paywalled, but you should pay for good journalism. And there is a deal currently for $0.49 cents per week for 24 weeks . And if i figure out how to grab the article with the graphics, i will post.
Northern Light
Superstar
I read the above article earlier........ as noted by @just east of the creek much of it covers familiar territory. And most of the info would not be new to UT members.
That said, I did like this graphic:
When I look at the above, I note that we've already addressed the parking question here in Toronto. The savings of going to a European style elevator is actually pretty small (this is per unit in a 70 unit concept), so its not nothing by any means, but in terms of impact on price or rent, by itself its quite small.
The payments terms on DCs aren't that big a deal either; though let's acknowledge that little things add up.
But what stands out to me here is the cost of amenities. Most buildings get a crummy pool that's an oversized bath tub.......a gym you would never pay a membership for, and a party room you will likely never host a party in...
I would much rather rather strip those out as requirements, allowing builders to add them if they think it will appeal to their prospective renter/owner.
At a savings of ~$30,000 per unit, its one of the more significant changes that could be made that's entirely within the purview of the City, and in theory, if passed on as savings, is what it is in terms of purchase price, and in terms of rent, its likely an easy savings of $100, maybe twice that..........because its not just the waiver of the one-time capital cost to build said space, or even the savings of not maintaining/operating it, its the additional rental income (or sales) you can generate putting that space back into more or larger units.
I would also contend that:
a) If the space went to larger units, tenants would be less likely to need a party room.
b) Its socially preferable to encourage people go outside their building and socialize with others in parks, public squares, at restos, or community centres etc.
That said, I did like this graphic:
When I look at the above, I note that we've already addressed the parking question here in Toronto. The savings of going to a European style elevator is actually pretty small (this is per unit in a 70 unit concept), so its not nothing by any means, but in terms of impact on price or rent, by itself its quite small.
The payments terms on DCs aren't that big a deal either; though let's acknowledge that little things add up.
But what stands out to me here is the cost of amenities. Most buildings get a crummy pool that's an oversized bath tub.......a gym you would never pay a membership for, and a party room you will likely never host a party in...
I would much rather rather strip those out as requirements, allowing builders to add them if they think it will appeal to their prospective renter/owner.
At a savings of ~$30,000 per unit, its one of the more significant changes that could be made that's entirely within the purview of the City, and in theory, if passed on as savings, is what it is in terms of purchase price, and in terms of rent, its likely an easy savings of $100, maybe twice that..........because its not just the waiver of the one-time capital cost to build said space, or even the savings of not maintaining/operating it, its the additional rental income (or sales) you can generate putting that space back into more or larger units.
I would also contend that:
a) If the space went to larger units, tenants would be less likely to need a party room.
b) Its socially preferable to encourage people go outside their building and socialize with others in parks, public squares, at restos, or community centres etc.