News   Nov 22, 2024
National Housing Day: City of Toronto and Riverdale Co-op Open Affordable Homes
 782     1 
News   Nov 22, 2024
Bauhaus Condos Rising in Toronto's Old Town
 1.4K     5 
News   Nov 22, 2024
49-Storey Waterfront Tower Proposed at Spadina and Queens Quay
 3.5K     8 

Zoning Reform Ideas

It's fine to want SFHs, but to expect them to be affordable in the centre of a big city is a pipe dream. SFHs should be an option for those willing to pay a premium for that space, or live further out. It is also possible to build much denser and less auto-oriented SFH neighbourhoods. And not just by shrinking lot sizes.
 
Add the U.S. City of Minnapolis to the list of places to get there first..........

They have just voted to abolish parking minimums.

www.startribune.com

Minneapolis City Council unanimously eliminates parking requirements

Council President Lisa Bender said that the change aligns with the city's climate and greenhouse gas emission goals outlined in the Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
www.startribune.com www.startribune.com
 
mjl08 said:
Playing devil's advocate here: How do urbanists reconcile with studies that show that over 80% of Canadians would prefer to live in a single family household? Are "family-size" (1,000 sf) condos really going to appeal to growing families?

https://mustelgroup.com/wp-content/...stel_Sothebys-International-Realty-Canada.pdf (page 9)
Click to expand...

How many 1,000 sf condos are even being built right now? I actually think 1,000 sf+ condos really are a good alternative to sfhs and in many ways could be an essential part of the future, but am disappointed that they are not being built. I do think this will change as expectations of housing consumers change and living in an apartment as a family unit is increasingly normalized, at least in the GTA.

Northern Light said:
Important to note............80% of Canadians do not live in the City of Toronto.

The desires of a typical family in Halifax or Saskatoon or even Edmonton aren't overly relevant to Toronto; where more than 50% of residents already live in multi-residential housing.

To be clear some people want, or even arguably need single family home living.

I frankly see no reason that can't continue to be part of the mix; its simply not going to be a material growth segment inside the City proper and less of one than it has been in the past in the outlying burbs.

The 1,000ft2 condo/apartment is going to have to play a larger role.

It may need to evolve further (in size or size/form of terrace/balcony) but it will be the only substantial growth segment in housing in Toronto.
Click to expand...

As is frequently the case, I think @Northern Light has hit the nail on the head.

Toronto is in a different situation than much of the country. I think we also should be mindful that a survey conducted by Sotheby's is likely to be skewed towards luxury SFHs, their target market.

allengeorge said:
Also, I feel most people have not experienced anything other than the extremes of SFH or condos. I've had the good fortune of living in triplexes in highly walkable neighbourhoods, lowrise in similar neighbourhoods - as well as both SFH and apartment buildings. There are advantages - and disadvantages - to all.
Click to expand...

I have also had the good fortune to live in this type of housing, most recently in the Annex in Victorian houses that were converted to apartments, but prior to that, in older low rise apartment housing stock in both Ottawa and Kingston. I think this sort of missing middle housing, while a buzzword in some circles, remains largely overlooked, and an important part of the ideal future housing mix.
 
I couldn't make up my mind where to stick this.........

On my walk of a week ago.......as I walking south along Logan from Danforth, I passed this quaint little retail just south of Withrow Park.

I think it adds some really nice character to the area, and probably some convenience too.

I'm sticking this in the Zoning reform section to reflect the fact these uses would not generally be permitted today, in either new-build subdivisions or in existing built-up SFH areas.

I think that's perverse planning.

1621882069887.png


Opposite corner:

1621882128579.png
 
Last edited:
Ottawan said:
How many 1,000 sf condos are even being built right now? I actually think 1,000 sf+ condos really are a good alternative to sfhs and in many ways could be an essential part of the future, but am disappointed that they are not being built. I do think this will change as expectations of housing consumers change and living in an apartment as a family unit is increasingly normalized, at least in the GTA.
Click to expand...
I don't think it really is a matter of consumer preferences.

There are regulatory reasons why 1,000 sf+ condos don't get built. It is primarily a matter that they don't sell, at least not quickly anyway.

Developers need to typically reach 80% sales on their projects in order to receive construction loans from their lenders to build a project. Time costs money (especially in this current environment where costs of labour and materials increases substantially quicker than housing prices let alone inflation), and developers can't really afford to be waiting around in sales for 2-3 years for their inventory of 1,000 sf+ units to sale. In fact, they frequently don't even bother and instead list the completed 3-bedrooms on MLS after a condo registers, relying on the rest of the building's sales to access their financing.

I'm skeptical of City Planning's approach to try to regulate the industry to build more 3-bedroom units in TOCore and other planning mechanisms. First, it doesn't change the fact that lenders demand a project to reach their sale quota, so it places an onus on developers to convert their livable 2-bedroom inventory to investor-oriented 1-bedrooms so that they can sell quicker to access their financing (and I think this does more harm than good to the overall housing stock). Second, it is very easy for a developer to just decide not to develop if the costs placed by City Planning are too high, and profits become marginal. It is cheap to land bank, and there are no shortage of other jurisdictions in the 905/Canada with more attractive development environments.

With the current housing crisis, such policy decisions are troublesome.
 
Toronto is starting consultations on parking requirements:

www.toronto.ca

Review of Parking Requirements for New Development

Requirements for automobile and bike parking in newly erected or enlarged buildings are identified in the city-wide Zoning By-law 569-2013. On January 19, 2021, Planning and Housing Committee (PH20.4) asked staff to review these requirements to better align them with the objectives of the City’s...
www.toronto.ca www.toronto.ca

I'm not particularly hopeful for significant change (Toronto has always been incrementalist), but at least people who are concerned can register and speak up starting June 1.

Related tweets:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1397259867996499973

https://twitter.com/x/status/1397247611367788550
 
Undead said:
Opinion piece from today's Star: https://www.thestar.com/opinion/con...ble-housing-improving-thousands-of-lives.html

My concern is that IZ will further drive up market unit prices. I think it makes more sense to first significantly increase supply by upzoning the yellowbelt. That way, there will be enough new GFA to avoid losing market units when IZ is applied to the new developments.
Click to expand...
Agreed. IZ is the wrong solution. It's making the other residents pay for the IZ, which in turn makes housing unaffordable. There is a cost.

Zoning is the correct answer. A blanket upzone to 3 stories everywhere and 5 stories on avenues with having one type of zoning for homes (homes or rental) would do a lot more for affordability. A minimum of 3 stories on avenues would also help. Those stand alone Shoppers would be forced to have two floors on top.
 
TorPronto said:
Agreed. IZ is the wrong solution. It's making the other residents pay for the IZ, which in turn makes housing unaffordable. There is a cost.
Click to expand...
I’m cynical, but it’s a way to pretend that you’re doing something without actually doing anything. Specifically, I would like to know if TO Planning actually contacted people in the industry and figured out “Hey - with midrise guidelines, heritage requirements, max heights and IZ, would you be able to densify in PMTSAs along the Bloor Danforth line?”

Dollars to doughnuts the math doesn’t work out, which would suit planning and Councillors just fine.
 
Undead said:
Opinion piece from today's Star: https://www.thestar.com/opinion/con...ble-housing-improving-thousands-of-lives.html

My concern is that IZ will further drive up market unit prices. I think it makes more sense to first significantly increase supply by upzoning the yellowbelt. That way, there will be enough new GFA to avoid losing market units when IZ is applied to the new developments.
Click to expand...

If we're really concerned about market unit prices, why not remove zoning restrictions in general (with some caveats around health, safety, the environment, and heritage)? Impose mandatory affordable housing requirements and let the market sort out the density? It really seems like we need a massive supply side solution to the housing crisis.
 
JohnnyRaylander said:
If we're really concerned about market unit prices, why not remove zoning restrictions in general (with some caveats around health, safety, the environment, and heritage)? Impose mandatory affordable housing requirements and let the market sort out the density? It really seems like we need a massive supply side solution to the housing crisis.
Click to expand...
Yes, I mentioned that...
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top