News   Apr 24, 2024
Aspen Ridge Freehold Townhomes at Crosstown in Master-Planned Community
 108     0 
News   Apr 24, 2024
News Roundup for April 24, 2024
 268     0 
News   Apr 24, 2024
That's Some Arm
 593     0 

Zoning Reform Ideas

Undead said:
Yes, I mentioned that...
Click to expand...

You suggested upzoning the yellowbelt. I think that's quite different than a citywide move away from overzoning. Upzoning specific areas still being prescriptive about density rather than letting the markets create supply where people most want it. To be clear, my question wasn't meant to be rhetorical.
 
JohnnyRaylander said:
You suggested upzoning the yellowbelt. I think that's quite different than a citywide move away from overzoning. Upzoning specific areas still being prescriptive about density rather than letting the markets create supply where people most want it. To be clear, my question wasn't meant to be rhetorical.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I would move away entirely from zoning because a 50 floor tower beside a detached house is not good planning either, even if that's what the market demands.
 
Undead said:
I'm not sure I would move away entirely from zoning because a 50 floor tower beside a detached house is not good planning either, even if that's what the market demands.
Click to expand...

If there's actual demand in the area to fill up a 50 floor tower, then I think the detached home is the problem and not the other way around. I know it sucks for the family living there but it's also far better for the many more people who now get more affordable housing.
 
A story at Curbed is about how to do gentle intensification in Los Angeles.........to create greater density with less objection.

While the details would vary in Toronto; which is already much denser than L.A. of course.............the principles at play are similar.

How to create more housing, at lower cost, meeting a pressing need; while not running into furious opposition in established neighbourhoods.


From the above article:

1622135611134.png


The idea shown above: Single- and two-story homes, joined in pairs by a prefabricated common core that contains the plumbing, cluster around a landscaped court.

****

1622135679845.png


Idea above: 4-plex

****

1622135775810.png


This idea is put forth this way: " The street-facing side of each block remains largely unchanged, a row of ordinary homes. At the back, a row of two-story duplexes faces the mid-block alley."

*****

Interesting read for anyone into to these sorts of issues.
 
What I've learned so far:
  • Council report coming in November. Fall consultation in September.
  • The analysis will be done across the city. Looks like the current plan is to reduce parking minimums across the city, but remove it in MTSAs. (Streetcar/dedicated bus routes do not count as MTSAs BTW)
EDIT: I'm confused by some of the later answers to questions around which planned areas the study covers. It sounds like more? Will wait for the presentation and videos to come out..
 
Last edited:
allengeorge said:
What I've learned so far:
  • Council report coming in November. Fall consultation in September.
  • The analysis will be done across the city. Looks like the current plan is to reduce parking minimums across the city, but remove it in MTSAs. (Streetcar/dedicated bus routes do not count as MTSAs BTW)
EDIT: I'm confused by some of the later answers to questions around which planned areas the study covers. It sounds like more? Will wait for the presentation and videos to come out..
Click to expand...

Very unusual structure in that none of the meeting materials appear to be online.

No survey as such.
 
renx.ca

11 years later: Have Toronto’s mid-rise guidelines stood the test of time?

It’s been just over a decade (May 2010) since the City of Toronto first published its design guidelines for mid-rise buildings on Avenues (an official term for some of the city’s main streets). Therefore, it seemed like the right time
renx.ca renx.ca

I thought this was interesting, given:

1. A lot of developers/private-sector planners I follow on Twitter claim that the midrise standards have not lived up to their billing: they are too expensive, as well as hard to approve and build.
2. TOPlanning underestimated Toronto’s population significantly during the design of these standards. For those not following, the latest OP rework estimates that Toronto will have a population of 3.7M by 2051. I understand that Canada has a lot of challenges, from a newly-open US immigration policy, to the high cost of housing and childcare, to the tighter economic pool - but that seems low.
 
allengeorge said:
renx.ca

11 years later: Have Toronto’s mid-rise guidelines stood the test of time?

It’s been just over a decade (May 2010) since the City of Toronto first published its design guidelines for mid-rise buildings on Avenues (an official term for some of the city’s main streets). Therefore, it seemed like the right time
renx.ca renx.ca

I thought this was interesting, given:

1. A lot of developers/private-sector planners I follow on Twitter claim that the midrise standards have not lived up to their billing: they are too expensive, as well as hard to approve and build.
2. TOPlanning underestimated Toronto’s population significantly during the design of these standards. For those not following, the latest OP rework estimates that Toronto will have a population of 3.7M by 2051. I understand that Canada has a lot of challenges, from a newly-open US immigration policy, to the high cost of housing and childcare, to the tighter economic pool - but that seems low.
Click to expand...

(Barring a serious change in course in immigration policy or some other large not currently foreseen change)

I would peg 4M in a conservative range scenario by 2051
I would peg 4.2-4.5M as a mid-range scenario.
I would get 4.6-4.8M as the high range scenario.

Those numbers aren't science per se, but they aren't pulled out of thin air.

All other things being equal, Canada's immigration levels will likely rise in future years in absolute numbers, even if they decline as a percentage of the population at some point.
Toronto's share of immigration is unlikely to change.
If one looks at recent peak levels, we're seeing immigration to Toronto in the range 70,000-80,000 per year.

So let's cut that way back to 35,000 per year (less than 1/2 current levels). That would bring us to ~4.1M
At 3/4 of current levels, or about 56,000 per year we end up at 4.7M

I don't think its reasonable to assume we would grow at our peak number ever year............

But just to consider it.
77,000 x 30 = 2, 310,000 which would drive Toronto's population to 5.3M

In light of the above, I think my estimates are fair.

Any which way you cut it, I find it hard to imagine the City's scenario. However, that is based on the numbers the province......made up.
 
^ And consider that almost all of that growth is concentrated in very small slice of Toronto's area, with the yellowbelt actually hollowing out in terms of population. Something will have to give.
 
^I know I'm probably in the minority on this issue at least on this forum. But those predictions strongly suggest to me that we need to reconsider continued population growth given our slow pace of infrastructure development.
 
Undead said:
^I know I'm probably in the minority on this issue at least on this forum. But those predictions strongly suggest to me that we need to reconsider continued population growth given our slow pace of infrastructure development.
Click to expand...

We certainly need to match the infrastructure to the growth.

We have two problems:

1) We were behind in many infrastructure investments before the current level of growth.

2) For the last several years at least, and seemingly on a go-forward basis, there is a tendency to willfully under estimate growth, and then plan for less infrastructure accordingly.

We can address this by properly estimating population growth and needed infrastructure and investing accordingly..............by cutting population growth, or a mix of both.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top