News   Jun 14, 2024
 615     1 
News   Jun 14, 2024
 639     1 
News   Jun 14, 2024
 600     0 

Zoning Reform Ideas

Wonderful! This is a great step! Let’s see what can be done with these relaxed permissions.

I do agree with NL that the amenity space requirement seems questionable.

Honestly, I thought the vote would be closer, and/or an amendment to cut the as-of-right height to 4 or 5s would creep up.

I thought it would probably pass...........

In looking at the various results, I don't think there's any question the Mayor's office whipped the vote.

I'm not unhappy w/the outcome..........

Still, interesting to see.
 
Yeah - I too thought it’d be a nail biter. 21-3 without major amendments (and even allowing 60 units!) was deeply unexpected.

I knew, if it passed, the 60 units would. The alignment of Bradford-Perks sealed the deal on that.

For me, the question was whether anything else got chipped away at ............be it height, phasing, excluded streets.

I watched who tried and failed, and I also noticed who completely wilted........... (strongly opposed, but no sign of that come the vote).

Interesting.

For now, Olivia has control.
 
I was pretty excited that it passed, when does that policy come into effect? And would anything change short term
I doubt anything would change in the short term, since interest rates are the constraining factor (not labour anymore - there are an increasing number of trades that are wanting for work). Moreover, unlike multiplexes, smaller apartment buildings will involve more design as well as take longer to approve.

I think the next thing that the city could focus on (and that’s under their control) is improving the speed of the planning process and improving coordination between different departments around getting a building through the design process.
 
I doubt anything would change in the short term, since interest rates are the constraining factor (not labour anymore - there are an increasing number of trades that are wanting for work). Moreover, unlike multiplexes, smaller apartment buildings will involve more design as well as take longer to approve.

I think the next thing that the city could focus on (and that’s under their control) is improving the speed of the planning process and improving coordination between different departments around getting a building through the design process.

The next big zoning reform I would like to see from the city personally would be amendments to allow for bigger multiplexes/apartments in neighbourhoods that border downtown. Say 6-8 storeys and no unit cap. The drop off in density in places like Baldwin village/Chinatown is crazy. Not only is it poor land use its just an incredibly awkward cityscape.

In the spirit of Lily Cheng: what works for the suburbs isn’t necessarily the best for downtown neighbourhoods.

I think it was Greg Lintern that said EHON was just seen internally as a first step in zoning reform, with bigger changes anticipated in the future. The next obvious step would be a step-up in allowable density within the boundaries of downtown neighbourhoods.
 
Last edited:
The next big zoning reform I would like to see from the city personally would be amendments to allow for bigger multiplexes/apartments in neighbourhoods that border downtown. Say 6-8 storeys and no unit cap. The drop off in density in places like Baldwin village/Chinatown is crazy. Not only is it poor land use its just an incredibly awkward cityscape.

In the spirit of Lily Cheng: what works for the suburbs isn’t necessarily the best for downtown neighbourhoods.

I think it was Greg Lintern that said EHON was just seen internally as a first step in zoning reform, with bigger changes anticipated in the future. The next obvious step would be a step-up in allowable density within the boundaries of downtown neighbourhoods.

No unit cap is feasible; but maybe problematic.

1) There is the waste management issue.......large amounts of garbage need to be picked up, and its not realistic to have once a week pick-up of giant bins with no loading zone and no laneway. There is room for more permissiveness on this file that where were at, but higher higher unit counts (even w/identical ft2) result in more garbage and we would need a solution on that.

2) For the same reason, no limits on unit counts means much higher pedestrian traffic, but also vehicular traffic on streets w/no expansion room.

3) No limit on units, in the absence of minimum unit sizes could have everyone in a dorm room not much larger than a prison cell.

We already see to many units built that I would argue are entirely unlivable and not real homes; I'm happy to lift arbitrary limits, but I want minimum unit sizes passed first, and I want a realistic strategy and set of permissions that don't cause services to crumble.
 
No unit cap is feasible; but maybe problematic.

1) There is the waste management issue.......large amounts of garbage need to be picked up, and its not realistic to have once a week pick-up of giant bins with no loading zone and no laneway. There is room for more permissiveness on this file that where were at, but higher higher unit counts (even w/identical ft2) result in more garbage and we would need a solution on that.

2) For the same reason, no limits on unit counts means much higher pedestrian traffic, but also vehicular traffic on streets w/no expansion room.

3) No limit on units, in the absence of minimum unit sizes could have everyone in a dorm room not much larger than a prison cell.

We already see to many units built that I would argue are entirely unlivable and not real homes; I'm happy to lift arbitrary limits, but I want minimum unit sizes passed first, and I want a realistic strategy and set of permissions that don't cause services to crumble.

Minimum unit sizes with no unit cap seems entirely reasonable.

I am really curious to see where the city decides to go with respect to downtown and adjacent neighbourhoods. I don't really think the status quo can hold for much longer, and 4 units as of right seems inadequate for the centre of the city.

Perhaps another model to follow could be something similar to the Broadway plan in Vancouver. That way you wouldnt necessarily have to touch every single residential lot but still add a lot of density on small streets. Apply the same methodology along Bloor, Queen, King, Dundas, Spadina, etc. I really hope the city is willing to be this ambitious at the least.

Image sources

Plan-area.jpg

Redevelopment-within-existing-apartment-areas.jpg
 
I'm too lazy to make a thread for this, but here's a SFH to walkup redevelopment proposal in Barrie: "The proposal is intended to facilitate a five-storey walk-up apartment containing a total of 16 dwelling units with a roof-top amenity area."
 
I'm too lazy to make a thread for this, but here's a SFH to walkup redevelopment proposal in Barrie: "The proposal is intended to facilitate a five-storey walk-up apartment containing a total of 16 dwelling units with a roof-top amenity area."

@ProjectEnd doesn't the OBC require an elevator in buildings over 3 storeys?
 
Correct. But only 1.

Thanks!

With that, I looked it up........one elevator is still not really a walk up with only 16 units........at least under normal circumstances.

As such I looked this up in greater detail and found this from their presentation to the community:

1717293041913.png


I must confess though, I can't make out an elevator on the diagrams they supplied.
 

Back
Top