News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto Year-End Poll: Vote on the Best Buildings of 2024, presented by Sapphire Balconies
 3.2K     11 
News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto's Social Media Presence Skyrocketed in 2024
 1.1K     3 
News   Dec 20, 2024
Mattamy Homes Records A Year of Accomplishments
 2K     0 

Zoning Reform Ideas

Northern Light said:
There is so much opportunity on arterials........vast amounts of it..............

Look up and down Coxwell, Greenwood, Donlands etc. in the core (ish) area.

Look up and down Pharmacy, Warden, McCowan and Bellamy........

And so many more.

Which is not to diminish any other intensification scheme.

A quick sample of the older portions of Warden suggest that as-of-right zoning of a mere 5 storeys would result in 400 new units every 500m.

If one were to examine Warden, and remove areas of industry, or those that already intensified, this could apply to at least 10km within City of Toronto boundaries.

Which is to say, not less than 8,000 units (roughly, housing for 20,000) on but one single street.

Apply that across the City and we're well into accommodating 500,000 or more, all without any intensification of interior neighborhoods or a single tower.

Lots of opportunity!
Click to expand...
Pretty much.

Like here at Huntington and Warden

1611027454937.png


or here at yonge and weldrick, those lot sizes particularly irk me
1611027706298.png


or here at kipling and the westway.

1611027827900.png
 
Not sure we should be slaves to the grid. The important thing is that pedestrians and cyclists can take direct, unencumbered paths. If cars have to take more circuitous routes it just makes driving less appealing.
 
afransen said:
Not sure we should be slaves to the grid. The important thing is that pedestrians and cyclists can take direct, unencumbered paths. If cars have to take more circuitous routes it just makes driving less appealing.
Click to expand...
Hausmann avenues smashing through Toronto's grid when?
 
t54zhao said:
Hausmann avenues smashing through Toronto's grid when?
Click to expand...
No, grid is fine. Just not essential. You can create filtered permeability to prevent through traffic in a grid, like Barcelona's superblocks. Keep car traffic on the perimeter and make the interior superblock more livable/low speed. And cyclists and pedestrians still benefit from the grid. The evil of NA suburbs is making pedestrians walk far out of their way to when going from A to B. At least they started creating 'escape hatches' to arterials for bus stops but these are inadequate. It requires a lot of swerving and starting/stopping on a bicycle.
 
That works too. Though I think that converting some arterial road lanes into separated bike lanes would also be great.

I long for the day when most non-highway arterials have two lanes for cars, two lanes for transit and two lanes for bikes. Surrounding these arterials are midrise blocks with small businesses and wide sidewalks at their feet.
 
t54zhao said:
That works too. Though I think that converting some arterial road lanes into separated bike lanes would also be great.

I long for the day when most non-highway arterials have two lanes for cars, two lanes for transit and two lanes for bikes. Surrounding these arterials are midrise blocks with small businesses and wide sidewalks at their feet.
Click to expand...
A different way of thinking about things is that we should have a strong network for bicycles where they have priority, and a strong network for cars/motorized traffic. It is not necessarily ideal for those to be the same street. In fact, there are big safety benefits to putting heavy bicycle traffic on low traffic (or car free) roads. The main thing is that it is very difficult to make intersections safe for bicycles with high levels of car traffic. I'm not sure North America has it right with the idea that we should be putting bike lanes on every mega-arterial. It's certainly safer than making cyclists ride in mixed traffic, but it would be better to provide alternate routes that are direct and require minimal stopping. Tough to do from where we are, but other countries have largely figured it out.
 
Moving away from zoning change ideas for a minute, what does everyone think it'll take to actually have some of these substantive changes made to zoning by local government? Part of me feels pessimistic that we'll continue to zone up one block at a time.
 
Northern Light said:
In the same vein as above the City has a report coming to next week's Planning and Housing Ctte which recommends moving ahead with demonstration projects of 'missing middle' housing as a pilot project in the Beaches-East York area.

Report here:


However well intended, this report gives me a headache.

We don't need 'demonstration' projects.

Developers and non-profits alike understand the 'missing middle'.

The problem is simply that its either impossible/illegal to build in some areas or cost-prohibitive in others.

There is nothing challenging about this; it does not require an RFP process FFS.

It requires as-of-right zoning for what you want built; and waiving parking minimums.

There you go.

I'm a defender of government much of the time; but there are moments when my patience is taxed by a desire to take the long way around.

Worth noting here; this is happening in Beaches-East York, because the local councillor (Bradford) is a former professional planner with the City, and a champion of affordable housing.

Using that opportunity, for this, is disappointing.
Click to expand...

My concern is that by advocating for the "missing middle," community consultation is almost certain to drop already modest proposals of four-to-five stories down to two-or-three.

Even if we have demonstration projects in all city wards, it won't come even close to providing the necessary housing stock needed to keep housing costs down.

I honestly think Towers in the Park, combined with very strict controls on foreign investment and Airbnb, are the only solution:


26476-92447.png

UrbanToronto.ca
 
^A crack down on domestic "investment" and speculation in general is also needed. Plus higher interest rates to reduce demand by keeping out borderline insolvent buyers/investors. Run away population growth also needs a rethink.
 
Undead said:
^A crack down on domestic "investment" and speculation in general is also needed. Plus higher interest rates to reduce demand by keeping out borderline insolvent buyers/investors. Run away population growth also needs a rethink.
Click to expand...

One could eliminate a good deal of speculative investment by removing the capital gains exemption on primary residences and in general removing the capital gains tax rate (currently only a 50% inclusion rate).

IF you remove the profit in a quick sale, you remove many investors.

There are slightly more complex tweaks one could make, such as allowing a capital gains rate after a certain period of time elapses (say 5 years), but to my way of thinking that's added complexity with reduced effectiveness.

I say this, btw, as someone who very much benefits from the Capital gains rate-class. But I recognize how absurd it is that I have friends who income is entirely employment-based, who make less than I do, and end up paying more in tax.

****

Another option is to reduce debt-fuelled purchases of real-estate by requiring 25% cash down, period. (irrespective of mortgage insurance).

****

Finally one could cap the number of residential properties one can own at any one time; with a specific notion of cracking down on the brokers who buy 10 condos off a developer, intercepting a retail sale and making it de facto wholesale which they then retail at a higher rate.
 
Moving forward..........slowly.......on ditching parking minimums.........

Article in the Globe:

www.theglobeandmail.com

Toronto councillors vote to review parking minimums

The review of parking requirements is an ostensibly obscure policy matter that could lead to profound changes in Canada’s biggest city
www.theglobeandmail.com www.theglobeandmail.com
 
Undead said:
Can you clarify how locations like that would be densified? I agree they should, just having difficulty visualizing it.
Click to expand...
In the first example, removing some of the SFH at the intersections and replacing them with mid-rise apartments and small businesses. Take the cul-de-sac in the bottom left and demolish most of it, replacing again with small businesses and mid-rises.

Take the shoppers strip mall and one of the sfh in the bottom right, demolish and replace with a plaza/ apartments.

Boom a nice neighborhood gathering spot instead of a separated arterial stroad totally isolated from the communities it bypasses.

1611171779930.png


Example 2: You'd probably want better transit here, but there aren't a ton of options. So this might not be the best place for redevelopment. Though those huge lots are begging for someone to tear them down.

Instead just south at Yonge and 16th there is a mall that might lead itself to being torn down. The South Hill Shopping center could be totally replaced. A new GO station and connections, theres a viva blue stop at the intersection. Alternatively, the development could lead to an extension from Richmond Hill Center of the Yonge Line. The various parking lots affronting Yonge Street of Hillcrest mall could also be replaced with apartments.

1611172963878.png


Example 3

1611173184405.png


Here, there is a middle school at the intersection. So at the top left, take some of those houses and replacing them with apartments/ small businesses would intensify the area. Top Right, you have SFH along an arterial and you have some facing away from the street. We don't want that.

Looking at this intersection from the south, its totally barren. and uninteresting. I could've picked any random intersection and you couldn't tell the difference. Replacing some SFH with public spaces gives the community some life to it.

1611173356108.png


Looking north from the intersection, Kipling is barren. No homes facing it, a low-speed highway for people getting from point a to point b
1611173435700.png
 

East-end Toronto pilot project will help fill 'missing middle' gap in affordable housing​


Jan 20, 2021
A new pilot project to build mid-priced housing in low-density neighbourhoods is moving ahead in Toronto’s east end.

The Beaches-East York Pilot Project, which came before Toronto’s Planning and Housing Committee Jan. 19, is intended to explore ways to more easily build housing that falls into the so-called missing middle of a housing market that is prohibitively expensive for middle-income residents.

If it goes ahead as planned, the project will see a piece of city-owned land in a single-family residential neighbourhood eventually redeveloped into a small, multi-residential building to provide that housing.

Beaches-East York Coun. Brad Bradford offered up his ward as a proving ground for the concept last year. A former city planner, Bradford said in an interview that the city needs to find new ways to build housing that is in dire short supply.

“There’s not anybody who’s not impacted by the housing crisis directly or indirectly,” said Bradford in an interview. “COVID-19 has added an additional way for this new group of vulnerable folks to emerge. There’s this new group that’s emerged during the pandemic where housing challenges have become quite acute. The idea of dealing with the missing middle is to look at gentle intensification within Toronto’s existing neighbourhoods. Previously, we’ve directed growth towards our centre, towards major transit nodes.”

The pilot project will be looking for a home in Beaches-East York neighbourhoods that have been protected from any significant intensification since the establishment of Toronto’s first official plan in 2003.

The pilot project is intended to push at the edges of that protection — without completely destabilizing those neighbourhoods.

Toronto’s chief planner Gregg Lintern told councillors that it should be possible to do so.

“The official plan is written in a way that re-enforces physical character, that’s the policy intent of the official plan,” he said. “It does suggest that neighbourhoods remain stable. But looking at that — some neighbourhoods in the city are incredibly consistent and don’t allow for different building types to exist at all. We’re looking at having a policy framework where, while you stay within the general character of the neighbourhood, it opens up opportunity to carve up a property — still keeping the same scale but maybe carving a single house into four spots.”

The committee heard from Toronto realtor Philip Kocev, who as a small-scale builder has struggled to build missing middle housing for years.
“I have experienced barriers to making missing middle housing — building costs are higher because of a lack of economies of scale and bylaws are more restrictive for converted houses,” said Kocev, in support of the pilot project. “There is also a misconception from neighbourhoods that missing middle housing has a negative effect on the neighbourhood.”

The committee has asked planning staff, city real estate services, CreateTO and Toronto’s Housing Secretariat to work with Bradford on design and construction procurement, and also finding an appropriate location — and to go ahead with a public consultation process.
Click to expand...

www.toronto.com

East-end Toronto pilot project will help fill 'missing middle' gap in affordable housing

A new pilot project to build mid-priced housing in low-density neighbourhoods is moving ahead in Toronto’s east end.
www.toronto.com www.toronto.com
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top