Zoning Reform Ideas

[IsaacKhouzam]

I don't agree with this. If one measured relatively accessibility by the percentage of accessible units, building more inaccessible units lowers that percentage. Yet, the percentage of people requiring elevators doesn't decline at all.

You make a good point, but I think of the issue slightly differently. If there is a certain fixed (or even growing) percentage of the population who need elevators, that also implies the remainder: a segment of the population who do not require elevators, and who might benefit from the existence of the kind of small building sans elevator I referred to before. I'd argue that most cities of any considerable size have inherited a historic housing stock that meets this description, whereas it might behoove Toronto to employ a more permissive approach at least while it plays catch-up.

Yes, Manhattan has lots of lovely looking buildings that provide density, but lack accessibility.....and many other modern amenities.........but which also have failed to make Manhattan affordable.

True, Manhattan is not a great example when it comes to affordability, but as someone who currently lives in New York City, I would suggest that without the large stock of ~5 storey walk-ups the city would not only be unaffordable, it would be impossible. I've lived in two walk-up buildings, in Manhattan and in Brooklyn, and the fact that they lack many of the amenities of newer buildings (elevator, washer/dryer, building-wide AC, etc.) is the only reason I've been able to afford to live in New York at all. Despite being expensive, I've felt that in New York I've had many more options than I would have if I still lived in Toronto. Within my (fairly low, for New York) price range I can choose between a unit in a subdivided townhouse, a 3rd or 4th floor apartment in a small walk-up building in a nice neighbourhood, or a small unit in a new building (with or without an elevator) or more Toronto-typical condo in a larger building in a less convenient location. I'm more than willing to give up some building amenities in exchange for urban amenities; that doesn't seem to be a choice that's available in Toronto to the same extent.

To be clear, I don't see a value in imposing the toughest conditions on the smallest housing; but I see little value in reducing accessibility standards on new builds, of housing that is one or two tiers above that.

We pretty much agree; I only think that we should raise the ceiling slightly on what constitutes the "smallest housing." To me, the benefits of doing so would appear to outweigh the drawbacks.

 

[picard102]

at least while it plays catch-up.

what evidence do we have that forgoing elevators will let us "catch up"?

 

[IsaacKhouzam]

what evidence do we have that forgoing elevators will let us "catch up"?

I don’t know whether we have evidence or not. But it seems at least plausible to me.

 

[Northern Light]

I don’t know whether we have evidence or not. But it seems at least plausible to me.

I'm not intransigent here, but I think that watering down accessibility standards in the name of affordability demands some measure of evidence that the affordability will actually materialize, and the savings to people are sufficiently great to offset the individual and societal burdens of that action.

For the most part here, the discussion isn't about toughening standards, its about taking away standards that were considered an advancement by many and make the lives of many thousands easier.

There should be a certain evidentiary burden for making that change.

Let me add, the much vaunted single-stair building in Seattle is anything but affordable.

 

[rdaner]

Very interesting and true.

 

[picard102]

I don’t know whether we have evidence or not. But it seems at least plausible to me.

Then the argument against elevators is doa.

 

[IsaacKhouzam]

Then the argument against elevators is doa.

On the contrary, if you're correct, and eliminating elevator requirements in small, 4-6 storey multi-family buildings failed to encourage their construction in the way I hope it would, then the policy would be ineffective but ultimately harmless (at least according to the logic I laid out earlier). It seems like a pretty low-risk experiment, in that it either works or it doesn't. It either opens the door to the construction of a building typology that currently doesn't exist en masse, or it doesn't and we're no worse-off. One might argue, like Northern Light does, that the small-ish building sans elevator is not a typology we should be encouraging; but that isn't the same thing as opposing them on the grounds that they won't even be built.

 

[goodcitywhenfinished]

I don’t think anyone is arguing that single stair is a turn key solution to affordability. If they are, they should not be taken seriously.

Most of the arguments for single stair I have read focus on increasing housing choice, availability of land that can be developed, as well as increasing the supply of 3 bedroom units.

 

[Northern Light]

Most of the arguments for single stair I have read focus on increasing housing choice, availability of land that can be developed as well as increasing the supply of 3 bedroom units.

At this point, there is very little evidence to support that removing a stairwell will result in significant new developable land.

This simply isn't that big a mover when you run the numbers.

Lets start with this, assuming you could simply shift the saved ft2 back into the leasable/sellable space, the only thing you will do is add $$ to the rent or the selling price, because why else you would bother as a private developer?

For that very reason, more 3brdm units are unlikely, the City has to cajole developers to provide them now, because on a straight-line per ft2 rent/sales price, 3brdm units are much harder to rent/sell because they are much more expensive.

***

Additionally, as I've now explained repeatedly in this thread, when you remove the second stairwell the fire rating requirement increases, this means thicker walls/floors that will burn through more slowly, which both eats some of the saved space, but also increases construction cost per ft2.

The units people dream about in Manhattan or Paris (which are not cheap/affordable, and generally quite small, would not pass Fire Code today.)

We should not reduce the standards in fire code such that people are more likely to be housed, and burned to death in their home.

I'm not intransigent on changes, I've said I'm fine with a single stair if the Fire Rating rises (as is currently the case where these are approved). But when you do that you're showing some flexibility (great) but it doesn't actually
increase affordability, nor does it actually result in significant new construction of larger units.

If you want larger units, the solution is legislated minimum sizes and a prohibition on pre-construction/investor purchased housing.

If you want more affordable housing, you need to reduce demand (TFWs/Foreign Students), build public student housing, build public affordable housing, and increase wages and social assistance.

Getting all caught up in tiny things that make either no difference or very marginal difference makes the problem worse, because effort is being diverted from the real solutions.

****

Dealing with loading zone requirements, through permitting more back-up spots and curtailing the size of garbage trucks would do more to help incent midrise projects than most of these other ideas, and doesn't require comprising accessibility or safety.

 

[IsaacKhouzam]

Well, I can see we're probably not going to change each other's minds on this. Perhaps it's ignorant of me, but I'd be happy to see small apartment buildings (which, once again, I'm defining as ~4-6 storeys, ~1-3 units per floor) built with similar fire-safety and elevator requirements to single-family houses and small multiplexes. I prefer cities that have large stocks of such buildings - I live in such a building in such a city myself - and from what I can tell people are not dying en-masse in fires in those cities. But we disagree, c'est la vie. Thanks for engaging!

 

[Northern Light]

Well, I can see we're probably not going to change each other's minds on this. Perhaps it's ignorant of me, but I'd be happy to see small apartment buildings (which, once again, I'm defining as ~4-6 storeys, ~1-3 units per floor) built with similar fire-safety and elevator requirements to single-family houses and small multiplexes. I prefer cities that have large stocks of such buildings - I live in such a building in such a city myself - and from what I can tell people are not dying en-masse in fires in those cities. But we disagree, c'est la vie. Thanks for engaging!

I'm happy enough to have a polite, informed, exchange, even one in which agreement is not possible.

But, since you suggested people aren't dying en masse, I thought I'd look up NYC Fire deaths vs the national average for the U.S.

NYC - 102 fire deaths in 'fiscal 2023'

https://www.nyc.gov/assets/operations/downloads/pdf/mmr2023/fdny.pdf

In 2023 - Toronto Fire reported 14 fire fatalities - all types

Source: https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/u...June5-AODA-4-PAC1-2-Dot-op-Rot-FPspread-3.pdf

NYC has 2.3x the population of Toronto, so Toronto, so NYC's Fire Fatality rate is just over 3x the Toronto rate.

That certainly seems like a concerning difference. It may not be entirely due to housing type..........but

On its face the differences result (if scaled to Toronto) in a difference of 280 deaths over a 10-year period.

 

[IsaacKhouzam]

I'm happy enough to have a polite, informed, exchange, even one in which agreement is not possible.

But, since you suggested people are dying en masse, I thought I'd look up NYC Fire deaths vs the national average for the U.S.

NYC - 102 fire deaths in 'fiscal 2023'

https://www.nyc.gov/assets/operations/downloads/pdf/mmr2023/fdny.pdf

In 2023 - Toronto Fire reported 14 fire fatalities - all types

Source: https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/u...June5-AODA-4-PAC1-2-Dot-op-Rot-FPspread-3.pdf

NYC has 2.3x the population of Toronto, so Toronto, so NYC's Fire Fatality rate is just over 3x the Toronto rate.

That certainly seems like a concerning difference. It may not be entirely due to housing type..........but

On its face the differences result (if scaled to Toronto) in a difference of 280 deaths over a 10-year period.

Interesting. As you pointed out, the difference in the numbers between New York and Toronto are hard to pin on any one factor. My first impulse was to look at the fire fatality numbers from other cities/regions with similar residential densities to New York, but I'm having trouble finding useful data. Some info I was able to find: Montreal had 12 fire-related deaths in 2022, which puts it at a slightly higher rate than Toronto (around ~7 deaths per million vs Toronto's ~5; the number I'm seeing for New York is 12 deaths per million). London had 108 in 2017-2018, although that includes the Grenfell Tower Fire - 2016-2017 had 38 deaths, 2015-2016 had 21, 2014-2015 had 23, etc. - and I'm not sure which population numbers to use there. But given a population of ~8.9 million people, 38 deaths gives just over 4 deaths per million; 23 deaths gives just over 2.5. It looks like New York might be a significant outlier here, although I'll have to keep digging for more data...

 

[Northern Light]

Interesting. As you pointed out, the difference in the numbers between New York and Toronto are hard to pin on any one factor. My first impulse was to look at the fire fatality numbers from other cities/regions with similar residential densities to New York, but I'm having trouble finding useful data. Some info I was able to find: Montreal had 12 fire-related deaths in 2022, which puts it at a slightly higher rate than Toronto (around ~7 deaths per million vs Toronto's ~5; the number I'm seeing for New York is 12 deaths per million). London had 108 in 2017-2018, although that includes the Grenfell Tower Fire - 2016-2017 had 38 deaths, 2015-2016 had 21, 2014-2015 had 23, etc. - and I'm not sure which population numbers to use there. But given a population of ~8.9 million people, 38 deaths gives just over 4 deaths per million; 23 deaths gives just over 2.5. It looks like New York might be a significant outlier here, although I'll have to keep digging for more data...

There are good state-level numbers from the U.S., but those obviously aren't the same as 'City Numbers', particularly if there is more than one large urban centre.

That said, I found this media story that suggests fire fatalities in Philadelphia exceeded 40 in 2022:

'It's a tough time for us': Fire deaths in Philadelphia have reached a 2 year high

The number of Philadelphia residents to have died in fires has reached a two-year-high, leaving firefighters struggling to find ways to extinguish the growing trend.

www.fox29.com

That's in a City of ~1.6M

I tried for Chicago and Boston but couldn't easily find good data.

 

[rdaner]

^Just a note on Philadelphia as it is an extreme case. Most of the central city is made up of sub-standard wooden row houses with no party walls. On top of this is an extremely high rate of poverty and crime similar to what one sees in Baltimore.

I know that it is a challenge to find comparisons for the GTA as we are a bit of an outlier ourselves but I do think Melbourne or UK cities provide a decent fit.