Zoning Reform Ideas

[Northern Light]

From the Twitterverse, this observation:

I would note, that at 0.33 parking spaces per unit, that is higher than many condos being approved these days.

I find it improbable that that rooming houses would create a greater demand for parking..............

 

[Undead]

Some yellowbelt densification near Sheppard-Leslie just down the street from Scala. From today:

 

[allengeorge]

TVO Today | Current Affairs Journalism, Documentaries and Podcasts

www.tvo.org

An interview by Steve Paikin with Ana Bailao and Gregg Lintern on the consultation for the new OP.

I refrain from commenting.

 

[afransen]

A lot of discussion around consultation. I wonder if the whole model of doing consultation and only listening to those who are inclined to show up leads to warped input. You are essentially privileging the opinions of the older, wealthier, more vocal members of the community that are inclined to spend their time attending these events. Seems to me we should be going out of our way to solicit feedback that is representative of the community. Even if you had to pay a representative sample of the community to participate in a more focus-group like setting that might be valuable to get more diverse viewpoints.

I kind of hate the way we do consultation now. It feels rather performative right now, with the NIMBY song and dance and the presenters performing listening to and acknowledging concerns.

 

[allengeorge]

Seems to me we should be going out of our way to solicit feedback that is representative of the community. Even if you had to pay a representative sample of the community to participate in a more focus-group like setting that might be valuable to get more diverse viewpoints.

Councillor Bailao spoke specifically to that point, mentioning that Planning was directed to reach out to groups that traditionally were underserved by the consultation process, including tenants associations etc.

In general I found her to be more engaging and forward-looking than the Chief Planner.

 

[Northern Light]

A lot of discussion around consultation. I wonder if the whole model of doing consultation and only listening to those who are inclined to show up leads to warped input. You are essentially privileging the opinions of the older, wealthier, more vocal members of the community that are inclined to spend their time attending these events. Seems to me we should be going out of our way to solicit feedback that is representative of the community. Even if you had to pay a representative sample of the community to participate in a more focus-group like setting that might be valuable to get more diverse viewpoints.

I kind of hate the way we do consultation now. It feels rather performative right now, with the NIMBY song and dance and the presenters performing listening to and acknowledging concerns.

I agree w/you in terms of who tends to turn out to meetings.

However, I think a few things are important to note about this.

1) People are always, irrespective of income level or age, more likely to turn out to oppose things about which they are upset, than they are to turn out to provide support or a compliment for a project or policy.

2) That's also how people vote. Politicians are not unaware of that. A motivated electorate is usually one that's angry; not one that's happy.

3) Further, while renters clearly may have their quality of life impacted by development, for good or ill; they won't see a significant financial hit or windfall. Money is often a motivator. Even a new-build rental
will rarely directly benefit an existing renter in the area, as its likely to be high-end of market, and more costly rent wise than what an existing renter would pay. {exception for non-profit/RGI housing)

That makes it relatively easy to see a downside for a homeowner or even a renter {construction noise, restricted parking etc.) while its comparatively more difficult to see the benefit to anyone but the developer.

4) Beyond language, lower-income residents are more likely to face time barriers for meeting attendance, as well as a childcare barriers. Meetings don't typically come w/on-site childcare. They are also never held on weekends.

There are lots of barriers to attracting more balanced interests to meetings.

But it also goes beyond that.

The greatest benefit of new housing in an area; at any income level, is almost always to people who live outside the area in question. Planning Notices go out over relatively short distances relative to a proposed redevelopment.
It would not be inexpensive to widen the area of notice for old-school physical notification {mail, door-drop).

Is there an efficient means to widen the geographic pool of interest? How far is reasonable? In person or virtual, we don't want public meetings so large they can't be held in the community for which they are relevant due to lack of a large enough venue. Its all quite challenging.

 

[Northern Light]

Councillor Bailao spoke specifically to that point, mentioning that Planning was directed to reach out to groups that traditionally were underserved by the consultation process, including tenants associations etc.

In general I found her to be more engaging and forward-looking than the Chief Planner.

I watched the whole thing............I found it really quite unbearable.

LOL/Sigh.

Some of the questions were decent, though some big ones missed.
But too many of the answers were poor, and Gregg is/was capable of better.

*****

Question not asked; Is the population target being used by the City of Toronto realistic? Will existing housing/planning policy be sufficient to meet projected need? Would it be sufficient if the City's population were to grow twice as quickly as projected (which I think is likely).

*****

Question not asked; Where some residents want to preserve the built-form appearance of their neighbourhood, but are otherwise open to intensification, are there existing or potential planning policies that would better preserve the 'feel' of a community while facilitating growth?

****

Question not asked; what role do planning policies not directly tied to height play in restricting intensification, including parking minimums, setbacks, lot coverage requirements etc. What changes could be made that would ensure communities remain desirable, while making City-building easier?

****

Question asked, but poor answer given. What about Danforth? Gregg mumbled something about midrises, of which there have been a few on Danforth........but that was a less than fulsome answer.
The question was clearly asking WHY is development occurring so much more rapidly along Line 1 vs Line 2.

To which there are several answers.

As-of-right zoning on much of Danforth is now similar'ish to much of Yonge north of downtown.
But the lots are very fragmented and often not terribly deep.

Public ownership of Green P lots, Parks, and laneways all serve to limit lot depth and ease of development. Some is not going to change and arguably should not (parks). Some could be mitigated, (ie. if the laneway could be preserved, yet built over) while Green P lots certainly need to be on the table.

Precedent matters. Much of Danforth lacks precedent of nearby hirise or even midrise construction, that hinders the ability to argue for substantial increases at LPAT. Its also requires explaining the barriers in cost for midrise that are hard to recover. Whether that's planning fees or parking minimums, lots of things can be absorbed when building 30 - 50 floors that cannot be absorbed when building 6-8. Which in turn necessitates the question; "What is the City doing to lower those barriers?"

****

A map of where growth has, and has not occurred was shown;
While planning policy is certainly responsible for a portion of the imbalance the map shows; other portions are explainable by aging-in place, and by other phenomena.

For instance, I noted that Downsview showed a 100% decrease in population on that map. That's because of the removal of the military housing.
A rather important thing to note as the giant area of dark pink might otherwise be misleading.

****

On balance, an important subject, but too superficial a conversation.

 

[JohnnyRaylander]

Ana spoke great -- especially her discussion on the 'character of the neighbourhood.' It's a great way to frame the YIMBY argument. She sort of (but not completely) answer Northern Light's second question. Overall, it would have been a lot nicer to get some meat and potato answers rather than empty political mumbo-jumbo.

The chief planner did not do a lot to inspire confidence. When asked about the disparity in density between the Danforth and Yonge and Eg he went on an unprompted tangent about avoiding tall buildings.

I also really didn't like the question about how to deal with the imbalance in growth. It frames it like it's a bad thing. In a perfect world, there would be very little building restrictions and these maps would be representative of people's preferences. The role of the planner shouldn't be too restrict people's preferences and force them into certain areas

 

[Northern Light]

Ana spoke great -- especially her discussion on the 'character of the neighbourhood.' It's a great way to frame the YIMBY argument. She sort of (but not completely) answer Northern Light's second question. Overall, it would have been a lot nicer to get some meat and potato answers rather than empty political mumbo-jumbo.

Yes

The chief planner did not do a lot to inspire confidence. When asked about the disparity in density between the Danforth and Yonge and Eg he went on an unprompted tangent about avoiding tall buildings.

There was more to it than that; but it wasn't a good answer. Gregg knows better; but it seemed like he was taken off guard by the question and answered as though he were on the defensive; instead of simply laying out the facts.

I also really didn't like the question about how to deal with the imbalance in growth. It frames it like it's a bad thing. In a perfect world, there would be very little building restrictions and these maps would be representative of people's preferences. The role of the planner shouldn't be too restrict people's preferences and force them into certain areas

Ah, but in reality the world isn't perfect; the 'imbalance' in growth is more than a matter of preferences. There are material issues like sewer capacity and the cost to fix constraints; there's how much power supply is available in an area; and while we have some schools in Etobicoke and Scarborough sitting 1/2 full or even empty; we have areas like Yonge/Eglinton where kids are being bussed well outside the community as there isn't even room left for more portables.

There is a public interest in ensuring that development goes where infrastructure can support it cost effectively.

As well as in addressing why an area might be abnormally low on the desirability quotient.

 

[Undead]

A lot of discussion around consultation. I wonder if the whole model of doing consultation and only listening to those who are inclined to show up leads to warped input. You are essentially privileging the opinions of the older, wealthier, more vocal members of the community that are inclined to spend their time attending these events. Seems to me we should be going out of our way to solicit feedback that is representative of the community. Even if you had to pay a representative sample of the community to participate in a more focus-group like setting that might be valuable to get more diverse viewpoints.

I kind of hate the way we do consultation now. It feels rather performative right now, with the NIMBY song and dance and the presenters performing listening to and acknowledging concerns.

Honestly, most public consultation works this way as @Northern Light alluded to. Even for well-intentioned social justice initiatives, just to pick one of my favourite pet peeves, the people who show up at consultations have a very biased perspective and any subsequent discussion is highly skewed with a highly specific ideological perspective.

 

[afransen]

It should be more scandalous that a majority of the city actually saw declining population density due to shrinking households.

 

[Northern Light]

It should be more scandalous that a majority of the city actually saw declining population density due to shrinking households.

Scandalous?

Really?

That neighbourhoods once filled w/familes w/young kids, are, disproportionately still occupied by those same 'parents' but now as empty nesters?

Don't get me wrong, there are issues w/that, in light of our housing situation, but I hardly think scandalous is the right term.

***

Also, there is a disproportionate effect because of the outsized nature of the 'Baby Boom' generation.

 

[afransen]

Currently consultation seems to largely consist of NIMBYs pretending to have good faith concerns (concern trolling) and authority pretending to listen.

Frankly, I think virtual consultations should continue. It is a much more accessible way for people to get informed.

 

[afransen]

Scandalous?

Really?

That neighbourhoods once filled w/familes w/young kids, are, disproportionately still occupied by those same 'parents' but now as empty nesters?

Don't get me wrong, there are issues w/that, in light of our housing situation, but I hardly think scandalous is the right term.

Scandalous because the only new housing that can be built is in borderline too-dense neighbourhoods, depriving people of choice in housing options. Also, those hollowed out neighbourhoods continue to cost substantial amounts to maintain, despite serving ever-fewer residents. I think that is scandalous!

 

[Northern Light]

Scandalous because the only new housing that can be built is in borderline too-dense neighbourhoods, depriving people of choice in housing options. Also, those hollowed out neighbourhoods continue to cost substantial amounts to maintain, despite serving ever-fewer residents. I think that is scandalous!

We would agree on the need to see a more distributed development pattern.

I'm not sure I can get behind the word scandalous, but that isn't to diminish the seriousness of the concern, rather its me being pedantic about the meaning of the word.

****

As to costs, that's not really accurate.

Property tax on one's home does not decline because there are fewer people living in the home.

So the City's revenues to maintain these areas are roughly constant (but for the general fact that Toronto tax rates for SFH have risen below the rate of inflation most years since amalgamation).

The cost to maintain watermains is not any greater if less water is drawn down, nor is the cost of maintaining a sewer any greater if there are fewer 'flushes' in a home.

The only fixed assets where this is an issue would be schools, as the province pays for schools through enrollment, so as that declines, revenue to maintain the schools declines too.