Incremental growth

[js97]

I agree, and would also note that any developer who tried to buy 3 bungalows in Etobicoke and replace them with something moderately denser - like stacked townhouses for example - would face armageddon from the local ratepayers' group. The local councilor would support the small number of intensely vocal opponents and the whole mess would be kicked to the OMB. It wouldn't be a slam dunk there because the proposal might be sensible but it probably wouldn't fit Places to Grow. So this kind of intensification would involve a world of pain for the developer, with a significant probability of ultimate failure.

I've seen this in everypart of Toronto.

Urbanites and supposed pro-intensification councillors like Layton objected strachan lofts because of 2 or 3 households.

The mom and pop developers haven't taken it to the OMB (most likely due to lack of funding) - the perfect redevelopment project:
http://www.buzzbuzzhome.com/the-townlofts

To out in scarborough, where an 80 w* 200L bungalow lot had to be taken to the OMB to simply severe it to 2 40ft lots.

 

[TrickyRicky]

I'm not suggesting the owner of this property is competent, he clearly isn't, but I feel it illustrates one of the key issues we deal with when we talk about small-scale redevelopment. Much of the land in the city is owned by regular Joe people who are completely disconnected from the regulatory sophistication required to realize the development potential of their properties. this disconnect is both a hurdle to progress and a force securing the preservation of much of what is good in the city.

http://www.thegridto.com/life/real-estate/893-bloor-west/