Vaughan 3131 Highway 7 | 236.5m | 74s | Toromont Industries Ltd | WZMH

[yrt+viva=1system]

Things are going to pick up speed now that there’s a carrot attached to Queen’s Park’s blessing.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-municipalities-association-meeting-1.6942488

In his speech, Ford held up the cities of Vaughan and Pickering in the Greater Toronto Area as examples. According to the premier, those cities are on track to exceed their housing targets by 150 per cent and 140 percent, respectively, which would entitle Pickering to more than $5 million in new funding and Vaughan to more than $17 million.

 

[ericmacm]

I hate that we are even at the point where the province even needs to incentivize municipalities with money to hit/exceed their housing target, but alas, here we are.

Good news that there are at least a couple of municipalities on track to exceed at this time. Hopefully more start to follow.

 

[Northern Light]

Good Front Page story up on this:

Toromont Unveils Masterplan South of Vaughan Metropolitan Centre | UrbanToronto

Vaughan Metropolitan Centre's urban transformation, fuelled by transport connectivity to the rest of the Greater Toronto Area, is now being boosted by Toromont Industries' masterplan for their site on the southwest corner of Jane and Highway 7.

urbantoronto.ca

*****

Side tangent; I wish @innsertnamehere had told me this post was interesting, LOL I just saw the address and went 'oh, way up there' LOL.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Good Front Page story up on this:

Toromont Unveils Masterplan South of Vaughan Metropolitan Centre | UrbanToronto

Vaughan Metropolitan Centre's urban transformation, fuelled by transport connectivity to the rest of the Greater Toronto Area, is now being boosted by Toromont Industries' masterplan for their site on the southwest corner of Jane and Highway 7.

urbantoronto.ca

*****

Side tangent; I wish @innsertnamehere had told me this post was interesting, LOL I just saw the address and went 'oh, way up there' LOL.

I know you aren't exactly a height fiend, but I would have figured "79s" on a Vaughan application may have piqued your interest!

 

[alexb]

I've been checking the Design Review Panel website every day for the past month waiting for the presentation video to be uploaded

 

[Chris R.]

I hate that we are even at the point where the province even needs to incentivize municipalities with money to hit/exceed their housing target, but alas, here we are.

Good news that there are at least a couple of municipalities on track to exceed at this time. Hopefully more start to follow.

It makes sense if you think about it. (Sort of). Municipalities are made up of politicians and their staff and most people hate any and all density. I am okay with density though do have some issues with overdensitificafion. That all being said, it's in politicians best interest to fight density and there's no real benefit to hitting housing targets.

Sure there's the extra economic benefits and property tax revenue, but we've been ignoring those over fear of anything more dense than sprawl for multiple decades now. It makes sense we needed a carrot to hit targets set by the upper level of government.

 

[Undead]

but we've been ignoring those over fear of anything more dense than sprawl for multiple decades now.

I don't think that's accurate. We had large apartment building schemes (gov't partnerships with developers) in the 60s and 70s producing most of the region's purpose built rental. Then the 80s tower boom. Then the current boom. In fact, about half of Toronto now lives in apartments.

Yes, there was a lot of sprawl as well.

 

[Northern Light]

I hate that we are even at the point where the province even needs to incentivize municipalities with money to hit/exceed their housing target, but alas, here we are.

Sure there's the extra economic benefits and property tax revenue, but we've been ignoring those over fear of anything more dense than sprawl for multiple decades now. It makes sense we needed a carrot to hit targets set by the upper level of government.

I think we need to dial these back.

There's what @Undead says above...........

But let's get more current.

Most municipalities, including Toronto, but also many suburban ones have not mere hundreds, or thousands, but tens of thousands of approved housing units that have not been built and are not being built.

You can approve twice was many and not one more will be built.

*****

1) The industry up to recent months is/was straining to build what it's building now, trades are in short supply, some critically. There are no spare crane operators to go around for high-mast cranes.

2) The industry does not build for the good of the market or charity, they build for profit. There is no desire to bloat supply and lower ROI.

3) Interest rates are now rising and buyers are drying up. The median household is economically strained. But more approvals won't change that one iota.

What we need is less demand, plus income growth.

*****

That's not to suggest there wasn't a need for sensible zoning reforms............from ditching parking minimums to moderating use of the angular plane........... but those things change the form of what's built, not the amount, and not the price the end customer pays per ft2.

 

[Chris R.]

I think we need to dial these back.

There's what @Undead says above...........

But let's get more current.

Most municipalities, including Toronto, but also many suburban ones have not mere hundreds, or thousands, but tens of thousands of approved housing units that have not been built and are not being built.

You can approve twice was many and not one more will be built.

*****

1) The industry up to recent months is/was straining to build what it's building now, trades are in short supply, some critically. There are no spare crane operators to go around for high-mast cranes.

2) The industry does not build for the good of the market or charity, they built for profit. There is no desire to bloat supply and lower ROI.

3) Interest rates are now rising and buyers are drying up. The median household is economically strained. But more approvals won't change that one iota.

What we need is less demand, plus income growth.

*****

That's not to suggest there wasn't a need for sensible zoning reforms............from ditching parking minimums to moderating use of the angular plane........... but those things change the form of what's built, not the amount, and not the price the end customer pays per ft2.

Reducing upfront cost will improve ROI increasing the number of units that will be built at lower price points. You point out developers want money or profit. If they make $50,000/unit and sell 0, they're better off selling 200 units at $15,000/unit of profit. They don't care what the total cost is per condo/townhouse/house. They only care that they make profit.

It's why the GST announcement today is huge news. It's also why municipalities should stop trying to suck developments dry with development charges to fund things that should be funded with property taxes. Something like 20% the cost of building new housing is fees, taxes and charges. We have sin taxes on a necessity; housing.

 

[Northern Light]

Reducing upfront cost will improve ROI increasing the number of units that will be built at lower price points. You point out developers want money or profit. If they make $50,000/unit and sell 0, they're better off selling 200 units at $15,000/unit of profit. They don't care what the total cost is per condo/townhouse/house. They only care that they make profit.

If, as a developer, I could put money in a mutual fund and earn a higher ROI, that's what I would do.

I'm not giving you a cheaper unit, because I save a few dollars and you don't find anyone in the industry saying different.

I'm fine w/the GST announcement, but all it does, at the margin is shift some development from condos to rental, it doesn't actually create more development, because there's no one to build it or finance it.

It's why the GST announcement today is huge news. It's also why municipalities should stop trying to suck developments dry with development charges to fund things that should be funded with property taxes. Something like 20% the cost of building new housing is fees, taxes and charges. We have sin taxes on a necessity; housing.

Municipalities levy development charges to cover essential costs of growth. Sewers aren't free, watermains aren't free, garbage pick up isn't free, parks aren't free.

Why should existing residents pick up the tab to subsidize new ones?

For the record, I'm not anti-immigrant in the least; but the principle here is that growth should actually pay for itself.

If you're growing at a loss, maybe you should stop growing?

 

[Northern Light]

It's why the GST announcement today is huge news. It's also why municipalities should stop trying to suck developments dry with development charges to fund things that should be funded with property taxes. Something like 20% the cost of building new housing is fees, taxes and charges. We have sin taxes on a necessity; housing.

From this article: https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/wi...cle_49e7cde6-78fe-5ca9-9a89-07b977d35ac3.html

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

It seems out there that industrialists are getting into the residential sector here...

...I guess I'm unfamiliar that such a cross over exists. Not to say that's a bad thing...I guess it's where money is to be had.

 

[Collingwoodbuildinglover]

If, as a developer, I could put money in a mutual fund and earn a higher ROI, that's what I would do.

I'm not giving you a cheaper unit, because I save a few dollars and you don't find anyone in the industry saying different.

I'm fine w/the GST announcement, but all it does, at the margin is shift some development from condos to rental, it doesn't actually create more development, because there's no one to build it or finance it.



Municipalities levy development charges to cover essential costs of growth. Sewers aren't free, watermains aren't free, garbage pick up isn't free, parks aren't free.

Why should existing residents pick up the tab to subsidize new ones?

For the record, I'm not anti-immigrant in the least; but the principle here is that growth should actually pay for itself.

If you're growing at a loss, maybe you should stop growing?

I think that this is the best argument I've seen on this site as to why we should queue back on immigration. Not stop but que back until we get enough inventory into the system to offset the influx. And I do agree that development fees are needed, especially in smaller towns where they don't have a large population to support them via property taxes

 

[ProjectEnd]

It seems out there that industrialists are getting into the residential sector here...

...I guess I'm unfamiliar that such a cross over exists. Not to say that's a bad thing...I guess it's where money is to be had.

They're not. They're just increasing the value of their land.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

...I guess that's where the unfamiliar comes in. And good to know!