News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto Year-End Poll: Vote on the Best Buildings of 2024, presented by Sapphire Balconies
 2.7K     8 
News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto's Social Media Presence Skyrocketed in 2024
 1K     2 
News   Dec 20, 2024
Mattamy Homes Records A Year of Accomplishments
 1.9K     0 

Toronto Ridiculous NIMBYism thread

Rosedale NIMBYs.

IMG_0886.JPG
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0886.JPG
    IMG_0886.JPG
    272.8 KB · Views: 821
salsa said:
Rosedale NIMBYs.
Click to expand...

Here is the full URL for those that don't want to manually type in the short URL: https://www.change.org/p/jennifer-k...-development-at-5-7-9-dale-avenue-in-rosedale

Out of curiosity, if it is apparent that this proposal will clearly breach zoning by-laws in this neighborhood, why would the builder proceed with the application anyway? Do they use it as a starting proposal and then hope to settle on something in between later on? Or do they figure it will be blessed with a variance somewhere down the line?
 
The project proposes the merging of 3 residential lots at 5, 7, and 9 Dale Ave in Rosedale, demolition of the existing three homes, and removal of 130 trees. It then proposes replacing them with a 26 unit 4 storey architecturally modern condominium and a 58 car underground parking lot.
Click to expand...

I'm ok with the 4 storeys, but 130 trees is quite a lot to be removing.
 
As an outsider from a place where NIMBYism has prevented/prevents so many residential units from being built (California), Toronto has it so easy. Consider this:

"City planning, as we have currently constructed it, also faces contradictory missions – an urbanism equivalent of “fast, cheap, or good – pick two”. In coastal regions of the US, we have assigned city planners with three primary missions:

  • Stop sprawl: slow the conversion of rural land into suburban developments of single-family homes and low-rise commercial.
  • Protect existing neighborhoods: prevent changes that current residents find discomforting, such as construction of apartment buildings or “McMansions” in single-family neighborhoods.
  • Affordability: ensure that a variety of housing types are available so that everyone can find a place to live without spending a burdensome part of their income.
Any two of these goals can be executed well together:

  • Stop sprawl and affordability: you can do this if you increase density in the existing built-up city. Who does this well? Tokyo. And Toronto! You can buy a brand new condo in a high-rise in downtown Toronto for barely $200,000. Read it & weep, coastal elites.
  • Protect existing neighborhoods and affordability: you can do this if you unabashedly sprawl out. Who does this well? Sunbelt cities, like Phoenix, Dallas, Atlanta, and any place in North Carolina.
  • Stop sprawl and protect existing neighborhoods: you can do this if you don’t give a crap about how expensive your city gets. Who does this well? San Francisco, obviously. London, again obviously. This is where Boston might end up, too." https://letsgola.wordpress.com/2014/06/29/what-are-city-plannings-goals/
To me it seems stopping sprawl and helping affordability are the two goals most cities should have and that seems super obvious, yet there are only two examples of cities in that category. What Toronto and Tokyo have in common is that a government above the local level has strong planning powers over them. The provience of Ontario has a lot of planning powers over the region essentially right? It seems like that really protects you guys from rampant NIMBYism that leads to a housing shortage. I'd like to learn more about that. It seems to me like California could learn a lot from Ontario. We need to take a lot of the planning power concentrated at the local level and give it to the state. Anyways Toronto amazes me. Please tell me more.
 
Skeezix said:
When it comes to NIMBYism and planning constraints, San Francisco does put Toronto to shame.
Click to expand...

The whole Bay Area really. I say that once you somebody knows about the massive downzoning of SF in the 70s (and other NIMBY victories there and their effects on housing costs), they'll no longer think of it as the area as the progressive, welcoming place they claim to be.

I'm from LA though which isn't quite as bad. I gave a speech in my public speaking class about the history of NIMBYism from 1960-1990 there and I'll be giving a part 2 that covers NIMBYism in LA from 1990 to the present. Right now shit's insane because we have an insane anti-development initiative in March. Here's a video of part 1. It's not the full thing because it got cut off.

 
Isn't San Francisco one of the most gentrified cities?

All the Silicon Valley employees are moving in driving up the prices of real estate because San Fran is a cooler place to live. Even most Silicon Valley companies are moving their head offices there.
 
bobbob911 said:
On what metrics? Certainly not affordability, which is what the above poster pointed out.
Click to expand...

On just about all metrics. Many analysts now believe that San Francisco has surpassed Manhattan in terms of lack of housing affordability (although it's not always an apples to apples comparison). In terms of land use planning, which is what I was talking about, San Francisco is notorious for its rigid and unbending planning controls, and the great difficulty involved in making changes. Even as-of-right zoning in that city doesn't guarantee that one can actually build something. As a result, San Francisco has seen relatively few dwelling units constructed over the past decades, despite the huge demand for housing in that city.
 
Last edited:
Skeezix said:
On just about all metrics. Many analysts now believe that San Francisco has surpassed Manhattan in terms of lack of housing affordability (although it's not always an apples to apples comparison). In terms of land use planning, which is what I was talking about, San Francisco is notorious for its rigid and unbending planning controls, and the great difficulty involved in making changes. Even as-of-right zoning in that city doesn't guarantee that one can actually build something. As a result, San Francisco has seen relatively few dwelling units constructed over the past decades, despite the huge demand for housing in that city.
Click to expand...

California as a whole is super expensive and lacking in housing production. Local governments often don't seem to want to do anything about this problem and sometimes make it worse. It seems to me that we need to give the state government more power over them because that seems to work for you guys in Ontario. Localities shouldn't be able to stop perfectly reasonable urban housing projects like this one in my hometown last year. http://www.latimes.com/tn-blr-rever...hes-developer-by-surprise-20150110-story.html

Also here's a good report on the YIMBY organization in the Bay Area.

 
Rosedale Residents on the neighbourhood's controversial condo - The answers may surprise you!
http://torontolife.com/real-estate/rosedale-condo-development-streeters/

Doesn’t it make sense for people to support new housing five minutes from a subway station?
> That is a very good point, because there is an argument that intensification is a good thing. But this is not in the spirit of intensification. These are units that are going to sell for more than $2.5 million. These are not people who are going to take the subway—they are going to get in their cars and drive.

----

Hold your pitchforks, some of these NIMBYs might be a little reasonable. I quoted one individual above who raises an interesting point. I've seen people call for the intensificiation of Rosedale before on this forum, could it be a case of the old proverb "be careful of what you wish for"?
 
WislaHD said:
Rosedale Residents on the neighbourhood's controversial condo - The answers may surprise you!
http://torontolife.com/real-estate/rosedale-condo-development-streeters/

Doesn’t it make sense for people to support new housing five minutes from a subway station?
> That is a very good point, because there is an argument that intensification is a good thing. But this is not in the spirit of intensification. These are units that are going to sell for more than $2.5 million. These are not people who are going to take the subway—they are going to get in their cars and drive.

----

Hold your pitchforks, some of these NIMBYs might be a little reasonable. I quoted one individual above who raises an interesting point. I've seen people call for the intensificiation of Rosedale before on this forum, could it be a case of the old proverb "be careful of what you wish for"?
Click to expand...

Sure, but another said you can't get on at Castle Frank as it stands and 50 more riders will cause chaos.

The 'kids won't be able to play in the street' was hilarious, too. When my 2nd cousins lived there or the kids that went with my kids to Sacre Coeur, I sure don't remember any street hockey or 'tag in traffic' games.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top