Why more skyscrapers than "Avenue" style building proposals?

[diminutive]

All well and good unless you're in a wheelchair. Doesn't multi-storey residential construction have to have elevators?

I wonder if we could change accessibility regulations to require only a portion of residential units to be wheelchair accesible. I imagine a typical 4 storey walkup building could be made accesible for groundfloor suites, resulting in approximately 25% of units being accessible. Since fewer than 25% of people are mobility impaired that seems fair...

Then again, since people may become impaired (permanently or temporarily) after they move into a given unit, it could lead to unpredicted accessibility issues.

 

[andrewpmk]

Basically it's because for a 4 storey or less building, you can use wood framed construction (cheap) and may not need an elevator. For 5 or more storeys, you are required to use concrete and steel construction, which is a lot more expensive. Developers HATE building 5 storey buildings. I don't understand why planners have such an obsession with "mid rise" construction, because developers are not going to build condo buildings which have uneconomical building heights where it is hard to make a decent profit. Usually most proposals for buildings above 4 storeys are for a 15-20+ storey building; the taller the building, the more units the developer can put in the building and the more money a developer can make.

 

[DavidJamesTO]

I wonder if we could change accessibility regulations to require only a portion of residential units to be wheelchair accesible. I imagine a typical 4 storey walkup building could be made accesible for groundfloor suites, resulting in approximately 25% of units being accessible. Since fewer than 25% of people are mobility impaired that seems fair...

Then again, since people may become impaired (permanently or temporarily) after they move into a given unit, it could lead to unpredicted accessibility issues.

Seems reasonable to me, though like you say it can become problematic in the future.

The building I live in right now (outside the GTA) is about twenty years old but probably wouldn't be allowed today; even the "ground" floor is only accessible by a flight of stairs to the porch. It does have a rear staircase that could easily be wheelchair accessible with a stairlift, though.

 

[fedplanner]

How would that even work? I can't imagine there's a simple way to just "allow" mid-rises without massive zoning changes since they're legal bylaws.

It would take a city initiated bylaw.

 

[pman]

I wonder if we could change accessibility regulations to require only a portion of residential units to be wheelchair accesible. I imagine a typical 4 storey walkup building could be made accesible for groundfloor suites, resulting in approximately 25% of units being accessible. Since fewer than 25% of people are mobility impaired that seems fair...

Then again, since people may become impaired (permanently or temporarily) after they move into a given unit, it could lead to unpredicted accessibility issues.

I suspect that any weakening of accessibility regulations would be struck down by the courts on Charter grounds.

 

[diminutive]

I suspect that any weakening of accessibility regulations would be struck down by the courts on Charter grounds.

Accessible private housing isn't a Charter right... If anything that would fall under Provincial housing regulations.

There are examples of new developments which are not wheelchair accessible. It's pretty common for new townhomes and stuff to have pretty substantial staircases to reach the door. And those came way after the Charter. So it seems like this is a specific regulation to multi-unit structures.

 

[RC8]

I know recently finished multi-unit 5 story faux-style buildings in Mississauga with no elevators and lots of stairwells. I doubt there's anything at all preventing the construction of such buildings. I also don't think having a single elevator would be prohibitively expensive in 5 story buildings.

If you have families moving to mid-rises then all of a sudden this stuff will all happen by itself. The zoning is, as our chief planner points out, the biggest obstacle.

 

[M II A II R II K]

Jen Keesmaat’s Big Idea

Read More: http://torontoist.com/2013/01/jen-keesmaats-big-idea/

.....

Keesmaat told reporters last week that she wants to see the City change zoning regulations to automatically allow mid-rise development along Toronto’s “avenuesâ€â€”a specific list of designated arterial roads, like St. Clair and Danforth, which form the spines of residential neighbourhoods but themselves are already somewhat built up. The goal is to accommodate Toronto’s growing population by increasing density while maintaining more moderately scaled neighbourhoods, distributing some development across several main streets rather than concentrating it only clusters of giant towers.

- Officially, this has been one of Toronto’s planning goals for quite some time. One key problem: the City’s own zoning rules don’t currently support that vision. The problem is a conflict between two key documents: our Official Plan (a big-picture vision, in which a municipality sets out its planning direction and a strategy for managing future growth) and our zoning bylaw, which lay out the specific rules about what a developer is allowed to build at any given location. Paul Bedford, one of Toronto’s former chief planners, distinguishes between zoning and the Official Plan simply: “the Plan is about vision, the zoning bylaw is about precision.â€

- Because obtaining a zoning amendment for large changes is arduous (as opposed to an easier-to-obtain variance, for smaller matters), it effectively tilts the playing field towards big developers: the ones asking not just for small changes in height or use but for substantial ones, ones that they think will maximize the profit (including covering the trouble of going through this amendment process in the first place). This is what Keesmaat is hoping, specifically, to change. The idea is to get to the point where mid-rise construction wouldn’t need to go through the time-consuming zoning application process at all, enabling a developer who wanted to build mid-rise on an avenue to simply apply for a building permit and go, able to construct mid-rise “as of right†(i.e. without needing special permission). “We would essentially take out a whole layer in the process, which is quite time consuming, and for developers quite costly,†Keesmaat told us last week, when we asked for more details about her plan.

- Keesmaat hopes that the corridor-wide Avenue Study process will defuse some of the local antagonism to developers. “I think it’s better for consultation to happen in the context of the study, because you get less parochial interests then with a specific application.†Mid-rise developers are, predictably, excited about the possibility of a shorter, less onerous process. Shane Fenton, vice-president at Reserve Properties (developer of 109OZ, among other buildings), says the current process actually causes more disruption than a more permissive one would. “Someone who wants to build six storeys has to go through the same process as someone who wants to build 30,†says Fenton. “A lot of developers look at that and think, ‘why is it worth my time and money’?â€

.....

 

[Palma]

Basically it's because for a 4 storey or less building, you can use wood framed construction (cheap) and may not need an elevator. For 5 or more storeys, you are required to use concrete and steel construction, which is a lot more expensive. Developers HATE building 5 storey buildings. I don't understand why planners have such an obsession with "mid rise" construction, because developers are not going to build condo buildings which have uneconomical building heights where it is hard to make a decent profit. Usually most proposals for buildings above 4 storeys are for a 15-20+ storey building; the taller the building, the more units the developer can put in the building and the more money a developer can make.

Since condos are sold on a per sq ft basis I don;t see the difference between building fewer larger units vs more but smaller. For example 1 unit 1600 sq ft at $500/sq ft would sell for $800,000. For 15 units that would be $12,000,000. If you have 30 units at 800 sq ft each, selling at $500 per sq ft, that unit will cost $400,000. For 30 units of the same the same size, this = $12,000,000. People are now paying huge sums of money for houses in the city that are less than 1600 sq, ft so the money would be there for condos. What they need to do is change the aspect of condo fees. Every unit should be individually metered for gas, water and hydro. To be paying 800 for monthly condo fee makes no sense, Even in a house a roof is replaced 25-30 years. Condos have been around since the 80's so they must have an idea what it would cost to replace the condo heating system (equavalent to a furnace in a house). Someone is collecting too much money in condo fees and is profitting

 

[balenciaga]

. What they need to do is change the aspect of condo fees. Every unit should be individually metered for gas, water and hydro. To be paying 800 for monthly condo fee makes no sense, Even in a house a roof is replaced 25-30 years. Condos have been around since the 80's so they must have an idea what it would cost to replace the condo heating system (equavalent to a furnace in a house). Someone is collecting too much money in condo fees and is profitting

Agree. We need to make condo living more sustainable. I have seen too many condos running at 27 degree in the winter so people can wear short sleeve Tshirt, and 18 degree in the summer and wearing a tshirt you will be shivering. Really? If 27C is comfortable in the winter, why is it not comfortable in the summer? I never get it. All inclusive condos/apartments should be totally banned in the city because when it is all inclusive, people just leave the heater/AC on all the time.

I live in a 16 year old condo which is sub-metered. Everyone pays for his own share of gas and electricity, and the maintenance fee is still low at about 45c/sf. There is no fancy 24H concierge, or basketball court. It provide decent space for people to live in, with most 1 bedroom units over 600sf (and the bedrooms have large windows and are wide enough to put a king bed and 2 night stands) I think it is how a condo should be built and run in the long term. Otherwise, don't we see many condos are popular in the early years and then gradually become hot potato nobody wants to hold because the fee is like 80 cents a sf or more?

 

[W. K. Lis]

What about triplexes, four-plexes, or six-plexes? I haven't seen many built since the 1960's. A homeowner could live in one apartment and rent out the other apartments.

 

[fedplanner]

What about triplexes, four-plexes, or six-plexes? I haven't seen many built since the 1960's. A homeowner could live in one apartment and rent out the other apartments.

Zoning may explain the lack of new construction. Zoning also applies to existing structures. A basement apartment for example can't legally be turned into a self containing unit unless the zoning specifically allows it. I get the impression that in Toronto these rules aren't as strongly enforced since there seems to be lots of conversions.

I would love to buy a duplex or triplex so my mortgage would be partially paid for by the rents from the tenants. Creation of new duplexes is strongly discouraged - maybe even forbidden - due to the way the zoning code is written in my community, so it's basically non-existent. This is one of the reasons why I have beef with the majority of the folks in my profession.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Zoning may explain the lack of new construction. Zoning also applies to existing structures. A basement apartment for example can't legally be turned into a self containing unit unless the zoning specifically allows it. I get the impression that in Toronto these rules aren't as strongly enforced since there seems to be lots of conversions.

I would love to buy a duplex or triplex so my mortgage would be partially paid for by the rents from the tenants. Creation of new duplexes is strongly discouraged - maybe even forbidden - due to the way the zoning code is written in my community, so it's basically non-existent. This is one of the reasons why I have beef with the majority of the folks in my profession.

Buying a new home these days could mean a big mortgage payment each month. Owning a duplex or triplex as a first home and renting out a floor would definitely help. Again, it comes down to municipal zoning (and NIMBYs) that discourages such homes.

The other turnoff is that the current Ontario's Residential Tenancies Act and the regulations of the Ontario Landlord and Tenant Board make it very difficult for a new landlord to understand or help. Especially if there are those tenants-from-hell who know more about the rules than a new landlord.

 

[jaycola]

I think we could increase residential zoning on a per foot lot frontage basis.

Lots under 16 feet 2 residential units (basement apartments are legal throughout most of the city).
Lots 16-25 foot frontage 3 units allowable.
Lots 25-50 feet, 4 units, 50 foot lots and larger allow up to 6 units.

Streamline the application/permit process for individuals who live within their unit and offer tax incentives for homesteaders who reside in the unit afterwards.

You can even give tax advantages to homeowners who create residential units similar to the RRSP program.

 

[fedplanner]

I think we could increase residential zoning on a per foot lot frontage basis.

under 16 feet 2 residential units (basement apartments are legal throughout most of the city).
Lots 16-25 foot frontage 3 units allowable.
Lots 25-50 feet, 4 units, 50 foot lots and larger allow up to 6 units.

Streamline the application/permit process for individuals who live within their unit and offer tax incentives for homesteaders who reside in the unit afterwards.



Give

I wasn't aware of that. Good for Toronto!