jje1000
Senior Member
Not quite zoning, but mass-timber highrises up to 18 stories are coming to Ontario:
|
|
|
Zoning Reform Ideas
- Thread starter A Torontonian Now
- Start date
evandyk
Senior Member
Has anybody built a 12 storey timber building in Ontario yet?
evandyk
Senior Member
Just doing some light googling of this out of curiousity, and the tallest mass timber building in the world (at least a year or two ago) is an 18 storey building in Norway, which is also the third tallest building in the entire country!
www.dezeen.com
Edit to add a more up to date list of tall timber buildings:
www.dezeen.com
Mjøstårnet in Norway becomes world's tallest timber tower
Mjøstårne by Voll Arkitekter in Norway has been verified as the world's tallest timber building by the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat.
www.dezeen.com
Edit to add a more up to date list of tall timber buildings:
Top 10 tallest mass-timber buildings around the world
As part of our Timber Revolution series, we have rounded up the world's 10 tallest buildings with mass-timber structures.
www.dezeen.com
afransen
Senior Member
goodcitywhenfinished
Active Member
Any idea when the official plan and bylaw amendments for EHON Major Streets will be brought to committee? The last report said sometime early 2024, and we are appraoching mid-2024.
afransen
Senior Member
Video discussing BC housing reforms.
chrisw
Active Member
allengeorge
Senior Member
Interesting. Is the above an improvement over what exists today?
I have to admit: I’m surprised at the two terraces at the front. Also, if the lot butts up against low-rise houses behind, will terracing be required there too? I assume so?
EDITS:
This is the city’s page for the above: https://www.toronto.ca/city-governm...ing-action-plan-avenues-mixed-use-area-study/
There is also a report there on changing the rear transition to neighborhoods. I haven’t read it yet.
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
Yes, because it applies existing 'Avenue' permissions where the zoning hasn't yet been updated; and it would also implement that permission in other areas where no Avenue Study has yet been conducted.
We've covered this............ stepbacks are essential to mitigating miserable conditions at street level.
What the City has done here (proposed) is to require fewer of them, and generally at greater heights.
City's default, on paper is to require strict adherence to the angular plane, in practice this has already been relaxed, this would bring the on-paper policy inline with practice.
Last edited:
allengeorge
Senior Member
Thank you for the answers and clarifications @Northern Light.
It sounds like this is a combination of:
1. Relaxed conditions
2. Aligning on-paper policies with in-practice ones
3. Normalizing the above rules city-wide
I’m a fan. Anything that simplifies and standardizes is appreciated.
It sounds like this is a combination of:
1. Relaxed conditions
2. Aligning on-paper policies with in-practice ones
3. Normalizing the above rules city-wide
I’m a fan. Anything that simplifies and standardizes is appreciated.
Northern Light
Superstar
Yes, (for the top 3) with a caveat.
The City hasn't exactly standardized in how to deal w/setbacks.
Its become more flexible. But being Toronto's bureaucracy, they've defined all the new options in detail.
I'd have to look it up to get the exact numbers, (which I'm not) so don't take these as 'gospel', but in essence, where there might have been 3 acceptable ways to meet the angular plane before, you will now have six or more.
I think, frankly, it would be sufficient to explain what the goal is (privacy, transition, wind or shadow mitigation) then let the builder establish that they've met the guidance. But, I get it, they want to give builders an idea of what they are open to approving and give staff easy 'does it look like this' examples to inform a 'yes'.
So before, at the rear of a building, the guidance might have been to build the step ladder/pyramid to meet the angular plane, now the guidance will show fewer stepbacks, at varying heights depending on the building/lot/area characteristics.
****
The non-standard component is that there is actually greater flexibility in this model, including greater discretion to the City Planner to exercise their judgement on how to balance competing goals.
* I need to note that flexibility is not limited to this policy but intertwined with ways to cope with timeline mandates on all types of planning applications.
rdaner
Senior Member
An interesting feature of Halifax’s zoning reform that is working its way through council is 8 units/lot in large core areas plus very high density for housing on college/ university campuses including parking lots. Seems like a sensible compromise for the short to medium term.