allengeorge
Senior Member
I was pleasantly surprised. I was also wrong on some of the Councillors I thought would be against.
Also, from Reddit, originally from Kevin Rupasinghe on who voted against:
|
|
|
Zoning Reform Ideas
- Thread starter A Torontonian Now
- Start date
Also, from Reddit, originally from Kevin Rupasinghe on who voted against:
evandyk
Senior Member
It's weird that any councilor is against making their constituents' properties more valuable. Hopefully in the long run this generates more homes and lower prices, but it definitely makes your SFH land a lot more valuable.
Sunnyside
Active Member
I expected to see the overlap between the wealthier suburban wards and opposing the vote (Holyday, Robinson, Burnside, etc). What seems to be an anomaly, at least to me, is Crisanti & Perruzza's opposition. Especially with the FW LRT running through.
'
'
Towered
Senior Member
So how difficult would it be now for detached homeowners to densify their property? The implication seems to be that now you would just need a building permit, which supposedly is far easier to obtain than the re-zoning required previously.
A Torontonian Now
Senior Member
Wow!!! Somehow I never fully believed it would succeed!
On to the next fight: 3 storey walk-up apartments as of right, regardless of number of units.
On to the next fight: 3 storey walk-up apartments as of right, regardless of number of units.
Northern Light
Superstar
I'm not intrinsically opposed to these, by any means.........
But I do wonder if you've thought about how accessibility advocates would view this idea.
That whole swaths of new accommodation can be built that they not only can't live in; but can't visit either.
That's not a slag on you; just a thought on how issues like this are sometimes more complex than they seem at first blush.
afransen
Senior Member
I think the next battle for affordable housing is single-stairway centre-loaded lowrise/midrise. The multi-unit residential building code could do with a lot of updates reflecting technological improvements in safety to make it more affordable to build single loaded low- and mid-rise residential.
afransen
Senior Member
How is this different than stacked townhouses?
Northern Light
Superstar
A fair question.
I would suggest much like SFH, its a numerical one.
Building a home for one family that may exclude others, and/or exclude them from floors other than the main floor, might be seen as marginally unfortunate, but reasonable.
Doing so for two families (stacked townhome) perhaps likewise.
Once you get to 3-storey walk-ups with no unit limit, we could be talking 20+ units which are inaccessible, on a single lot.
Again, I'm not saying I'm against that, but I certainly think there may be arguments to be heard on the question.
A Torontonian Now
Senior Member
Do not confuse a short response for not having thought of complexities - often they might just not have been communicated either for effect (shorter is punchier) or time.
I am not advocating for public housing, to be provided in this manner, or anything even with any form of subsidy, just for this form to be possible for private development. By restricting height to 3 storeys for this sort of development, we ensure there will remain no shortage of buildings that must be accessible. Perhaps it would be worth going further and restricting this form to yellowbelt areas (ie, do require an elevator on avenues and mixed use areas even if only 3 storeys).
Northern Light
Superstar
It was removing the unit cap that caught my attention, more than the height, on this point.
One might well imagine a 5-storey walk-up with only 5 units, or 10; but a 3-storey without any limit on unit totals could easily be 60.
That said, I'm open to the argument. I quite like many of the old walk-up apartments in design, some of those in Chicago are superb.
I'm just wondering whether potential opposition on the file from accessibility advocates, among others, might dictate that that isn't really the 'next' battle on which we who advocate more 'missing middle' should focus.
allengeorge
Senior Member
Isn’t the next battle the EHON apartments on arterials one? The report is due this year, correct?
Also - I suspect we still aren’t open to low-rise in the Yellowbelt. Maybe someday?
Also - I suspect we still aren’t open to low-rise in the Yellowbelt. Maybe someday?
evandyk
Senior Member
A three story walk-up is a lot cheaper than a four story building that needs elevators. Physical accessibility is obviously important, but building three story buildings increases financial accessibility a lot
Northern Light
Superstar
Reports on as-of-right heights and uses on arterials are due later this year.
Also coming will be a report on greater heights/densities in select pockets of yellowbelt near to or within MTSAs.
egotrippin
Senior Member
I work near the Golden Mile and parts of the city like this one seem like our best opportunity to add housing while losing nothing of consequence. I look at all the strip malls, 1 storey plazas and parkings lots, and think, they should be lined end-to-end with midrise. Keep it human scaled with attention to the streetscape and public realm, improve the transit; BRT on streets like Lawrence for instance, since it seemingly takes over a decade to get an LRT line around here. Seems like an easy way to add 10s of thousands of new homes while relieving development pressure on downtown.
I imagine this is the direction we're moving with the arterial report mentioned?
I imagine this is the direction we're moving with the arterial report mentioned?