innsertnamehere
Superstar
A laneway suite is accessed from a rear lane while a garden suite is located in the rear yard of a property without laneway access and is accessed via the side yard.
|
|
|
Zoning Reform Ideas
- Thread starter A Torontonian Now
- Start date
innsertnamehere
Superstar
yup.
It's helpful, and should help fight off population declines in neighbourhoods a bit, but it was never going to solve the housing crisis.
Every little bit helps, but laneway suites / garden suites were always going to be a niche thing.
Same with legalized multiplexes - I expect that zoning change will result in more units that Laneway/Garden suites.. but it's still not going to deliver anything more than a very small percentage of the 285,000 houses Toronto is supposed to build in the next 8.5 years.
evandyk
Senior Member
In our case we actually solved the funding problems they mention in the article by my family paying in advance to fund the construction, in exchange for living there until the main owner is ready to retire and move into the laneway house. It's a new model that as far as I know has never been used elsewhere in the city yet.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
oh it's creative and works for some people - and thus should be celebrated - but when you are facing a 285,000 unit housing crunch, you aren't solving that with granny suites.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
John Graves Simcoe, the newly-appointed Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada, created "park lots" as incentives for disbanded British troops or as Loyalists from the former American colonies to settle outside the Town of York.
From link.
Eventually, the new owners sub-divided their park lots into housing for other new comers.
Garden suites are just a continuation of that practice.
From link.
Eventually, the new owners sub-divided their park lots into housing for other new comers.
Garden suites are just a continuation of that practice.
evandyk
Senior Member
No doubt at all. Mine is a very creative solution that only works for a handful of people.
Undead
Senior Member
Some interesting reading:
/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/tgam/DMTRRHSZHFBNHN3XQT6AY2AFGY.jpg)
www.theglobeandmail.com
The report: https://economics.td.com/ca-balancing-canada-population
Good to see this finally being openly discussed. But makes me wonder why now after the banks were happy to rake in housing bubble profits all these years.
TD report predicts higher interest rates and an affordability crisis
Canada’s population boom has reduced pressure on the labour market but could erode housing affordability for buyers and renters
www.theglobeandmail.com
The report: https://economics.td.com/ca-balancing-canada-population
Good to see this finally being openly discussed. But makes me wonder why now after the banks were happy to rake in housing bubble profits all these years.
afransen
Senior Member
Lots of GTA municipalities only having housing starts 30% of target is pretty eye-opening! For how much construction there is in Mississauga, there needs to be 3x that amount to satisfy the province...
Northern Light
Superstar
I have to say, we need to call a spade a spade here, 'housing starts' is an absurd target for local governments that don't actually build housing.
Housing approvals would be the correct target. Its developers who decide how many 'starts' there are.
The target must align with a person/entity's scope of control.
Toronto Planning tracks units approved.
The CBC article on this subject is here:
Mike Moffatt, who many will know here is quoted thusly:
Further down CBC's article, we get this statement:
wopchop
Building Toronto
There is no possible way to meet the yearly housing starts target. It's not possible in any near term. Maybe in five to ten years we can start to hit it.
Everyone in the industry that is pushing the government to "build more housing" - developers, builders associations, etc. has a vested interest in the government reducing "red tape". It will reduce their costs, and they have no obligation to reduce sales prices. It's a win for them in all ways.
And all these people know there isn't enough subcontractors, suppliers or workers to supply and build that many houses. There just isn't.
Even right now there are tens of thousands of approved units that they haven't started on. For a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with "red tape" - lack of labour, higher interest rates affecting project financing, etc.
Everyone in the industry that is pushing the government to "build more housing" - developers, builders associations, etc. has a vested interest in the government reducing "red tape". It will reduce their costs, and they have no obligation to reduce sales prices. It's a win for them in all ways.
And all these people know there isn't enough subcontractors, suppliers or workers to supply and build that many houses. There just isn't.
Even right now there are tens of thousands of approved units that they haven't started on. For a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with "red tape" - lack of labour, higher interest rates affecting project financing, etc.
egotrippin
Senior Member
I was just about to say, and I've seen @Northern Light bring it up before too; it sounds like there are quite literally physical limitations to building any faster than we are currently. The problem too, again as has been discussed, is a lot of what's being built is market rate investor boxes that aren't suitable for families.
Short of going with some sort of "authoritarian" or "communist" solution as it would no doubt be called, such as the government mandating all resources be directed towards social/affordable/public housing, what can truly be done to tackle the issue? Perhaps we're at the point where we need a drastic solution, as suggested with the Victory Housing 2.0 idea, but to achieve that it sounds like you'd have to quite literally take the resources from the private sector. Either that or tell every new person immigrating to Canada that you're going into trades lol. There might be an optics issue there though, telling newcomers to build their own housing...
Short of going with some sort of "authoritarian" or "communist" solution as it would no doubt be called, such as the government mandating all resources be directed towards social/affordable/public housing, what can truly be done to tackle the issue? Perhaps we're at the point where we need a drastic solution, as suggested with the Victory Housing 2.0 idea, but to achieve that it sounds like you'd have to quite literally take the resources from the private sector. Either that or tell every new person immigrating to Canada that you're going into trades lol. There might be an optics issue there though, telling newcomers to build their own housing...
wopchop
Building Toronto
Maybe the government should take a look at how housing prices are being affected by the thousands of units bought by investors (not foreign buyers) or realtors, who are flipping the units/houses after occupancy, or renting them for extortion prices. These people add nothing to our economy.
Earlier this year, CBC published an article: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/housing-investors-canada-bc-1.6743083#:~:text=In Nova Scotia, 31.5% of,1.8% being investor-occupants.
A lot of people talk about foreign buyers, but the last studies that I have seen on that estimate that 3-4% of homes in Toronto are owned by foreign buyers. So the problem is much, much bigger than "foreign buyers".
Link: https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canada-foreign-buyers-ban-jan-1-experts-1.6692706#:~:text=In the four provinces and,least one non-resident owner.
Oh wait, addressing this would hurt most of the people making the laws and the people that vote for them! Sorry, crazy idea!
Last edited:
TRONto
Active Member
Investors buying preconstruction allows for properties to be built providing housing. This is especially the case for condominiums. No investors = no construction. Only so many people can buy a home 5 years before they are moving in.
Northern Light
Superstar
We'll have to disagree here.
Certainly, taking action which would curtail, or eliminate the investor-owned market would change the housing market (I would argue for the better), but it would not stop it.
What you would likely see is more family-friendly units coming forward, but also a shift to more purpose-built rental with a different financing model.
We've been here before. There were close to zero investor-owned units in the 60s and 70s; but tons of purpose-built rental went up!
wopchop
Building Toronto
So do you think those investors are helping to make housing affordable? Or what about the thousands of condos that investors hold on to after occupancy, which get rented out. Is that helping too?
People have been buying pre-construction for the last 50+ years. There is nothing magically different now except the cost of housing is enormous (in large part because of investors). In theory it should be easier for a first time buyer, because their deposit structure is stretched over a longer period of time versus lump sum due for a resale.
Yes, let's keep pretending these "investors" are helping make housing affordable. How gracious of them.
Last edited: