Zoning Reform Ideas

[Undead]

When's the last time the Ford government cared about what municipalities had to say? Last time we checked, they like to ram things down the throat of towns and cities because apparently the province knows best and enjoys constantly meddling in municipal affairs.

Something fishy is up, this isnt normal at all.

Not much different from the way the City is also at the whelm of bad Federal policies.

 

[allengeorge]

Something fishy is up, this isnt normal at all.

I'm surprised you think it's fishy. To me, it feels fairly straightforward.

1. The people most affected by the housing crisis are under 40 (probably under 35, really) and the younger you are, the less likely you are to vote.
2. The people the government needs on its side for the next election are in the inner and outer burbs, and those voters probably already own SFH (and most likely own a second property too). Those people aren't necessarily going to be onside for the announcement of a blanket speculation tax or the 'horror' of 4-plexes on their street.
3. There's nothing in these changes that can be weaponized against the government during an election. They all sound fairly policy-ish, and no one's really going to be sympathetic to arguments against reducing processing times.
4. The government has only ever really gone up against municipalities where it had nothing to lose. For example, cutting Council in Toronto wasn't much of a risk: a large number of the people who cared wouldn't have voted for the Conservatives anyways. Where it did matter (think the MZO on Cummer) the province has stalled on request of the PC MPP there.
5. Finally, there's not widespread anger about the situation yet. Maybe most Canadians without housing - even young ones - think of themselves as "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" who'll get on the housing train with enough gumption or parental help. Plus, we're Canadian: we don't really take or demand decisive action. Given that, there's no real need yet for the government to take any risks and make big changes.

All these factors are why I doubt we'll see substantive change even if the PCs are elected with a majority. My take is that the next housing bill will contain more process-related platitudes and an OBC change allowing for single egress which the government can wave about and claim will help with the missing middle. For better or worse, this is not a government driven by intellectual cohesiveness, but more by what's going to get it votes. BTW, I have to be equal opportunity here: neither the OLP or the NDP have a cohesive housing plan either targeting supply or speculation. Andrea Horwath was on TV railing against the monstrosity of condos, and the OLP seems to be doubling down on the FTHB handouts. Since their voting base is heavily urban, I would be shocked if either party went up against municipalities.

I am long-term pessimistic on Canada wrt. housing. Nothing will change until there's a critical mass of people who don't have stable housing who are willing to vote radicals in, or, we start seeing really awful systemic economic effects due to housing speculation (apparently increased outmigration, a plummeting birth rate, and tanking productivity/non-real-estate investment isn't enough.)

 

[allengeorge]

I do think one viable path forward is to focus on the ground game: for advocates to target ward by ward, city by city and replace incumbent anti-housing Councillors with more pro-housing ones. The problem there is Ontario municipalities' lack of term limits and massive incumbency advantage for sitting Councillors. If the province wants a fairly risk-free policy that could help on the housing file - that's one. You're not gonna get a lot of sympathy for unlimited terms.

 

[evandyk]

The path to winning an Ontario election is winning Toronto (which the Liberals pretty much always do) and a few suburbs, or completely dominating the Toronto/London/KW/Ottawa suburbs. Guess which strategy this policy is aimed to support?

 

[Northern Light]

I am long-term pessimistic on Canada wrt. housing. Nothing will change until there's a critical mass of people who don't have stable housing who are willing to vote radicals in, or, we start seeing really awful systemic economic effects due to housing speculation (apparently increased outmigration, a plummeting birth rate, and tanking productivity/non-real-estate investment isn't enough.)

We agree there's a problem, and that its consequential and that governments are at best lacking motivation in their response.........BUT.....

You often express your thoughts as if this were unique to Canada.

Lets have a look at where Toronto is in terms of Price to Income Ratio: (ratio for our purposes is left hand column, and lower is more affordable. Its roughly the factor of housing price to median income. (across all housing types)

* note all the numbers above skew low when I do the calculations individually so are probably a few years out of date. However, the relative ranking seems to be fairly constant.
ie. Toronto is now just over 13, while SF is now ~10

****

In terms of relative affordability of housing, we're number 299 in the world. Slightly less affordable than Naples, but more affordable than Madrid.
That is not said to diminish the very real issue here; but rather to point out that its actually a global issue in many respects.

Lets all look at this another way.

The expensive cities in the U.S. that rank better than us on affordability.

San Fran is 7.12

Yet, their housing prices are worse than ours at 1.488M U.S. for a median price that's $1,877,000 CAD

So how it can be more affordable? Income! That's how.

Median Household Income in SF is $120,000USD or $150,000CAD
Median Household income in Toronto is ~$75,000 CAD in the region (lower in the City proper)

Now SF is also pricing many citizens out of the City, its also got an acute homelessness problem...........so I'm not holding them up as a role model per se.
Rather, I'm noting that to the extent that they read as more affordable than Toronto that's a function of income not price.

*****

Financialization of housing is a global phenomenon not unique to Canada.

But we're suffering from it here just the same; and moreso than many other developed areas because our incomes are too low, and there is insufficient deeply affordable housing as well.

All of which is to say, housing affordability is not an issue unique to Canada, its just somewhat worse than many (not all) of our comparitors, but most of that difference is lower income, not higher price.

****

The developed world needs to target the housing side, Canada included. But Canada, somewhat more uniquely, needs to target income growth.

 

[Amare]

I'm surprised you think it's fishy. To me, it feels fairly straightforward.

1. The people most affected by the housing crisis are under 40 (probably under 35, really) and the younger you are, the less likely you are to vote.
2. The people the government needs on its side for the next election are in the inner and outer burbs, and those voters probably already own SFH (and most likely own a second property too). Those people aren't necessarily going to be onside for the announcement of a blanket speculation tax or the 'horror' of 4-plexes on their street.
3. There's nothing in these changes that can be weaponized against the government during an election. They all sound fairly policy-ish, and no one's really going to be sympathetic to arguments against reducing processing times.
4. The government has only ever really gone up against municipalities where it had nothing to lose. For example, cutting Council in Toronto wasn't much of a risk: a large number of the people who cared wouldn't have voted for the Conservatives anyways. Where it did matter (think the MZO on Cummer) the province has stalled on request of the PC MPP there.
5. Finally, there's not widespread anger about the situation yet. Maybe most Canadians without housing - even young ones - think of themselves as "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" who'll get on the housing train with enough gumption or parental help. Plus, we're Canadian: we don't really take or demand decisive action. Given that, there's no real need yet for the government to take any risks and make big changes.

All very good points, which leads me to believe that the province (or PC's in particular) are waiting until after the election to proceed with the radical ideas in the task force plan.

They've had no problem in the past completely transforming the OLT into a developer rubber stamping agency which makes the previously named OMB look tame in comparison, or scrapping rent control. They've never been afraid to make wild changes, they just want another majority in the bag before the unleash the hounds and really show their complete disregard for municipalities.

 

[DirectionNorth]

We agree there's a problem, and that its consequential and that governments are at best lacking motivation in their response.........BUT.....

You often express your thoughts as if this were unique to Canada.

Lets have a look at where Toronto is in terms of Price to Income Ratio: (ratio for our purposes is left hand column, and lower is more affordable. Its roughly the factor of housing price to median income. (across all housing types)


View attachment 389042

* note all the numbers above skew low when I do the calculations individually so are probably a few years out of date. However, the relative ranking seems to be fairly constant.
ie. Toronto is now just over 13, while SF is now ~10

****

In terms of relative affordability of housing, we're number 299 in the world. Slightly less affordable than Naples, but more affordable than Madrid.
That is not said to diminish the very real issue here; but rather to point out that its actually a global issue in many respects.

Lets all look at this another way.

The expensive cities in the U.S. that rank better than us on affordability.

San Fran is 7.12

Yet, their housing prices are worse than ours at 1.488M U.S. for a median price that's $1,877,000 CAD

So how it can be more affordable? Income! That's how.

Median Household Income in SF is $120,000USD or $150,000CAD
Median Household income in Toronto is ~$75,000 CAD in the region (lower in the City proper)

Now SF is also pricing many citizens out of the City, its also got an acute homelessness problem...........so I'm not holding them up as a role model per se.
Rather, I'm noting that to the extent that they read as more affordable than Toronto that's a function of income not price.

*****

Financialization of housing is a global phenomenon not unique to Canada.

But we're suffering from it here just the same; and moreso than many other developed areas because our incomes are too low, and there is insufficient deeply affordable housing as well.

All of which is to say, housing affordability is not an issue unique to Canada, its just somewhat worse than many (not all) of our comparitors, but most of that difference is lower income, not higher price.

****

The developed world needs to target the housing side, Canada included. But Canada, somewhat more uniquely, needs to target income growth.

Not really. Unless we get our own Silicon Valley, we aren't going to catch up (without even more inflation). I see SF as the exception.

For example, London's average household income is $60,000 CAD, Los Angeles is $90,000, Melbourne is $75,000, Sydney is $105,000. All these cities are also facing affordability issues - my point is that 75-100 thousand is the norm, increasing income won't do much unless we lift the poorest up without inflation.

Additionally, housing affordability should be based on whether the poor can pay, not whether the middle class can pay. Do you think we will get another minimum wage increase?

 

[Northern Light]

Not really. Unless we get our own Silicon Valley, we aren't going to catch up (without even more inflation). I see SF as the exception.

To be clear, I don't think income growth is the only issue by any means, I think its one that is largely overlooked in Toronto, however.

There are few large urban centres where housing costs are not problematic at middle income levels and a disaster for low-income earners.

We cannot drive market prices low enough to resolve the latter, we can partially address the needs of both income groups however with income growth. (both market income and social assistance/rent supplements etc.)

For example, London's average household income is $60,000 CAD, Los Angeles is $90,000, Melbourne is $75,000, Sydney is $105,000. All these cities are also facing affordability issues - my point is that 75-100 thousand is the norm, increasing income won't do much unless we lift the poorest up without inflation.

We'd have to go market by market comparing price to income for a fulsome examination of the issue, but again, I don't disagree property values/housing supply are part of the equation, I simply think income growth softens it.

Just glancing at Melbourne, they have a much higher minimum wage than we do, ($19.06 CAD per hour); and their housing affordability based on income ratio is about 18% better than Toronto's. (still not affordable)

A quick once-over also suggests lower homelessness, they have a population roughly 1/2 that of the GGH, and homeless estimates in the 3,500 range from what I can see, which makes the problem about 30% less there.

Additionally, housing affordability should be based on whether the poor can pay, not whether the middle class can pay.

I agree, with the caveat that in a free-market system there is virtually no housing market for the very poor w/o government owned housing or vast rent supplements.

Do you think we will get another minimum wage increase?

The Liberals are committed, should they win, to $16 in January, then to setting up regional minimum wages based on cost of living that would be substantially higher as needed, but they don't define that at this stage.

The NDP are committed to $16 this October, rising to $20 by 2026

The Greens don't have that aspect of their platform out yet, I don't think but would certainly be pro-increase.

So far, the Conservatives are silent on the subject.

*****

I do think its likely there will be another increase by January, but whether its 'inflationary' or more aggressive will probably depend on whose in power.

I think, on income-growth, we need to get the province-wide minimum wage, in today's money, to at least $18 per hour, and number for the GTA closer to $22 per hour

We also need to raise social assistance rates and disability (ODSP) rates significantly (a single, OW recipient today gets $733 per month; but they got $623 per month in 1990, today that number
would be $1,184 per month). Lets add, Toronto's housing, adjusted for inflation was much more affordable in 1990!

That said, even if we got OW up to say $1,500 per month and ODSP to $2,000 that still doesn't cover even low-end market rent, which speaks to the need for subsidized housing.

This excerpt of a 2019 report shows the roll that reduced TCHC-type building has had in our housing crisis:

From: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2019/ph/bgrd/backgroundfile-140633.pdf

It should be added, that the additional housing wouldn't merely be housing those who can't afford market rent, it would be putting downward pressure on the private rental market benefiting those with somewhat higher incomes as well.

 

[ProjectEnd]

I'm not sure this story fits here, but I couldn't think of a better thread for it, and didn't want to create one.

Developer Brad Lamb on pockets of condo value in a very hot T.O. market

For some insight into what’s to come for the condo market, the death of balconies and more, we spoke with developer Brad Lamab.

streetsoftoronto.com

Its an interview w/Brad Lamb.

He talks about a few things..........the one I took note of was this.

The City has changed the way its interpreting the separation distance guideline.

They used to measure from the face of the building to the face of the building to define 25M apart.

Apparently they are now measuring from the outermost part of the balcony to the balcony of the next building over. That essentially makes
the separation distance in the range of 29M if both buildings have balconies.

Thought it would good to get @innsertnamehere 's thoughts on this one and @ProjectEnd 's

I've spoken w/one person here who indicated that other developers are saying this is not true.



I await further commentary from those in the know.

It's just Brad being a dink, as always. He also thinks that COVID isn't real and that mask mandates are unscientific fascism.

Regarding the balconies - nothing has changed. It's still face of building. Furthermore, if this is a new Urban Design hobbyhorse, Planning has broad authority to ignore them entirely, and very likely will in most scenarios.

 

[innsertnamehere]

It's just Brad being a dink, as always. He also thinks that COVID isn't real and that mask mandates are unscientific fascism.

Regarding the balconies - nothing has changed. It's still face of building. Furthermore, if this is a new Urban Design hobbyhorse, Planning has broad authority to ignore them entirely, and very likely will in most scenarios.

I've definitely seen it, especially for tower setbacks that are under 25m. But yea - hobbyhorse is a good descriptor of the ask. There is absolutely no policy or guidelines to back up the request.

The City generally accepts a 20m tower separation in the core, and for those sites particularly, they seem to want to keep projecting balconies out of it.

Also - the refunding of dev fees after 60 or 90 days for applications is comical. That'll never happen - I get trying to push cities to decrease processing times, but you simply can't properly process an SPA application in 2 months other than in the most ideal, basic situations.

 

[Undead]

Somehow I think higher incomes will just be used as a convenient excuse to hike rents and valuations higher.

 

[north-of-anything]

Somehow I think higher incomes will just be used as a convenient excuse to hike rents and valuations higher.

Rents and valuations are getting hiked higher no matter what is done. Might as well have more money to spend on not-housing.

 

[DirectionNorth]

To be clear, I don't think income growth is the only issue by any means, I think its one that is largely overlooked in Toronto, however.

There are few large urban centres where housing costs are not problematic at middle income levels and a disaster for low-income earners.

We cannot drive market prices low enough to resolve the latter, we can partially address the needs of both income groups however with income growth. (both market income and social assistance/rent supplements etc.)

Sure, that's fine.

We'd have to go market by market comparing price to income for a fulsome examination of the issue, but again, I don't disagree property values/housing supply are part of the equation, I simply think income growth softens it.

Just glancing at Melbourne, they have a much higher minimum wage than we do, ($19.06 CAD per hour); and their housing affordability based on income ratio is about 18% better than Toronto's. (still not affordable)

A quick once-over also suggests lower homelessness, they have a population roughly 1/2 that of the GGH, and homeless estimates in the 3,500 range from what I can see, which makes the problem about 30% less there.

30% less per-capita?

Apparently Melbourne has a slightly higher cost of living than Toronto (except rent).
https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-livi...city1=Melbourne&country2=Canada&city2=Toronto

I agree, with the caveat that in a free-market system there is virtually no housing market for the very poor w/o government owned housing or vast rent supplements.

The Liberals are committed, should they win, to $16 in January, then to setting up regional minimum wages based on cost of living that would be substantially higher as needed, but they don't define that at this stage.

The NDP are committed to $16 this October, rising to $20 by 2026

The Greens don't have that aspect of their platform out yet, I don't think but would certainly be pro-increase.

So far, the Conservatives are silent on the subject.

I'm sure the Liberals won't win. $20 is fine, but will we see inflation in general ... ?

I do think its likely there will be another increase by January, but whether its 'inflationary' or more aggressive will probably depend on whose in power.

I think, on income-growth, we need to get the province-wide minimum wage, in today's money, to at least $18 per hour, and number for the GTA closer to $22 per hour

We also need to raise social assistance rates and disability (ODSP) rates significantly (a single, OW recipient today gets $733 per month; but they got $623 per month in 1990, today that number
would be $1,184 per month). Lets add, Toronto's housing, adjusted for inflation was much more affordable in 1990!

Welfare supports have not kept up with inflation, that's for sure.

That said, even if we got OW up to say $1,500 per month and ODSP to $2,000 that still doesn't cover even low-end market rent, which speaks to the need for subsidized housing.

This excerpt of a 2019 report shows the roll that reduced TCHC-type building has had in our housing crisis:

View attachment 389077
From: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2019/ph/bgrd/backgroundfile-140633.pdf

It should be added, that the additional housing wouldn't merely be housing those who can't afford market rent, it would be putting downward pressure on the private rental market benefiting those with somewhat higher incomes as well.

Social housing is definitely neccessary.

That being said, there are measures that are less inflationary that would be beneficial before we start hiking everything. Money laundering controls, laws against "renovictions" and "demovictions" and similar rent hiking tactics (to preserve low-rent units), and more affordable housing requirements.

 

[afransen]

Somehow I think higher incomes will just be used as a convenient excuse to hike rents and valuations higher.

What is this 'excuse' business? These are competitive markets. Prices are set at the level that clears the market. It is buyers who set the price as much as sellers.

 

[Northern Light]

Article in Today's Star looking at the 'reforms' from Queen's Park with a particular eye to this business of having the City refund planning fees if they are anything less than crisply timely w/their approvals.
The idea takes a drubbing from the City and an interviewed academic.......

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...ape-not-less-says-torontos-chief-planner.html (not paywalled at time of posting)

****

The article makes the point that planning approval times in Toronto/Canada are longer than in most OECD countries; that is true.
There are issues of staffing; but also measures that could be taken to expedite the process for many applications. The challenge here is a deadline that comes w/no new resources, and no change in regulatory burden/planning obligation.

****

Something else in the article caught my eye though, which is a discussion of the planning fees paid by specific proposals. The fees do contribute to prices, at least at the margins, we all knew that.
What specifically caught my eye is how much more punitive they are for smaller proposals.

From the article:

Cost per unit for the large project: $310 per unit
Cost per unit for small project: $934 per unit

That's just Site Plan mind you, not OPA/Zoning

Here the difference is more stark:

Cost per unit for huge project: $707.36
Cost per unit for large project: $634
Cost per unit for small project: $2,962

That's a difference of over $2,000 per unit on zoning alone. When factoring for the mark-up that occurs when you get to the selling price there really is a material economic dis-incentive to small scale projects.