We’ve been talking about the merits of congestion pricing for as long as I’ve been writing this blog. But it remains politically unpopular, despite the overwhelming evidence that it consistently does what it’s supposed to do: it reduces congestion, shortens commute times, improves air quality, and raises money for alternative modes of transport, among other things.
The status quo bias is strong, but right now we have an opportunity. Self-driving cars are in the midst of shifting the mobility landscape, and there’s a growing belief that (1) roads are going to need to be more accurately priced to deal with the surge in demand, and (2) this is a moment in time that grants us the opportunity to do it. Here’s a recent tweet by Chris Spoke of Toronto Standard that makes this point and that I agree with.
The basic idea behind point number two is that many voters don’t like the idea of a congestion charge for themselves, but will probably mind a charge on robot cars a lot less — both because they are robot cars and because there are relatively few of them on the road today. However, at some point, robot cars will form the majority of vehicles on the road, so now would be a good time to establish new practices.
What do you think?
Cover photo by Minku Kang on Unsplash
One of the reasons why we are seeing more multiplexes in Toronto (smaller infill buildings with less than seven homes) is that the city has waived development charges and parkland dedication fees on this scale of new housing.
This has helped enormously; without these changes, we'd be seeing far fewer of these housing projects being built.
But here's the odd thing about this exemption: if you build even one more home in the same building, the project is now subject to development charges on all of the homes (minus any credits you might receive for existing homes on the site).
Adding a seventh unit shouldn't suddenly trigger hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees for the first six. This makes zero sense:
It creates a disincentive to build incrementally more homes on sites that can accommodate them.
It creates a bias toward multiplexes (also known as "houseplexes") and away from apartments. The housing type shouldn't matter. We're talking about homes.
It perpetuates the "missing middle" problem. Build small or build big enough to shoulder the additional costs and regulatory burden.
If we're waiving DCs on sixplexes, why not at least waive them for the first six homes on every site? Better yet, waive them on even more homes. This is just one specific example of the hurdles I was talking about yesterday.
Note: My understanding is that the City of Toronto is currently looking to remove this DC cliff and implement a universal first-six-free rule.
Cover photo by Jason Ng on
Yesterday we spoke about the merits of fine-grained urbanism and why the direct and obvious way to achieve this is to just, you know, encourage more small-scale development. So today, let's talk about some of the specific things that would likely need to happen in order to unlock all of the small and under-utilized sites that today are not being developed at scale.
I'm going to speak from a Toronto perspective and talk specifically about small-scale "apartments," which in today's planning environment are generally buildings with seven or more dwelling units. Under this threshold, we have new terminology like "houseplex." But I'm sure that much of what I raise will translate to other cities and building types.
Here's my working list (I've also added a few items from this Twitter discussion):
As-of-right zoning permissions (the key, though, is that what's as-of-right needs to be economically viable)
No side-yard and front-yard setbacks
No site plan control approval (currently required for projects with 10 or more homes)
No/lower development charges
No parkland dedication fees
No required parking
No required amenity spaces (the city is the amenity)
Curbside garbage collection (as opposed to internalized collection facilities)
Reasonable servicing connection costs (I'm specifically looking at you Toronto Hydro)
No Record of Site Condition, or a streamlined process (Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks approval)
We’ve been talking about the merits of congestion pricing for as long as I’ve been writing this blog. But it remains politically unpopular, despite the overwhelming evidence that it consistently does what it’s supposed to do: it reduces congestion, shortens commute times, improves air quality, and raises money for alternative modes of transport, among other things.
The status quo bias is strong, but right now we have an opportunity. Self-driving cars are in the midst of shifting the mobility landscape, and there’s a growing belief that (1) roads are going to need to be more accurately priced to deal with the surge in demand, and (2) this is a moment in time that grants us the opportunity to do it. Here’s a recent tweet by Chris Spoke of Toronto Standard that makes this point and that I agree with.
The basic idea behind point number two is that many voters don’t like the idea of a congestion charge for themselves, but will probably mind a charge on robot cars a lot less — both because they are robot cars and because there are relatively few of them on the road today. However, at some point, robot cars will form the majority of vehicles on the road, so now would be a good time to establish new practices.
What do you think?
Cover photo by Minku Kang on Unsplash
One of the reasons why we are seeing more multiplexes in Toronto (smaller infill buildings with less than seven homes) is that the city has waived development charges and parkland dedication fees on this scale of new housing.
This has helped enormously; without these changes, we'd be seeing far fewer of these housing projects being built.
But here's the odd thing about this exemption: if you build even one more home in the same building, the project is now subject to development charges on all of the homes (minus any credits you might receive for existing homes on the site).
Adding a seventh unit shouldn't suddenly trigger hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees for the first six. This makes zero sense:
It creates a disincentive to build incrementally more homes on sites that can accommodate them.
It creates a bias toward multiplexes (also known as "houseplexes") and away from apartments. The housing type shouldn't matter. We're talking about homes.
It perpetuates the "missing middle" problem. Build small or build big enough to shoulder the additional costs and regulatory burden.
If we're waiving DCs on sixplexes, why not at least waive them for the first six homes on every site? Better yet, waive them on even more homes. This is just one specific example of the hurdles I was talking about yesterday.
Note: My understanding is that the City of Toronto is currently looking to remove this DC cliff and implement a universal first-six-free rule.
Cover photo by Jason Ng on
Yesterday we spoke about the merits of fine-grained urbanism and why the direct and obvious way to achieve this is to just, you know, encourage more small-scale development. So today, let's talk about some of the specific things that would likely need to happen in order to unlock all of the small and under-utilized sites that today are not being developed at scale.
I'm going to speak from a Toronto perspective and talk specifically about small-scale "apartments," which in today's planning environment are generally buildings with seven or more dwelling units. Under this threshold, we have new terminology like "houseplex." But I'm sure that much of what I raise will translate to other cities and building types.
Here's my working list (I've also added a few items from this Twitter discussion):
As-of-right zoning permissions (the key, though, is that what's as-of-right needs to be economically viable)
No side-yard and front-yard setbacks
No site plan control approval (currently required for projects with 10 or more homes)
No/lower development charges
No parkland dedication fees
No required parking
No required amenity spaces (the city is the amenity)
Curbside garbage collection (as opposed to internalized collection facilities)
Reasonable servicing connection costs (I'm specifically looking at you Toronto Hydro)
No Record of Site Condition, or a streamlined process (Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks approval)
Single egress stair
Flexible elevator sizing
No rental replacement
Predictable financing terms from agencies like CMHC
There's a lot on this list. But there isn't just one thing standing in the way of more fine-grained development. If you think I missed anything (or you just disagree with my line of thinking), feel free to leave a comment below.
What Toronto has demonstrated with its efforts to expand housing options in its neighbourhoods is that, when it makes economic sense to do so, people will actually build small. Today, the market is building single-unit laneway houses, and increasingly, it is building things like fourplexes and sixplexes.
So, what's standing in the way of more 10-, 20-, and 30-unit projects? It's the barriers and hurdles we have erected.
Single egress stair
Flexible elevator sizing
No rental replacement
Predictable financing terms from agencies like CMHC
There's a lot on this list. But there isn't just one thing standing in the way of more fine-grained development. If you think I missed anything (or you just disagree with my line of thinking), feel free to leave a comment below.
What Toronto has demonstrated with its efforts to expand housing options in its neighbourhoods is that, when it makes economic sense to do so, people will actually build small. Today, the market is building single-unit laneway houses, and increasingly, it is building things like fourplexes and sixplexes.
So, what's standing in the way of more 10-, 20-, and 30-unit projects? It's the barriers and hurdles we have erected.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
