Last month, I wrote about Toronto's proposal to add additional "Avenues" to its urban structure. ("Avenues" is a defined term that I touch on in last month's post). Well, this week the new Avenues Policy went to City Council for debate and approval. You can read all the back and forth via Matt Elliott on X. Not surprisingly, some Councillors were/are opposed to it, fearing it will create some sort of dystopian future for Toronto. An attempt was made to send it back for further study and consultation, which is the typical delay tactic. Comments were made that people in multi-family buildings are lonely because they don't know their neighbors. And it was argued that Kipling Avenue should not be a designated "Avenue", even though it's already called one. (Toronto street suffixes can be weird sometimes.) Thankfully, the new Avenues passed. And this is a big deal for Toronto. Over time, this expanded Avenue network is going to create new housing and employment opportunities, and make transit and other forms of mobility far more viable all across the city. As I said last month, I think it's going to be foundational in helping us move away from the outdated model of the monocentric North American city. Slowly but surely we are laying the groundwork for an urban structure that is actually, and more uniformly, urban.

Over the weekend, we spoke about how the "GTA condo market is in a state of economic lockdown." What this generally means is that the math isn't making sense to build new condominiums. And so the market is necessarily pausing.

We spoke about what this will likely mean for supply in the coming years, but I think it's also interesting to talk about this in the context of something else: unfunded inclusionary zoning.

As a reminder, inclusionary zoning is, in its most basic form, a requirement to build a certain amount of affordable housing as part of new housing developments. And what I mean by "unfunded" is that there are no subsidies or other incentives being provided to the project.

This means that the cost of providing this housing -- and there is an additional cost -- needs to be shouldered by the project, which ultimately means the market-rate units need to pay for it.

Which is why if you look at most policy studies, you'll often find recognition that, because of this economic reality, IZ tends to work better in areas where home prices/rents are higher. And again, that's because the market-rate homes need to shoulder the cost.

We have questioned, many times, on this blog, whether this is the right approach to delivering affordable housing, but I think this question becomes even more critical in our current market environment.

If the entire market is, for the most part, in a state of economic lockdown, should we really be layering on additional costs and making it broadly more difficult to build any sort of new housing? It seems counterintuitive.

For more on this topic, check out this recent Sightline article by Dan Bertolet.

We knew it was coming. But it's important and worth mentioning again. This week, Toronto City Council adopted new Zoning Bylaw Amendments that will remove most parking minimums across the city. We now join many other cities across North America who have done similar things in order to try and encourage more sustainable forms of mobility.

If you'd like to take a spin through the draft amendments, you'll find them linked here. I haven't gone through them in detail, but I did do a word search for "maximum" given that this week's adoption represents a pretty clear change in perspective. Here's an excerpt from the staff recommendation report that speaks to what I'm talking about:

Recognizing these challenges, this review of the parking standards in the city-wide
Zoning By-law 569-2013 was guided by the principle that parking standards should
allow only the maximum amount of automobile parking reasonably required for a given
use and minimums should be avoided except where necessary to ensure equitable
access. The previous review, which began in 2005, was guided by the principle that the
zoning standards should require the minimum responsible amount of parking for a given
land use. This is inconsistent with Official Plan policies which discourage auto
dependence.

One other thing I found in the documents that went to Council was this map of parking spot selling prices in active high-rise developments across the city. Not surprisingly, downtown and midtown are showing the highest prices per parking space. I can't vouch for the accuracy of all of these dots, but it looks directionally right and I can tell you that at least one of them is correct.

All of us in the industry know how much parking drives decision making. There's a joke (half-joke) that when you're designing a building, first you lay out the parking and then you design all of the residential suites around that structural grid. That's not the way things should be done. The future of this city should not and cannot be centered around the car. This week's adoption is in service of that.