Toronto's new inclusionary zoning policy went to Planning and Housing Committee this week. Agenda item, here. The recommendations were approved, which means that the item will move onto City Council next month for final approval.
Here's a summary of some what is being proposed (though keep in mind that I am not a planner and you should probably do your own due diligence if you're looking to buy land and/or develop here):
IZ to come into force next year in 2022.
IZ to only apply on projects with 100 or more residential units.
Three distinct market areas across the City with differing set aside rates (see below charts). This strategy acknowledges the fact that you generally need submarkets with expensive housing and rising prices to be able to absorb the financial burden of the affordable housing units. I've written a lot about this dynamic on the blog. Relevant posts, here.
It's in the chart, but it's perhaps worth repeating: Purpose-built rental projects will not be required to deliver any affordable housing units at the outset of this policy. This is important to note because the margins on purpose-built rentals are razor thin.
The set aside rates are planned to increase to 8-22% by 2030.
The affordable units will need to remain affordable for 99 years. And the rents and prices are to be geared toward low and moderate income households, which are currently defined as those earning between $32,000 and $92,000.
Clear transition period for the development industry.
Ongoing monitoring of the policy to make sure it doesn't suck.
If you're interested, the full staff recommendation report can be found here and the draft OPA and zoning by-law can be found here and here.
Toronto city council has decided to defer its decision on legalizing rooming houses across the city one more time. Some of you may remember that this item went to council in the summer and was deferred to this fall. So now a new report is going to be drafted and the item will then make its way back to council sometime in the new year. Perhaps a decision will be made at that point. We will see.
This is an interesting debate for many reasons, one of which is its divisiveness. Shawn Micallef wrote a searing piece in the Toronto Star over the weekend talking about how city council is showing its contempt for renters in this city and how council's inaction is both "insulting and cowardly." Article, here (paywall).
At the same time, we know that many/most councillors don't want this to happen. Which is why you get comments like this (taken from Micallef's article): "...fundamentally what we need to talk about is what we don’t talk about enough at this council … homeowners’ rights. People who invest in this city and who live in stable residential neighbourhoods, the people that pay the taxes in this city.”
I have already shared my views on this topic in past posts, but these are annoying comments. I live in a multi-family building. I build multi-family buildings as my job. And my next home is already planned to be in a multi-family building. Does that make me a second class citizen because I don't live in a "stable residential neighborhood?" Am I not adequately investing this city?
One of the debates I came across on Twitter this week was about multi-tenant houses (also known as rooming houses) in Toronto. Currently, they are allowed in the former city of Toronto, parts of Etobicoke, and in York. But they are illegal everywhere else in the city.
The reason why the rules differ is simply because they weren't harmonized following amalgamation in 1998. And so right now we are debating whether or not things should be changed so that multi-tenant houses are permissible across the city.
As you can probably guess, it's a divisive issue.
The more urban councillors believe that rooming houses are vital because of their relative affordability. The more suburban councillors are, on the other hand, speaking for their constituents and saying that homeowners really don't want them in their communities. It's about "protecting the integrity of single-family communities."
No surprise here.
For this reason, a recent vote on the issue was deferred. It's expected to come back to council in September. Maybe there will be more support at that time. Or maybe there won't be. Either way, rooming houses will continue to exist all across the city. Some of them may just be illegal.
If I had any say in the matter, I would vote "yes."
Toronto's new inclusionary zoning policy went to Planning and Housing Committee this week. Agenda item, here. The recommendations were approved, which means that the item will move onto City Council next month for final approval.
Here's a summary of some what is being proposed (though keep in mind that I am not a planner and you should probably do your own due diligence if you're looking to buy land and/or develop here):
IZ to come into force next year in 2022.
IZ to only apply on projects with 100 or more residential units.
Three distinct market areas across the City with differing set aside rates (see below charts). This strategy acknowledges the fact that you generally need submarkets with expensive housing and rising prices to be able to absorb the financial burden of the affordable housing units. I've written a lot about this dynamic on the blog. Relevant posts, here.
It's in the chart, but it's perhaps worth repeating: Purpose-built rental projects will not be required to deliver any affordable housing units at the outset of this policy. This is important to note because the margins on purpose-built rentals are razor thin.
The set aside rates are planned to increase to 8-22% by 2030.
The affordable units will need to remain affordable for 99 years. And the rents and prices are to be geared toward low and moderate income households, which are currently defined as those earning between $32,000 and $92,000.
Clear transition period for the development industry.
Ongoing monitoring of the policy to make sure it doesn't suck.
If you're interested, the full staff recommendation report can be found here and the draft OPA and zoning by-law can be found here and here.
Toronto city council has decided to defer its decision on legalizing rooming houses across the city one more time. Some of you may remember that this item went to council in the summer and was deferred to this fall. So now a new report is going to be drafted and the item will then make its way back to council sometime in the new year. Perhaps a decision will be made at that point. We will see.
This is an interesting debate for many reasons, one of which is its divisiveness. Shawn Micallef wrote a searing piece in the Toronto Star over the weekend talking about how city council is showing its contempt for renters in this city and how council's inaction is both "insulting and cowardly." Article, here (paywall).
At the same time, we know that many/most councillors don't want this to happen. Which is why you get comments like this (taken from Micallef's article): "...fundamentally what we need to talk about is what we don’t talk about enough at this council … homeowners’ rights. People who invest in this city and who live in stable residential neighbourhoods, the people that pay the taxes in this city.”
I have already shared my views on this topic in past posts, but these are annoying comments. I live in a multi-family building. I build multi-family buildings as my job. And my next home is already planned to be in a multi-family building. Does that make me a second class citizen because I don't live in a "stable residential neighborhood?" Am I not adequately investing this city?
One of the debates I came across on Twitter this week was about multi-tenant houses (also known as rooming houses) in Toronto. Currently, they are allowed in the former city of Toronto, parts of Etobicoke, and in York. But they are illegal everywhere else in the city.
The reason why the rules differ is simply because they weren't harmonized following amalgamation in 1998. And so right now we are debating whether or not things should be changed so that multi-tenant houses are permissible across the city.
As you can probably guess, it's a divisive issue.
The more urban councillors believe that rooming houses are vital because of their relative affordability. The more suburban councillors are, on the other hand, speaking for their constituents and saying that homeowners really don't want them in their communities. It's about "protecting the integrity of single-family communities."
No surprise here.
For this reason, a recent vote on the issue was deferred. It's expected to come back to council in September. Maybe there will be more support at that time. Or maybe there won't be. Either way, rooming houses will continue to exist all across the city. Some of them may just be illegal.
If I had any say in the matter, I would vote "yes."
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
