Okay, so maybe this isn't an entirely definitive guide. But the intent is to make this post a kind of working post. As new ideas emerge (from my end or from your ends), I will endeavor to update it, so that maybe one day it will become a bit more definitive. I also think it's important to keep it a little crazy. Because housing affordability is clearly a tough problem to solve, so unless we start thinking differently and acting boldly, we may not get there.
Here goes.
Encourage new housing at all scales (low, mid, high)
"Upzone" all major streets and transit station areas
Allow multi-unit dwellings in low-rise neighborhoods and ensure that any applicable codes and/or policies are not creating unnecessary obstacles to building at this scale
Work to make the largest possible housing scale permissible on an as-of-right basis -- that is, remove the rezoning process wherever possible and allow builders to go right to a building permit (a lengthy rezoning process can cost millions)
Okay, so maybe this isn't an entirely definitive guide. But the intent is to make this post a kind of working post. As new ideas emerge (from my end or from your ends), I will endeavor to update it, so that maybe one day it will become a bit more definitive. I also think it's important to keep it a little crazy. Because housing affordability is clearly a tough problem to solve, so unless we start thinking differently and acting boldly, we may not get there.
Here goes.
Encourage new housing at all scales (low, mid, high)
"Upzone" all major streets and transit station areas
Allow multi-unit dwellings in low-rise neighborhoods and ensure that any applicable codes and/or policies are not creating unnecessary obstacles to building at this scale
Work to make the largest possible housing scale permissible on an as-of-right basis -- that is, remove the rezoning process wherever possible and allow builders to go right to a building permit (a lengthy rezoning process can cost millions)
Avoid the use of inclusionary zoning policies that do not provide an equal offset or subsidy (such as a density bonus)
Ensure that any development charges and levies are commensurate with the burdens created by new housing and that existing property owners are funding their fair share through property taxes
Identify the areas that are NOT seeing new housing and then create incentives to make development feasible
Search for underutilized land and other opportunities to add new housing -- no land parcel should be considered too small
Incentivize small-scale prototypes as a way to test out new ideas and foster innovation -- specifically with respect to climate change and construction productivity
Eliminate all parking minimums - no ifs, ands, or buts
Depoliticize the planning process as much as possible -- local politicians are not generally incentivized to encourage new housing
Eliminate the ability for individuals to block or significantly delay new housing
Ensure that there are enough staff to expeditiously review and process development and building permit applications -- if builders are hiring "expediters" in the hopes of moving these things along, it means something is broken
Put in place strict response and issuance timelines for building permits
Bonus city staff (and anyone else who touches housing supply) based on the number of housing units approved and permitted each year
Design smaller and more urban-friendly garbage trucks so that less space is lost in every new housing development
Avoid the use of inclusionary zoning policies that do not provide an equal offset or subsidy (such as a density bonus)
Ensure that any development charges and levies are commensurate with the burdens created by new housing and that existing property owners are funding their fair share through property taxes
Identify the areas that are NOT seeing new housing and then create incentives to make development feasible
Search for underutilized land and other opportunities to add new housing -- no land parcel should be considered too small
Incentivize small-scale prototypes as a way to test out new ideas and foster innovation -- specifically with respect to climate change and construction productivity
Eliminate all parking minimums - no ifs, ands, or buts
Depoliticize the planning process as much as possible -- local politicians are not generally incentivized to encourage new housing
Eliminate the ability for individuals to block or significantly delay new housing
Ensure that there are enough staff to expeditiously review and process development and building permit applications -- if builders are hiring "expediters" in the hopes of moving these things along, it means something is broken
Put in place strict response and issuance timelines for building permits
Bonus city staff (and anyone else who touches housing supply) based on the number of housing units approved and permitted each year
Design smaller and more urban-friendly garbage trucks so that less space is lost in every new housing development
The City of Toronto's Official Plan directs growth to areas of the city that it refers to as Centres, Avenues, Employment Areas, and the Downtown. In other words, these are the areas where most new development is intended to take place. So if you own land in one of these areas, it is probably worth more than if it were outside of them, all other things being equal.
Avenues are what you might expect. They are major streets that run throughout the city (pink ones in the above map). But not all major streets are "Avenues." There are lots of major streets that provide connectivity across the city but still feel like residential streets (tired ones I might add) and that have land use policies that only allow low-rise housing. I have always viewed this as a mismatch and I have long been critical of it on the blog.
But as part of the City's Expanding Housing Options in Neighourhoods (EHON) initiative, this exact problem is being looked at. And I think it is one of the most important land use studies currently underway in the city. Because if we are truly serious about housing affordability and our low-carbon goals, we are going to need to blanket our city with a lot more transit-supportive density. And our major streets are great place to start.
I just hope that everyone involved will be as bold and visionary as possible. If you have any thoughts, please leave them in the comment selection below. And for the latest on this study, click here. It is an agenda item at next month's Planning and Housing Committee meeting.
The UK has something called the National Model Design Code. The purpose of this national code is to provide guidance to local authorities and communities on the production of policies that promote successful design. More specifically, it is intended to help people determine what "good quality design looks like in their area."
So as part of this, the code wades into subjective things like beauty, attractiveness, and distinctiveness (see above chart). This is an interesting discussion -- and a topic in this recent Monocle radio episode -- because, at the end of the day, is there really such a thing as universal beauty? Can we all agree on what the most beautifully designed places in the world are?
At the same time, and architect Félicie Krikler points this out in the Monocle episode, there are countless examples of ugly places that are still wildly successful by all other urban measures. Is that okay or should they also be beautiful? And if budgets are tight (they always are), is it better to be a beautiful building or to be a more affordable one? Uh oh.
There is also a temporal consideration. Sometimes the things that were once thought to be ugly are now actually thought to be quite beautiful. Beauty can take time, and places sometimes take time to settle in and find their best uses. This is something that I have written about a few times before on the blog.
All of this being said, I believe wholeheartedly in the importance of beautiful places. And I don't think we talk enough about it. Too often we get hung up on esoteric planning stuff, even though so many of the places that we love would never meet these same tests. However subjective as it may be, more beauty is rarely a bad thing.
Image: National Model Design Code
The City of Toronto's Official Plan directs growth to areas of the city that it refers to as Centres, Avenues, Employment Areas, and the Downtown. In other words, these are the areas where most new development is intended to take place. So if you own land in one of these areas, it is probably worth more than if it were outside of them, all other things being equal.
Avenues are what you might expect. They are major streets that run throughout the city (pink ones in the above map). But not all major streets are "Avenues." There are lots of major streets that provide connectivity across the city but still feel like residential streets (tired ones I might add) and that have land use policies that only allow low-rise housing. I have always viewed this as a mismatch and I have long been critical of it on the blog.
But as part of the City's Expanding Housing Options in Neighourhoods (EHON) initiative, this exact problem is being looked at. And I think it is one of the most important land use studies currently underway in the city. Because if we are truly serious about housing affordability and our low-carbon goals, we are going to need to blanket our city with a lot more transit-supportive density. And our major streets are great place to start.
I just hope that everyone involved will be as bold and visionary as possible. If you have any thoughts, please leave them in the comment selection below. And for the latest on this study, click here. It is an agenda item at next month's Planning and Housing Committee meeting.
The UK has something called the National Model Design Code. The purpose of this national code is to provide guidance to local authorities and communities on the production of policies that promote successful design. More specifically, it is intended to help people determine what "good quality design looks like in their area."
So as part of this, the code wades into subjective things like beauty, attractiveness, and distinctiveness (see above chart). This is an interesting discussion -- and a topic in this recent Monocle radio episode -- because, at the end of the day, is there really such a thing as universal beauty? Can we all agree on what the most beautifully designed places in the world are?
At the same time, and architect Félicie Krikler points this out in the Monocle episode, there are countless examples of ugly places that are still wildly successful by all other urban measures. Is that okay or should they also be beautiful? And if budgets are tight (they always are), is it better to be a beautiful building or to be a more affordable one? Uh oh.
There is also a temporal consideration. Sometimes the things that were once thought to be ugly are now actually thought to be quite beautiful. Beauty can take time, and places sometimes take time to settle in and find their best uses. This is something that I have written about a few times before on the blog.
All of this being said, I believe wholeheartedly in the importance of beautiful places. And I don't think we talk enough about it. Too often we get hung up on esoteric planning stuff, even though so many of the places that we love would never meet these same tests. However subjective as it may be, more beauty is rarely a bad thing.
