Following yesterday's post on small-scale apartments, a number of people commented on the 6m front yard setback that was shown on the city's drawings and that I mentioned in my post. Well, it turns out that I wasn't entirely correct about the 6m. What is proposed in the draft zoning by-law is the following:
The modelling has illustrated building setbacks that are appropriate for townhouse developments and small-scale apartment buildings on major streets in a Neighbourhoods context. Based on the review, Urban Design staff recommend that the front yard setback be implemented through use of the average of the existing neighbouring setbacks, or a minimum of 3 meters, whichever is greater. This approach maintains consistency with the existing character of the Neighbourhoods supports protection of existing mature trees.
As you might expect, the approach with these small-scale apartments is to be mindful of the existing low-rise context. But as many of you rightly pointed out when you saw the 6m, the existing context may not be appropriate or ideal for the
Following yesterday's post on small-scale apartments, a number of people commented on the 6m front yard setback that was shown on the city's drawings and that I mentioned in my post. Well, it turns out that I wasn't entirely correct about the 6m. What is proposed in the draft zoning by-law is the following:
The modelling has illustrated building setbacks that are appropriate for townhouse developments and small-scale apartment buildings on major streets in a Neighbourhoods context. Based on the review, Urban Design staff recommend that the front yard setback be implemented through use of the average of the existing neighbouring setbacks, or a minimum of 3 meters, whichever is greater. This approach maintains consistency with the existing character of the Neighbourhoods supports protection of existing mature trees.
As you might expect, the approach with these small-scale apartments is to be mindful of the existing low-rise context. But as many of you rightly pointed out when you saw the 6m, the existing context may not be appropriate or ideal for the
planned
context, especially if there's retail at grade.
This is just one of the many details that we'll need to be careful with as this initiative moves forward.
Here is a mapping, from the University of Toronto's School of Cities, showing the number of "closed" building permits issued in Toronto between 2013 and 2023 for both rear-yard suites (laneway houses and garden suites) and secondary suites (like basement apartments).
A "closed" building permit probably means that construction is complete. However, it is not uncommon for a permit to inadvertently remain open. This happened to me with Mackay Laneway House. The permit was supposed to be closed, but it wasn't.
I opened Twitter today and one of the first tweets that I saw was about Austin passing a new resolution that allows 3 homes on every lot by-right; lowers the minimum lot size to 2,500 sf; and expedites planning approvals for triplexes and fourplexes. I then scrolled a bit further and found a tweet on how Vancouver is about to vote on a new motion that will allow 4-6 homes on every residential lot as-of-right. (The US typically uses the term "by-right", whereas in Canada we use "as-of-right".)
None of this is surprising. As many of you know, Toronto just did something similar by allowing fourplexes + a laneway or garden suite on every residential lot. But all of this is still noteworthy because it reinforces one simple fact: cities across North America are all starting to rethink their low-rise single-family neighborhoods. I know that many of you will say that fourplexes are not enough. We should be doing more. But I think this is an important step.
The single-family home hegemony is ending. We are now asking our cities to do more with the same amount of land.
planned
context, especially if there's retail at grade.
This is just one of the many details that we'll need to be careful with as this initiative moves forward.
Here is a mapping, from the University of Toronto's School of Cities, showing the number of "closed" building permits issued in Toronto between 2013 and 2023 for both rear-yard suites (laneway houses and garden suites) and secondary suites (like basement apartments).
A "closed" building permit probably means that construction is complete. However, it is not uncommon for a permit to inadvertently remain open. This happened to me with Mackay Laneway House. The permit was supposed to be closed, but it wasn't.
I opened Twitter today and one of the first tweets that I saw was about Austin passing a new resolution that allows 3 homes on every lot by-right; lowers the minimum lot size to 2,500 sf; and expedites planning approvals for triplexes and fourplexes. I then scrolled a bit further and found a tweet on how Vancouver is about to vote on a new motion that will allow 4-6 homes on every residential lot as-of-right. (The US typically uses the term "by-right", whereas in Canada we use "as-of-right".)
None of this is surprising. As many of you know, Toronto just did something similar by allowing fourplexes + a laneway or garden suite on every residential lot. But all of this is still noteworthy because it reinforces one simple fact: cities across North America are all starting to rethink their low-rise single-family neighborhoods. I know that many of you will say that fourplexes are not enough. We should be doing more. But I think this is an important step.
The single-family home hegemony is ending. We are now asking our cities to do more with the same amount of land.
So here's the same mapping with open (i.e. active) permits also turned on:
Three things immediately stand out:
Secondary suites seem to be somewhat evenly distributed across the city.
Rear-yard suites are heavily concentrated in the older areas of the city, flanking the downtown core.
North Toronto is wealthy and isn't having either of these housing typologies.
Looking at these mappings, it probably seems like a decent amount of new housing. But that's not really the case:
From 2013 to 2023, Toronto issued 2,209 building permits for secondary suites (1,525 have been closed and 684 remain open as of December 31, 2023).
And from 2020 to 2023, Toronto issued 898 building permits for rear-yard suites (192 have been closed and 706 remain open, which does suggest some increased adoption). Rear-yard suites only became permissible in 2018, which is why the date range is shorter.
To be fair, I would imagine that many secondary suites get built without a building permit. So I think the above number is probably underestimating actual supply. But even still, it doesn't change the conclusion: A lot more needs to be done to increase the supply of new housing in Toronto.
So here's the same mapping with open (i.e. active) permits also turned on:
Three things immediately stand out:
Secondary suites seem to be somewhat evenly distributed across the city.
Rear-yard suites are heavily concentrated in the older areas of the city, flanking the downtown core.
North Toronto is wealthy and isn't having either of these housing typologies.
Looking at these mappings, it probably seems like a decent amount of new housing. But that's not really the case:
From 2013 to 2023, Toronto issued 2,209 building permits for secondary suites (1,525 have been closed and 684 remain open as of December 31, 2023).
And from 2020 to 2023, Toronto issued 898 building permits for rear-yard suites (192 have been closed and 706 remain open, which does suggest some increased adoption). Rear-yard suites only became permissible in 2018, which is why the date range is shorter.
To be fair, I would imagine that many secondary suites get built without a building permit. So I think the above number is probably underestimating actual supply. But even still, it doesn't change the conclusion: A lot more needs to be done to increase the supply of new housing in Toronto.
