If you're looking to block new development, drive up the cost of housing, and appear "progressive" all at the same time, one generally effective technique is to do it under the guise of historic preservation. San Francisco is really good at this, as are many other cities. And it works because, who doesn't think that history is important?
This exact thing just transpired in San Francisco, where earlier this year Supervisor Aaron Peskin passed an ordinance enacting new density controls for most development in the Northeast Waterfront Historic District, the Jackson Square Historic District, and the Jackson Square Historic District Extension (solid neighborhood names).
Of course, sometimes you can run into resistance when you're trying to push through new anti-housing policies. And in this case, San Francisco Mayor London Breed actually vetoed Peskin's bill. In a letter dated March 14, 2024, she wrote:
Restricting new housing runs counter to the goals of our Housing Element, which the Board of Supervisors unanimously approved just over a year ago. It also runs counter to what we need to do to make this City a place that creates opportunities for new homes for the people who need them today and for future generations growing up in San Francisco.
This ordinance passes off anti-housing policy in the guise of historic protections. Existing rules already protect against impacts to historic resources. I believe we can add new homes while also supporting and improving the vibrancy of our unique neighborhoods. Many areas of San Francisco, including eastern neighborhoods like the South of Market, Potrero Hill, and the Mission, have also already removed density limits to encourage new housing.
However, her veto was ultimately overridden by the Board of Supervisors and so, as far as I understand it, the above density controls stand.
What's particularly frustrating about this outcome -- sarcasm now firmly off -- is that it so obviously reeks of NIMBY selfishness. Here's an elaborate infographic created by Max Dubler explaining what many in San Francisco believe is the real reason behind this downzoning:
Here is also a street view image from the area, along The Embarcadero:
But like I said, San Francisco seems to be really adept at this sort of maneuvering.
This week we speak about the problem of not enough density next to transit stations. More specifically, we spoke about Toronto's low-rise residential neighborhoods, which are colored yellow in the city's Official Plan. Well, as many of you know, the city is, in fact, working to "expand housing options" in these neighhorhoods through their EHON program. One component of the program covers laneway and garden suites, another covers multiplexes (up to fourplexes), and another hopes to allow 6-story apartment buildings on all major streets.
Here are the city's major streets:
Some four years ago, people were talking about the possibility of New York City being dead. But of course that was nonsense. Last week, New York City published the initial findings of its housing and vacancy survey and the key takeaway is that the city's vacancy rate dropped to 1.41% last year (2023). This is a drop from 4.54% just two years ago and the lowest measurement since 1968. It's also even worse at more affordable rent levels:
The problem, as described by the city, is a supply-demand imbalance. Over the last two years, the city's net housing stock grew by about 60,000 homes (~2%). This is, apparently, pretty good compared to recent years/decades; but it wasn't nearly enough given that the city added 275,000 new households. This is the opposite of dead, and it's not going to be addressed by just doing things like restricting short-term rentals.
We have a structural delivery problem and New York City is not alone in facing it.
And here's what these "small-scale apartments" might look like:
The setbacks are intended to be 6m in the front (to be consistent with existing neighborhood setbacks); 1.8m on the sides (so there's rear access and so that these elevations only get fenestration for secondary rooms); and 7.5m in the back (which is consistent with the current mid-rise guidelines). Now, directionally, and without referring to any of the specific details, this is good. Toronto's major streets are, in most cases, painfully underdeveloped; the existing built form feels generally entirely out of place. But the important question remains: Will developers actually build these at scale?
Bloor Street and Danforth Avenue, for example, already allow mid-rise buildings that, for the most part, are bigger than what is being proposed here as part of the EHON program. But again, they remain underdeveloped. And there's a subway running underneath these streets! So why will it be any different on our other major streets? One key difference is that these small-scale apartments are expected to be fully as-of-right. Meaning, no rezoning process and no community meetings. This will save a lot of time and money.
Still, this is almost certainly going to require some iterative finessing to get it right. I think you'll see developers looking to do little to no parking, no basements, no dedicated loading areas (certainly no type "G" spaces), slab-on-grade construction, and standardized and repeatable designs. And even then, this may not be enough. Rental replacement policies are yet another major barrier to consider. It's going to have to be all about speed and efficiency, which is why it will likely also create a greater push to rethink some building code items, such as the requirement for two means of egress.
At the end of the day, I want something like this to happen. It would increase housing supply, and make Toronto far more vibrant and far more conducive to non-driving forms of mobility. It's, no doubt, a really positive thing. But for this to become a reality, it needs to work at scale. Meaning, the development pro formas need to work at scale, and with sufficient margin that developers won't just automatically look to other opportunities. If the development community can make money building this housing typology, they will look for every opportunity to build it. But if they can't make money, they won't. It's as simple as that.
Images: City of Toronto
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog