Ontario's goal is to build 1.5 million new homes by 2031. It is widely understood that we need a lot more housing. But it's a bit of a curious thing, because we do actually have homes available right now. There are developers with standing condominium inventory; landlords with vacant apartments; and many other options. So what is it that we need exactly? A more precise description would be that we need a diverse mixture of more attainable housing.
For this to happen, we're going to need to make some structural changes to the way we deliver new homes. The above image is taken from a recent report by Environmental Defence and Robert Eisenberg (in collaboration with LGA Architectural Partners and SvN Architects + Planners). The report is called the Mid-Rise Manual and it's a comprehensive look at we can and should be doing to unlock more of this housing type.
What I love about this image (and the report) is that it speaks to a very different kind of city than the one we have grown accustomed to in North America. Instead of towers in a sea of low-rise houses, it shows a diversity of building types -- in a way where you could also imagine a diversity of individual home types. This is unequivocally where cities like Toronto and others are headed. It's just a question of how soon we follow the manual.
Click here to download a copy of the report. (There's also a summary report of key takeaways if you're looking for something quick to read.)
One of the really positive things that is happening in the world of Toronto land use planning is that the minimum scale of development that is permitted as-of-right continues to grow. We've gone from fourplexes to 6-storey apartments, and now we're talking about mid-rise buildings (6-11 storeys) and even some tall buildings (12 storeys or more).
What this ultimately means is being able to build without a rezoning application. That means no site specific negotiation, and no fighting over whether the building should be 32 meters tall or 30.5 meters tall with a 2.4 meter stepback because of shadowing concerns on someone's heritage-designated garden gnome. It means getting under construction sooner.
Here are some of the specific ideas being reviewed:
Expand the number of streets designated as "Avenues" throughout Toronto (Avenues are a defined term and where we have decided that mid-rise buildings should go)
New Official Plan policies that would encourage more mid-rise buildings on Avenues
Eliminate the rear angular plane requirement (currently a mid-rise performance standard); this is expected to produce ~30% more homes in your typical mid-rise development
Increase as-of-right permitted heights to 6-11 storeys (the city estimates that this will unlock ~61,000 additional homes)
Introduce "transition zones" between Avenues and low-rise neighborhoods, which could then accommodate things like low-rise towns and apartments up to 4 storeys (it's worth noting that transition zones were initially part of Toronto's mid-rise performance standards but then got removed for some reason)
This is meaningful progress. Let's enact and keep going.
As counterintuitive as it may sound, one way you could try and improve traffic congestion is to discourage people from riding their bikes and instead encourage them to drive more. That's what's happening in Toronto right now. Another way is to dramatically restrict car usage. And starting this Monday, that's what Paris will be doing with its new limited traffic zone (zone à trafic limité) in the center of the city:
Ontario's goal is to build 1.5 million new homes by 2031. It is widely understood that we need a lot more housing. But it's a bit of a curious thing, because we do actually have homes available right now. There are developers with standing condominium inventory; landlords with vacant apartments; and many other options. So what is it that we need exactly? A more precise description would be that we need a diverse mixture of more attainable housing.
For this to happen, we're going to need to make some structural changes to the way we deliver new homes. The above image is taken from a recent report by Environmental Defence and Robert Eisenberg (in collaboration with LGA Architectural Partners and SvN Architects + Planners). The report is called the Mid-Rise Manual and it's a comprehensive look at we can and should be doing to unlock more of this housing type.
What I love about this image (and the report) is that it speaks to a very different kind of city than the one we have grown accustomed to in North America. Instead of towers in a sea of low-rise houses, it shows a diversity of building types -- in a way where you could also imagine a diversity of individual home types. This is unequivocally where cities like Toronto and others are headed. It's just a question of how soon we follow the manual.
Click here to download a copy of the report. (There's also a summary report of key takeaways if you're looking for something quick to read.)
One of the really positive things that is happening in the world of Toronto land use planning is that the minimum scale of development that is permitted as-of-right continues to grow. We've gone from fourplexes to 6-storey apartments, and now we're talking about mid-rise buildings (6-11 storeys) and even some tall buildings (12 storeys or more).
What this ultimately means is being able to build without a rezoning application. That means no site specific negotiation, and no fighting over whether the building should be 32 meters tall or 30.5 meters tall with a 2.4 meter stepback because of shadowing concerns on someone's heritage-designated garden gnome. It means getting under construction sooner.
Here are some of the specific ideas being reviewed:
Expand the number of streets designated as "Avenues" throughout Toronto (Avenues are a defined term and where we have decided that mid-rise buildings should go)
New Official Plan policies that would encourage more mid-rise buildings on Avenues
Eliminate the rear angular plane requirement (currently a mid-rise performance standard); this is expected to produce ~30% more homes in your typical mid-rise development
Increase as-of-right permitted heights to 6-11 storeys (the city estimates that this will unlock ~61,000 additional homes)
Introduce "transition zones" between Avenues and low-rise neighborhoods, which could then accommodate things like low-rise towns and apartments up to 4 storeys (it's worth noting that transition zones were initially part of Toronto's mid-rise performance standards but then got removed for some reason)
This is meaningful progress. Let's enact and keep going.
As counterintuitive as it may sound, one way you could try and improve traffic congestion is to discourage people from riding their bikes and instead encourage them to drive more. That's what's happening in Toronto right now. Another way is to dramatically restrict car usage. And starting this Monday, that's what Paris will be doing with its new limited traffic zone (zone à trafic limité) in the center of the city:
This new ZTL is approximately 5 square kilometers. About 100,000 people live within its boundaries, and it is estimated that somewhere between 350,000 to 500,000 vehicles enter it each day. But according to the city, it is estimated that only around 30% of these trips are absolutely necessary (because of a lack of alternatives, for example). The purpose of the ZTL is to reduce the unnecessary ones.
The way it will work is that drivers will no longer be allowed to drive through this zone. You'll only be able to enter if you plan on stopping for a legitimate reason. It's not yet clear what this exact list of approved reasons will be, but the general idea is that if you want to drive in for dinner or to attend a meeting, that's fine. What you can't do, though, is just drive around in a souped-up Honda Civic blasting Taylor Swift.
The next 6 months are planned to be a period of education. Drivers exiting the zone are just going to be told that there's this new ZTL and that they better have stopped somewhere. But eventually there will be a 135 euro fine and eventually drivers will be expected to furnish some sort of supporting evidence for their stop, such as a restaurant receipt. There's also talk of adding automatic cameras.
Of course, this creates a lot of gray areas. What about if you're just going over to a friend's place for dinner? Will they then need to write you a note saying that you went over for some homemade bouillabaisse? Yeah, I don't know the answer to this. But you have to admit that this is a bold city-building move, and a far more effective way of improving traffic flows.
Unlike removing bike lanes, this plan will actually work.
This new ZTL is approximately 5 square kilometers. About 100,000 people live within its boundaries, and it is estimated that somewhere between 350,000 to 500,000 vehicles enter it each day. But according to the city, it is estimated that only around 30% of these trips are absolutely necessary (because of a lack of alternatives, for example). The purpose of the ZTL is to reduce the unnecessary ones.
The way it will work is that drivers will no longer be allowed to drive through this zone. You'll only be able to enter if you plan on stopping for a legitimate reason. It's not yet clear what this exact list of approved reasons will be, but the general idea is that if you want to drive in for dinner or to attend a meeting, that's fine. What you can't do, though, is just drive around in a souped-up Honda Civic blasting Taylor Swift.
The next 6 months are planned to be a period of education. Drivers exiting the zone are just going to be told that there's this new ZTL and that they better have stopped somewhere. But eventually there will be a 135 euro fine and eventually drivers will be expected to furnish some sort of supporting evidence for their stop, such as a restaurant receipt. There's also talk of adding automatic cameras.
Of course, this creates a lot of gray areas. What about if you're just going over to a friend's place for dinner? Will they then need to write you a note saying that you went over for some homemade bouillabaisse? Yeah, I don't know the answer to this. But you have to admit that this is a bold city-building move, and a far more effective way of improving traffic flows.
Unlike removing bike lanes, this plan will actually work.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog