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."
Back in January 2016, I wrote about Toronto’s ambition to transform King into a “transit first” street across the downtown core.
The King streetcar is the busiest surface transit route in the entire city (65,000 riders / day on average) and it was – and continues to be – my opinion that the route was broken. Something had to be done.
Well, that something is now happening. The “King Street Transit Pilot” officially started on Sunday, November 12, 2017 at 7am. Here are some of the key changes, many of which are also depicted in the above image:
- No more on-street parking in the pilot area.
- Cars can no longer turn left or drive through the intersections of the pilot area (except for taxis picking up drunk people from 10pm to 5am).
- Cars must now follow a right-in/right-out approach. They can turn right onto King, but then they have to turn right off of King at the next intersection.
- Most of the streetcar stops have been moved to the “far side” of each intersection. That is, after the lights. Passenger waiting areas are now in the curbside lane and protected by jersey barriers.
- Cyclists can go through the intersections of the pilot area. “Bike boxes” have been added to intersections where there are north-south bike lanes to help with turning left.
As to be expected, some people are upset about the above changes. There are also concerns that drivers aren’t going to obey the rules and continue to drive through the intersections in the streetcar lane. But this is a pilot project. It’s about learning and adjusting.
It’s also important to keep in mind that King has at least 3x more transit riders than cars. This pilot is about figuring out how to best optimize the street so that it moves the greatest number of people as efficiently as possible.
I’ll report back here on the blog once the pilot has settled in and there is a better understanding of its impact.
Recently a good friend of mine told me that I had conflicting views in the world of politics.
She more or less said to me: I know you’re a real estate developer and obviously a capitalist (read: right of center), but you also support what are often considered to be left of center issues. Issues like tearing down the Gardiner Expressway and building more bike lanes.
I thought this was an interesting comment because, regardless of whether or not you agree with the categorization she was making, the unfortunate reality is that sometimes (oftentimes?) city building issues do become about left vs. right. Bike vs. cars. Urban vs. suburban. And the list goes on.
My response to her was that I don’t care about what side of the political spectrum an issue supposedly falls on. That’s a distraction. When I think about something, I try and apply rationale thought and facts to the best that I can.
For instance, in the case of bike lanes, I have asked myself: would cities be better off if we had more, or less, people cycling? Simple question. And when I think about this and look at some of the numbers, I see a lot of benefits (this is a non-exhaustive list):
- More people cycling means we’re moving people more efficiently, which you could argue improves urban productivity and overall quality of life.
- More people cycling means we will naturally start prioritizing more compact types of urban form, which in itself has a myriad of socioeconomic benefits.
- More people cycling means we’re actually taking action to try and fight climate change.
- And more people cycling means we’re improving health outcomes. Given that public spending on health care is one of the largest government expenditures in OECD countries, I bet you could find measurable financial savings.
With all of this, I am not naively suggesting that all cars should disappear from our cities and that everyone should only cycle. I think electric vehicles and self-driving vehicles are going to be an important part of the mobility equation in the future. But I am saying that more, not less, cycling strikes me as an obviously positive thing for our cities.
On that note…
Toronto City Council voted today in favor (38-3) of a pilot project that will bring separated bike lanes to Bloor Street. The image at the top of this post is how each Councillor voted. So today, we appear to have not fallen into the divide that my friend was talking about. And that makes me, as well as many others, quite happy.
Im looking forward to riding #bikesonbloor and shopping on Bloor and hanging out there. I might buy a piano. #topoli
— Cherise Burda (@CheriseBurda) May 4, 2016
//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
I would be curious how all of you feel about this particular issue. And I would also be curious if you find yourself being more issued based rather than aligned across the political spectrum. That’s certainly how I feel these days.
I bet we could have a great discussion on this topic in the comment section below :)