Daily insights for city builders, delivered every morning at 6 AM ET. I’m Brandon Donnelly — a Toronto-based real estate developer and founder of Globizen. I’ve been writing here since 2013.
I don’t know if any of you have had a chance to play with ChatGPT yet, but it is pretty incredible. Here is something that my friend David Fitzpatrick, who is a planner, tweeted out:
There is really no way of telling that AI produced this. It sounds natural and, in this particular case, it also feels like it understands that this is an ongoing debate: “the by-law may not provide enough flexibility to allow for…”
It’s a good thing I don’t write for a living.
I’ve written a lot about mid-rise development on this blog and elsewhere.
I recently wrote this post responding to a tweet by the Chief Planner of Toronto. And towards the end of last year, I wrote a longer piece for developer Urban Capital’s annual magazine. If you missed it, you should definitely download a copy. Not so much for my article, but because, overall, the UC magazines are excellent. (Credit to David Wex.)
Today, I’d like to focus on one specific “performance standard” from Toronto’s mid-rise guidelines that I’ve been thinking about lately. But more specifically, I’d like to focus on a performance standard that was initially contemplated but never actually got adopted.
(I apologize in advance if this post gets a bit too geeky for some of you. It refers to a specific land use policy in Toronto, but it has much broader relevance.)
If you take a look at the final Avenue & Mid-Rise Buildings Study and turn to page 56, you’ll see that Performance Standard #5B (Rear Transition to Neighbourhoods: Shallow Properties) was stricken from the report. It was never adopted as a standard.
So what is this all about?
This performance standard had to do with something called “Enhancement Zones”, which was proposed as a way to deal with shallow parcels of land on Toronto’s main avenues. You see, because of the other performance standards – namely the angular plane (see images below) – the depth of an avenue site is hugely important for determining what can ultimately be built on it.
From the city’s perspective, this is a double edged sword. In the case of exceptionally deep lots, you can actually meet all of the performance standards while at the same time exceeding the recommended densities. But in the case of shallow lots, the performance standards sometimes/often make it so that you can’t even achieve the recommended densities. In fact, a lot of sites simply become un-developable.
To give you a visual for what I’m talking about, here’s a section drawing from a zoning by-law that was adopted by City Council for St. Clair Avenue West in midtown:
Here you can quickly see that if you were dealing with a shallow lot of, say, 25m in depth, you wouldn’t have much left over after taking into account the rear property line setback (7.5m above), the front property line setback, and the 45 degree angular plane. Now you’re beginning to see why I said that it is easier said than done to play creatively within the guidelines envelope (thick black line above). When you look at the feasibility of these projects, you quickly end up getting pushed right up against the glass.
But this is where Enhancement Zones comes in.
The idea here is that an adjacent low-rise residential property (or pair of properties in the case of attached houses) could be included in mid-rise development proposals to create a deeper site that then meets the requisite separation distances between the mid-rise scale and the low-rise scale. To be clear, nothing would be built in the Enhancement Zones. They would just help to relieve some of the setback pressures from the original shallow lot and maybe even create a rear laneway system where one did not exist before.
Below is a drawing from the Mid-Rise Buildings Study showing that new condition. The same 7.5m setback applies at the rear, but now it sits within an Enhancement Zone – formerly an adjacent and separate property. All the text is crossed out because, again, this standard was not adopted.
From a mid-rise development and feasibility standpoint, this makes a lot of sense. Sites that may have been un-developable before, now become developable. This makes it easier for us to achieve the European-scaled mid-rise vision that Toronto has for its avenues.
But for reasons that I am sure you can guess, there are concerns with this performance standard. Probably the most obvious is that, to a certain extent, it destabilizes “neighbourhoods.” And they are intended to be completely stable entities that see little to no intensification. As soon as you allow this to happen, properties sitting in Enhancement Zones would become the prey of developers.
However, there are counter arguments you could make. The owners of these properties would likely receive offers above market value. So maybe they end up better off. At the same time, you could also argue that the more development we unlock outside of “neighbourhoods”, the more stable they can actually remain.
In any event, I’ve been thinking about this lately and I thought it would be interesting to debate the pros and cons of these magical-sounding Enhancement Zones. For those of you inclined to engage in geeky planning discussions, I’d love to hear from you in the comments.
I recently wrote about a startup called Flux.io in a post titled: How technology could completely change the real estate development industry. Given that I received a lot of positive feedback on this post, I thought I would let you all know that, as of today, you can now test out the product yourself for free online.
Here are a few snippets from today’s announcement:
At Flux we believe that data, analytics, and visualization can help bridge understanding between stakeholders and result in smarter growth and faster development and faster building. The Austin Preview of Flux Metro is an important first step in this direction.
Flux Metro aggregates geographic data from public and private sources to build a three dimensional visualization, starting with downtown Austin. Alongside a rendering of the existing landscape, Metro shows what can be built on a lot or parcel under the zoning code. It considers more than 10,000 code sections for land use guidelines, height limits, floor area limits, setbacks, and view access rights as well as the locations of protected trees and daylight shadows to project what can be built and how it fits into the existing environment.
We believe that everybody should be able to understand what a zoning code means for their city and that visual representations are the best way to create a shared understanding.
Click here to signup and give it a try. It is based on Austin’s development code and on the same building site that was shown in the video I shared in my post.
Image: Flux
The cost of a parking spot in downtown Toronto has reached as high as $60,000 (per stall) in some new construction projects. If you convert that to a per square foot price (which is typically how people measure condo prices), you’re looking at over $350 per square foot for that parking stall. Is it worth it?
Most cities around the world have what is called a parking minimum. This means that to build, say a new residential condo, developers need to provide a certain number of parking stalls. In Toronto, those minimums will depend on your unit mix. Bigger units have more stringent parking requirements.
In some cities, though it’s much rarer, they actually have parking maximums. Portland, for instance, has a maximum number of parking stalls that you’re allowed to build, which fluctuates based on the development’s proximity to transit.
And finally, there are some cities, such as Berlin, with no parking minimums or maximums at all. In those cases, the market dictates the number of parking stalls that should be built. If people want a parking spot with their apartment and won’t buy or rent it without one, then the developer builds it.
Though parking variances do happen in Toronto (for reasons such as proximity to transit), the city is generally skeptical of a market led approach to parking requirements. And there are a couple of reasons for that. They worry that investors might be buying the units (with no parking) and so the sales data may not be indicative of the end-user market.
The city also worries that developers might actively discourage purchasers from buying parking spots, as it’s usually more profitable not to build them. Underground parking is costly and often subsidized by the sale of the condo units themselves. In fact, I’ve heard of instances where underground parking has cost upwards of $100,000 per stall because of buoyancy forces and other technical details.
But I’m generally a free market guy. So I question if the market really isn’t capable of figuring out how much parking there truly needs to be. Undoubtedly, there will be families who demand 2 parking spots. I also bought a parking spot with my condo. But there may also be a number of people who would rather pay less for their home than subsidize a parking garage that they’ll rarely use.
And as I wrote in a recent post called, Is traffic the right question?, we could be losing sight of the greater goal. If we truly want to build a sustainable and livable city, then we should be considering how our development activity encourages transit usage over driving, and how we can promote a more balanced modal split across the city.
What are your thoughts? Would you buy a home without parking? Should we get rid of parking minimums, just as cities like Berlin have?
Yesterday, Toronto’s Chief Planner, Jennifer Keesmaat, tweeted out a link to this primer on the proposed Development Permit System (DPS) here in the city. The entire initiative is being branded as ResetTO. And it’s intended to convey that the DPS is really about starting again with the same set of planning principles we already use.
The big shift is going from a site-by-site approach to a neighborhood approach. Today, each and every development site is reviewed, approved and fought over. With the DPS, the idea is to establish a neighborhood scaled by-law and then streamline the review process for each individual site (the city will get 45 days to respond to applications as opposed to the 180 days it gets today).
What this should do is shift the big fights–among developers, communities and the city–to the front end (when the neighborhood by-law is being established) and minimize the fights over each site. It takes away an element of incremental urbanism–because you’re in some ways building out a master vision (large batch versus small batch)–but it would do a lot for transparency, efficiency and for creating cohesive urban form. And, it sounds like the DPS by-laws will have some flexibility, so that could address my batch size concern.
Communities don’t seem to like this approach because it takes away their ability to appeal each individual application, but it will undoubtedly speed up the the development process, which I’ve argued many times before is critical to maintaining an affordable and healthy city.
Right now the city is hosting open houses and is expected to issue a report on their public consultations sometime next month. It’ll then go to City Council in July. I think a lot will come down to how the DPS neighborhood by-laws are formed, but I think that anything that improves transparency and efficiency is likely a good thing for our cities.
