Tag: multiplexes

• Canadian cities will need to freeze their development charges if they want infrastructure fund money

  Here’s some positive news. This past week, the Government of Canada announced additional details around its $6 billion Canada Housing Infrastructure Fund (CHIF). The goal of the fund is to accelerate the construction of housing-supportive infrastructure (water, wastewater, stormwater, and solid waste), and the plan is to deliver it through two distinct funding streams.

  The first is what they are calling a “direct delivery stream”, and this is how the first $1 billion is going to be allocated. Municipalities and Indigenous communities will need to apply, and the funds are expected to be distributed over the next 8 years. But to be eligible — and this is the positive news — municipalities will need to have done the following:

  • Adopt zoning permitting “four units as-of-right” per lot in all low-density residential areas that have municipal servicing
  • Implement a three-year freeze on development charge increases beyond whatever rates were in place on April 2, 2024 (which is when the initial CHIF announcement was made)

  Toronto has already done number one. But many/most other municipalities have not, so this should provide a further incentive. As for requirement number two, my understanding is that this is not (yet) in place pretty much anywhere. I haven’t heard of any municipalities committing to this. So I’m taking this as incremental good news. (Please correct me if I’m wrong.)

  There are, however, important caveats: item number two only applies to municipalities with populations greater than 300,000 people. This seems unnecessarily high. And I can speak from firsthand experience working in communities below this threshold.

  Three-years also isn’t very long when it comes to development timelines, especially in this market. A complicated rezoning process might take 3 years, or even 10 years. So this is very much for small-scale projects, which may be impactful or it may not be, depending on quickly the market responds to policy changes like requirement number one.

  The last thing I will say, and this relates to yesterday’s post, is that freezing is good, but lowering is obviously better.

  2024.11.09

• Thank you for your service, Gregg

  It was bittersweet to learn last week that Toronto’s chief planner — Gregg Lintern — will be retiring at the end of this year.

  He accomplished a lot during his six-year tenure. Here’s an excerpt from a recent Globe and Mail article by Alex Bozikovic:

  “…he took the department through significant reforms: allowing new houses in back laneways, then garden suites; eliminating minimum parking requirements; even legalizing four-unit apartment buildings on any lot in the city.“

  All of this was not easy, as anyone in our industry will attest.

  I also got to know Gregg, a little, by way of our development projects. And I can say that he (1) genuinely loved our great city and (2) was always looking for ways to make things better, whether that be through planning policy or through processes internal to City Hall.

  Thank you for your service, Gregg.

  2023.11.19

• Adding missing middle housing in Vancouver

  The City of Vancouver recently published this video talking about missing middle housing. For those of you who are following this trend (and reading this blog), there won’t be a lot that is new in the video (although Uytae Lee is great). But I’m sharing it here, anyway, for three reasons. One, it’s an example of Toronto being ahead of Vancouver, which wasn’t the case with laneway housing. Vancouver started allowing these first. Two, it is further evidence that this shift toward intensifying low-rise residential neighbourhoods is really happening — and gaining momentum — all across North America. And three, the City of Vancouver is about to bring forward new multiplex housing policies. So now is a good time to get involved and say things.

  2023.05.31

• Will fourplexes be actually feasible in Toronto?

  Last week I wrote about Toronto’s plan to make fourplexes as-of-right across the city, but also why this form of missing middle housing shouldn’t have a maximum floor space index.

  Today, let’s look at the numbers in a bit more detail.

  If you look at a zoning map of Toronto, you’ll see that many neighborhoods across the city have a maximum floor space index (FSI) of 0.6. What this means is that if you have a piece of land like this:

  • Lot width: 20′
  • Lot depth: 115′
  • Site area: 2,300 sf

  Your total allowable gross floor area would be 1,380 square feet (0.6 x 2,300 sf).

  If you build a laneway suite in this city, that won’t count towards your total allowable GFA (otherwise they’d be very challenging/impossible to build). But if you want to build something like a triplex or a fourplex, it counts.

  The one important caveat is that if you’re building a residential building — that isn’t an apartment building with 5 or more homes — you can deduct the floor area of the basement:

  

  This, of course, helps the situation. But it doesn’t solve all of our problems.

  If you assume that the basement can be one home, that still only leaves 1,380 square feet for the other three, technically permissible, homes. This equals: 3 homes x 460 square feet.

  Another option would be 2 homes x 690 square feet. But still, we’re not exactly making it easy to deliver more “family-sized homes” in the city.

  And herein lies one of the problems (plural, because there are others). We can say that fourplexes are allowed across the city, but it may not actually be technically feasible or practical to build them.

  Note: I am not a planner. If you are, leave a comment below.

  2023.03.13

• San Francisco is kind of on the verge of abolishing single-family zoning

  

  The headline sounds pretty promising: San Francisco is on the verge of abolishing single-family zoning, and will soon allow 4-plexes across the city and up to 6 units on corner lots. It is also clear recognition that, “hey, we have a housing problem and should probably figure out a way to increase overall supply.”

  Unfortunately, when you look at the policy details, you’ll see that this is likely to be more symbolic than effective. What is being proposed is to take the 40% of San Francisco’s land area that is zoned exclusively for single-family houses and upzone it to allow for duplexes on an as-of-right basis.

  And then, if you happen to have owned the property for at least 5 years — or inherited it from a family member that did — you can apply for a special “density exception” from the city. This would allow you to build 6 units on corner lots and 4 units on all remaining mid-block lots.

  But here’s the other thing: if you are granted this density exception, the additional units (beyond your as-of-right two) will be subject to rent control. So the important question here is about whether or not anyone will end up building more than luxury duplexes and, if they do, will there be enough scale to produce a meaningful impact.

  I’m not familiar with development cost structures in San Francisco and I’m not sure if there will be any incentives/subsidies for delivering these additional rent controlled units, but the above feels like far too many barriers if the goal is more housing.

  But it remains a step in the right direction. Symbolism certainly has its merits.

  For other posts on infill housing, click here.

  Photo by Braden Collum on Unsplash

  2022.07.02