4 ms·

I live in Toronto as well. We make a good income, have large savings for a down payment, and recently thought about buying a house. It's depressing. So, I deci

I live in Toronto as well. We make a good income, have large savings for a down payment, and recently thought about buying a house. It's depressing. So, I decided to look at the City Plan -- to see what the actual plan is for addressing the housing cost crisis in Toronto. Not surprisingly, the real problem became very clear to me, almost immediately. The problem is not blind bidding. The problem is not foreign buyers. The problem is not low interest rates. The problem is the official city plan is 100% a NIMBY plan. From the plan itself: > While communities experience constant social and demographic change, the general physical character of Toronto’s residential Neighbourhoods endures. In other words, let's not change our back yards. > Physical changes to our established Neighbourhoods must be sensitive, gradual and “fit” the existing physical character. Again -- this means that the large inner-city neighborhoods full of mansions (such as Rosedale and Forest Hill), have to stay full of mansions. Just to spell it out: > If, for example, an existing zoning by-law permits only single detached houses in a particular geographic neighbourhood and the prevailing building type in that neighbourhood is single detached dwellings, then the Plan’s policies are to be interpreted to allow only single detached dwellings in order to respect and reinforce the established physical character of the neighbourhood You see this reflected in the development that does happen. Yonge & Eglinton just gets more dense -- because that's the "character" of the neighborhood. Meanwhile, in "fancy" neighborhoods, housing often gets less dense, because that conforms to the "prevailing" characteristic of the neighborhood. With the current plan, the city is going to be a city with super high density combined with ultra low density and very little in-between. In other words, it will be full of wonderful enclaves for the wealthy, and sardine-can housing for everyone else. This, of course, leads to issues such as the lack of schools available in the Yonge & Eglinton area, anod overcrowded transit, not to mention the lack of quality housing for families with two kids. (Try finding a decently sized 3 bedroom unit near playgrounds and schools. Yikes.) The solution, would be to allow more medium and low rise development throughout neighborhoods. The "character" of the existing neighbourhoods should be allowed to change. I don't blame Toronto though, this is a problem that is happening in most wealthy cities in North America. Doesn't mean we can't do better. We should. https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/97dd-cp-official-plan-chapter-4.pdf https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/97dd-cp-of...

TimPC 5y ago
Some of it is NIMBY. But the officials can’t change the fact that there is only so much land to go around and a disproportionate number of people strongly desire a detached house. Building huge quantities of condos may help some with density and may drive prices down slightly but there is little that can be done to have new detached houses on the market. You could potentially tear down some mansions in rich neighborhoods to build two or three houses and that might help slightly at the margins. There aren’t enough mansions in the city for this to really move the needle though. The problem is a handful of cities are winners and everywhere else is losing. Toronto is the lifeblood of Canada and many people want to be here for opportunities that are unavailable elsewhere. A large population that grew up here doesn’t want to leave friends and family behind to start a more affordable life elsewhere. As long as we create a society where there are a handful of great places to live those places will be prohibitively expensive. Being unable to create successful cities in Canada outside of Toronto and Vancouver has been the bigger political failing than NIMBY within those two cities. If Canada had five cities that were as successful as Toronto there would be more opportunity to go around and less pressure on Toronto. Disproportionate amount of both internal and external immigration is to the places with the best jobs and that drives up housing quickly.
- boplicity 5y ago
  > But the officials can’t change the fact that there is only so much land to go around and a disproportionate number of people strongly desire a detached house. That may be true, but the housing cost crisis extends beyond detached houses. We need more apartments, condos, townhouses, etc. Not just nice detached houses. Prices should get lower in all of those categories. Even condos in towers have grown much, much more expensive. > You could potentially tear down some mansions in rich neighborhoods to build two or three houses and that might help slightly at the margins. Most of the land in Toronto is tied up with single family detached housing. Why not replace some of these with small apartment buildings, brownstones, and townhouses especially when near transit, or villages? I live in a large house that is a 10 minute walk to transit and two major strips of retail. This neighborhood is mostly detached houses and duplexes. Why not allow for double, triple, or quadruple the density with townhouses or small apartment buildings? If done at scale, across the city, this could absolutely make a huge difference, in terms of the availability of housing. In terms of mansions, why not spend a few hours walking around Forest Hill. You'll probably need more time, though, if you want to see them all. It's a beautiful neighborhood. And very large. > The problem is a handful of cities are winners and everywhere else is losing. There are other nice cities that are growing -- and the housing prices are growing exponentially there as well. (For example, Waterloo and Victoria.) Everywhere else is definitely not losing, though I agree that there should be more thriving cities in Canada, that is also a daunting task. Frankly, it's also a lot more daunting than changing the zoning to allow for medium density in single-family neighborhoods. The bottom line, though, is that you're right about what officials can't change. They can't change the amount of land available, but they certainly can and should change the amount of development that is allowed on it. The current plan is simply not working. Something needs to change. My proposal is to allow medium density development; I don't see a better alternative.

TimPC 5y ago

Some of it is NIMBY. But the officials can’t change the fact that there is only so much land to go around and a disproportionate number of people strongly desire a detached house. Building huge quantities of condos may help some with density and may drive prices down slightly but there is little that can be done to have new detached houses on the market. You could potentially tear down some mansions in rich neighborhoods to build two or three houses and that might help slightly at the margins. There aren’t enough mansions in the city for this to really move the needle though. The problem is a handful of cities are winners and everywhere else is losing. Toronto is the lifeblood of Canada and many people want to be here for opportunities that are unavailable elsewhere. A large population that grew up here doesn’t want to leave friends and family behind to start a more affordable life elsewhere. As long as we create a society where there are a handful of great places to live those places will be prohibitively expensive. Being unable to create successful cities in Canada outside of Toronto and Vancouver has been the bigger political failing than NIMBY within those two cities. If Canada had five cities that were as successful as Toronto there would be more opportunity to go around and less pressure on Toronto. Disproportionate amount of both internal and external immigration is to the places with the best jobs and that drives up housing quickly.

boplicity 5y ago
> But the officials can’t change the fact that there is only so much land to go around and a disproportionate number of people strongly desire a detached house. That may be true, but the housing cost crisis extends beyond detached houses. We need more apartments, condos, townhouses, etc. Not just nice detached houses. Prices should get lower in all of those categories. Even condos in towers have grown much, much more expensive. > You could potentially tear down some mansions in rich neighborhoods to build two or three houses and that might help slightly at the margins. Most of the land in Toronto is tied up with single family detached housing. Why not replace some of these with small apartment buildings, brownstones, and townhouses especially when near transit, or villages? I live in a large house that is a 10 minute walk to transit and two major strips of retail. This neighborhood is mostly detached houses and duplexes. Why not allow for double, triple, or quadruple the density with townhouses or small apartment buildings? If done at scale, across the city, this could absolutely make a huge difference, in terms of the availability of housing. In terms of mansions, why not spend a few hours walking around Forest Hill. You'll probably need more time, though, if you want to see them all. It's a beautiful neighborhood. And very large. > The problem is a handful of cities are winners and everywhere else is losing. There are other nice cities that are growing -- and the housing prices are growing exponentially there as well. (For example, Waterloo and Victoria.) Everywhere else is definitely not losing, though I agree that there should be more thriving cities in Canada, that is also a daunting task. Frankly, it's also a lot more daunting than changing the zoning to allow for medium density in single-family neighborhoods. The bottom line, though, is that you're right about what officials can't change. They can't change the amount of land available, but they certainly can and should change the amount of development that is allowed on it. The current plan is simply not working. Something needs to change. My proposal is to allow medium density development; I don't see a better alternative.