Why did the Annex decline while Rosedale stayed wealthy?

[Gresto]

Originally Posted by urbandreamer

Today, the nouveau riche are tearing down these gorgeous red brick homes and building the ugliest stone mcmansions money can buy. A similar phenomenon is happening in Roncesvalles/High Park. As mayor, I'd ban this senseless destruction.

I would vote for you. I have for decades been baffled and enraged that no local politician has, to the best of my knowledge, ever broached the idea of prohibiting the obscenity that is tear-downs and rebuilds. This cancer has been metastasising in many parts of Toronto for 30 years, without a peep of opposition from any mayor or councillor. Banning this wanton profligacy, especially now during the ongoing and deepening affordable-housing crisis, would be a welcome and long-overdue initiative.

[rousseau]

"Yellow belt" definition please? It's not what I think it is, is it?

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by rousseau

"Yellow belt" definition please? It's not what I think it is, is it?

No, it’s not what you’re thinking. It’s the SFH neighbourhoods, mainly in the old boroughs beyond the old City of Toronto.

[niwell]

It specifically refers to the colour used to denote “stable neighbourhoods” on the Official Plan maps.




Although technically on this map much of the “neighbourhood” designation in old Toronto was more permissive.

[Hali87]

I think it's also an adaptation of the term "greenbelt" - it's a belt of restricted lands but in this case they are already built up with residential. I wouldn't be surprised if "yellow belt" is used in other cities as well. I've heard "grey belt" before in reference to industrial lands (if they form a belt and are being kept industrial).

Although, yeah it is... they should be extra clear about what it means.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by rousseau

"Yellow belt" definition please? It's not what I think it is, is it?

Single family exclusionary; I think because of slight differences in zoning, it can be misleading. By this metric or definition alone, Edmonton is the most urban (non-yellow) of these four cities in Canada. I live in Vancouver's green zone (other residential), but I'll bet most people on this forum live in a yellow zone (suck in the stuburbs).

https://schoolofcities.github.io/yel...n-cities-2022/

[Docere]

[Docere]

Post-war, pre-gentrification Toronto. Rosedale was high income in 1960; South Rosedale "held out." The northern sector was mostly middle class to affluent, but the downtown area and east and west ends were largely low income.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Architype

Single family exclusionary; I think because of slight differences in zoning, it can be misleading. By this metric or definition alone, Edmonton is the most urban (non-yellow) of these four cities in Canada. I live in Vancouver's green zone (other residential), but I'll bet most people on this forum live in a yellow zone (suck in the stuburbs).

https://schoolofcities.github.io/yel...n-cities-2022/

These maps are a bit better than the usual zoning maps, as (at least in Toronto's case) it differentiates the "neighbourhood"-designated zones where multi-family has always been allowed from the actual SFH-only zoning. Though as of 2023, all of the city would actually be green as a minimum of 4 units per lot are now permitted city-wide. Previously, it was a minimum of 2 in the yellow areas; while Vancouver allows up to 3 units per lot in its yellow areas (secondary suite + laneway suite, if applicable). Not sure if Edmonton & Calgary's yellow belts also allow for secondary suites, or if they might be single-unit only.

The problem though, is that even while many of these areas do allow for multiplexes, they're still beholden to the same form-based zoning regulations as SFH - and are just as limited in terms of FSI, height, and setbacks. Allowable unit count per lot is ultimately only just one part of the equation.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

.

The problem though, is that even while many of these areas do allow for multiplexes, they're still beholden to the same form-based zoning regulations as SFH - and are just as limited in terms of FSI, height, and setbacks. Allowable unit count per lot is ultimately only just one part of the equation.

I thought Toronto’s multiplex bylaw technically exempted them from FSI constraints? However since setbacks / height apply this would obviously be effectively limited in practise. There’s certainly potential in some of the areas we are seeing tear downs for massive as-of-right SFHs - could easily put a spacious multiplex within those constraints!

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by niwell

I thought Toronto’s multiplex bylaw technically exempted them from FSI constraints? However since setbacks / height apply this would obviously be effectively limited in practise. There’s certainly potential in some of the areas we are seeing tear downs for massive as-of-right SFHs - could easily put a spacious multiplex within those constraints!

Not sure about the recent bylaw change (I haven't heard any reference to form-based zoning changes, which makes me pessimistic), but that wasn't the case previously, at least not as-of-right and not anywhere that I've seen. Could possibly be the case in certain areas - Toronto's zoning by-laws are just a byzantine mess of layer upon layer of new & old, neighbourhood-specific, and competing pre & post-amalgamation by-laws; which necessitates that nearly every small project, no matter how minor, go through the Committee of Adjustment process to get a variance to the by-laws approved (Which then mostly end up getting approved anyway. It's a very Toronto thing: no shortage of rules and regulations, but no one actually follows them - government included).