Toronto goes to war with the province to keep housing prices high

[Crawford]

Japan has depreciating real estate. It's basically the case study of what not to do.

And, yeah, if you have a ton of housing construction, declining population, and a culture that values newness above all, you'll have cheap housing. Not sure why this would be desirable.

[Nite]

Originally Posted by edale

Japan also famously has very strict controls on immigration...

Japanese cities are still growing relatively fast especially Tokyo

[Nite]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Japan has depreciating real estate. It's basically the case study of what not to do.

And, yeah, if you have a ton of housing construction, declining population, and a culture that values newness above all, you'll have cheap housing. Not sure why this would be desirable.

Tokyo and other major cities are still growing strongly however and prices are not going up because you can build housing nearly anywhere.

Western Europes population is also stagnant but home prices are going through the roof. The main difference is that housing supply is restricted so only the most profitable housing is built

[C.]

Originally Posted by Northern Light

That golf course can't be legally developed, its in the regulatory floodplain. We don't allow developments in those here.

This the Conservation Authority Floodplain Map:

https://trca.ca/conservation/flood-r...ap-viewer/#map

Anything in Blue is off limits; existing developments are often grandfathered, though some continue to be bought out.

That's a good policy. All sorts of issues in the United States about development in the floodplain and evitable life, safety, and property issues when it floods. Not sure that policy is fully enforced because isn't there significant development underway in the west Gardiner/Lakeshore Blvd area? Also, in the United States is possible to make flood protection improvements to take properties out of the floodplain for FEMA NFIP purposes. I wonder if it makes sense here for that Golf Course given how valuable the land would be next to a subway station.

[SFBruin]

I mean, we have a clear lack of housing in the United States, but I don't know the solution. If we just upzone everywhere, then quiet neighborhoods would turn into city blocks.

I guess that wouldn't be so bad. Why don't we upzone, again?

[C.]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Maybe it's because I'm in the U.S., but, to me, Toronto seems to be extremely pro-development. There are places like North York and Humber Bay that have almost comical density. They're throwing up 60-floor buildings next to 1960's SFH ranches, like it's no big deal.

If Toronto were in the U.S., it would be an enormous success if even 5-floor buildings were built in such environments. Even SFH teardowns for slightly larger SFHs are a huge issue in the U.S. So I think, on balance, Toronto is building a ton of high-density housing in generally transit-friendly locales.

It's the province that is pro development, which forces Toronto and other municipalities to accept new development. If it were not for the province, I doubt Toronto would be building anything close to what they are doing now. It would be no different development pattern that a typical U.S. city. It would be just single-family homes and office parks if left to their own devices.

Similar to what we're seeing in California, State governments are going to need to take more of a role in pushing cities in the right direction. If not, NIMBYs will rule with exclusionary policies in their codes.

[SFBruin]

What if we had a national ban on single-family zoning?

[Nite]

Originally Posted by C.

It's the province that is pro development, which forces Toronto and other municipalities to accept new development. If it were not for the province, I doubt Toronto would be building anything close to what they are doing now. It would be no different development pattern that a typical U.S. city. It would be just single-family homes and office parks if left to their own devices.

Similar to what we're seeing in California, State governments are going to need to take more of a role in pushing cities in the right direction. If not, NIMBYs will rule with exclusionary policies in their codes.

Exactly, The city of Toronto has been on the losing end of a 25 year war with the province to stop development in the city.
The province has responded with the greenbelt to stop sprawl outside of the city and approving hundreds of projects that the city has rejected.
In additions, forcing the city to update it zoning to allow more density especially more density around transit, etc...
Almost every tower built in Toronto in the last 25 years is due to the province overriding the city of Toronto council.
The city has managed to drag out the approval process to 3 years now however with all the roadblocks they have put up and increase the cost of each unit by 100,000's with all the fees they have implemented on development.

[Doady]

Almost every tower built in Toronto in the last 25 years was rejected by Toronto city council? You make me laugh. Was it the same with the dozens of towers built in Mississauga in the last 25 years too?

Most of Toronto is zoned for single-family homes? No shit. Isn't that the whole point of building high density? Only a moron would want any low-rise neighbourhoods to be completely demolished. That's why we promote high-rise development: because they take up less space, allowing more single family homes to be preserved, increasing the diversity of housing within the city. Building more high-rises means keeping more single-family homes. To constantly complain about a supposed lack of high rise development in Toronto but also attack the presence of single family neighbourhoods in Toronto is just stupid. Try coming up with an argument that actually makes sense for once.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by SFBruin

What if we had a national ban on single-family zoning?

At least in Canada that would be impossible constitutionally. The provinces just have too much power.

It's probably impossible in the US as well.

[Northern Light]

Originally Posted by Nite

.
Almost every tower built in Toronto in the last 25 years is due to the province overriding the city of Toronto council.

That is gross over-reach.

While its certainly true that countless proposals have been appealed beyond Council to the province's planning review board (variously the OMB, the LPAT and now the OLT); more proposals have been approved at Council than have been appealed.

It would be fair to say that threat of losing on appeal got many a proposal a more favourable outcome that would have otherwise been possible.

The city has managed to drag out the approval process to 3 years now however with all the roadblocks they have put up and increase the cost of each unit by 100,000's with all the fees they have implemented on development.

The basic process for development in Toronto has been a long one for a very long time, it doesn't usually take 3 years (the average for an Planning and Zoning Amendment is around 2'ish), and that's surprisingly short given some of the added studies involved these days.

The province has prohibited the Toronto District School Board from development charges for more than 20 years now, which has left many Toronto schools in poorer shape for it; but also means aggregate development charges per ft2 haven't risen as much as you think. They would have, if TDSB were included mind you; but that's also true in the suburbs around Toronto and elsewhere.

The province withdrew from funding many services during the late 1990s and cites made up a portion of that revenue shortfall by raising DCs.

Considering the vast amount of development running through the pipeline (more this year than ever).....one can't say they have been a material dis-incentive.

Which is not to say I agree with all of them. I would prefer to see road tolls and somewhat higher property tax as alternatives. But it is important to put those charges in context.

[Doady]

Here is an example of high-rise development in a Toronto suburb since the 90s. If anyone ever tries to convince you that the central City of Toronto is dominated by an anti-high-rise culture, that an anti-high-rise attitude permeates the city and its residents and politicians, that people of Toronto cannot accept high-rise living and construction, that high-rises and single-family homes cannot coexist in Toronto, just remember these photos of Toronto's outer suburbs:

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Northern Light

That golf course can't be legally developed, its in the regulatory floodplain. We don't allow developments in those here.

This the Conservation Authority Floodplain Map:

https://trca.ca/conservation/flood-r...ap-viewer/#map

Anything in Blue is off limits; existing developments are often grandfathered, though some continue to be bought out.

Thanks for the explanation. It is still technically developable - The Banks development in Cincinnati is built atop garages on the Ohio River floodplain, probably the largest such example in the United States.

https://thebankspublicpartnership.com/the-story/

[Northern Light]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Thanks for the explanation. It is still technically developable - The Banks development in Cincinnati is built atop garages on the Ohio River floodplain, probably the largest such example in the United States.

https://thebankspublicpartnership.com/the-story/

But legally it is not.

The land is actually owned by the Conservation Authority, but managed by the City of Toronto.

Beyond the TRCA and City mandates precluding development of conservation lands, floodplain lands and parks.....

This particular site would be considered high risk, as it is just a few km downstream from the G. Ross Lord Dam and Reservoir



If the floodgates/spillways were maxed out, this area would be under several feet of fast-moving water; there's also the consideration of a catastrophic failure of the dam as well.

[Nite]

Originally Posted by Doady

Here is an example of high-rise development in a Toronto suburb since the 90s. If anyone ever tries to convince you that the central City of Toronto is dominated by an anti-high-rise culture, that an anti-high-rise attitude permeates the city and its residents and politicians, that people of Toronto cannot accept high-rise living and construction, that high-rises and single-family homes cannot coexist in Toronto, just remember these photos of Toronto's outer suburbs:

Most of Toronto is zoned exclusively for single family homes which means the city is hostile to any development that will bring more density to a neighbourhood.
Examples of highrises in GTA suburbs again are do the province putting it foot down against sprawl and demanding that all GTA cities densify, although I will admit that Mississauga (Pictured) is more pro building higher densities than Toronto is..

[Doady]

Conservation authorities lost much of their power under Doug Ford. I wouldn't be surprised to see development in floodplains and wetlands again, including high-rise development. That would make some people here very happy, I'm sure.

[Nite]

Originally Posted by Doady

Almost every tower built in Toronto in the last 25 years was rejected by Toronto city council? You make me laugh. Was it the same with the dozens of towers built in Mississauga in the last 25 years too?

Most of Toronto is zoned for single-family homes? No shit. Isn't that the whole point of building high density? Only a moron would want any low-rise neighbourhoods to be completely demolished. That's why we promote high-rise development: because they take up less space, allowing more single family homes to be preserved, increasing the diversity of housing within the city. Building more high-rises means keeping more single-family homes. To constantly complain about a supposed lack of high rise development in Toronto but also attack the presence of single family neighbourhoods in Toronto is just stupid. Try coming up with an argument that actually makes sense for once.

Literally every area in Toronto that is now high density was a low-rise neighbourhood at some point. The city should let the market do it's thing and build the right amount of housing in the city

[davee930]

The bad thing is, Canadian houses are already cheap garbage. I'm guessing they will start making them even cheaper.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by Nite

Most of Toronto is zoned exclusively for single family homes means the city is hostile to any development that is not single family homes.

Examples of highrises in GTA suburbs again are do the province putting it foot down against sprawl and demanding that all GTA cities densify, although I will admit that Mississauga (Pictured) is more pro building higher densities than Toronto is..

What are you suggesting? Mississauga has been building more high-rises than Toronto? Mississauga has had a separate high-rise culture from Toronto since the 90s? North York City Centre, Scarborough City Centre, Etobicoke City Centre are all just copycats of Mississauga City Centre? Former City of North York, City of Scarborough, City of Etobicoke were all anti-high-rise? Even as a Mississauga resident, I don't see any of it. Mississauga has a strong high-rise culture because Toronto has a strong high-rise culture. Mississauga is an extension of Toronto. It's a reflection of Toronto. An outer suburb like Mississauga is pro high-rises because the City of Toronto is pro high-rises, and has been for many decades.

Mississauga is mostly zoned for single-family homes too. Why? Because high-rises take up less space. That's the whole argument for high-rises to begin with. If you need to demolish any single-family neighbourhoods to build high-rises, then why build high-rises? What benefit would high-rise construction actually give if they require so much space, so much demolition?

High-rise construction doesn't mean targeting single-family houses. High-rise condo towers don't just mean condos, they also mean street-level retail. Mixed use. Not just residential, but also commercial. To build high-rises, what any city should really be targeting is not existing residential land, but under-utilized commercial land. Parking lots. That means building a strong transit system, getting people out of their cars, reducing the demand for parking. That means focusing on major corridors, not residential side streets. And this is exactly what the City of Toronto has been doing, better than Mississauga, better than anyone. That's the real reason why hundreds of towers have been built all over the city since the 90s. Because of transit.

Complaining of lack of high rise construction? That not enough high-rise construction is happening residential side streets? And that whatever little high-rise construction can be attributed to a province that has been more pro-car than pro-transit? None of it makes any sense to me. There's more to densifying than just being pro-development.

Do you really seriously believe that sprawl is purely the result of restrictions on development? You believe that removing all restrictions, letting developers build whatever they want, whenever they want, and wherever they want, that is the key to solving sprawl everywhere?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Doady

i'm always thrown for a loop when i see these "houses and towers" pics from suburban toronto.

in suburban chicago, the owners of those homes in the foreground would band together and hire every single last real estate lawyer in the state if they had to to stop what occurred in the background.

they would either succeed or at least drag the process out long enough in the courts to make it go away.

of course, 9 times out of 10 it wouldn't even be necessary, as most suburban municipalities would summarily deny anything that could even be construed as a dreaded "highrise" out of hand.

that's DOA shit in >90% of them.