News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 10K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 42K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 6K     0 

evandyk said:
I suspect (without adding it up) that the wards that are included make up about half of Toronto's population, and as noted, have access to the best transit. You can celebrate getting half a loaf! And credit to Jamaal for getting his slice of Scarborough included. The rest of Scarborough will eventually be jealous. And then Etobicoke and North York will want in on the action.

I still think the federal government should withhold the 25% of HAF funding. Fair's fair.
Click to expand...
Agreed on withholding funding.

The fact that East York alone is included is huge. So many wartime bungalows on big lots. With the OL coming up, you can see a boom in micro-condos coming
 
- Sixplexes in the Annex, High Park, Cabbagetown and Rosedale will likely be geared towards the luxury markets, and developments there hopefully will be discrete and contextual. In fact, I think that sixplexes are entirely possibly without displacing heritage in those neighbourhoods.
- As mentioned above East York will definitely densify heavily with the Ontario Line.
- This will produce some interesting urban microcosms that will be studied in around 30-50 years' time, where architecture students study why exactly parts of Scarborough have much higher densities than other areas.
- YIMBYs should take this win as a starting point and work towards getting more pro-intensification councilors elected in certain wards in the next election.

1750944852925.png
 
Last edited:
T-Bor said:
I was disappointed at first, but when you look at the land area and density where sixplexes will now permitted, it's actually a solid step.

I suspect most of the demand initially would be in the approved wards anyway, since there's better transit. I have a hard time believing that you'd have the demand for 6 units on a 120 x 50 North York detached lot where you often need to walk 10 minutes to a bus stop, since most people living in these won't have cars.
Click to expand...

It's not whether it is a solid step - it is whether it is fair; and it isn't like we aren't building transit at the excluded wards either. It is basically attempting to reinforce the yellow belt yet again.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
It's not whether it is a solid step - it is whether it is fair; and it isn't like we aren't building transit at the excluded wards either. It is basically attempting to reinforce the yellow belt yet again.

AoD
Click to expand...
No, agreed. There should be no carve-outs. Just acknowledging that compared to, let's say, 2 years ago, you can now build a lot more units in a lot more places.
 
I have been walking along Crescent Road this week to get into the subway at Rosedale Stn and there is a huge variety of housing on that street. Big houses, laneway houses, mutliplexes, small apartment buildings. There are spots like this all over Rosedale and the Annex. But god forbid Scarborough and Etobicoke should let their "neighbourhood character" change, lest they become slightly more like the Annex.
 
I'm surprised by the exclusion of Etobicoke-Lakeshore. It's already got a decent variety of housing styles, transit connections to downtown, and a progressive councilor in Morley, so what gives?
 
Towered said:
I'm surprised by the exclusion of Etobicoke-Lakeshore. It's already got a decent variety of housing styles, transit connections to downtown, and a progressive councilor in Morley, so what gives?
Click to expand...
She made a comment about her and constituents having concerns about sixplexes on narrow lots having no on-site parking and it not working in the Etobicoke context and I wonder if it's because her ward’s seen recent backlash over parking and housing; a proposal to convert three small Green P lots off Lakeshore into housing -- one of them a shelter, plus the Queensway Cineplex redevelopment and the Long Branch Tower. With an election next year, I wonder if she’s doing some political calculus.

IMO if councillors just went forward with this stuff I think they'd be surprised how much support they'd see and that stuff like pluralistic ignorance is at play in a big way here keeping us from moving forward on many fronts.
 
Towered said:
I'm surprised by the exclusion of Etobicoke-Lakeshore. It's already got a decent variety of housing styles, transit connections to downtown, and a progressive councilor in Morley, so what gives?
Click to expand...
txlseries4 said:
She made a comment about her and constituents having concerns about sixplexes on narrow lots having no on-site parking and it not working in the Etobicoke context and I wonder if it's because her ward’s seen recent backlash over parking and housing; a proposal to convert three small Green P lots off Lakeshore into housing -- one of them a shelter, plus the Queensway Cineplex redevelopment and the Long Branch Tower. With an election next year, I wonder if she’s doing some political calculus.

IMO if councillors just went forward with this stuff I think they'd be surprised how much support they'd see and that stuff like pluralistic ignorance is at play in a big way here keeping us from moving forward on many fronts.
Click to expand...
I was cautiously optimistic that Carroll and Morley, two of the more progressive suburban councillors, would support the city-wide sixplex proposal. I suspect both received an earful from local residents associations and played it safe.

Morley, to her credit, has taken a bold stance in support of the 66th Third Street shelter in her ward.
 
The Avenues item was stayed by Holiday. Meaning? Result? Also what was the result of the Apartment Site proposal?
 
rdaner said:
The Avenues item was stayed by Holiday. Meaning? Result? Also what was the result of the Apartment Site proposal?
Click to expand...
If you mean it was held that tends to mean a councillor has a motion for an amendment (which was the case) or have questions for staff they want to ask, so they "hold" it so that it isn't voted on earlier in the meeting when items without need for debate ("quick releases") pass with an informal show of hands.

The Avenues item passed as amended 19-2 (Holyday, Cheng against) and Holyday's motion narrowly passed 10-9. Weird stuff happens at late night council sessions when several members have taken off.
"City Council direct that Ward 2 – Etobicoke Centre be placed into the Stage 3 work plan."

Ward 2 was part of Stage 2, but Stage 3 is for wards with fewer MTSA's and that phase is slated to start in 2027.
Info about the stages here: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2025/ph/bgrd/backgroundfile-255721.pdf

The Apartment Site "Housing Accelerator Fund: Apartment Infill Study - Residential Infill Report" passed without amendments.
 
Thanks! So much happening with this plus Eglinton/Finch openings. I wonder where building code reforms are at as they are another important element.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top