(09-18-2022, 09:53 PM)tomh009 Wrote:

(09-18-2022, 09:41 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: Step 1 is, stop digging: eliminate all parking minima, allow apartment buildings up to 4 stories in all residential zones, and allow office and residential above all retail units. Then see how much of a problem there still is.

This would be a very good start. The problem is that redoing all the zoning (required for the above) would be highly contentious and time-consuming effort for every city.

What I think could work is provincial (note, Federal cannot work as municipalities are figments of the provincial imagination) legislation to allow construction of low-rise multi-residential in any location permitting residential use (maybe allow granny flats everywhere while they are at this). And disallowing use of parking minima and to allow residential on the upper floors of any building that has commercial zoning.

There would likely still be a hue and cry, but Ford has a majority, and the next election is far away, so he could get away with it.

(09-18-2022, 09:53 PM)tomh009 Wrote:

(09-18-2022, 09:41 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: Step 1 is, stop digging: eliminate all parking minima, allow apartment buildings up to 4 stories in all residential zones, and allow office and residential above all retail units. Then see how much of a problem there still is.

This would be a very good start. The problem is that redoing all the zoning (required for the above) would be highly contentious and time-consuming effort for every city.

What I think could work is provincial (note, Federal cannot work as municipalities are figments of the provincial imagination) legislation to allow construction of low-rise multi-residential in any location permitting residential use (maybe allow granny flats everywhere while they are at this). And disallowing use of parking minima and to allow residential on the upper floors of any building that has commercial zoning.

There would likely still be a hue and cry, but Ford has a majority, and the next election is far away, so he could get away with it.

(09-19-2022, 03:22 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: The thing is, if developers wanted this, Ford would do it. But developers don't want it.

The thing that allowing smaller scale developments does is lowers the barrier of entry to being a developer. If I have to be able to raise 100MM to build a 20 storey tower, there's only a few competitors, if I only have to raise 5MM to build a small scale 3 storey building, pretty much any homeowner (with no mortgage) in the city could do that.

So, developers (the ones that are developing buildings today) don't want this...because it would cause them more competition.

Or at least that's my speculation, given that Ford would pretty much do anything developers ask for.

Oh, and yes, I am absolutely saying that zoning restrictions are contributing to the concentration of wealth and the monopolization of the development market. That's what legislation usually does...it's why Conservatives pretend to oppose it, but in practice tend to support it.

(09-19-2022, 08:00 AM)ijmorlan Wrote:

(09-19-2022, 03:22 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: The thing is, if developers wanted this, Ford would do it. But developers don't want it.

The thing that allowing smaller scale developments does is lowers the barrier of entry to being a developer. If I have to be able to raise 100MM to build a 20 storey tower, there's only a few competitors, if I only have to raise 5MM to build a small scale 3 storey building, pretty much any homeowner (with no mortgage) in the city could do that.

So, developers (the ones that are developing buildings today) don't want this...because it would cause them more competition.

Or at least that's my speculation, given that Ford would pretty much do anything developers ask for.

Oh, and yes, I am absolutely saying that zoning restrictions are contributing to the concentration of wealth and the monopolization of the development market. That's what legislation usually does...it's why Conservatives pretend to oppose it, but in practice tend to support it.

Yes, I think you’ve identified a significant issue with the modern development market. I have the impression that property owners used to develop their own properties; a person who owned a house on a street that was becoming busier might renovate the front of their property to put in a storefront, for example. But now almost any change requires zoning approval, and to get through that you pretty much need to be a professional developer.

I am reminded of a for-sale sign I saw once on a vacant lot advertising it as a site for a strip mall (or something; the specific use doesn’t really matter). I remember wondering to myself how they knew it should be a strip mall, and of course the answer is zoning: a new owner could either build what the current zoning said, probably in part a result of changes requested by the curren towner, or they could go through a lengthy and expensive process to change it.

(09-19-2022, 03:22 AM)danbrotherston Wrote:

(09-18-2022, 09:53 PM)tomh009 Wrote: This would be a very good start. The problem is that redoing all the zoning (required for the above) would be highly contentious and time-consuming effort for every city.

What I think could work is provincial (note, Federal cannot work as municipalities are figments of the provincial imagination) legislation to allow construction of low-rise multi-residential in any location permitting residential use (maybe allow granny flats everywhere while they are at this). And disallowing use of parking minima and to allow residential on the upper floors of any building that has commercial zoning.

There would likely still be a hue and cry, but Ford has a majority, and the next election is far away, so he could get away with it.

The thing is, if developers wanted this, Ford would do it. But developers don't want it.

The thing that allowing smaller scale developments does is lowers the barrier of entry to being a developer. If I have to be able to raise 100MM to build a 20 storey tower, there's only a few competitors, if I only have to raise 5MM to build a small scale 3 storey building, pretty much any homeowner (with no mortgage) in the city could do that.

So, developers (the ones that are developing buildings today) don't want this...because it would cause them more competition.

Or at least that's my speculation, given that Ford would pretty much do anything developers ask for.

(09-19-2022, 09:56 AM)tomh009 Wrote:

(09-19-2022, 03:22 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: The thing is, if developers wanted this, Ford would do it. But developers don't want it.

The thing that allowing smaller scale developments does is lowers the barrier of entry to being a developer. If I have to be able to raise 100MM to build a 20 storey tower, there's only a few competitors, if I only have to raise 5MM to build a small scale 3 storey building, pretty much any homeowner (with no mortgage) in the city could do that.

So, developers (the ones that are developing buildings today) don't want this...because it would cause them more competition.

Or at least that's my speculation, given that Ford would pretty much do anything developers ask for.

I think you are specifically saying that condo developers don't want it. Because suburban/subdivision would actually gain flexibility from this.

I'm also not sure that three- and four-storey buildings would provide real and substantial competition for high-rise condo buildings, but it's certainly possible that those developers fear that they would.

(09-19-2022, 10:10 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: But in both cases, they also recognize that restricting housing pushes up prices which I believe benefits them as well.

(09-19-2022, 12:55 PM)tomh009 Wrote: However, on the flip side, reducing the zoning constraints would increase the number of development opportunities, and somebody would need to build those projects, too, more likely an existing developer than someone who has never developed a property before. So, there would be growth opportunities there, too.

(09-20-2022, 07:53 AM)ijmorlan Wrote:

(09-19-2022, 12:55 PM)tomh009 Wrote: However, on the flip side, reducing the zoning constraints would increase the number of development opportunities, and somebody would need to build those projects, too, more likely an existing developer than someone who has never developed a property before. So, there would be growth opportunities there, too.

My suspicion is that if random homeowners were suddenly able to do more with their properties (specifically, all the things they could do until zoning was imposed around a century ago), existing large developers of the sort we’re mostly discussing would not be equipped to benefit. It’s sort of like a hypothetical situation where the government was studying relaxing the regulations around brewing to make it easier to open a small brewery — Molson isn’t going to be in favour of such a proposal.

(09-19-2022, 08:00 AM)ijmorlan Wrote:

(09-19-2022, 03:22 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: The thing is, if developers wanted this, Ford would do it. But developers don't want it.

The thing that allowing smaller scale developments does is lowers the barrier of entry to being a developer. If I have to be able to raise 100MM to build a 20 storey tower, there's only a few competitors, if I only have to raise 5MM to build a small scale 3 storey building, pretty much any homeowner (with no mortgage) in the city could do that.

So, developers (the ones that are developing buildings today) don't want this...because it would cause them more competition.

Or at least that's my speculation, given that Ford would pretty much do anything developers ask for.

Oh, and yes, I am absolutely saying that zoning restrictions are contributing to the concentration of wealth and the monopolization of the development market. That's what legislation usually does...it's why Conservatives pretend to oppose it, but in practice tend to support it.

Yes, I think you’ve identified a significant issue with the modern development market. I have the impression that property owners used to develop their own properties; a person who owned a house on a street that was becoming busier might renovate the front of their property to put in a storefront, for example. But now almost any change requires zoning approval, and to get through that you pretty much need to be a professional developer.

I am reminded of a for-sale sign I saw once on a vacant lot advertising it as a site for a strip mall (or something; the specific use doesn’t really matter). I remember wondering to myself how they knew it should be a strip mall, and of course the answer is zoning: a new owner could either build what the current zoning said, probably in part a result of changes requested by the curren towner, or they could go through a lengthy and expensive process to change it.

(09-20-2022, 09:20 AM)Marko Wrote:

(09-19-2022, 08:00 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: Yes, I think you’ve identified a significant issue with the modern development market. I have the impression that property owners used to develop their own properties; a person who owned a house on a street that was becoming busier might renovate the front of their property to put in a storefront, for example. But now almost any change requires zoning approval, and to get through that you pretty much need to be a professional developer.

I am reminded of a for-sale sign I saw once on a vacant lot advertising it as a site for a strip mall (or something; the specific use doesn’t really matter). I remember wondering to myself how they knew it should be a strip mall, and of course the answer is zoning: a new owner could either build what the current zoning said, probably in part a result of changes requested by the curren towner, or they could go through a lengthy and expensive process to change it.

They've made this very difficult for non-professional developers, particularly in Waterloo Region due to the complexity of the multiple levels of government. I'm an individual home owner, and in 2020 Ontario changed the home-based food businesses law to allow many bakery items, like bread, to be made and sold from home kitchens. I had hoped to be able to start a weekend bakery with this law. Despite living directly outside the Kitchener Market, Kitchener told me I can't do this – my house is zoned to allow a business, but it must be a law firm or other office, but not a home bakery (even without retail) and I would need to appeal the zoning or wait for the zoning changes to happen and hope this gets covered. Public Health told me they haven't made any changes based on the new Provincial law, and the Regional requirements have a higher standard – they require a complete separate kitchen from the living space – meaning, the only change the Province's new law impacted was you don't need a separate hand washing sink in your commercial kitchen in your home, which is hilarious in context of the Provincial law.

This goes from "fairly straightforward way to start a business with limited capital investment" to "months of delays for zoning changes that might not get approved, which will cost $5,000-10,000, plus the costs and delays of a full renovation to put a commercial kitchen in the basement." So I'm not doing it.

(09-19-2022, 01:23 AM)GtwoK Wrote: Posted in the thread for the Erb / Regina development, but here's a view of the skyline downtown from uptown with (most) of what's been proposed included  

(09-14-2022, 08:36 PM)dtkvictim Wrote: 83-93 Ontario St was recently painted (not entirely done yet it seems) and has a new facade on the storefronts. I'm not generally a fan of painting over brick, but this one seems better than just about any other examples in our city. It's also nice to see something painted brighter, instead of Kitchener's staple black/grey.