General Ottawa Planning Issues

[rocketphish]

Ontario bill to boost supply of multi-unit homes, build more subdivisions
The bill fell short of changing municipal zoning rules to allow more housing to be built aside from single-family homes

The Canadian Press
Publishing date: Mar 30, 2022 • 3 hours ago • 2 minute read

TORONTO — Ontario’s housing minister has introduced legislation to streamline approval processes in a bid to boost the province’s housing supply.

It comes after a housing affordability task force convened by the government released a report last month offering 55 recommendations, including a goal of building 1.5 million homes in 10 years.

Government officials say the task force report gives them a long-term roadmap, but many of the recommendations are not addressed in today’s legislation, including changing municipal zoning rules to allow more housing to be built aside from single-family homes.

The government is now launching new consultations on increasing “missing middle” housing, including supports for multigenerational housing, access to financing for not-for-profit developers and the housing needs of rural and northern communities.

The bill contains measures to streamline subdivision approval processes, site plan approval processes, which deal with elements such as walkways and parking, and approvals for modular multi-unit residential buildings.

Municipalities would also have to refund zoning by-law amendment fees after Jan. 1, 2023 if they don’t make a decision within legislated timelines.

The province is also putting $19 million over three years toward reducing backlogs at the Ontario Land Tribunal and Landlord and Tenant Board.

Ontario announced Tuesday it is increasing a tax on non-resident homebuyers from 15 to 20 per cent and is broadening it to the entire province instead of just the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Those changes took effect Wednesday.

House prices in Ontario have nearly tripled in the last 10 years, far outpacing income growth, the task force report said, but the province is 1.2 million homes — both rental and owned — short of the G7 average.

Businesses and public services are having trouble recruiting and retaining workers because of a scarcity of nearby housing, which is harming the economy, while long commutes are contributing to air pollution, the report said.

Many of the task force report’s recommendations suggested ways to limit how development can be stifled by local opposition to neighbourhood growth and change.

Those recommendations included eliminating municipal policies that prioritize preserving “neighbourhood character,” exempting projects of 10 units or fewer from public consultation when they only need minor variances, limiting municipalities from hosting consultations beyond what is required in the Planning Act, and banning heritage designations that are made only after a development application is filed.

Municipal zoning rules also need to be changed to allow more homes to be built, the report said. It’s estimated that 70 per cent of the residential land in Toronto is restricted to single-detached or semi-detached homes.

The province allowed secondary suites starting in 2019, but municipalities are still restricting their use — the total number of secondary suites has actually declined for the past three years, the report said.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published March 30, 2022.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/canada/on...wcm/9c0e4df7-5a6c-4822-a33c-d6cac41ac9f3

[rocketphish]

Ottawa city council grapples over new 'high-performance' standards for new home builds, adding to their cost
The new standards, which the city can require under its Ontario Planning Act powers through site plans and plans of subdivisions, are meant to make developments more sustainable and environmentally sensitive.

Jon Willing, Ottawa Citizen
Apr 13, 2022 • 2 hours ago • 3 minute read

Ottawa city council approved new development standards on Wednesday after a debate that had some members voicing concerns about the municipal government worsening the sticker shock of buying a new home in Ottawa.

The new “high-performance development standard” pulls on council-declared “emergencies” when it comes to climate change and housing.

While city staff acknowledged the enviro-focused standards for new developments could add to the cost of a new home by up to 10 per cent, an overwhelming majority of council agreed that guidelines are necessary to reduce the impact on the environment caused by buildings.

The new standards, which the city can require under its Ontario Planning Act powers through site plans and plans of subdivisions, are meant to make developments more sustainable and environmentally sensitive.

Building metrics considered by the city during development reviews will cover energy, waste, health, resiliency, ecology and transportation.

For example, the city will be interested in seeing energy conservation measures in a proposed development. There are also metrics for electric vehicle parking, tree planting, bike storage and fresh-air intake as part of the development assessment.

The local homebuilding industry, represented by the Greater Ottawa Home Builders’ Association (GOHBA), is highly skeptical of the new standards.

“While GOHBA and its members are supportive of the aims of the standard, we have ongoing concerns related to affordability, achievability on some items, and phasing,” executive director Jason Burggraaf said after council’s decision.

Burggraaf said the cost implication for each of the new standards still hasn’t been quantified, but “the discussion at council clearly acknowledged there would be an increase in costs to the sticker price of a home.”

In a report to council, planning staff said, “New buildings that are designed to be energy-efficient and resilient to changing climate conditions from the outset will improve local public health and save on costly retrofits in the future.”

Armed with a new climate change master plan and official plan, the city has been examining infrastructure contributing to greenhouse gas emissions. Transportation, like gas-guzzling cars and buses, is one major contributor, and another is buildings.

According to the city’s research, buildings account for 46 per cent of community greenhouse gas emissions, and the increase associated with new buildings constructed between 2021 and 2030 would add 8.6 per cent to the emissions associated with buildings in Ottawa.

Homebuilders are worried about the costs of the new requirements and the city’s timeline for implementation.

The city will begin phasing in the new high-performance development standards on June 1, with mandatory requirements beginning to be enforced in June 2023. GOHBA is concerned about the short timeline and the city’s capacity to review applications, considering the city would need consultants to help with energy modelling.

In questioning the new development standard, Burggraaf highlighted one measure requiring 30 cubic metres of soil for street trees, saying it’s not realistic, especially for subdivisions.

“There are significant space constraints with utility trenches, utility infrastructure, street lights, hydrants, driveways and sidewalks,” Burggraaf said.

The debate at council focused almost solely on costs added to new homes at a time when housing affordability is in the national spotlight.

Councillors Rick Chiarelli, George Darouze and Allan Hubley dissented from the staff-recommended development standard. All three councillors were worried that city hall would be contributing to the housing crisis by increasing costs.

However, other councillors like Shawn Menard and Theresa Kavanagh said council was doing a favour to new homeowners by helping them avoid expensive retrofits in the future.

Supporters pointed to the city’s climate protection goals and rejected calls to delay the new standards.

“When are we going to tackle that if not now?” Coun. Riley Brockington said.

“It’s not just the short-term cost of housing, it’s the long-term costs of developing and living on a sustainable planet,” Coun. Jeff Leiper said.

Coun. Cathy Curry added her support to a motion ensuring electric vehicle charging capabilities are in new homes, but she expressed concerns about the current hydro grid’s ability to handle the future demand.

“I still will support this infrastructure being in place,” Curry said, “but everyone stay tuned.”

Mayor Jim Watson, who also supported the new development policy, said the city isn’t a leader on high-performance building standards, since it’s playing catch-up with other municipalities when it comes to requiring developments to be more sensitive to the environment. The City of Toronto, for example, has had a green standard in place since 2008.

[email protected]
twitter.com/JonathanWilling

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-new...for-new-home-builds-adding-to-their-cost

[stolenottawa]

Not sure if this is the right thread for this, but I feel like a lot of people on this forum would like the following book:

Saving the city by Daniel Sanger

https://www.vehiculepress.com/q.php?EAN=9781550655803

I'm currently reading the French version (Sauver la Ville). It's about the rise of Projet Montreal and the urbanisation efforts of the party.

I was living in Montreal during some of the period of the book (2009-2014) and remember the negative press they were getting for their traffic calming measures on the Plateau. Hindsight really shows how ahead of their time they were.

I was recently in Montreal and was telling a friend that while I lived there it felt like the city was stagnant and struggled under the weight of corruption scandals but that it's really managed to turn itself around, getting major projects completed like the Turcot, Pont Champlain, REM, Ligne Bleu extension, Bike lanes, Ligne Rose.

I feel like one can hold out hope that Ottawa can get to the same level someday.

[Proof Sheet]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/bill-109-city-of-ottawa-implications-official-plan-1.6420509

Interesting times. Nowhere in the discussion is the idea that maybe the City Planners spend too much time in analysis paralysis and meddle in too many things. The narrative is that the province is being heavy handed, the City would lose development fees but maybe they need to work more efficiently and let builders and their consultants do what they are best at as most Planners at the City have no clue about real life design and building expertise. As someone who has to deal with them daily, my head explodes very often at some of the comments and dialogue I engage in with them. There is talk to ensure that applications are more complete and I agree with that but the submission requirements are quite vague and quite honestly does anyone read a Planning Rationale for a Site Plan application that is zoning compliant and ticks all the boxes other than the City Planner who cuts and pastes the report for their approval report. Call me cynical but it has happened to me.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Proof Sheet

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/bill-109-city-of-ottawa-implications-official-plan-1.6420509

Interesting times. Nowhere in the discussion is the idea that maybe the City Planners spend too much time in analysis paralysis and meddle in too many things. The narrative is that the province is being heavy handed, the City would lose development fees but maybe they need to work more efficiently and let builders and their consultants do what they are best at as most Planners at the City have no clue about real life design and building expertise. As someone who has to deal with them daily, my head explodes very often at some of the comments and dialogue I engage in with them. There is talk to ensure that applications are more complete and I agree with that but the submission requirements are quite vague and quite honestly does anyone read a Planning Rationale for a Site Plan application that is zoning compliant and ticks all the boxes other than the City Planner who cuts and pastes the report for their approval report. Call me cynical but it has happened to me.

This is Ottawa - that kind of thinking is alien to the Ottawa culture.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by Proof Sheet

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/bill-109-city-of-ottawa-implications-official-plan-1.6420509

Interesting times. Nowhere in the discussion is the idea that maybe the City Planners spend too much time in analysis paralysis and meddle in too many things. The narrative is that the province is being heavy handed, the City would lose development fees but maybe they need to work more efficiently and let builders and their consultants do what they are best at as most Planners at the City have no clue about real life design and building expertise. As someone who has to deal with them daily, my head explodes very often at some of the comments and dialogue I engage in with them. There is talk to ensure that applications are more complete and I agree with that but the submission requirements are quite vague and quite honestly does anyone read a Planning Rationale for a Site Plan application that is zoning compliant and ticks all the boxes other than the City Planner who cuts and pastes the report for their approval report. Call me cynical but it has happened to me.

The city could follow Edmontons path, who has already effectively removed R1 zoning, who are looking into a LVT type system, and from what i've read who's planning process already meets that 120 day timeline.

What I also find interesting is Moffat's recent comments in regards to R1 and the amount of pushback they get from certain people on council. (he stated this in a recent meeting just can't remember which one)

https://twitter.com/ScottMoffatt21/status/1514000450261032966?s=20&t=lTp7wqdIY11Ki1PkQa979Q

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

This is Ottawa - that kind of thinking is alien to the Ottawa culture.

Unfortunately you've hit the nail on the head. Born to be mild is the attitude of many. Why change things. Rinse and repeat. Few at 110 Laurier can see that this is an issue.

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

The city could follow Edmontons path, who has already effectively removed R1 zoning, who are looking into a LVT type system, and from what i've read who's planning process already meets that 120 day timeline.

What I also find interesting is Moffat's recent comments in regards to R1 and the amount of pushback they get from certain people on council. (he stated this in a recent meeting just can't remember which one)

https://twitter.com/ScottMoffatt21/status/1514000450261032966?s=20&t=lTp7wqdIY11Ki1PkQa979Q

City staff spend 90% of their time on 10% of the details of a project and often times don't know when to let go which drags out timelines. There are delays as well with developers/owners/consultants as well. Neither are blameless.

[rocketphish]

Own a vacant property in Ottawa? City wants you to pay for an annual permit
Proposed permit regime comes on heels of new tax for vacant homes

Kate Porter · CBC News
Posted: May 19, 2022 1:46 PM ET | Last Updated: May 19

The City of Ottawa wants owners of vacant properties to pay $1,703 annually for a permit so bylaw officers can do proactive inspections aimed at preventing problems and "demolition by neglect."

The proposed new bylaw was approved by the community and protective services committee Thursday. It comes less than two months after Ottawa city council approved a new tax on vacant residential properties set at one per cent of a property's assessed value.

The new permit regime would take effect Nov. 1, 2022, if approved at council next week, and would apply to buildings and lands that have been unoccupied for 120 days or more.

Some empty buildings in Ottawa have drawn widespread attention over many years, from Somerset House and the now-demolished West Coast Video on Bank Street, to Magee House in Hintonburg.

Residents in the Hintonburg and Mechanicsville areas, especially, have also drawn attention to the many other boarded-up homes along streets that can lead to headaches for neighbours because of break-ins, fires and garbage being piled up.

Last fall, city staff counted 216 vacant properties on its list, up from the 95 properties they knew about back in 2013. More than half of the properties are located in the central wards of Rideau-Vanier, Kitchissippi, and Somerset.

City staff say the new regime, with two dedicated bylaw officers paid thanks to the permit fees, will lead to proactive inspections instead of reactive ones.

As it currently stands, the city has just one dedicated officer assigned to deal with property standards at the properties, and their caseload has reached an "unsustainable" 800 investigations a year, staff report.

The new bylaw would require owners, or their agents, to visit properties every two weeks to check for problems. They'll also have to post a phone number on the building so residents can reach an owner about issues.

"This measure is to help resolve issues more quickly and, potentially, without the need of city intervention," explained public policy development manager Valerie Bietlot.

Of the 216 vacant properties, 110 have development plans on file with the city, but Bietlot said they too will be expected to pay the permit. It will be set at $1,450, but come to $1,703 after an administrative fee and the harmonized sales tax.

Under the proposed bylaw, the city says it will also be able to order work done on a property. If it's not, the city can complete the repairs and recover the costs on the property tax bill.

Those who contravene the bylaw can also face fines between $500 and $100,000.

"This has been a long time coming," noted Coun. Catherine McKenney, whose ward includes Somerset House.

The councillor, and many of their colleagues, doesn't want to see homes left empty given the need for housing in Ottawa.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/vacant-property-permit-ottawa-committee-bylaw-1.6459130

[DEWLine]

I do wish that Somerset House would finally get fixed up and reopened. Maybe this will finally make that happen?

[rocketphish]

Contentious inclusionary zoning proposal, too timid for some, to be considered at city committee this week
The zoning, as staff are proposing to craft it, would apply after a one-year transition period to new residential developments of 50 units or more across 26 protected major transit station areas.

Taylor Blewett, Ottawa Citizen
Jun 14, 2022 • 48 minutes ago • 5 minute read

Years in the making and contentious already, city staff have unveiled a proposed framework to get private sector developers to deliver more affordable housing through a new-to-Ottawa planning tool called inclusionary zoning.

It would initially be restricted to condominium developments rather than rental builds, and against the backdrop of a declared housing and homelessness emergency in Ottawa, the plan is too timid for a number of voices in the affordable housing sphere.

It’s the development industry that would have to deliver a certain percentage of discounted units in new projects subject to inclusionary zoning. While still sizing up the potential impacts of the framework made public in a report last week, industry representatives had praise Monday for the cautious approach staff are taking to try to avoid upsetting the city’s housing supply pipeline.

A joint meeting of council’s planning and community and protective services committees will evaluate the proposal on Thursday, and if approved at council later this month, it will guide staff’s work on implementing official plan and zoning bylaw amendments that would be brought to the next council in 2023.

Inclusionary zoning, as staff are proposing to craft it, would apply after a one-year transition period to new developments of 50 units or more across 26 protected major transit station areas (PMTSAs), which have been mapped out in the city’s new official plan and are the only places in Ottawa where inclusionary zoning can be implemented right now, under provincial rules.

New condo projects in these areas would be required to dedicate 10 per cent of gross floor area to inclusionary zoning units that meet a designated affordability definition, while purpose-built rental projects would initially be exempt.

Those “set-aside” rates could change after 2024, when staff would commission a market analysis of all 26 PMTSAs and subsequently propose area-specific unit set-aside rates. One assessment of Ottawa’s housing market and the potential impact of inclusionary zoning has already been done, and according to staff’s report to committee, it found that local housing markets could potentially support condominium set-aside rates up to 15 per cent, and purpose-built rental set-aside rates up to 10 per cent.

“I think they’re being far too cautious and I think that being cautious after acknowledging that there is an affordable housing emergency is not the appropriate step,” said Ottawa Community Land Trust executive director Ray Sullivan, of the gap between the consultant’s conclusion on rentals set-asides, and what staff are proposing.

The reason for this, staff wrote, is to encourage more purpose-built rental construction. It’s this restraint that John Dickie, chair of the Eastern Ontario Landlord Organization, applauded Monday. The inclusionary zoning rollout comes as interest rates are rising, affecting the potential rate of return and attractiveness of undertaking rental projects.

Layer on top of that new requirements to set aside discounted units and “they will dry up rental housing development,” Dickie warned, expressing his preference for a wait-and-see approach that gives time for interest rates and potentially land values to fall as the condo world adjusts to new IZ requirements.

It’s not what council’s housing and homelessness liaison is looking for. While inclusionary zoning is not going to solve homelessness, said Catherine McKenney, it is a tool that can create the kind of rental and ownership housing that would allow people to move upwards on the housing ladder and make room for those below, by helping fill a gap in the housing market that’s made it difficult for moderate-income households to find a place they can afford.

“That’s what inclusionary zoning is meant to address. And I don’t believe that what we’re seeing in front of us will do anything to address it,” said McKenney, describing the proposed set-aside rates as “disappointing” and pledging to work with council to strengthen the framework.

It is primarily moderate-income households that staff are proposing to target with inclusionary zoning. The sale price for condo units would have to be the lesser of the price calculated as affordable to households in the 60th income decile (currently $519,149, at maximum) and the market value of the unit.

Inclusionary zoning rentals would be priced at the lesser of 30 per cent of the gross monthly income for households in the 60th income decile for renter households (currently $1,611 at maximum) or the average market rent for the unit by number of bedrooms, as calculated by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

Eligibility would be restricted to those with household incomes of $117,109 or less for ownership units and $64,456 or less for rentals, if and when they’re made available through inclusionary zoning.

At the Greater Ottawa Home Builders’ Association, executive director Jason Burggraaf said they were still crunching some of the numbers on the impact of the city’s proposed framework on development projects, but were glad to see a lot of acknowledgement that “too high of a level of inclusionary zoning in a project could affect the viability of the project.”

For Carolyn Whitzman, a housing policy consultant and uOttawa adjunct professor, it’s the value of the entire inclusionary zoning initiative she’s left questioning after looking over the approach the city has laid out.

“Why would city staff waste their time really? That’s my bottom-line reaction. There’s a lot more that the city can do and that the city is doing to actually help people in housing need,” said Whitzman, urging a focus on the lower-income brackets, where the level of core housing need is greatest, and the concentration of effort and resources on the creation of non-market housing.

At the Alliance to End Homelessness Ottawa, interim executive director Meg McCallum sees a way to do that through inclusionary zoning. Something for the city to consider, said McCallum, is allowing cash contributions or the transfer or long-term leasing of assets to non-profit housing providers to satisfy inclusionary zoning requirements.

“That can also increase the chances that it will be permanently affordable,” said McCallum, pointing to the creation of an affordability “cliff” in the city’s proposed requirement that inclusionary zoning units stay affordable for 25 years for rentals and 99 for ownership.

The significant and far-reaching implications of the proposal have left Horizon Ottawa board member Sam Hersh questioning why an outgoing council has been tasked with approving it. He doesn’t expect the vote will be delayed, but said it should be until after the October municipal election.

“To try and get this through with a council that … for a lot of the councillors and the mayor, won’t even be responsible for this, is not right.”

While staff have engaged with internal and external stakeholders, the general public will be consulted on the plan after council votes on it, which is scheduled to occur June 22.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-new...e-considered-at-city-committee-this-week

[Williamoforange]

Had anyone noticed the rising number of projects being moved from active to inactive on dev apps? To be that's not good

Or am I just missing something about what inactive means in regards to a dev app or just noticing more of it due to Ottawa watch working again.

[UrbOttawa]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

Had anyone noticed the rising number of projects being moved from active to inactive on dev apps? To be that's not good

Or am I just missing something about what inactive means in regards to a dev app or just noticing more of it due to Ottawa watch working again.

Yea I'm not sure how ottwatch interprets the status, but I've noticed a lot of applications that have switched to inactive on ottwatch still say active on devapps and have a recent review status' such as "request for agreement received" which would make it seem like the ball is still rolling.

[rocketphish]

Park bylaw passes committee as developers warn of suburban flight
Would hike green space requirements for towers 5 storeys and up

Trevor Pritchard · CBC News
Posted: Jul 07, 2022 4:50 PM ET | Last Updated: 5 hours ago

Ottawa's planning committee has approved a new bylaw with tougher green space requirements for some new developments — one that several developers say will make it harder to meet intensification targets and could drive people to the suburbs.

The city has to implement a reshaped parkland dedication bylaw by September, under legislative changes to the province's Planning Act adopted in 2021 by the Ford government.

The requirement applies to municipalities like Ottawa, which have been making developers set aside a higher percentage of parkland — or cash-in-lieu of parkland — than the standard rate the act sets out.

But even if a new bylaw wasn't mandated, Ottawa's goal of two hectares of parkland per 1,000 residents in non-rural areas isn't obtainable under the current one, according to Watson and Associates Economics Ltd., a consulting firm hired by the city to help shape the new rules.

That's due to the amount of growth forecasted over the next decade, according to Thursday's staff report.

According to the report, the existing 13-year-old bylaw requires developers to set aside 10 per cent of the land at new apartment buildings for park space, or give the city cash-in-lieu to make up the difference if that's not possible.

The proposed bylaw would see that change to 15 per cent for new mid-rise buildings between five and nine storeys. For those 10 storeys and up, it would jump to 25 per cent.

But a number of local developers told committee members Thursday the new percentages would send the per-unit price soaring, as they passed the costs along to renters and buyers.

"These increases are significant, for sure, and they directly impact the affordability of an apartment unit," said Minto Group's Kevin Harper.

The industry is already grappling with labour shortages, supply chain constraints, and rising interest rates, Harper said. He predicted the new targets would add roughly $3,000 to the cost of a unit at one of Minto's mid-rise buildings — and even more for a taller tower.

"I'm a professional planner ... I get why all this stuff is needed," he said. "The issue is that it's all happening all at once, at a time with incredibly high costs to build."

The "reality" is that more people will consider suburban homes where those 10-per-cent-and-higher caps don't exist, said Claridge Homes vice-president Neil Malhotra.

"What I'm planning for in the future, if these policies come forward, is we're going to be building a lot more housing in the suburbs. And it's not necessarily going to be by choice — but it's just where the market demand is going to shift," Malhotra said.

"It's not hurting the developers. It's hurting the people who can barely afford housing now."

Several committee members acknowledged the bylaw discussion was laying bare a major urban planning challenge: how to keep housing costs down while providing access to amenities like public parks.

Stittsville Coun. Glen Gower, the committee's co-chair, said Malhotra had effectively sketched out that "clash of priorities" — but also wondered if future voters would be "resentful of our council for not having the foresight to properly fund park space."

Kanata North Coun. Cathy Curry suggested the "one-time cost" may not be as onerous as the developer delegates were implying.

"The building's going to stand for 100 years, potentially. And you'll have those rents and that income and that mortgage paid off," she said. "This may be hard right now, but long-term, is it really that difficult?"

In the end, the recommendation to replace the existing bylaw was carried unanimously. It now goes to city council for a full vote.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/planning-committee-july-7-2022-ottawa-1.6513115

[J.OT13]

add roughly $3,000 to the cost of a unit

That doesn't seem that bad, considering the price of condos and rent has just about doubled in the last 10 years.

[OTSkyline]

Let's make unaffordable housing even worse with these additional policies, great...

I'm trying to understand the policy or rather why it would need to be updated/increased. Maybe I'm missing something if someone could explain;

Is it really private developers jobs to create/supply the general population with public parks & spaces? Isn't that a city function? If there's a levy that developers pay and the city uses to fund/manage park space, then great.

When developments have to carve out some random 10% of land here and there on the lot for "parkettes" or a few planters/grass patches, it doesn't add that much to the urban fabric or to the quality of the overall project.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by OTSkyline

Let's make unaffordable housing even worse with these additional policies, great...

I'm trying to understand the policy or rather why it would need to be updated/increased. Maybe I'm missing something if someone could explain;

Is it really private developers jobs to create/supply the general population with public parks & spaces? Isn't that a city function? If there's a levy that developers pay and the city uses to fund/manage park space, then great.

When developments have to carve out some random 10% of land here and there on the lot for "parkettes" or a few planters/grass patches, it doesn't add that much to the urban fabric or to the quality of the overall project.

Yeah, 3,000/unit by itself isn't much but add it to everything else that's required and it's excessive. Excessive requirements that force cost of societal infrastructure on newcomers. Don't agree with it, but I get that some don't mind making newcomers pay more to get a home in "their" neighbourhood.... If it means keeping the character the same.

Secondly, new development pays dev fees specifically for park space, in to of this 10/25% requirement.

Third, devs likely won't carve out space for parkland instead paying cash on lieu, to accounts that currently have millions in them.

Lastly, I think the current suburban dev requirement is 1 hectare/300 units or 0.008 acre/ unit. So it you take the avg unit as a 30 ft lot where they are roughly 0.075 acres. 25% is 0.0187 acre/unit. So the city is putting in a policy that favours sprawl.

[J.OT13]

I prefer a policy of cash-in-lieu so we can accumulate for big projects (such as the new LeBreton Flats Park or possibly covering the Scott Street transit trench) instead of a few small, non-functional random parks here and there that would be built by developers. The City just needs to actually plan these big park projects and present them as goals instead of accumulating funds and sprinkling them around a bit. Certain areas, like quickly densifying Kitchissippi Ward, need new parkland, not just improvements to existing parks.

[Marcus CLS]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I prefer a policy of cash-in-lieu so we can accumulate for big projects (such as the new LeBreton Flats Park or possibly covering the Scott Street transit trench) instead of a few small, non-functional random parks here and there that would be built by developers. The City just needs to actually plan these big park projects and present them as goals instead of accumulating funds and sprinkling them around a bit. Certain areas, like quickly densifying Kitchissippi Ward, need new parkland, not just improvements to existing parks.

The Feds are sitting on some vacant land north of Westboro Station. The city should approach the Feds about turning this into Parkland. Yes there still is an office building there but the west half is just a vacant grass field. Perhaps the Feds could be convinced to surplus the whole parcel. Do not know if there are any contamination issues but the location is close to all the new/ proposed projects along Scott Street

[rocketphish]

Doesn't this sound familiar...

A world-famous architect asks: Why did his Toronto design disappear?

Alex Bozikovic, Architecture Critic
The Globe and Mail
July 25, 2022

Moshe Safdie is annoyed. One of the world’s best-known architects, Mr. Safdie feels he was misused and manipulated by a group of Toronto real-estate developers.

He probably has a point. For a year, Mr. Safdie was the public face of a building project over the rail corridor in the middle of Toronto’s downtown. This was a hotly controversial project, since it would construct private buildings in the same airspace where local politicians had promised an eight-hectare Rail Deck Park.

His name and reputation, Mr. Safdie says, helped the developers win approval for their project at Ontario’s Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT).

And then in 2021 Mr. Safdie was gone, his plan out the window. “It was a bait and switch,” he said in a recent interview. “We worked with the client for a year in good faith. Then they said, in effect, ‘We have no intention of building this.’ It’s outrageous.”

His clients, led by Craft Development Corp., counter that their project is simply changing to respond to the city’s concerns.

The rail deck story is complicated and quirky, but it touches on a broader issue in Toronto development: The city’s legalistic planning process doesn’t really account for design. On every project, lawyers fight their way through the contradictions in Toronto’s outdated and regressive planning policy. Too often, a beautiful drawing turns out to be a lie.

And so Mr. Safdie’s story rings true. He has a global reputation: His work in Canada includes the National Gallery in Ottawa and, back in 1967, Habitat in Montreal. The developers, a fairly obscure group of companies, hired Safdie’s firm to win approvals. And when they won, the provincial tribunal cited the “design creativity and attractiveness” of Safdie’s design.

I disliked some aspects of his rail deck design. But it was clearly a selling point for the developers. Then Craft went back to local architects – the Toronto firm Sweeny & Co. – who delivered a scheme that is less flashy and guarantees less park space.

“This tactic, starting with a very seductive scheme with a lot of goodies and then in the process these are cut back, is a deceiving process,” Mr. Safdie says. “And the city of Toronto should beware.”

But this is not news in Toronto. The same process has played out numerous times during this boom. Architects with a strong vision come in to charm the city planners and the neighbours. Then they get replaced by somebody else who will, as real-estate folks say, “value-engineer” the development. For example, the architects Hariri Pontarini designed a huge redevelopment at Bloor and Dufferin streets. It got approved, then sold, and now the architects Turner Fleischer are stripping away many attractive details.

Why is this allowed to happen? The Toronto planning process does not control the details of the architecture or landscape until the final stage, known as site plan approval. And Toronto city planners have shown that they fundamentally don’t care about design details. That’s inexplicable and inexcusable, but developers know it’s true. So corners get cut. The reality does not look like the renderings.

This is certainly the case for the rail deck site. The latest Sweeny design is significantly more dense than the Safdie design. And rather than 3.4 hectares of park in the main section, it offers just one hectare, with an option for the city to build more.

“It has become obvious our plan was used as a Trojan Horse,” Mr. Safdie said.

He wants it made clear that he has nothing to do with the current scheme. He strenuously dislikes some aspects of its urban design, most notably the large garages for above-ground parking, which present a wall along part of Front Street.

But was Mr. Safdie’s own design ever a real possibility? He insists that it was. However, I – and several local real-estate professionals I spoke with – were skeptical that such a complex project would be realized and somehow generate enough revenue to build all those parks. From the start his drawings seemed like a sales tool, which would inevitably be replaced by something much less attractive.

And indeed it seems that they were. This week I asked Jim Ilkay, a development manager and a representative for the Craft consortium, why Mr. Safdie was fired. “We did not fire Moshe Safdie,” he said in an email. “Safdie Architects was engaged to develop a concept plan for the LPAT hearing. Their engagement with our firm ended when the hearing concluded.” The provincial tribunal “was only the start of a conversation with the city,” he added. Forget it, Jake. It’s Toronto.

A complex project such as this is always subject to change. And in the end it will include a variety of developers and architects, Mr. Ilkay said. That’s all for the best, even if Mr. Safdie doesn’t like it.

But Mr. Safdie makes some good points. Design should have a stronger role in planning. And Toronto’s current system breeds cynicism and frustration: Any attractive vision is probably a mirage. As for the province: If the tribunal is making planning decisions, “they should have a role in making sure the project is realized,” he says.

Mr. Safdie may not have understood how the game is played in Toronto. But it’s also true that the rules should change.

Find out what’s new on Canadian stages from Globe theatre critic J. Kelly Nestruck in the weekly Nestruck on Theatre newsletter. Sign up today.

Follow Alex Bozikovic on Twitter: @alexbozikovic

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/art-and-architecture/article-rail-deck-development/