5 comments

  1. I’ve yet to hear anyone argue against missing middle housing. Gentle density at a liveable scale in walkable neighborhoods seem to be a win-win for all involved. The question becomes why isn’t the city acting! If it’s what we want let’s incentivize it and developers will build it. The time to act is now and the leadership needs to come from our elected officials. Remove barriers to these developments. Outdated single family zoning. Parking requirement non-sense. Development charges schemes that penalize multi-family development in favour of single family. Etc. Let’s get going on this already!

  2. Almost any “missing middle” development gets decried by locals. I’m a bit surprised some think there is nobody “against missing middle housing.”

  3. Frankly, I think there is a certain subset of folks, such as those at FRONTA, who have been heard more than enough. It easy to attend meetings when you are retired, have a grudge against any form of change, and don’t give two cents about the generation now struggling to afford housing in this city. Secondary and garden suites are radical changes to these folks when it’s clear that it is just tinkering on the edges.

    41% of folks voted last municipal election and the reason is clear why the other 60% didn’t. Despite this city’s claims to diversity being our strength, it seems the white, elderly, and wealthy are the ones conduct our land-use planning around to accommodate. We will only move forward as quickly as their most regressive ideas allow.

    Our public consultation system is deeply flawed, we don’t need more of the same, we need more action and we needed it yesterday. Want more people to be engaged with city issues, how about start building a city that most people can actually afford to live in. Enough with the pandering to the loudest NIMBY, they don’t speak on behalf of any neighbourhoods they claim to represent, they speak on behalf of their own selfish interests. It’s time to recognize what is good for existing homeowners is not good for future ones or to renters.

    The idea that the benefits to existing homeowners from limiting development will trickle down to anyone else is a farce just like trickle down-economics. Time to call a spade a spade and a regressive nimby a regressive nimby.

  4. I live on a street near Coxwell Ave where one side of a semi detached house is being turned into a triplex. This has been utter chaos as there has been multiple zoning changes, no community outreach or communication, numerous build code violations (including a fire, knocking out the gas line and using a space heater while no on was there with a missing door), and no regard to the neighborhood in respect to trash or Covid safety protocols. The people on site have even made fun of seniors for asking them to keep their distance.

    The neighbors are not against increasing density, but what is happening here is a disgrace to the city and has many worried that their semi detached homes will become devalued as they reach retirement. They did not agree to share a wall beside three rental units who’s occupants will probably not have ties to the community. No one is offering compensation to these home owners.

    In addition, why should this kind of development be allowed to cut down mature trees, expand the housing footprint (including a huge second story deck overlooking several neigboring back yards destroying any sense of privacy) without consequence? This is exactly what has happened here.

    There are additional concerns such as street parking, as people already have to walk a distance to find a space because the city does not allow new front pad parking here.

    The past and current residents built these neighborhoods to what they are today and love them dearly. It’s heartbreaking to see the worry and anxiety they have, as they contemplate leaving the neighborbood as no one in the city will apparently speak to them or respond to their concerns.

    Finally I wish to state that I’m a tenant, so though I don’t have the same vested interest as a home owner, what I see occurring is very wrong and I pray that someone will read this and take action on behalf of my neighborhood before it is destroyed.

  5. Hi Kevin, thanks for the note here. This sounds like the construction project from hell. The City certainly can always do more to better enforce building rules and bylaws on construction sites. Are you East or West of Coxwell? If you’re east of Coxwell drop me a note at councillor_bradford@toronto.ca

    A few notes on the planning side of your comments:
    – no plans to change any of the rules around tree protection. The tree canopy is essential and we have to keep it healthy.
    – I’ve increased parking pad permissions in my ward (Beaches-East York) to support electric vehicle uptake.
    – Adding density will be very unlikely to decrease property values. The ability to add density makes land (and by extension homes) more valuable. Certainly, based on personal preferences, more density might make an area less appealing to some people, but as a rule – extra planning permissions on a property will typically increase the value.

    Really value your input. Hope you’ll follow me for updates on consultations etc for this.

    thanks,
    Brad

    facebook.com/bradmbradford
    twitter.com/bradmbradford
    instagram.com/bradfordgrams

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.