Housing Accelerator update, week 14
Windsor, Toronto, Vancouver
Previously:
Federal plan: London, Calgary, GST on new rental housing
Housing Accelerator update, weeks 2-4: Halifax, Mississauga, Vaughan
Week 5: Hamilton, Metro Vancouver
Week 6: Quebec, Kitchener, Guelph, Burlington
Week 7: Ajax, Moncton, Brampton, Richmond Hill, Kelowna, Edmonton
Week 8: Waterloo, Charlottetown, Winnipeg
Week 9: agreements with Kitchener and Quebec
Week 10: agreements with Calgary and Moncton
Week 11: Regina, Saskatoon, Winnipeg
Week 12: Richmond Hill, Toronto, Oakville
Windsor, ON: council says no to four-plexes
Council voted 8-2 against allowing four-plexes by right.
CBC: Windsor council decides not to change zoning rules, putting $70M for housing in jeopardy.
Windsor is saying “no” to the Housing Accelerator, due to the requirement to legalize fourplexes. That’s a choice they have, though I’d note between the international student boom and EV investments, they’ve got a massive need for housing.
Drew Dilkens, mayor of Windsor, responded:
Actually we didn’t say no to 4-plexes. We agreed to allow them along major transit corridors, downtown and in other sensible areas. We disagree with the ‘as of right’ permission on any property with a residential zoning.
Legalizing fourplexes was a top recommendation of the Ford govt’s Housing Affordability Task Force but remains unimplemented. By the way, the chair of the Ford govt’s Housing Supply Action Plan Implementation Team is Windsor mayor Drew Dilkens.
Toronto, ON: council directs staff to be more ambitious
More Neighbours Toronto on Twitter, last Thursday:
Today, City Council will consider a motion from @MayorOliviaChow on the federal Housing Accelerator Fund. Unfortunately, given the lack of commitment to systemic reform, we are calling on @SeanFraserMP to reject Toronto's application unless substantial changes are made. (1/12)
First, let's talk transit-oriented development.
@SeanFraserMP's first request was to increase density permissions around transit and to consider the approach in BC's country-leading legislation. (2/12)
Toronto's response is that its plans for Major Transit Station Areas will increase density permissions and makes no mention of the BC approach.
As we told council before, the city's plans for MTSAs as submitted do not increase density permissions. (3/12)
We're calling on city council to explicitly commit to implementing at least the density allowed in the BC policy framework in all of its MTSAs.
That's the difference between southern Rosedale only permitting multiplexes, and it being upzoned for at least 8 storeys. (4/12)
Next, @SeanFraserMP asked Toronto to significantly increase the percentage of land with as-of-right 4 storey zoning.
The City refers to the MTSAs, which as previously mentioned, do not increase density permissions, the EHON major streets initiative and the Avenues. (5/12)
Allowing more apartments on major streets is a good thing, but they are in fact a small percentage of the City's land.
We are calling on @MayorOliviaChow to allow for 4 storeys as-of-right, across the city, as recommended by the Housing Affordability Task Force. (6/12)
The fifth request from @SeanFraserMP was to reduce angular plane guidelines and the "no net new shadow on parks and schools policy".
The City's response refers to work being done on angular planes (good), but defends its shadow policy and does not commit to changing it. (7/12)
We have seen time and time again where the application of the shadow policy results in hundreds of homes lost.
We call on council to commit to replacing the shadow policy with one that considers the tradeoff between shade and additional housing. (8/12)
Minister @SeanFraserMP's sixth request was to increase housing options for students, including removing parking minimums for multi-tenant homes.
The City replies that it already has removed parking minimums for all new developments. This is false. (9/12)
When it legalized multi-tenant homes last year, council imposed parking minimums, making multi-tenant homes the only dwelling type to require parking.
Multi-tenant homes are providing a crucial housing option to students who are some of the least likely to own cars. (10/12)
We are calling on council to remove parking minimums for multi-tenant homes, as explicitly requested by @SeanFraserMP. (11/12)
The HAF is meant for systematic change. As-is, we believe Toronto's proposed response does not commit to enough reform, nor does it substantially address @SeanFraserMP's requests to deserve money from the HAF.
Read our full letter here (12/12)
Councillor Brad Bradford brought forward four motions, supported by the mayor, Olivia Chow. The motions tell planning staff to do the following:
Report back on allowing four storeys and six-plexes across the city.
Make pre-approved designs available from a missing middle pilot.
Review the “no net shadow” policy.
Review BC’s transit-oriented development policy and report back on applying a similar policy to Toronto’s major transit stations.
Council passed the motions.
Alex Bozikovic, architecture critic for the Globe:
In restrospect, yesterday was an incredible day for housing politics in Toronto. The mayor responded to local YIMBYs and the federal housing minister and proposed serious pro-housing changes. Pro-housing advocacy is clearly winning the argument.
The policy is inadequate and yet: It’s clear where the wind is blowing. If @oliviachow pushes city planning staff and follows BC @KahlonRav’s lead, Toronto could plausibly be the most pro-housing city in North America.
Not inevitable, but it is possible. Who’d have believed it?
Credit to @MoreNeighbours.
I'll take the win and the slight improvement, but I'll just say that Bradford's motions just ask for reports coming back in 2024 on maybe considering doing something. Other municipalities have directed staff to bring bylaw amendments forward.
Vancouver, BC
CityNews: Vancouver, feds reach housing deal that will see 40,000 homes built in next decade. Trudeau and Fraser were both at the announcement.
Housing Minister Sean Fraser said the agreement will provide almost $115 million from the government’s Housing Accelerator Fund to cut barriers to building housing.
Fraser explained that he was encouraged by recent housing bills in B.C., and the actions by the City of Vancouver on housing.
“One of the great things that gives me great faith that we can actually overcome the challenges we’re facing, is partnerships not only with cities across the country, but with provincial governments that are willing to do the right thing,” Fraser said.
Frances Bula in the Globe: Federal government agrees to housing fund for Vancouver, resolving earlier dispute. The dispute was over Metro Vancouver’s DCC increases: Vancouver voted to delay the increases by one year (starting in January 2025 instead of 2024), but the vote failed (Surrey, Burnaby, and Richmond voted against).
Vancouver is committing to build an additional 3200 homes over three years, and 40,000 homes over 10 years. In terms of cost-effectiveness, $115 million would build about 230 homes at $500,000 each, so 3200 homes is about 12X as cost-effective, and 40,000 homes (over 10 years) is about 200X as cost-effective, in terms of actually delivering homes for people.
I’m a bit puzzled about what specific actions the city is committing to. If the province is applying the stick, the federal government is providing a carrot. The city has an “action plan” handout. What looks new:
Standardize zoning districts to speed up processing for buildings up to 25 storeys in residential areas (ex: Broadway apartment areas, Oakridge Municipal Town Centre)
Encourage housing off arterials in quiet neighbourhoods served by transit
Create opportunities for non-market housing city wide without a rezoning
The city of Vancouver is especially important because the housing shortage is worst there. Jens von Bergmann and Nathan Lauster estimate that the need is roughly 140,000 homes over 10 years. The province has set a target of 60,000 homes for the city of Vancouver. With an additional 40,000 homes, that’s getting into the right ballpark - but if the estimate is correct, what we actually need is 80,000.