theglobeandmail.com
Toronto Caps Bedrooms in Multiplexes, Sparking Housing Debate
Toronto city council capped the number of bedrooms allowed in multiplex buildings (duplexes to eight, others to three times the number of units), impacting 2.25 percent of 222 recent applications, despite criticism that it targets a small market and may hinder family housing options.
- What immediate impact will Toronto's new bedroom cap in multiplex buildings have on housing supply and affordability?
- Toronto recently capped the number of bedrooms allowed in multiplex buildings, impacting 2.25 percent of 222 applications reviewed. This bylaw limits bedrooms in a duplex to eight, and in larger multiplexes to three times the number of units. The change follows concerns about projects resembling multi-tenant houses, which are subject to different regulations.
- How does the new bylaw address concerns about multi-tenant housing, and what are the arguments for and against its effectiveness?
- The new bedroom cap aims to prevent multiplex buildings from operating as unregulated rooming houses. A city study of recent applications revealed five exceeding the new limits, prompting the council's action. However, critics argue the cap targets a small market and is an ineffective way to address rooming house concerns.
- What are the potential long-term consequences of Toronto's bedroom cap on the type and availability of rental units, and how might this decision reflect broader housing policy challenges?
- The bedroom cap may unintentionally hinder the development of larger, family-friendly rental units. Developers argue the limits are unnecessary and counterproductive, potentially limiting housing options for families needing more space. The long-term impact could be a shortage of larger rental units, affecting affordability and family housing choices.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The headline and introduction frame the issue as a conflict between the city's new regulations and the concerns of developers, potentially predisposing the reader to sympathize with the developers' perspective. The article frequently quotes developers and realtors who express skepticism and criticism, while the city council's position is presented more briefly and without the same level of detail. The council's justification for the cap focuses on a single case that is not fully explained. The inclusion of an anecdote of a fourplex with 16 bedrooms as evidence for the need for a bedroom cap, while not explicitly stated as such, may subtly suggest to the reader the commonality of such extreme cases.
Language Bias
The article uses language that sometimes favors the developers' perspective. Phrases such as "solution looking for a problem" and "fearmongering against renters" carry negative connotations. The use of words like "garbage McMansion" is also loaded. More neutral alternatives could include stating facts without emotional phrasing: Instead of "garbage McMansion," describe the building's characteristics neutrally. Instead of "fearmongering," say that opponents of the new rules are concerned about effects on renters.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the concerns of developers and realtors, giving less weight to the city council's rationale for the bedroom cap. While the council's justification is mentioned, the lack of detailed explanation of the "30-bedroom" example and the city's inability to comment on discrepancies weakens the council's position. The perspectives of residents potentially affected by larger multiplexes are largely absent. Omission of data on the number of units built before and after the cap is also notable.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the debate as either supporting the bedroom cap or opposing it, neglecting the possibility of alternative solutions or modifications to the bylaw. The complexities of balancing housing needs with concerns about rooming houses are oversimplified.
Sustainable Development Goals
The new planning bylaws in Toronto, aimed at limiting the number of bedrooms in multiplex buildings, may hinder the creation of affordable and functional housing. This contradicts the goal of sustainable urban development which promotes inclusive and well-planned cities. The policy seems to be based on limited evidence and may disproportionately affect families and those working remotely who require more space. The rationale behind the bedroom cap, focused on preventing the emergence of unregulated rooming houses, overlooks the fact that existing bylaws should address this issue. The policy might also fuel NIMBYism and limit the availability of family-sized housing.