theglobeandmail.com
Toronto's Amenity Space Rules Hamper Smaller Apartment Developments
Toronto's bylaws require amenity spaces in buildings with over 20 units, creating challenges for smaller developments; some suggest a flexible approach similar to the recent change in underground parking regulations, where the decision is left to the developer.
- How are Toronto's amenity space regulations impacting the development of smaller apartment buildings, and what are the consequences for housing supply and affordability?
- Toronto's current regulations mandate amenity spaces (2 square meters per unit) in buildings with over 20 apartments, impacting smaller projects disproportionately. This rule, while aiming to improve community spaces, creates challenges for developers of smaller buildings, increasing costs and potentially reducing the number of units.
- What are the economic and spatial challenges faced by developers of smaller apartment buildings in meeting Toronto's amenity space requirements, and what alternative solutions are being proposed?
- The city's amenity space regulations, designed for large-scale projects in underserved areas, are proving problematic for smaller buildings. Smaller projects face space constraints, higher costs, and potential design limitations due to the inflexible two-square-meter-per-unit rule, impacting the feasibility of 'missing middle' housing developments.
- Considering the changing market dynamics and the experience of older, amenity-free buildings with long waitlists, should Toronto reconsider its approach to mandatory amenity space requirements for smaller-scale developments?
- Toronto's approach to amenity space regulations should be revisited. The current model, while beneficial for large developments, hinders smaller projects, potentially reducing the supply of affordable housing. A flexible approach, perhaps aligning with the recent change in underground parking regulations, could foster better alignment with market demands and urban realities.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the debate around the challenges faced by developers in meeting the amenity space regulations. While acknowledging resident perspectives, the focus remains on the economic and practical difficulties for developers, potentially influencing readers to sympathize with their perspective more than that of residents or the city's planning goals.
Language Bias
The article uses language that might subtly favor developers' viewpoints, such as describing regulations as "trickier" or amenity requirements as "chafe." The term "sexy enticements" used to describe amenities has a negative connotation. More neutral language could be used, such as "challenging," "additional costs," and "attractive features."
Bias by Omission
The analysis focuses heavily on the challenges of amenity space regulations for smaller buildings, but gives less attention to the perspectives of residents who might value or not value these amenities. The article also omits discussion of the potential environmental impact of building additional amenities, such as increased energy consumption and waste generation. Further, the article doesn't explore the potential benefits of community-based amenities, which might be more cost effective and cater to diverse needs.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the debate as either requiring amenity spaces in all buildings or exempting smaller buildings entirely. It overlooks the possibility of alternative regulations or a tiered approach based on building size, location, and surrounding amenities.
Gender Bias
The article features several male developers and consultants. While female voices are included (Ms. Blonder), their representation is less prominent, potentially reinforcing an implicit bias towards male dominance in the development industry. The article doesn't explicitly analyze gendered language or representation.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article discusses the challenges of implementing city bylaws requiring amenity spaces in new apartment buildings. The regulations aim to create more livable and functional urban environments, aligning with the goals of sustainable cities and communities. The debate highlights the need to balance the provision of amenities with the economic realities of development, particularly for smaller-scale projects. Finding solutions that support both sustainable urban development and economic feasibility is crucial for achieving SDG 11.