I'm trying to understand your concern but having a little trouble doing so.
There is a concern that the City might do some creative geometric measurements to exclude some sites from being "within 200m". But zoning with a minimum FSI would already be as-of-right for those densities...
There is a concern that the City might do some creative geometric measurements to exclude some sites from being "within 200m". But zoning with a minimum FSI would already be as-of-right for those densities...
August 25, 2025 at 5:23 AM
I'm trying to understand your concern but having a little trouble doing so.
There is a concern that the City might do some creative geometric measurements to exclude some sites from being "within 200m". But zoning with a minimum FSI would already be as-of-right for those densities...
There is a concern that the City might do some creative geometric measurements to exclude some sites from being "within 200m". But zoning with a minimum FSI would already be as-of-right for those densities...
Thankfully, zoning must "conform" with the official plan. The consistency test is for OPs to the Provincial Planning Statement.
Hard to mess up conformity to FSI, although we don't know if the 200m distance measurements are as the crow flies or as the pedestrian walks.
Hard to mess up conformity to FSI, although we don't know if the 200m distance measurements are as the crow flies or as the pedestrian walks.
August 24, 2025 at 2:25 AM
Thankfully, zoning must "conform" with the official plan. The consistency test is for OPs to the Provincial Planning Statement.
Hard to mess up conformity to FSI, although we don't know if the 200m distance measurements are as the crow flies or as the pedestrian walks.
Hard to mess up conformity to FSI, although we don't know if the 200m distance measurements are as the crow flies or as the pedestrian walks.
Same with Front-Spadina.
August 17, 2025 at 2:52 AM
Same with Front-Spadina.
Reposted by NK
In other obvious news, “A recent study shows that encampment bans & other policies that criminalize homelessness don’t keep people from living on the street. The analysis did not find any reduction in homelessness in any cities studied as a result of such ordinances.”
Homes and supports. Obviously.
Homes and supports. Obviously.
A New Study Proves Criminalizing Homelessness Doesn’t Reduce Homelessness
"The deterrence logic doesn’t hold": A recent analysis finds that encampments bans and other local ordinances aimed at unhoused populations don't actually lead to decreased homelessness.
nextcity.org
June 30, 2025 at 3:52 PM
In other obvious news, “A recent study shows that encampment bans & other policies that criminalize homelessness don’t keep people from living on the street. The analysis did not find any reduction in homelessness in any cities studied as a result of such ordinances.”
Homes and supports. Obviously.
Homes and supports. Obviously.