NarroW coNDITIoNsconsidering residential laneway development as an intensification initiative in toronto

__________________________________________________________________________________

amy bathsupervisor| dr. jason hackworth second reader| dr. susannah bunce outside reader| beth kapusta

This paper was produced as a requirement for the completion of a Masters of Science in Planning degree from the University of Toronto. April 2013

Courtyard HouseStudio Junction

executive summary |4| that which precedes frying all the fish |6|

intensification & built form |10|toronto’s narrow practice of intensification |14|

narrow conditions vis-a-vis laneway housing |18| laneway housing is the tip of the iceberg |27|

don’t put the cart before the horse |31|references |34|

bath 2__________________________________________________________________________________

table of contents

bath 338 Peyton LaneDuckworth-Pilkington/Cheng

Toronto’s residential intensification has, since the fifties, building boom after building boom, occurred primarily in high-rise form, often downtown, accommodating a growing population. New bylaws and Official Plan introduced in 1954 favoured a high-rise form of housing in the downtown core, marking a shift from densification via subdivision to assemblage. Laneway housing is a product of an alternative approach to intensification that posits “gradual consolidation efforts over large area [as] preferable to radical rebuilding concentrated in small areas” (Myers, 1980, p.11). The principle of consolidation has never managed to lodge itself in policy, the City shirking approaches to intensification that privilege “conserving and building on the existing urban fabric” (p.7). Toronto Official Plan designates twenty-five percent of land as available for intensification, concomitantly restricting development elsewhere, notably in stable neighbourhoods. Intensification in Toronto has historically been a narrow practice, limiting infill, yet as large swaths of land, whether old rail yards or parking lots, dwindle in their availability for redevelopment, smaller scale infill must be taken more seriously. Toronto’s approach to intensification, however, has made infill progressively harder to develop. Laneway housing is an example of infill developed under what I call narrow conditions, and these conditions, I argue, have evolved alongside intensification policy. Narrow conditions make it more likely that residential intensification occurs in an increasingly singular form, the high-rise condominium. Toronto’s 2,400 back lanes and 200 kilometres of Avenues frontage, the latter property indeed designated for intensification, presumably have much potential to accommodate population growth, yet an array of barriers to development ensure that little development actually occurs. Laneways are easy to dismiss as potential sites for intensification, for laneway conditions are idiosyncratic and buildings are usually one-offs. Avenues, to the contrary, are seemingly integral to meeting growth targets set by the province given their status in the Official Plan, suggesting resolving narrow conditions felt by those developing infill is rather urgent. Ken Greenberg (2012) asserts that “we should be frying all the fish,” which is to say pursuing all manner of development, engendering a diverse and therefore resilient housing stock, though this is not possible until we come to terms with the constraints inhibiting infill in particular. I document the narrow conditions under which it is possible to construct a laneway house with the understanding that laneway housing is what Mark Sterling (2013) calls “the tip of the iceberg.” I do not take a formal position on developing Toronto’s laneways, but use laneway housing as a case study for elucidating the history and complexity of narrow conditions as they pertain to the city’s residential intensification, arguing that if the City is to take infill seriously, if infill is necessary to sustainable growth management, development constraints must be better addressed and addressed comprehensively.

bath 4

executive summary

______________________________________________________________________________________

bath 540R Shaftesbury Avenue40R Laneway Housesuperkul inc.

Home to refuse, telephone poles, garages and sheds, vacant lots, street art, and unconventional dwellings, Toronto’s laneways are often conceived of as underutilized but derelict property, “dark, dirty, and maybe even a little scary” (Hume, 10 Oct 2009). Adherents of what Barton Myers and George Baird (1980) call ‘urban consolidation’ have, since the seventies, proposed development on laneways, advancing an argument for “conserving and building on the existing urban fabric” (Myers, p.7). Yet incremental urbanism, championed by city builders like Myers, Baird, Ken Greenberg, Brigitte Shim and Jack Diamond, has never managed to lodge itself formally in policy. It has been repeatedly posited in various articles that “the city isn’t set up to do infill” (Hume, 22 Sept 1990). It is worth considering to what extent this is a problem. Toronto is expected to house nearly 3.1 million residents by 2031 according to Places to Grow, Ontario’s Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Ministry of Infrastructure, 2012, Schedule 3), and while laneways are certainly a potential resource for intensifying the inner-city, housing in the back lane, for the City, “isn’t necessary to the [...] long-term growth plan” (McGinnis, 11 Aug 2010). Toronto Official Plan (2002, Office Consolidation December 2010) designates twenty-five per cent of Toronto’s geographic area for new growth, protecting neighbourhoods, ravines, valleys and the open space system from development (City of Toronto, p.1.1-1.2). Toronto’s downtown, Avenues and Centres, shown on the City’s Urban Structure Map, are recognized as sites of “real opportunity where change can contribute to a better future and where we can realize the greatest social, environmental, and economic benefits” (p.1-2). The debate about Toronto’s residential intensification is longstanding. Laneway development, however, is a fringe issue, it is not top of mind; just as laneways are hidden, so is the matter of developing on them. Laneway housing may not add sufficient units to the stock to justify expending municipal resources to engender its development, yet infill is necessary to sustainable growth management. This paper demonstrates that there is value in analyzing the narrow conditions under which it is possible to develop on Toronto’s lanes, for these conditions extend to other forms of infill.

This research began by asking why laneway housing, such an inconspicuous house form, has been marginalized and indeed made more or less illegal to construct. To answer this question I interviewed ten prominent Toronto-based planners, architects, urban designers, politicians and journalists, supporting data garnered from these conversations with material from newspaper articles dating from the seventies and other documents on land-use policy in particular. Qualitative data offers a nuanced sense of the constraints, both actual and perceived, that impact laneway

bath 6______________________________________________________________________________________

that which precedes frying all the fish

development in Toronto. Laneway development is constrained by a myriad of issues that I find accumulated over the years and are now systemic; these issues have not previously been written about comprehensively, and thus, I argue, have neither been sufficiently addressed, nor their implications considered for other forms of development. I consider whether laneway housing ought to be pursued as an intensification initiative in Toronto, concluding that advocating for its development is akin to putting the cart before the horse -- which is to say, coming to terms with development constraints in their complexity must be prioritized. Infill development, I posit, will remain piecemeal until constraints are better addressed.

185 construction cranes are in the air downtown (Gee, 14 Jan 2013) and there are 51 condominium projects approved or under construction in the Entertainment District alone (MacDonald, 12 Jan 2013). Ute Lehrer and Thorben Wieditz (2009) argue that considerable inner-city reinvestment has led to what they call the ‘condofiction’ of Toronto. Toronto’s intensification policy is, pushing further, quite narrow if not ironically unsustainable. Marcus Gee (12 Oct 2012), a columnist for The Globe and Mail, remarks that Torontonians ought to “embrace [development] with both arms,” for the “condo boom is a boon for the city.” Others, however, flag concerns about Toronto’s rather rapid intensification. Ken Greenberg (2 Oct 2012), a prominent architect and urban designer, asks in a rare op-ed, “How are we preparing for this scale of development and the services required to sustain it?” Toronto’s infrastructure deficit and seemingly unbridled development concerns many city builders and residents (Bascaramurty, 12 Oct 2012; Greenberg, 2 Oct 2012; Gillis, 26 Oct 2012; MacDonald, 12 Jan 2013; Mays, 8 Mar 2012; Mays, 4 Oct 2012; Scallan, 19 Oct 2012). Frank Gehry and David Mirvish’s proposal for three eighty-storey-plus structures on King West and Oxford Properties’ plan for a casino and hotel complex on Front Street, both announced late last year, induced further anxiety (Gee, 12 Oct 2012). “One tower leads to another,” prompting some to question whether the City is adequately managing all this growth (Greenberg, 2 Oct 2012) or if “developers have taken over everything” (Bascaramurty, 12 Oct 2012). The Globe and Mail’s architecture columnist John Bentley Mays (4 Oct 2012) asks, “Is every downtown street destined to be crowded and shadowed by huge stacks of condos?”

Jennifer Keesmaat, Toronto’s Chief Planner, observes the need to make mid-rise along Toronto’s Avenues as-of-right so as to encourage more development along these key arterials, recognizing that growth ought to extend beyond the boundaries of the downtown and central waterfront (Gee, 14 Jan 2012). Developers often dismiss the city’s “difficult nooks and crevices [...] as unbuildable” (Mays, 8 Mar 2012), for there are many barriers to development. Infill in Toronto is not easy to get done. Developing the Avenues is clearly supported by the Official Plan and is still very challenging, perhaps more challenging than laneway development. Mark Sterling (2013), a founding partner at Sweeny Sterling Finlayson & Co, states in a personal interview that the City’s corridor strategy is unrealistic. Planners have been trying to densify Toronto’s main streets since before amalgamation (Gee, 14 Jan 2013; Sterling, 2013), yet have failed to address the conditions that constrain development in their complexity, greatly limiting policy implementation. Keesmaat has said she wants to make mid-rise easier, though it is unlikely rezoning is sufficient; zoning is one issue among a host of issues hindering uptake by the development industry. The City is even aware of

bath 7______________________________________________________________________________________

most of these issues, detailed as a result of a Mid-Rise Symposium hosted by the City Planning Division on 29 November 2005. Greenberg (2012) posits in a personal interview that the City ought to pursue all forms of development, yet addressing development constraints necessarily precedes “frying all the fish” (ibid).

Laneway housing in Toronto is an example of infill developed under what I call narrow conditions, by which I mean development occurs in few circumstances given that one or more constraints on most sites cannot be overcome. Toronto may not be “‘a city of lanes and alleys [...] like Montreal or Winnipeg’” (Bernhut, 5 July 1984), nonetheless laneways are a crucial part of the urban fabric, built in the nineteenth Century to provide access to the rear of properties. Homes have always existed on lanes, though infill housing garnered more acceptance in the early seventies as a “reaction to the blockbusting and high-rise development of the 1960s” that encroached on neighbourhoods (Lush, 17 Dec 1983). Laneway housing has, then, since at least the seventies been part of a bigger conversation about intensification and built form. Some of the most recent newspaper headlines provocatively position the house form as “a density solution” (Hathout, 25 Jan 2012), an “antidote to Toronto’s high-rise growth spurt” (Archer, 6 June 2012). Laneway housing is certainly not the sole solution to any problem, it “can’t be the only strategy pursued” (Soules, 2011, p.29), and suggesting otherwise simplifies the issues. Paul Bain (2013), a City of Toronto planner of over thirty-seven years and manager of the Official Plan Review, asserts that the house form is “very limited and [...] isn’t going to solve any of the city’s major problems.” This is likely true, yet neglects the larger problem. Toronto’s residential intensification has, since the fifties, been associated with high-rise structures. Policy-makers tried to foster a vital city centre, a compact city centre, though with such a narrow focus, infill in particular was abandoned and later restricted. The City elected and continues to elect to develop “the city centre as a high-density residential, commercial and cultural powerhouse” (Mays, 4 Oct 2012), affected by sustainability and global city discourse, ever more shifting from a pattern of densification via subdivision to densification via land assembly. Narrow conditions evolved alongside intensification policy. Laneway housing alone cannot substantially accommodate growth, yet infill is likely to be necessary to meet targets in the near future, as suggested by the City’s own policy. Narrow conditions apply to infill generally and as such there is benefit in documenting the constraints on laneway housing, noting that “laneway housing is the tip of the iceberg” (Sterling, 2013). This paper does not take a position on developing Toronto’s laneways, but rather uses laneway housing as a means of documenting the historical development and complexity of narrow conditions as they relate to Toronto’s residential intensification, advocating the City contend with narrow conditions that are at present not sufficiently addressed. If the City is to develop infill seriously, notably along the Avenues, these conditions cannot be ignored in their complexity.

bath 8______________________________________________________________________________________

bath 9

1 Ways Lane Diamond +Schmitt

If we go back to what we were doing before the second world war, we find most but not quite all the elements needed for more compact and efficient situations. - Ken Greenberg, 1994

Sustainability is a concept that functions explicitly in the contemporary practice of urban intensification, though not without some challenges. Anthony Downs (2005) contends that “Smart Growth is much more talked about than actually carried out in practice” (p.367), and, as Searle and Filion (2011) note, even when intensification policy is implemented, evaluation rarely occurs. Downs (2005) supposes poor implementation is likely due to a plethora of obstacles that “emerge strongly as advocates try to apply [its] principles.” And of those cities that manage to implement some principles, “almost no areas (not even Portland, Oregon) have implemented all of Smart Growth’s principles” (p.369). Affordability, red tape, not-in-my-backyard-ism all function, notes Downs, as barriers to the construction of residential properties in the core of cities, especially adjacent to stable neighbourhoods. Brigitte Shim et al (2004) echo that “the public thinks intensification means crowding when it is already too crowded, change, loss of open space, and big residential towers” (p.56). Toronto’s intensification need not wholly take the form of high-rise towers, though depending on policy and politics other forms are often much more complex to construct. Residential development emerged as a significant aspect of urban regeneration schemes several decades ago, its primary objective being to foster city centre activity, yet the recent push for such development results primarily from the popularization of sustainability (Bromley et al, 2005, p.2407- 2409). Worsening traffic congestion, governments’ limited fiscal capacity, pollution, climate change, among many other issues, contribute to the increasing relevancy of the concept. Sustainability mandates frequently translate into land use policy that forwards developing the compact city (Williams, 2007) and Toronto is no exception (Filion et al, 2010). Susannah Bunce (2004) observes that the debate is framed as “sprawl versus intensification” (p.182), closing more meaningful conversation about practices of intensification (p.183). Toronto’s Official Plan makes clear where intensification should take place and largely what form it should take, limiting alternatives. It advocates high-density, high-rise development downtown, an area bound by Dupont to the north, the Gardiner Expressway to the south, the Don Valley Parkway to the east, and Bathurst to the west, plus the waterfront. Toronto’s Avenues, its main arterial roads, are also intended to accommodate increased density (p.2-15) in mid-rise form (McIlroy et al, 2010), and Centres function as key development areas outside the downtown (p.2-12). Intensification occurs largely, then, in specific nodes suited to high-density, high-rise development. Indeed given the limited geography designated for intensification, high-density, high-rise development may well be necessary to meet growth targets. Bunce (2004) argues that the City’s intensification policies primarily aim to “attract private investment practices and skilled labour to the downtown core” (p.188), though the Centres are also home to easily developable sites. Toronto’s laneways are in principle potentially complementary sites for intensification. Caroline Lock, who lives in a laneway house, remarks, like many, that “ ‘there’s no better use for the space’” (Farquharson, 9 Sept 2009, p.C8), the house form figuring “as a slightly eccentric, individual response to local conditions” (Waldheim, 2004, p.31).

bath 10______________________________________________________________________________________

intensification & built form

Bromley et al (2005) posit that the use of land ought to be locally responsive, advocating a “local approach to policy” that diverts from what is either typical or easy (p.2424). Toronto, for Shim et al (2004), does not have enough policies that “strengthen [the] city’s urbanity [...], particularly policies that accentuate the unique aspects of [the] city’s built form” (p.56).

Barton Myers (1980) takes up “urban consolidation” in an essay of the same title published in Vacant Lottery, a special issue of the Design Quarterly. He and George Baird, co-editors, “propose a ‘low-rise manifesto’ -- an alternative to the high-density/high-rise, sprawling city” (Myers, p.7). Myers observes that Toronto, like many North American cities, has shifted from a city “of diversification to one of limited speciality [...] in building types constructed [and] forms of housing available” (p.9). Simon Guy and colleagues similarly note a trend towards homogeneity in models of the sustainable city, advocating for some diversity (Guy and Marvin, 1999, p.268). Guy and Marvin (1999) find that conceptions of the sustainable city as contained, compact and connected, distinguished by high-density and mixed-use cores, have “reorder[ed] city development along a predefined pathway” (p.270), neglecting the contested nature of the terminology (Campbell, 1996; Gunder, 2006, Guy and Marvin, 1999) and the nuances of the urban fabric. Yet this model is not appropriate for all urban contexts. Katie Williams (2007) notes, for example, that overcrowded cities in developing countries are more than dense enough to make the compact city work, but lack adequate infrastructure or proper management. Guy and Martin (1999) assert that it is imperative to recognize how the “sustainability question gets caught up, reinterpreted and recast in a whole range of debates about the future development of cities” so that alternatives might rise out of obscurity -- or the grid (p.272-273). Intensification can take numerous forms and does not require “radical rebuilding concentrated in small areas” (p.272). Myers (1980) shows that there are at least “five methods of utilizing a plot of land at the same density” (p.12), suggesting a need for “a major change in attitude about density and density distribution” (p.13). Laneways participate in an alternative vision of urban intensification to that which is currently under construction in Toronto. To begin, as Bunce (2004) elucidates, “the vision of intensification in the Official Plan is the primary strategy used to justify and support a market-driven economic and physical revitalization plan of Toronto’s central city” (p.180). Laneway housing is generally produced by individual home owners, often architects, incrementally. Stinson and Van Elslander (2003) posit that laneway housing could increase the housing stock of the city by five to ten percent1, but the City is not invested in urban consolidation as an intensification initiative. Urban consolidation does not encourage a built form that sufficiently “enhances private investment in development and industry” (Bunce, 2004, p.186).

More than this, Moore and Bunce (2009) argue that the City depends on the private sector to “delive[r] [...] a sustainable built environment” (p.601), reinforcing the general opinion that Torontonians ought to be grateful for developers’ interest (Gee, 12 Oct 2012). Toronto is “the envy of cities all over the world” (ibid). Growth management is understood as a major public policy issue and if developers function to implement policy, “government [...] strategies support streamlined planning and development processes that soften conditions for private sector developers” (Moore/Bunce, 2009, p.601). I don’t think anyone disputes that Toronto is growing, but the built form supported by the City to accommodate growth ought to be questioned. Jack Diamond wrote a pithy piece in 1976 titled “Residential Density and Housing Form” wherein he states,

bath 11

1 To elaborate, Stinson and Van Elslander (2003) determine this figure by estimating as follows. They state, “According to Statistics Canada the historical, pre-amalgamation city holds some 123,000 owned dwelling units. If 5% of these were candidates for laneway development a potential increase of 6,150 homes could be added to the city.”

______________________________________________________________________________________

Contrary to current belief, residential densities above 1.5 provide very little additional advantage in terms of land use. [...] Housing types in the middle range of density with floor area ratios of .75 to 1.5 provide a highly efficient alternative to high densities in high rise form. (p.16) Toronto evidently prefers tall buildings to those in “the middle range of density” (ibid), as evinced in particular by a scan of what is typically approved. Keesmaat has said that “the recent urge to build up is undeniably tied to identity” (Gillis, 26 Oct 2012) -- that is, identity as a budding global city. She continues, “Of course, tall buildings put places on the map. Just try and think about Dubai and Tokyo without conjuring images of buildings that go on for days” (ibid). Gee (12 Oct 2012) declares that the condominium boom “has transformed [Toronto’s] once-pokey downtown into a vibrant, around-the-clock urban community.” Keesmaat boasts in another interview that Toronto has “sucked up like a vortex all of the cranes in North America” (Gee, 14 Jan 2013). One might speculate that the City’s seeming preference for high-rise form has less to do with meeting growth targets than it does with pleasing developers keen to profit from density, as suggested by Lehrer and Wieditz (2009), yet it is also quite simply very hard to construct anything else. Developers report “that it has become almost impossible during the past three years to get even tasteful mid-rise apartment projects approved in Toronto” due primarily to opposition from residents (Saunders, 23 Feb 2013). Doug Saunders, the international-affairs columnist for The Globe and Mail, emphasizes the need for downtown homeowners to embrace density, for resident push-back is an often debilitating development constraint. Narrow conditions contribute to the likelihood that intensification assumes a nearly singular built form. Guy and Moore (2007) propose city builders make “solving more local problems” a priority, thus attending to what is contextually relevant over what is deemed best practice (p.16). And in a similar vein Krueger and Agyeman (2004) attest that the “current framing of sustainability results in a missed opportunity to fully explore sustainability as actual practice” (p.411), instead they encourage cities to “frame sustainability differently, to link it to actual practices rather than broad initiatives or agendas, or even guiding principles” (ibid). Krueger and Agyeman seek to “conceptualize sustainability from the ground up, as it actually exists in local places, as a set of evolving practices” (p.416). Laneway housing is not oppositional to the objectives of the City, namely accommodating a growing population, yet it takes a much different form, one that indeed refers to the the past. “If we unlock the potential of the laneways,” states Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam (2012), “you may not need to see monolithic towers everywhere because you could actually spread out the density in a much more sustainable fashion with existing infrastructure and built-form.” Ken Greenberg similarly suggests that “if we go back to what we were doing before the second world war, we find most but not quite all the elements needed [...] for more compact and efficient situations” (Hume, 30 June 1994).

bath 12______________________________________________________________________________________

bath 13660R

54 Croft Street The Laneway HouseKohn Shnier Architects

Intensification in Toronto has historically been a narrow practice, restricted to particular areas of the city and resulting in particular house forms, concomitantly excluding development in other locations and in other forms. And with this narrow sense of how to intensify the city comes a very narrow notion of what the lane is for. Because it has not really been used to densify the city, at least purposefully, it remains the modest home for garages and garbage. It is often forgotten that laneways are the product of urban intensification. “The laneway system of Toronto has forgotten what it was,” writes Alexander Fehertoi (2011) in his thesis Laneway Uprising. He continues:

What was once an acceptable alternative to the main streets, the laneway has been stripped of its growth and potential. In the past, the potential of the laneway was unbound and it was part of the community, created by the community. The city and landowners let the lanes evolve into indispensable contributors to the growth and densification of Toronto neighbourhoods. (p.4)

Shim et al (2004) provide an overview of Toronto’s urban form in Site Unseen, as does Baird (1980) in “Theory/ Vacant Lots in Toronto” and do Stinson and Van Elslander (2003) in A Study of Laneway Housing in Toronto. All tell very similar narratives of the development of Toronto’s laneway system. Late eighteenth century Park Lots stretching from Queen Street to Bloor Street were granted to certain Tory families, a group later known as the Family Compact. It was originally conceived that development would not occur on the large estates (Baird, 1980, p.23), yet this informal policy was abandoned by the mid nineteenth century as the population grew. Each estate was thereafter developed independently and according to owners’ needs and vision of the future of Toronto. Land was sold to smaller landholders, inciting a practice of residential densification via subdivision. The laneway was an invention of the second half of the nineteenth century and instrumental in achieving density and maximizing land use. Stinson and Van Elslander (2003) write, “The land allowed the distribution of services and goods, reduced street congestion, accommodated stables and related uses, and provided housing for workers.” Parcels divide again into “small lots for sale” (Baird, 1980, p.24), lots employed, still, for residential use. Toronto’s lots are long, usually between 100 and 150 feet, and narrow at no less than 20 or more than 50 feet wide with street and often but not always lane frontage (ibid). “As these parcels developed, housing types evolved in relationship to the lot” (Shim et al, 2004, p.13), and, reinforced by the Ontario Housing Committee, a preference for the detached and later semi-detached single-family home manifested (ibid). Laneways aided in maximizing block density, accommodating row after row of two to three storey homes at densities “ranging from 10 to 20 dwelling units per acre” (Baird, 1980, p.18). Land use controls introduced in 1904 restricted non-residential uses from neighbourhoods and in 1912 apartment houses with three or more units were restricted from

bath 14______________________________________________________________________________________

toronto’s narrow practice of intensification

residential streets (Millward, 1990, p.13). Continued neighbourhood densification in low-rise/high-density form was thus halted by City policy, marking a shift in the city’s pattern of residential densification. Prior to 1954 Toronto’s downtown lacked significant residential development. Yet in 1954 the province created Metro Toronto (Searle and Filion, 2011, p.1426), and a new Official Plan and comprehensive zoning by-law were introduced, resulting in the rapid redevelopment of swaths of the downtown, eventually including its neighbourhoods. “Virtually anywhere within them that the new Official Plan permitted, new high-density residential redevelopment began to occur,” explains Baird (1980, p.18), resulting in densification by demolition. Searle and Filion (2011) explain that this high-rise apartment boom “was fueled by a severe housing shortage accompanied by a massive arrival of immigrants” (p.1426). Toronto’s nineteenth-Century morphology holds until this time when land is not subdivided but assembled; this trend accelerates from the mid twentieth century onwards (Baird, 1980, p.25). Land is held by fewer and fewer individuals, and each property assumes more and more space, sometimes subsuming the lane. Torontonians “welcomed the new development boom uncritically,” reveling its new metropolitan identity (ibid). Private developers, not individual landowners, were increasingly responsible for intensification, indeed keen to raze the old stock to construct high-rise residential slab blocks. Hume (2012) observes in a personal interview that development is increasingly “done by a smaller number of large players. This is a generalization,” he states, but “the infill stuff, that’s what suffers. It’s just not worth the hassle for a lot of people.” Cities shift towards a “focu[s] on large as opposed to small-scale projects that privileg[e] urban infrastructure over urban fabric, and which impatiently prefer dramatic and precipitous urban change to incremental transformation” (Baird, 2004, p.8). In the last half of the twentieth century the laneway was relieved of its original servicing responsibilities with minimal alterations, “its purpose adjust[ing] to that of storage and its built form concentrat[ing] on little beyond the typical garage or shed” (Shim et al, 2004, p.15). Laneways present the opportunity for alternative single-family housing in a city with seemingly little available space, yet these spaces have been left undeveloped.

“Where housing is permitted in [Toronto’s] downtown core, the bylaws favour high-density/high-rise as if it were the only viable option,” writes Myers (1980, p.8). Toronto’s development boom threatened to obliterate many neighbourhoods, prompting a shift in political sentiment and producing what Searle and Filion (2011) call “density decline” (p.1426). Citizen activists “mounted a vigorous campaign against the development industry” after replacing a number of pro-development representatives on Council in 1968, forming a reform faction led by David Crombie (Baird, 1980, p.20). This was really the beginning of neighbourhood planning in Toronto. Shortly after Crombie’s mayoral election victory in 1972, a holding by-law was approved, placing a temporary height restriction on construction downtown until the Central Area Plan was formulated. The Central Area Plan notably functioned to protect inner city neighbourhoods from redevelopment and moderated, if not stopped, the redevelopment of inner city neighbourhoods adjacent to the central business district. Subsequent redevelopment of the central business district was then of mixed use, “including very substantial components of high-density residential development” (Relph, 1990, p.41). Urban design requirements were also established to “increase the compatibility of new development with the existing form of the city” (Myers, 1980, p.20). onbuildingdowntown and Built-form Analysis, co-written by Baird, Steven McLaughlin and Roger du Toit (1974, 1975), and pieces like Jack Diamond’s (1976) “Residential Density and Housing Form” and Baird and Myers’ (1980) “Vacant Lottery,” along with Ken Greenberg’s work contributed substantially to a conversation about how the City ought to henceforth accommodate and direct growth.

bath 15______________________________________________________________________________________

Neighbourhood protection has been a feature of Toronto’s official plans since the 1977 Central Area Plan. One consequence, however, of restricting development to specific areas is that the city changes from one of “diversification to one of limited speciality in [...] building types constructed [and] forms of housing available” (Myers, 1980, p.9). Urban consolidation is not possible at present in Toronto given the narrow selection of locales policy designates as appropriate for intensification and the scale at which that development is intended to be constructed, partly a result of neighbourhood protection policies instituted in the seventies.

Toronto Central Area Plan supported densifying Toronto’s core in high-rise form, restricting infill development in neighbourhoods; it also incited the downtown condo booms of the last twenty-five years (Filion et al, 2010, p.559). Provincial policies have mandated that municipalities undergo intensification of primarily built-up areas, aiming to construct compact cities. Toronto’s Official Plan is an intensification plan, the three pillars of sustainability providing a value structure. Provincial policies are at least partly responsible for Toronto’s continued growth spurt. Indeed Filion et al (2010) conceptualize this as a significant phase of planning for the city (p.559). The province has taken an active role in “promoting ‘smarter’ metropolitan planning, focus[ing] on intensification” (ibid). Toronto is in the midst of another building boom and condominium towers are transforming the downtown (Searle and Filion, 2011, p.1427). Mid-rise continues to struggle to gain traction because of a number of development constraints preventing uptake and intensification remains a narrow practice, occurring primarily downtown. Main Streets policy has failed a number of times. Policies demand we “look skyward for housing solutions” (Ghecin, 2012). Towers are encouraged by policy and “one tower leads to another” (Greenberg, 2 Oct 2012). There are no mechanisms in place to make laneway housing easier because the City “doesn’t want laneway housing” (Ghecin, 2012). Toronto’s narrow practice of intensification limits laneway development and other forms of infill.

bath 16______________________________________________________________________________________

bath 17

7 Leslie Garden Lane Shim-Sutcliffe Architects

It’s not going to happen across the board because it’s not just about one thing; it’s a whole accumulation of things that are about inertia. - Beth Kapusta, 2012

None of these issues are terribly significant. - Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam, 2012

They need to make it easier. - Anonymous Development Consultant, 2012

For such small, tucked-away dwellings, laneway homes prompt plenty of debate about residential density and housing form; and views are often quite divergent. For some, laneway development presents the opportunity to add density to inner-city neighbourhoods, while offering an alternative housing solution to the condominium and making good use of existing infrastructure. For others laneway development disrupts stable neighbourhoods unnecessarily. Bain (2013) asks, “Why would you introduce laneway housing? What are the positives?” Hume (10 Oct 2009) posits that “planning policies are designed to keep residents away [from] the back roads of Toronto,” still many argue there are not “any cogent reasons” to not develop laneways. “This is among the low hanging fruit,” notes Greenberg (2012) in an interview. Toronto is described over and over by city builders as a city “hog tied bureaucratically” (ibid), creatively constrained by “man-made obstacles” (Hume, 2012), red tape. The City is “not very willing to try things, they’re incredibly risk averse” (Greenberg, 2012), electing to ask “why can’t we do this instead of why aren’t we doing this.” One development consultant opines, “I don’t really know what the apprehension is other than people not getting out of their own way to realize something bigger” (Anonymous, 2012). Development on the city’s back lanes is highly restricted. Issues, some of which may seem minor, accumulate, ensuring a building permit is granted only in what I call narrow conditions.

Toronto’s laneway houses “may seem small and straightforward, but building them pose[s] unique challenges,” writes Beth Kapusta (1997) for The Globe and Mail. “The approvals process for building ‘unconventional’ dwellings remains littered with bureaucratic obstacles” (23 Aug 1997). The tale of a paper chase is frequently told by any person who has tried to construct a home in one of the city’s 2,400 back lanes. It is mostly architects who venture to attempt this task, for “less determined individuals would [...] giv[e] up along the odyssey of red tape” (Toronto Life, 1994, p. 50). Mary Jane Finlayson of Lange Finlayson Sterling Architects, now &Co, “admits that during the process she felt that ‘no normal person would undertake this’” (Kapusta, 23 Aug 1997) and Shim goes further to say that “‘the approvals process is too difficult and expensive for a regular homeowner to navigate’” (Gadd 14 Nov 2003). Shim and Howard Sutcliffe endured “a complicated Committee of Adjustment and thereafter Ontario Municipal Board hearing,” explains Greenberg (2012), who acted as a witness pro-bono for the couple. “It was just torture and that, generally, has been pretty

bath 18______________________________________________________________________________________

narrow conditions vis-a-vis laneway housing

typical with the isolated examples of laneway housing in the city.” The approval process is comprehensively described by Stinson and Van Elslander (2003) in their study, conducted for Affordability and Choice Today (ACT) and financed by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), with the objective of “mak[ing] it easier to build housing in laneways so that more people can take advantage of the possibilities of these sites.” Zoning by-laws in particular vex individual developers. Laneway lots inherently challenge conventional guidelines dictating residential zoning, for “they are the exception” (Bain, 2013).

One major obstacle to realizing a laneway residence concerns a current zoning provision restricting the presence of one house behind another, or what is called the ‘house behind a house’ by-law, dating from 1952. Section 4.11(b) of By-Law 438-86 states that “no person shall erect or use a residential building in the rear of another building.” Section 4.11(c) also prohibits one to “erect or use a building in the front of another building as to produce the condition of a residential building in the rear of another building” (City of Toronto, Zoning By-law No.438-86). This by-law was originally intended for subdivision control and as such “did not apply to much of the City of Toronto” prior to 1970 (Stinson and Van Elslander); it is now an example of a rule that is out of date, yet functional. ‘House behind a house’ is a product of post war planning, the goals of which, again, were to “reduc[e] density, incorporat[e] automobile uses and rais[e] housing standards” (ibid) -- and Toronto’s Official Plan makes clear that these goals have changed. The by-law, however, suggests the opposite and until it is eliminated it will continue to have negative consequences for those who envision living in the back lane. This by-law functions practically as a way for the City to control laneway development, permitting housing only where it deems it appropriate.

‘House behind a house’ implies that the lane is generally not to be recognized as a site for housing opportunities, even if it can accommodate housing. Because of this antiquated by-law laneway housing is not allowed as-of-right, meaning that nearly every request to construct a laneway house requires a rezoning application, and, if proven unsuccessful, an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board. If there is already a structure on the lot and a conversion is requested, a minor variance is required. A person must apply to the Committee of Adjustment where many applications are often rejected because neighbours are not keen on laneway homes in their backyards for various understandable reasons. Some neighbours worry about property values or privacy or shadowing, while others deem those wishing to live in the lane unfit for the neighbourhood. Don Schmitt of Diamond and Schmitt Architects recounts one instance where neighbours “‘thought it was very strange that a single woman would want to build a house in the back lane. [...] I think they thought she was a sex-trade worker or something like that’” (Noik-Bent, 15 Jan 2005). It is not uncommon that “‘20 or 30 people [are] there all shouting. [...] We weren’t building 150 townhomes or a high-rise condo, yet there was this huge mobilization and email campaign’” (Gadd, 24 Nov 2006). Convincing neighbours to approve of a single laneway residence is notoriously challenging, certainly in part because laneways are left unrecognized as appropriate places to live. “Neighbourhood-based NIMBY sentiments toward intensification remain as strong as ever,” notes Filion et al (2010, p.558). There are so many ways an application might go awry, and disapproval from any entity means a building permit will not be issued.

Approvals is an onerous process and, as Sterling (2013) observes, policy is often unevenly applied, by which he means an application’s approval depends on the opinion of select individuals, including the planner assigned to the file, staff in Public Works or at the Committee of Adjustment, city councillors, and the neighbours. Committee of Adjustment, for instance, is “a bit of a kangaroo court,” explains one development consultant. He continues,

bath 19______________________________________________________________________________________

Staff, after reviewing an application, don’t report recommendations to the Committee unless it’s a refusal, so you don’t have staff support going in; it’s a silent support, which is to say you’re fighting it out by yourself. If you’re not savvy, if you haven’t hired a planner to make your case, if you’re just relying on your architect, for example, [...] then your chance of losing because of a few residents coming out and complaining is pretty high. [...] Items like laneway housing, which are complex and require attention and will always be contentious, are probably going to get refused more often than not. (Anonymous, 2012) The City typically does not take issue with conversions of legally non-conforming structures, explains Lynda Macdonald (2012), the well respected manager of the West Section, which is to say structures that already exist, but which owners wish to convert into living quarters. Diamond Schmitt’s 1 Ways Lane, for example, was an abandoned cottage from the late nineteenth Century, but the proposal required a minor variance for a rear yard setback. Other examples of a minor variance include insufficient parking or increases in height or gross floor area from what is stated in the zoning by-law of less than ten percent. Stinson and Van Elslander (2003) report that the application was refused because of neighbour complaints, not because it failed one of the four tests a minor variance must meet as per Section 45(1) of the Planning Act. Rezoning is indeed much more arduous, though much more common given most proposals are for new construction, seeking permission to construct something that is not permitted. Every prospective applicant, explains Macdonald (2012), first meets with a planner to discuss the viability of her proposal from a planning perspective, encouraging her to also meet with technical services because if servicing cannot be arranged, a proposal will never be approved. If a rezoning application is made, the proposal will similarly circulate through appropriate city departments for comments, moving towards a decision, positive or negative. If departments sign off on an application a public presentation must be held, followed by a Council vote. It should be noted that this process takes about nine months, though sometimes longer. Applicants often find it necessary to hire an architect, development consultant and lawyer, especially if they wish to avoid the Ontario Municipal Board for appeal, meaning undertaking this sort of development is “expensive, time consuming and high risk” (Greenberg, 2012).

Many prominent city builders have advocated and continue to advocate for infill development, adamantly committing themselves professionally to filling in the gaps, yet find themselves writhing against “outdated regulations and bureaucratic inflexibility” (Hume, 22 Sept 1990). The City has created a regulatory system that disincentivizes innovation and privileges pedantic rule-following. It warrants asking why development that seems to be “beneficial to the city and immediate vicinity be forced through such a long and arduous struggle” (ibid). Stinson and Van Elslander’s (2003) study was published not long before Site Unseen, a manifesto of sorts on incremental urbanism and the potential of the laneway put together by Shim, Donald Chong and Charles Waldheim (2004) following a laneway housing studio held at the University of Toronto. Both documents incited discussion about and visioning of the future of laneways in Toronto, and each intended to inspire regulatory reform, calling for a “loosening of city regulations so that building in laneways would entail a less arduous bureaucratic process” (Gadd, 20 Oct 2006). Stinson and Van Elslander (2003) admitted at the time that revision of the Official Plan and zoning by-laws to permit laneway development as-of-right was unlikely, but contended that “a method must be found to streamline approvals and to allow proponents a clearer overview of the process.” The Planning Department responded to Stinson and Van Elslander’s proposal with an exploratory mindset, “setting up a

bath 20______________________________________________________________________________________

working group to investigate the merits and problems” of laneways development, and Gadd (2006) notes that “there was talk of a task force and a pilot project. But the task force was never established and planners [...] confirm that the idea of large-scale laneway development is dead” (20 Oct 2006), though applications continue to be considered on a case-by-case basis. The Planning Department produced a checklist as a result of the working group to help prospective applicants think through the requirements of development, listing matters like parking, density, housing quality, scale, open space, landscaping, and overlook (Macdonald, 2012). Again, the process is quite “arduous; it’s not easy. It’s way easier and likely less expensive to buy a house on a street or buy a run down house and tear it down” (ibid). Macdonald (2012) elucidates that at the time “there was a lot of back and forth about what we were doing and why,” prompting staff to look at the layers. “What is the function of the laneways in the city?” This was first question with which planners had to contend. From the City’s perspective residential laneways ought to “function to support the overall character of the neighbourhood,” these stable, low-rise areas in the inner city “full of trees and families and that sort of amenity” with garages at the back, on the lane. Lanes “provide service; [...] it’s not necessarily the best place to live” (ibid). Rough, traffic laden, graffiti ridden, playgrounds for all manner of activity, laneways are the city’s “dark but expedient secondary street system” (Kapusta, 2012). This is arguably a rather narrow conception of what lanes might be used for, nonetheless valid, for should the function of the lane shift or another function added, some other space must compensate or the laneway improve. Conflicts among neighbours in particular result when there is discrepancy in use, which may seem like a micro-issue to be resolved privately, yet is relevant given a block functions like an ecosystem.

Neighbourhood residents overwhelmingly advocate for neighbourhood preservation, explains Bain. “The stability of our Neighbourhoods’ physical character is one of the keys to Toronto’s success,” reads Toronto Official Plan, and as such “new development [must] respect and reinforce the general physical pattern” of an area (City of Toronto, 2002, p.4-3). More than this, policy 4.1.5 states that “no changes will be made through rezoning, minor variance, consent or other public action that are out of keeping with the physical character of the neighbourhood” (p.4-4). Bain (2013) notes that during the development of Toronto Official Plan a coalition of rate payers groups opposed the plan because they did not feel that neighbourhood protection policies went far enough. Interestingly, he explains, the opposition was from neighbourhoods with no laneways, yet regardless policy favouring laneway housing, which is to say favouring change, favouring neighbourhood intensification, could not be included. Thus, unless laneway housing is already part of the established built form of a neighbourhood, its development is not permitted as-of-right. Laneways are capable of contributing to intensification, but until neighbourhoods are recognized in policy as appropriate sites for intensification, this contribution will remain piecemeal at best.

Toronto’s planners seem to agree that the odd laneway house in a neighbourhood is fine, scantly impacting the physical character of a neighbourhood, but if Planning “approve[s] that laneway house, then we have to approve the guy next door and the guy next door” (Macdonald, 2012), producing undesired widespread change. For Planning it is very important that a proposal, if approved and constructed, not “set the kind of precedent that suddenly lines the street with houses and causes longer term problems” (ibid). Al Rezoski (2013), manager of the City’s Downtown Section, observes that there are “areas where you could see a fifty percent increase in the amount of housing.” And maybe only twenty percent of proposals that come in, Bain (2013) asserts, are “the small, thoughtful, architecturally interesting stuff ” (Bain, 2013). It is also important to consider what happens to amenities like trees and backyards and privacy, or where will residents park their cars (Macdonald, 2012). Amenities are lost in the provision of laneway housing, and we

bath 21______________________________________________________________________________________

could dispute the value of those amenities over the value of increasing the housing stock, especially the inner-city housing stock, but these are some of the tradeoffs, meaningful to many residents, that must be considered when determining whether to permit homes on the lane. “You could just imagine the litany of reasons that ordinary people would come up with to prevent [laneway development] from happening,” states Kapusta (2012). Councillor Wong-Tam (2012) remarks that while “laneway housing should be easier,” discussion with neighbours suggests conflict is likely. “Neighbourhoods go to war over things like the appropriate height of a fence” (ibid), for Torontonians are “used to living in these very prescribed social conditions” with clear rules, abhorrent of “anarchic conditions” (Kapusta, 2012). Kapusta posits, “What benefit is it to ‘House A’ if ‘House B’ develops a laneway residence? It impedes upon that household’s privacy, it screws up their access for six months to a year and they are maybe woken up by construction noises.” Or so and so is accustomed to sunbathing without worrying her new neighbour is peering through a second storey window or so and so likes to grow tomatoes in a spot that is now shadowed, and these micro-issues are seemingly minor in the big picture of intensification, nonetheless the “banal reality of the homeowner” (ibid) must be given due consideration by Planning. Others argue that Planning ought to lead change, “open it up in a way that says that residents are not entitled to a neighbourhood. We want this neighbourhood to evolve, this is part of that evolution” (Anonymous, 2012). Managing neighbourhood change, however, is very hard, and there will always be opposition to something unfamiliar. Greenberg asserts,

We’re very uncomfortable being leaders, at least at the City level. There are so many things in Toronto that fail because of what we might call the universality test. That is, if you let those people do it, then some other people are going to want to do it, and someone is going to object and unless we find something that pleases everyone, all the time, everywhere, let’s not try it. (2012)

Neighbour and neighbourhood opposition occurs frequently with infill projects, whether laneway housing or another form like mid-rise, certainly narrowing the conditions under which some development is possible.

It is generally accepted that “you cannot do laneway housing everywhere in the city” (Macdonald, 2012), if only because laneways do not exist across the city; laneways occur primarily in Toronto’s core. Laneway housing can be found on and is indeed part of the historical development and character of some back lanes, primarily those like Jersey Street or off Clinton or Croft Streets or Ossington Avenue. Bain explains that there was still industry on Clinton, for example, in the eighties, as well as other areas in the west end. Those, he says, “are exactly the laneways to develop,” for they have the necessary preconditions -- that is, “you find there were already some severed lots facing the laneways, some modicum of servicing established, and depth.” Yet Jersey Street remains different from Clinton or Croft, which is to say “every laneway condition is different. There is no standard condition” (Kapusta, 2012). It is not possible generalize to say every house can build another house behind it on the laneway, for context differs considerably among laneways. Bain (2013) offers the example of two lots, both backing onto a lane lined with garages, though one is seventy metres deep and the other 150 metres. It makes sense to sever the latter, not the former, yet a standard regulation would permit a unit on both properties. It is not feasible to write a zoning by-law to handle the variation and complexities of laneway conditions in the city (ibid). “We weren’t comfortable changing the zoning bylaw to make laneway housing legal because of the number of circumstances we knew they wouldn’t work,” resolves Macdonald (2012). Rezoski (2013) speculates that if Planning were “really progressive we would take the lead and we

bath 22______________________________________________________________________________________

would look at all the lanes, we would look at where there are opportunities, we would look at maybe doing comprehensive rezoning,” but the Planning Department would require much more staff (Bain, 2013). It is a question, too, then, of priorities. Bain (2013) states, “I have two staff and we are dealing with 110 requests to convert Employment Lands for towers and that is only part of our job,” while Rezoski’s team is managing applications for 200 towers in downtown Toronto (Rezoski, 2013). There are practical limits to how much work the Planning Department can manage and laneway housing is not considered a priority.

A proposal can also very easily fail due to an issue held by Public Works. Quite simply, Public Works “does not encourage laneway development” (Ireland, 30 Oct 2009). George Popper candidly remarks in an interview with Carolyn Ireland that “‘it’s all really driven by garbage.’” Under current policies, explains Ireland (2009), “homeowners have the right to curbside garbage pickup, so all infill developments must have room for a garbage truck to drive into the complex and turn around” (ibid). Snow removal and emergency vehicle access pose similar problems. Macdonald (2012) asserts that “there are some practical issues for the City in terms of servicing laneway homes safely in the same way that the City services everyone else.” Laneways are not the same as other streets, yet Public Works does not believe that there ought to be “different solutions for different areas of the city, though it would be disingenuous for us to pretend” that Scarborough is the same as downtown Toronto (Wong-Tam, 2012). Works, much like the Fire Department, is a huge barrier to laneway development because of this “one size fits all approach” (Bedford, 2012). Greenberg claims that Toronto’s “bugbear is standardization and conventionality, it’s people who are maybe having trouble dealing with something that is [...] unconventional” and does not accord with a predetermined template (2012). There are alternatives, “there are ways to get around these things, but essentially alternatives [...] result in cost expenditures that make laneways unprofitable” in the short term (Anonymous, 2012). “None of these issues are terribly significant” (Wong-Tam, 2012), still they are issues, issues that are not priorities for a department that values ease and efficiency over innovation.

Public Works is also responsible for servicing. Services can either come from the main street, through the lot into the laneway house, though this is more complicated for a severed lot because easements are required, or new services can be run down the lane where there are presently no services, which is very expensive (Macdonald, 2012). It might seem simple enough to extend the services from the street, “it’s there anyways, it doesn’t cost anyone any extra,” but this requires cooperation among property owners (ibid). Laneway development may also demand line upgrades, depending on the age and density of a neighbourhood (Rezoski, 2013). Works predictably prefers installing servicing for “200 units in a single new building [...] along an arterial road, which can meet all their requirements” for loading and parking and utilities and garbage, as opposed to 200 individual laneway homes, which is much more onerous (ibid). Laneway development requires Public Works and the Fire Department in particular be “open to change” (ibid). Bedford (2012), formerly the City’s Chief Planner, has said, “Public Works and Fire need more creative people. How do Paris and London function with all those different road widths? [...] I find that a lot of the attitudes and mindsets of staff in both departments are quite suburban. It’s a real problem.” Nonetheless, Rezoski (2013) explains that “the servicing issues tend to override the planning principles of having this type of infill housing.” The resolution that has been reached at the City of Toronto is that the servicing aspect is paramount as to whether laneway development can or cannot occur (ibid).

bath 23______________________________________________________________________________________

It seems that it was a Staff Report directed to the Works Committee titled “Construction of Housing in Laneways: ALL WARDS” and dated 20 June 2006 that confirmed the seeming end of laneway development in Toronto, for the Planning Department ceased running its working group shortly afterwards. The purpose of the 20 June 20 2006 Staff Report was to respond to then Councillor Adam Giambrone’s May 1, 2006 request for a report “on whether the construction of houses on laneways can be made more practical, addressing issues such as water/sewage connections, garbage collection, snow clearing and other potential concerns” (City of Toronto, 2006, p. 1). The reasons presented for keeping things as they were are noteworthy. William G. Crowther, Executive Director of Technical Services at the City of Toronto, begins the rationale with “issues that are broader and more fundamental than the practicality of providing City services” (p. 2). He states,

The Official Plan provides Council’s vision and policies for what should be built in low-rise residential neighbourhoods. [...] The Official Plan for the former City of Toronto states, in Section 4.1.5, that these areas will be regarded as stable and “no changes will be made through zoning or other public action which are out of keeping with the physical character of the area.” (ibid)

I would read the “fundamental” issue here, from a Public Works perspective, not so much as a need to protect neighbourhoods, but a need to adhere strictly to the Official Plan as a means of restricting new practices that force the system to change. Joe Pantalone states in an interview with Bill Taylor of The Toronto Star that “the Planning Department ‘tends to take more of a biblical position. [...] If it’s not in the Bible, it’s not allowed’.” And, as a consequence, the City’s Planning Department “‘allows [itself] as a body to become disassociated from what’s happening on the ground’” (Taylor, 14 July 2008). The formal position of laneway housing in the Official Plan is non-explicit, meaning laneway houses are permitted only in “special circumstances.” The Report recommends that “City Planning staff [...] continue to provide their best advice to City Council about the appropriateness of laneway housing, on a site specific basis, on the merits of the specific proposal” (Crowther, 25-27 July 2006, p.1). “Special circumstances” is sufficiently vague to suggest that planners have a little bit of room to approve “one-off proposals for a laneway house, particularly if they are to be built on an industrial lane [...] rather than on a lane of garages” (Gadd, 20 Oct 2006). Yet it is fair to say that for the most part a conservative interpretation of the Official Plan is typical, staff electing to regard the construction of laneway houses as “not [...] supportable as good planning” (City of Toronto, 20 June 2006, p. 4). Stinson echoes this sentiment, maintaining that “the report that city council adopted ‘reflects the traditional public works attitude to laneway housing ... that nothing about laneway housing fits with current practice and therefore everything is a problem’” (Gadd, 20 Oct 2006, p. G1). Councillor Wong-Tam (2012) refers to Giambrone’s attempt to have a larger conversation about laneway development in the City as “a soft effort. [...] There was no further pursuit of the issue” (Wong-Tam, 2012). Shim reports that even the Ontario Municipal Board sanctions laneway housing, evinced by the positive ruling on her and Sutcliffe’s proposed dwelling in 1994. “In the end, the OMB didn’t simply approve [Shim and Sutcliffe’s] home, but applauded it. ‘The ruling was very positive,’ [Shim] recalls. ‘They stated that laneway housing should be encouraged’” (Toronto Life, Feb 1994, p. 52). This ruling has nonetheless not produced changes. “I don’t think there’s been much progress at all,” states Greenberg (2012). Council perpetuates an unimaginative conception of laneways as thoroughfares “primarily constructed to provide vehicular access to parking garages for houses which already have public street frontage” (City of Toronto, 20 June 2006, p.4). Council’s approval of the Works Committee Report makes evident that it does not begin with the premise that laneway housing might be a

bath 24______________________________________________________________________________________

good idea. David Oikawa, Manager of Community Planning for Toronto and East York, remarks, “ ‘Laneway housing is not a key component in the City’s plans for growth’” -- that is, “it is not necessary to the city’s long-term growth plan” (McGinnis, 11 Aug 2010). Laneway housing does not defy many principles presented in the Official Plan, especially central concepts like sustainability (City of Toronto, 2002, p. 2), nonetheless it is not made a priority, notably in the name of neighbourhood stability. The City’s mindset is “one of roadblocks and red tape” (Leblanc, 27 June 2011). Greenberg (2012) passionately asserts,

We are arguably the most successful city in North America [...] and yet there’s this mentality that we’re broke, incompetent, we can’t do anything. It’s become the city of no we can’t and I just don’t buy it. The gravy train message has stuck [...] and every interesting idea that comes along is too rich for our blood, we can’t try anything new. It’s really unfortunate.

Laneway houses are inconspicuous dwellings, yet development is constrained by an accumulation of issues that emerge from numerous stakeholders. It is unlikely, as Kapusta (2012) concludes, that laneway housing will “happen across the board” unless constraints limiting development are managed. Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam (2012) is rebuilding laneway connections in Ward 27 notably from Bloor to College, forcing some change. “I have overriding Council authority over Public Works,” she explains. Public Works may refuse an application, but she is approving it. “They will be forced to adapt to the changes that we are invoking and policy will then follow. [...] If we have to wait until everyone agrees there will be no change because there will always be someone who doesn’t get it.” Laneway housing, I argue, is a microcosm of the narrow conditions under which most infill development occurs; these back lane dwellings are “the tip of the iceberg” (Sterling, 2013).

bath 25________________________________________________________________________________

bath 26783 Bathurst StreetB.streets CondosHariri Pontarini Architects

If the residential intensification of Toronto continues to roll forward at its current quick pace, the last of the large downtown parking lots will soon disappear under a shiny condominium block. When these and other easily exploitable spaces in the central city vanish, were will the new housing go? - John Bentley Mays, 8 March 2012

Downtown Toronto is designated as one of twenty-five “urban growth centres” in Places to Grow, meaning it must “accommodate a significant share of population and employment growth” (2.2.4.d), more specifically at least “400 residents and jobs combined per hectare” (2.2.5.a). Places to Grow delineates the urban growth centre as bounded roughly by Dupont Street to the north, Sherbourne to the east, Spadina to the west, and the Gardiner Expressway to the south. Other intensification areas identified in the Official Plan are meant to accommodate the remainder of the projected growth (2.2.3.6), including the Avenues. Toronto’s downtown is already achieving nearly twice as much density as required at 708 residents and jobs per hectare and this figure is expected to rise to 775 residents and jobs per hectare within ten years (Scallan, 19 Oct 2012). Yet targets are largely met ad hoc with what Keesmaat calls “super projects” (Gee, 14 Jan 2013), resulting in a “patchwork archipelago of crystalline clusters of very dense and very tall urban artifacts, surrounded by a sea of more ‘conventional’ city fabric” (Sterling, 2012). The Entertainment District’s four block radius alone has 51 high-rise condominium projects under construction or approved by the city (MacDonald, 12 Jan 2013). Keesmaat finds that if the City concentrates on constructing mid-rise along the Avenues, “Toronto can meet the province’s growth targets without 80 storey buildings, and with a ‘significant amount of room to spare’” (Gillis, 26 Oct 2012). Avenues and Mid-Rise Buildings Study (2010), a report commissioned by the City and produced principally by Brook-McIlroy Planning + Urban Design/Pace Architects, asserts that if half of the 200 kilometres of Avenue frontage available for mid-rise development was indeed developed, the Avenues could accommodate 250,000 new residents (p.i). Toronto’s 300 kilometres of laneways could supply approximately 6,150 homes (Stinson/Van Elslander). Avenues, like laneways, hold much potential to accommodate population growth, yet an array of barriers to development ensure that little infill development actually occurs. Since the adoption of the study nearly three years ago there have only been 37 applications submitted for mid-rise along the Avenues (Annable, 8 July 2012). 21 of 241 proposals for mid-rise development on the Avenues were issued building permits as of 30 June 2005 (City of Toronto, Nov 2005, p.1), prior to the publication of the Study, and of 40 applications submitted since 2006 only five mid-rise buildings have been constructed (Brown, 2012, p.4); there are nearly as many Avenue Studies complete to date as there are new mid-rise structures along the Avenues. Sterling (2013) explains that all sites designated for intensification in the Official Plan are not equally available for development. Lots of land is not easy to develop profitably with a desirable built form; laneway housing is “the tip of the iceberg.” Council allocated a portion of the 2005 budget for Avenue Studies to fund “a symposium to explore opportunities for encouraging more mid-rise buildings within the Avenue

bath 27

laneway housing is the tip of the iceberg

______________________________________________________________________________________

designations” (City of Toronto, 14 Mar 2007, p.4). “Mid-Rise Buildings -- Urbanizing the Avenues” was hosted by the City 29 November 2005 in partnership with the Canadian Urban Institute and the Toronto Society of Architects. Three workshops were held, titled as follows: “The Big Picture: Moving the Avenues Vision Forwards”; “Building Typologies meet Real Issues: Bylaws, Standards and Codes”; and “Mid-Rise Economics: From the Market Perspective.” Upwards of 300 participants attended these workshops and a plethora of information gathered and ideas heard pertaining in particular to the challenges of Avenue development. A number of lists were generated on the subject of how the City might respond or what the City might do to aid the urbanization of Toronto’s Avenues; a “List of Key Suggestions” was produced. Robert Freedman, Director of Urban Design, makes clear that the City knows that while “the policy framework is compelling [...] the Toronto development community has not fully embraced the mid-rise building type” quite simply because it “is just too expensive and therefore too risky to build” (City of Toronto, 29 Nov 2005). The Symposium was held to determine how to encourage development immediately, even if “in the long term, the increasing cost and scarcity of land will make the numbers work.” The City asks, “What can [we] do differently (or better) to kick start this process?” What does the industry “need in order to respond?” (ibid) Quite curiously, little resulted from the Symposium. Avenue urbanization remains challenged by narrow development conditions that continue to be left largely unaddressed. It has been nearly seven years since this Symposium and the biggest idea to emerge is to rezone the Avenues to permit mid-rise development as-of-right. This idea, led by Keesmaat, has garnered considerable attention, yet leaves unacknowledged or addressed other constraints affecting infill development generally, evincing some narrow thinking. Freedman states that “it is no longer suitable for our main arterial roads to be lined with two and three storey mixed-use buildings in older areas, and a jumbled assortment of single-storey commercial buildings, strip malls, and apartments in newer areas. [...] It is time for our Avenues to grow up” (ibid), he asserts, still the City seems unwilling to do much to address constraints challenging developers keen to construct infill more comprehensively.

“If the residential intensification of Toronto continues to roll forward at its current quick pace, the last of the large downtown parking lots will soon disappear [...]. When these and other easily exploitable spaces in the central city vanish, where will the new housing go?” asks The Globe and Mail’s Mays (8 Mar 2012). This is a very good question considering the narrow conditions under which most infill is developed. Keesmaat intends to make development on the Avenues easier, notably by rezoning the Avenues to permit mid-rise as-of-right. Planners may encourage density along the Avenues, that is distribute density beyond high-rise nodes (Gee, 14 Jan 2013), even formalizing City support in Official Plan policy, yet this is likely not to be enough. Mid-rise, like laneway housing, is a form developed under narrow conditions, though not entirely the same conditions. Land assembly, for example, is a major issue for developing the Avenues, rarely felt by those developing on the lane. Land is expensive, capital gains tax is prohibitive, and ownership is broken up, meaning acquiring a row of sites is very hard. Properties also not vacant, occupied by buildings butting against other buildings and adjacent to stable neighbourhoods, posing additional challenges (Annable, 8 July 2012; Gee, 14 Jan 2013; Gee, 16 Nov 2011; Sterling, 2013). Narrow conditions must be better addressed by the City if it wishes to see intensification driven by more than singular development opportunities. Anne McIllroy has similarly said that the City needs “to start thinking more collectively and not building-by-building” (Scallan, 19 Oct 2012). Infill is likely to become more and more important for intensification as development opportunities on large vacant properties wane, and development is sought on irregular and complex sites. However, again, it is critical to address the narrow conditions affecting infill development, exemplified here by laneway housing.

bath 28____________________________________________________________________________________

Bain (2013) asks, quite sincerely, “Why would you introduce laneway housing?” Or, asked another way, “What problem is it a solution to?” (Kapusta, 2012). These are fair questions. For the City, laneway housing is not necessary as a densification initiative; “it does not affect the housing stock sufficiently. We have more than enough [...] housing under construction to handle the projected population growth in this city” (Bain, 2013). Rezoski (2013) likewise asserts that the City is meeting intensification targets thrugh development on sites in designated intensification areas. Laneway development is certainly not an “antidote to Toronto’s high-rise growth spurt” (Archer, 6 June 2012), though it adds density to inner-city neighbourhoods. Macdonald (2012) contends that “if you intensified all the laneways in Toronto that made sense from the City’s perspective to intensify, they might generate the equivalent of one high-rise building in terms of the number of housing units.” Laneway development is “very limited and [...] isn’t going to solve any of the city’s major problems” (Bain, 2013). Given the context of planning in the city, laneway housing is not a priority. The City may not need laneway housing to meet intensification targets, yet there is urgency in honing an awareness of the barriers preventing infill development. Policy and process in particular conflict with the realities of development, hindering infill. There is a need to take seriously making it easier. If the objective is to densify built-up areas city-wide, to more evenly distribute density, without constructing primarily 80 storey towers, the City must contend with the narrow conditions imposed on infill development. There is a laundry list of seemingly small problems that mean much infill is not easy and thus avoided by developers. Only once these conditions have been managed will it be possible to “fry all the fish” (Greenberg, 2012), including laneway development.

bath 29____________________________________________________________________________________

bath 30Orphanage Mews Laneway Loft Solares Architecture

I don’t think there’s a quick route anywhere. - Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam, 2012 Toronto Official Plan is a sustainability plan that understands sustainability as an intensification of built form to accommodate population and employment growth. “Toronto will grow. Our choice is not whether we grow, but how well we grow” (City of Toronto, 2002, p.1-1), reads the plan. “How well” implies the question of where and in what form intensification ought to occur. Toronto’s residential intensification has, since the fifties, building boom after building boom, occurred primarily in high-rise form downtown, yet as large swaths of land, whether old rail yards or parking lots, dwindle in their availability for redevelopment, infill must be taken more seriously. Laneway lots exemplify an infill site on which development is commonly avoided, for a building permit is granted only in rare instances -- that is, narrow conditions. An appropriate lot must be deep enough to be severed, on a lane wide enough for emergency vehicles and a garbage truck with laneway housing already established, for development must be in keeping with the character of the neighbourhood. Servicing must also be possible, run either down the lane, which is very expensive, or through a contiguous property, usually requiring an easement and also expensive; at the very least a lawyer would need to be hired, potentially an engineer. A prospective applicant should also already have hired an architect. If planners are satisfied the proposed home is appropriate for the context, a rezoning application is submitted and planning issues are assessed. A community meeting must also be held and neighbours’ concerns heard and appeased, followed by a presentation to Council. Should Council approve, a building permit is issued. This process is arduous, costs mount, rarely justifying a project financially, and most proposals fail due to one of many potential issues detailed in previous sections. Narrow conditions are contextually dependent, but felt by developers aiming to construct infill generally. There are plenty of good arguments for infilling, that is filling the gaps and increasing the horizontal density of the city. Myers (1980) observes that “it tends to spread out the population, creating a multi-centred city; it rebuilds and thus maintains the health of existing neighbourhoods; it allows for and even develops neighbourhoods which contain a variety of people and places” (p.15). Policy currently designed to curb sprawl pushes developers to build vertically, fostering the compact city or at least compact nodes. Towers should not be the primary structures built to accommodate growth and likely cannot go everywhere -- that is, “no one want to see this phenomenon marching up and down all the nearby streets in the neighbourhoods surrounding downtown” (Greenberg, 2 Oct 2012). The City will continue to process mostly applications for towers until infill is made easier -- and to make infill easier the City must contend with narrow conditions in their complexity. This is no easy task.

“Development cannot be controlled with a coloured map,” states one local developer (2013), referring to the City’s Land Use Map (See Figure 4). That is to say, policy alone is not enough to either inhibit or generate development of any kind. Laneway housing remains functionally illegal to

bath 31______________________________________________________________________________________

don’t put the cart before the horse

develop, for instance, nonetheless proposals continue to be submitted and considered, sometimes approved. “All planners seem to be doing is managing applications” (Sterling, 2013), explains Sterling, as the inner-city in particular drastically intensifies. Some of this development dazzles, the most obvious example being Gehry and Mirvish's proposal, still a more critical conversation about the scale of Toronto’s intensification is warranted (Mays, 4 Oct 2012). Councillor Wong-Tam (2012) posits that collaboration and negotiation might produce less of a monoculture. She continues, “When developers walk through my door I’m usually also faced with a consultant and a municipal development lawyer, and the conversation begins with an opening statement from the lawyer.” Developers are “ready to go to the Ontario Municipal Board; that’s the culture of development in Toronto.” And because infill is profitable only if a given density is achieved, developers are not shy to take an application to the Board, resulting in structures taller than desired on Avenues when proposals manage to garner approval. It is in the City’s interest to work with developers to come to terms with narrow conditions so that if infill is built, it complies with the vision of the Official Plan. “Great density is coming to Toronto, like or not,” asserts Gee (14 Jan 2013). “Population growth demands it. Planning policy is encouraging it. Might as well spread some of it to the Avenues” (ibid). It is equally easy to say Toronto “might find some answers to density issues right in its own backyards” (Gheciu, 26 Dec 2012), yet, as this paper has demonstrated, it is not so simple. As Sterling (2013) has said, not all sites, including those designated for intensification, are equally available for development. It is important not to put the cart before the horse, so to speak. That is, before the City can better intensify the Avenues or even laneways, it must come to terms with narrow conditions.

bath 32____________________________________________________________________________________

bath 3350 Bartlett AvenueLanehouse on BartlettAudax Architecture

Annable, Kristin. (2012). Communities clash with developers over mid-rise condo projects in the city, National Post, 8 July.

Anonymous Development Consultant, interview, 2012.

Anonymous Developer, interview, 2013.

Archer, Burt. (2012). Laneway housing may be antidote to Toronto’s high-rise growth spurt, Yonge Street Media, 6 June.

Bain, Paul, interview, 2013.

Bascaramurty, Dakshana. (2012). Density, infrastructure and the high cost of building vertical in Toronto, The Globe and Mail, 12 Oct.

Bedford, Paul, interview, 2012.

Bernhut, Steve. (1984). Behind the house, down the laneway, The Globe and Mail, 5 July.

Binks, Georgie. (2002). Life in the lane: escape the streets for laneways: more developers are digging there, National Post, 13 April.

Bozikovic, Alex. (2012). A Tokyo home for Toronto, The Globe and Mail, 11 Oct.

Bromley, Rosemary D. F., Andrew R. Tallon and Colin J. Thomas. (2005). City centre regeneration through residential development: contributing to sustainability, Urban Studies 42(13), pp.2407-2429.

Brown, Robyn. (2012). Barriers to Mid-Rise Development in Toronto. Toronto: Ryerson University.

Bunce, Susannah. (2004). The emergence of ‘Smart Growth’ intensification in Toronto: environment and economy in the new Official Plan, Local Environment 9(2), pp. 177-191.

Campbell, Scott. Green Cities, Growing Cities, Just Cities? Urban Planning and the Contradictions of Sustainable Development, Journal of the American Planning Association 62(3), pp. 296-312. City of Toronto. (1994). City of Toronto Zoning By-laws 436-86. Toronto: Department of Public Works and the Environment and Surveys Section.

---. (2010). City of Toronto Downtown and Central Waterfront Boundaries, Map 6. Toronto: Department of Planning and Development.

---. (2010). City of Toronto Land Use, Map 18. Toronto: Department of Planning and Development.

bath 34

references

____________________________________________________________________________________

---. (2010). City of Toronto Urban Structure, Map 2. Toronto: Department of Planning and Development.

---. (25-27 July 2006). Consolidated Clause in Works Committee Report 5, Construction of Housing in Laneways (All Wards). Toronto: Department of Public Works and the Environment.

---. (2005). Mid-Rise Symposium -- Urbanizing the Avenues. Toronto: Department of Planning and Development. November 29. Toronto: Department of Planning and Development. ---. (2007). Staff Report: Urbanizing the Avenues: Mid-Rise Buildings Symposium Update and Avenue Studies Next Steps. March 14. Toronto: Department of Planning and Development.

---. (2010). Staff Report: Avenues and Mid-Rise Buildings Study and Action Plan. May 4. Toronto: Department of Planning and Development.

---. (2011). Staff Report: Five Year Review of the Official Plan and Comprehensive Review. May 10. Toronto: Department of Planning and Development.

---. (2002). Toronto’s Official Plan. Office Consolidation, December 2010. Toronto: Department of Planning and Development.

Crowther, William G. (20 June 2006). Construction of Housing in Laneways (ALL WARDS). Toronto: City of Toronto Works Committee.

Dault, Gary Michael. (2004). Inverse City, Canadian Architect, October, pp.10-12.

Diamond, Jack. (1976). Residential density and housing form, Journal of Architectural Education, 29(3), p.15-17.

Downs, Anthony. (2005). Smart Growth: why we discuss it more than we do it, Journal of the American Planning Association 71(4), pp.367-380.

Farquharson, Vanessa. (2009). Nooks and crannies the next frontier in fine urban living; Alley houses use space formerly reserved for weeks, wrecked cars, Victoria Times Colonist, 9 Sept, p.C8.

Fehertoi, Alexander M. (2011). Laneway Uprising. Toronto: University of Toronto Faculty of Architecture, Landscape, and Design.

Filion, Pierre, Bunting, Trudi, Pavlic, Dejan, and Paul Langlois. (2010). Intensification and sprawl: residential density trajectories in Canada’s largest metropolitan regions, Urban Geography, 31(4), p.541-569.

Freedman, Robert. (2005). A City of Great Avenues. Toronto: Department of Planning and Development, 29 Nov.

Gadd, Jane. (2003). Building on the back streets; Two architects suggest a better use of Toronto’s waster laneway lots, The Globe and Mail, 14 Nov.

bath 35____________________________________________________________________________________

---. (2006). Council snuffs out laneway dream; Cost concerns trump back alley renewal, The Globe and Mail, 20 Oct.

---. (2006). The back-alley building brawl; Two brothers had an innovative idea for housing. They weren’t ready for the hostile reaction, The Globe and Mail, 24 Nov.

Gee, Marcus. (2011). City’s red tape slowing vital mid-rise development, The Globe and Mail, 16 Nov.

---. (2013). Toronto’s chief planner seeks ways to develop ‘the Avenues’, The Globe and Mail, 14 Jan.

---. (2012). Toronto’s condo boom is a boon for the city, The Globe and Mail, 12 Oct.

Gheciu, Alex Nino. (2012). Can living in laneways fix Toronto’s density issues?, The Toronto Star, 26 Dec.

Gillis, Wendy. (2012). Density Toronto: why the skyscrapers on steroids? The Toronto Star, 26 Oct.

Greenberg, Ken, interview, 2012.

---. (2012). Extreme makeover: Toronto’s density challenges, The Globe and Mail, 2 Oct.

Gunder, M. (2006). Sustainability: Planning’s saving grace or road to perdition?, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 26, pp.208-221.

Guy, Simon and Simon Marvin. (1999). Understanding Sustainable Cities: competing urban futures, European Urban and Regional Studies 6(3), pp.268-275.

Guy, Simon and Steven A. Moore. (2007). Sustainable Architecture and the Pluralist Imagination, Journal of Architectural Education 60(4), pp. 15-23.

Hathout, Ahmad. (2012). Laneway housing: a density solution, or no good for the neighbourhood? OpenFile, 25 Jan.

Hume, Christopher. (2009). A (narrow) path forward; Toronto’s 2,400 alleys might just be the solution for a city seeking a denser, more efficient future, The Toronto Star, 10 Oct.

---. (1990). Architects break rules to win housing game, The Toronto Star, 22 Sept.

---. (2006). Big designs in small spaces; Toronto architect Astra Burka’s house shows how to unlock the potential of even the tiniest city lots, The Toronto Star, 23 Aug.

---. Interview, 2012.

---. (2010). King St. condo quietly urban; King and Sumach has become a desirable place to live, The Toronto Star.

---. (1994). Proposed planning rules aim to stem city sprawl, The Toronto Star, 30 June.

bath 36____________________________________________________________________________________

Ireland, Carolyn. (2009). Infill from the inside; Builder George Popper converts neglected city lots into new homes, The Globe and Mail, 30 Oct.

Jen, Leslie. (2004). Life in the fast lane, Canadian Architect, October, p.14-16.

Kapusta, Beth, interview, 2012.

---. (1997). Life in the back lane, The Globe and Mail, 23 Aug.

---. (2005). Urban Tree House; A small laneway house in downtown Toronto miraculously accommodates the restrictions of a tiny site and provides a family with a comfortable and elegant home, Canadian Architect, 1 June, p.24.

Krueger, Rob and Julian Agyeman. (2005). Sustainability Schizophrenia or ‘Actually Existing Sustainabilities?’ toward a broader understanding of the politics and promise of local sustainability in the US, Geoforum 36, pp.410-417.

Laidlaw, Katherine. (2008). A landmark in residential innovation; Toronto’s first laneway house, designed by the late Jeffery Stinson, provides a surprise and a delight around every corner, The Globe and Mail, 23 May.

Leblanc, Dave. (2012). A home that shows Toronto what laneway living can be, The Globe and Mail, 5 April.

---. (2011). The future of homes lives in a Leslieville lane, The Globe and Mail, 23 Jun.

Lehrer, Ute and Thorben Wieditz. (2009). Condominium devlopment and gentrification: the relationship between policies, building activities and socio-economic development in Toronto, Canadian Journal of Urban Research 18(1), p. 140-161.

(1994). Life in the back lane: Brigitte Shim and Howard Sutcliffe assembled a lot out of other people’s backyards, Toronto Life 28(2), pp.50-52.

Lorinc, John. (2012). From garbage to greenery: revitalizing Toronto’s downtown laneways, The Globe and Mail, 6 Sept.

Lush, Patricia. (1981). Idea meets demand for smaller homes on smaller lots, The Globe and Mail, 15 Oct.

---. (1983). Old and new meet gracefully in infill projects preserving Toronto’s neighbourhoods, The Globe and Mail, 17 Dec.

Macdonald, Gayle. (2013). Can the Entertainment District’s restaurant row resist condo frenzy? The Globe and Mail, 12 Jan.

Macdonald, Lynda, Interview, 2012.

bath 37____________________________________________________________________________________

Mays, John Bentley. (2012). A builder’s plan to fill Toronto’s nooks and crevices, The Globe and Mail, 8 March.

---. (2003). Making a laneway livable, The Globe and Mail, 4 July.

---. (2012). Mirvish’s King West megaproject begins its trial by fire, The Globe and Mail, 4 Oct.

---. (2004). Putting back alleys on the front burner; A U of T students project looks at new ways to use Toronto’s laneways for living space, The Globe and Mail, 16 April.

---. (2007). The fine art of building on a tight site, The Globe and Mail, 3 Aug.

McGinnis, Rick. (2010). Future not so Bright for Laneway Housing in Toronto, BlogTO, 11 Aug, http://www.blogto.com/city/2010/08 future_not_so_bright_for_laneway_housing_in_toronto/

Ministry of Infrastructure. (2006). Places to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Office Consolidation, January 2012. Toronto: Province of Ontario.

Moore, Susan and Susannah Bunce. (2009). Delivering sustainable buildings and communities: eclipsing social concerns through private sector-led urban regeneration and development, Local Environment, 14(7), p.601-606.

Myers, Barton and George Baird. (1978). Design Quarterly 108: Vacant Lottery. Minneapolis: Walker Art Center : Minneapolis.

Noik-Bent, Sherry. (2005). A bonus in the backyard: laneway housing can be a win-win concept for homeowners as well as the city, National Post, 15 Jan.

Ouellette, Robert. (2006). Perfect house for laneway: but regulators block this type of low-energy home, National Post, 23 Nov.

Relph, Edward. (1990). The Toronto Guide. Toronto: Prepared for the Annual Conference of the Association of American Geographers.

Rezoski, Al, interview, 2013.

Saunders, Doug. (2013). The world wants Vancouverism. Shouldn’t Canada? The Globe and Mail, 23 Feb.

Scallan, Niamh. (2012). Density Toronto: As GTA population rises, so do expectations for denser living, The Toronto Star, 19 Oct.

Searle, Glen and Pierre Filion. (2011). Planning context and urban intensification outcomes: Sydney versus Toronto, Urban Studies, 48(7), p.1419-1438.

Shim, B., Chong, D., Waldheim, C., Adams, S., & University of Toronto. (2004). Site Unseen: Laneway Architecture and Urbanism in Toronto. Toronto: University of Toronto Faculty of Architecture, Landscape, and Design.

bath 38____________________________________________________________________________________

Sobchak, Peter. (2004). Building back-alley, Building, 54(1), p.30-31.

Sterling, Mark, interview, 2013.

Stinson, Jeffery and Terence Van Elslander. (2003). A Study of Laneway Housing in Toronto. Toronto: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

Taylor, Bill. (2008). Garage reno plan hits bureaucratic wall; No room for ‘granny flats’, The Toronto Star, 14 July.

Thorsell, William. (1989). Why urbanites should learn to live at close quarters, The Globe and Mail, 30 Sept.

Williams, Katie. (2007). Can urban intensification contribute to sustainable cities? An international perspective, http://www.urbanicity.org

Wong-Tam, Councillor Kristyn, interview, 2012.

bath 39____________________________________________________________________________________

bath 40118R Clinton Street Astra Burka Architect