Because of these two posts, and considerable bitter experience. Even if you design the regulations the right way, the silo-cultural nature of our various building/zoning depts means they will still use discretionary authority to escalate details, demands and requirements.

And it has a friggin elevator!! A three-story building in North America with an elevator. You NEVER see that – it’s likely costing around $200,000 (CAD). Stair injuries and deaths are far more common than fire ones. Disability and elderly advocates should be storming City Hall about this decision.

NFPA 13R.

Do we want livable, accessible units in neighbourhoods in Toronto? A 3 storey, single stair, elevatored, sixplex is not radical. It  should be the most simple, easily replicable way to provide livable housing within neighbourhoods… the “Toronto Special” of the 2020s. And yet…

These measures are not supported by analysis & are not proportionate given the scale of the building, occupancy and risk levels.

Not to mention added costs & -ve impacts on living space in a small footprint.

Together, they basically negate any benefit from doing a single stair in the first place.

City response: design doesn’t meet performance level required. Need to also provide:
- vestibules/corridor between every unit and the exit stair
- mechanical ventilation in the stairwell
- an even wider stair, but how wide they cannot say.

Evacuation timing analysis indicated that everyone would be evacuated before the fire department even arrived. All building/performance indicators met or exeeded conventional Part 9 OBC acceptable solution except for the fact we have 1 stair instead of 2.

The ASP included:
- fully sprinklered building
- widened stair (1200 mm vs 900 mm)
- expanded landings (1650 mm)
- stairwell skylight for smoke exhaust
- improved fire rating for structure, suite separation, exit, balconies
- every unit has balcony for refuge or direct exit.

Mine’s a small (c 2300 sf) footprint building with an elevator for accessibility. Third floor is just 1 unit. All units 2+ bedrooms. Light-filled, wide-shallow units. Max bldg occupancy as per OBC: 28 persons, only 8 of whom would use the stairs to the 3rd floor.

It’s from the DC Background Study

www.toronto.ca/city-governm...

…But that central TO should be the only place in the region for growth, leaving other areas to their “inferior transit and amenities” as you say, and not address inequities by adding pop and investing is… an interesting take?

Over time, densification planned in conjunction with transit investment as suburban areas age and pops fall… be it Scarborough or Mississauga, as well as growth in central TO. That’s how city-regions evolve. ….

Restrictive land use policies in the core may be a factor but I think you are underestimating real demand outside the core. Plus policies in places like Mississauga are even more restrictive than TO, limiting growth and densification there, despite virtually all neighbourhoods losing pop.

How does liberalizing land use policy outside Toronto threaten development in the core? Development will go where there is demand, if permitted.

Did rezoning along Eglinton in Scarborough for the LRT fail?