@zakls.bsky.social
Reposted
To figure out what's allowed, you need to know three things: (1) the map that outlines the MTSA around the station (usually drawn by the City; some amended by the province), (2) distance from the transit station, (3) the existing land use designation (eg. low-rise Neighbourhood).
August 16, 2025 at 5:03 PM
To figure out what's allowed, you need to know three things: (1) the map that outlines the MTSA around the station (usually drawn by the City; some amended by the province), (2) distance from the transit station, (3) the existing land use designation (eg. low-rise Neighbourhood).
Reposted
Meanwhile, the province seemed to have forgotten Toronto's MTSAs existed as they shuffled through Ministers. Now, at last, they are here. And with changes that largely seem to be improvements, although they are a bit complex.
August 16, 2025 at 5:03 PM
Meanwhile, the province seemed to have forgotten Toronto's MTSAs existed as they shuffled through Ministers. Now, at last, they are here. And with changes that largely seem to be improvements, although they are a bit complex.
Reposted
In fact, the City often exempted streets in MTSAs from other densification proposals that it was working on, under the assumption that these areas would be densified when MTSAs were approved (even though many of their plans did not increase density).
August 16, 2025 at 5:03 PM
In fact, the City often exempted streets in MTSAs from other densification proposals that it was working on, under the assumption that these areas would be densified when MTSAs were approved (even though many of their plans did not increase density).
Reposted
We were never fans of the City's original submissions, which generally didn't change land use designations or max density permissions and gerrymandered the usual suspects out of some maps. But the City couldn't really move forward without provincial approval.
Many of the City's plans were underwhelming. The provincial density targets were so low that many areas already met them. And, where that wasn't the case, the City requested exemptions. Maximum density and height allowances were not changed, even in low-rise areas that are losing population.
August 16, 2025 at 5:03 PM
We were never fans of the City's original submissions, which generally didn't change land use designations or max density permissions and gerrymandered the usual suspects out of some maps. But the City couldn't really move forward without provincial approval.
Reposted
Through months and months, we poasted. Dozens of memes. But the MTSA approvals did not arrive.
August 16, 2025 at 5:03 PM
Through months and months, we poasted. Dozens of memes. But the MTSA approvals did not arrive.
Reposted
Starting with the obvious, MTSAs have been in the work for 4+ years, so it's good that some of them are finally approved! Over in the old place, our members started a joke #MTSAwatch in July 2023, when the Bloor-Danforth MTSA submissions were a mere 18 months old.
August 16, 2025 at 5:03 PM
Starting with the obvious, MTSAs have been in the work for 4+ years, so it's good that some of them are finally approved! Over in the old place, our members started a joke #MTSAwatch in July 2023, when the Bloor-Danforth MTSA submissions were a mere 18 months old.
Reposted
Also, a very special shout-out to us and other housing advocates:
"(Even when housing advocates show up for in-person meetings, it’s become increasingly common for councillors, including some nominal progressives, to dismiss them as interlopers getting in the way of the 'authentic' residents""
"(Even when housing advocates show up for in-person meetings, it’s become increasingly common for councillors, including some nominal progressives, to dismiss them as interlopers getting in the way of the 'authentic' residents""
July 15, 2025 at 5:45 PM
Also, a very special shout-out to us and other housing advocates:
"(Even when housing advocates show up for in-person meetings, it’s become increasingly common for councillors, including some nominal progressives, to dismiss them as interlopers getting in the way of the 'authentic' residents""
"(Even when housing advocates show up for in-person meetings, it’s become increasingly common for councillors, including some nominal progressives, to dismiss them as interlopers getting in the way of the 'authentic' residents""
Reposted
It's also a negative cycle. We'll be told more support is needed in the suburbs at a time those councillors indicated they'll ignore us.
Anyway, look at the surveys, letters, in-person consultation attendees and deputations. Suburban ward housing advocates showed up; the mayor didn't show up for us.
Anyway, look at the surveys, letters, in-person consultation attendees and deputations. Suburban ward housing advocates showed up; the mayor didn't show up for us.
June 27, 2025 at 11:08 AM
It's also a negative cycle. We'll be told more support is needed in the suburbs at a time those councillors indicated they'll ignore us.
Anyway, look at the surveys, letters, in-person consultation attendees and deputations. Suburban ward housing advocates showed up; the mayor didn't show up for us.
Anyway, look at the surveys, letters, in-person consultation attendees and deputations. Suburban ward housing advocates showed up; the mayor didn't show up for us.
Reposted
Also hard to known which councillors were swing votes with the compromise motion. I'll continue to criticize Holyday, but can't know if my counicllor (Ward 15) would have supported the full vote. The mayor knows. Unless she's going to tell us which allies held it up, the mayor has to be accountable.
June 27, 2025 at 11:08 AM
Also hard to known which councillors were swing votes with the compromise motion. I'll continue to criticize Holyday, but can't know if my counicllor (Ward 15) would have supported the full vote. The mayor knows. Unless she's going to tell us which allies held it up, the mayor has to be accountable.