Full-Life Community

And the Need for Zoning as Adaptable as People

All urban policies promoting sustainable neighbourhoods should consider one thing: does the action promote an individual to stay in place throughout their entire life? From a land use perspective, lifecycle living comes from having flexibility that allows property to adapt through time. Permitting two to four dwelling housing in existing single-family zoning is a first step. This means allowing duplex, triplex, fourplex, cottage courts, auxiliary dwelling units and secondary suites in any number of combinations. These two to four dwelling housing options are commonly known as the ‘missing middle’ in housing choice. Missing middle housing had long been legal and built nearly everywhere before modern zoning began to create exclusive use zones mid-century, which perpetuates car-dependency and class division. Many inner ring, or streetcar suburbs, where these housing types were built before exclusionary zoning, are among the most desirable neighbourhoods in Toronto. Zoning should again focus on understanding and promoting appropriate outcomes such as massing, shadows, noise, pollution, and views; while utilizing the creativity, capital, and entrepreneurship of citizens within those characteristics. By re-legalizing varied housing options within neighbourhoods, diversity and walkability will have a chance to flourish. Families with young children, families with adult children, couples, singles, roommates, and the elderly can all find a suitable home in the same neighbourhood.

Form-based zoning codes are an important tool to allow this shift back towards missing middle housing to occur. The first step is creating a community vision. All urban planning for sustainable communities begins with engagement. Communication and developing an understanding of neighbourhood need through local knowledge is imperative. Once then desired experience of the community is known to planners, they can create form-based zoning that regulates building size, shape, and contributions to the public realm. In essence, zoning should prescribe the best characteristics of the community and the objectives of residents. This flips the zoning conversation on its head. Instead of zoning creating barriers for what is not allowed (setbacks, floor space index, and use restrictions), it should zone for what is encouraged (build-to lines, building footprints, diverse housing stock). These form-based guidelines can be zoned as-of-right for new developments and existing structures, thus permitting the right to subdivide existing housing unto multiple units.

By re-legalizing housing choice, there will be a concerted effort to allow two to four dwelling homes in established residential neighbourhoods where demand is highest. This form of development brings soft density into existing, desirable, amenity rich neighbourhoods without jeopardizing their residential character. These changes would permit inter-generational living as family dynamics change, and/or create new housing for people looking to live in established residential communities. People living in homes for the last decade or more have acquired large amounts of capital they can invest back in their property and have the opportunity to downsize in place while making a passive income as they age. People who currently choose to age in place can end up living alone in 3- or 4-bedroom houses, leading to an over-housing and population decline in many established residential neighbourhoods. For new homeowners, the massive investment made in a new property can be mitigated by the rental income potential of having multiple units on the lot. All of these scenarios promote small scale development that reduces the carbon consumption of the community, allows residents to reinvest in the community, increases the City’s tax base without infrastructure investment, and encourages stronger social fabric when compared to large scale urban/suburban development.