I’m somewhat appalled, yet not surprised, when urban planners and zoning offices approve a 6,000 sq ft house , then back pedal halfway through construction saying things like , we did forsee it looking like that .
You literally had a copy of the blue prints , site drawings and possibly an architectural rendering and spent 4 yrs at university studying exactly this .
If someone bought into our neighbourhood, demolished a modest house and built a monster they would have over $3 million invested and it wouldn't sell anywhere near that. People that buy $3 M houses want to associate with other $3 M people. In 15-20 years it may work out but there will be years of lost ROI.
There are exceptions where someone is determined to live in a mega house at modest price. They go rural and the million they save on the lot goes into the house. Then they b**** about farm smells.
That said, a neighbour did a major renovtion that doesn't suit the existing mid century look of the hood. IMO a poor investment value but if someone wants attention it works.
The neighbor behind me had to put in a retaining wall when the new buyer next door announced he was resloping his side yard. I also share a tall hedge with the neighbour behind us and it gives me privacy because his bungalow is almost unseen. If he tops to a two storey I lose the privacy.
Since I have a side split he does see my upper level and those two windows can see his deck. The rooms are rarely used but if someone was afraid of a peeping Tom there could be a concern.
Toronto has no more land and have bluntly said growth will be up. Brampton has more time and land to work with but at some point in the future they will face the same problem. Some of the mega places will become multi family.
Apparently our self important neighbourhood has a lot more basement apartments than we suspect.
The long term problem is schools and infrastructure.
If I won mega millions I would buy a golf course, shut it down and it becomes my private reserve. I would need millions for upkeep. It isn't happening.
A half a mile from me there is a flurry of applications for new high rises where existing rental apartments have under utilized lots. The streets are already crowded with overnight parked vehicles. The number of mandatory visitor parking spaces is pathetic so the situation will get worse. Long term planning for a politician seems to be three or four years.
One of the problems in the general lack of housing is simply not allowing to build bigger multiple family dwellings.
I’m all for keeping my street the way it is, but until we / municipality start allowing low level medium density housings to be built we will not see any good changes in affordability or availability.
I figure my lot could house a low level 3 story condo. But the neighbours would never allow it.
Frankly I’d be against my neighbour doing the same thing. And that’s a major part of the problem.
As for the giga house here…insanity but if it’s allowed and within the rules…too bad for the neighbours.
I think it's fair to have and follow zoning rules. Where I live the lots are big and the houses small by today's new build standards. Builders buy a 1200 sq bungalow, tear it down and replace it with a 4000sq modern home. The new places do stick out until a bunch pop up on the same street.
As for allowing densities to triple by allowing condos... that's a challenge foe schools, infrastructure and I'm not sure it's fair to allow a neighborhood to evolve into a hodgepodge of housing types.
I'm not usually NIMBY unless the change is merely motivated by profit. If I were your neighbour, I'd make it tough for you to put up a 3 story condo.
As for multigenerational homes, I'm all for that but I think some planning should go into it. Just south of me there is an area I with large single family homes that are repurposed into multigenerational homes. Garages are used for storage and living space so the front yards get paved for parking. Common to see 6 cars in driveways, side and rear yards used for outdoor storage.
Not covid related just more nimby crap. Someone built a max building envelope house in richmond hill and the neighbours freaked out. They want zoning changed to allow them to comment on proposals before they are approved even if they comply with zoning. Holy fack would that ever be a disaster.
Now, the house is big but if the city wanted to address that, it should have been through zoning that didnt allow an 11m tall flat roof house.
Measuring 11-metres high and 19-metres deep, the single-family detached home being built on Lund St. can be spotted from a mile away towering over the regular-sized houses along the quiet
I’m somewhat appalled, yet not surprised, when urban planners and zoning offices approve a 6,000 sq ft house , then back pedal halfway through construction saying things like , we did forsee it looking like that .
You literally had a copy of the blue prints , site drawings and possibly an architectural rendering and spent 4 yrs at university studying exactly this .
Happened a few doors down from me. A retirement home was removed and replaced, renderings circulated to its neighbours were 'artist conceptions' and not to scale. 6m max average roof height per zoning was loosely interpreted to mean 8m, flat roof over the main bldg, averaged with several 3m entrance vestibules. Rooftop mechanicals don't count, nor does the 3m rooftop sound fence around them).
North side neighbors listen to trucks that must back into a service lane all day (beep... bleep) using, hear the industrial hvac buzz. Great view from now shady back yards.
Inlaws are conflicted. They have a big pie lot in scarberia. Their neighbour has a really big lot (backyard has pool, basketball court and grass) and backs onto a park. Put them together and you should be able to put quite a few townhouses in. MIL doesn't want to even consider that her beautiful side split may be a tear down. Fil was an accountant and is much more pragmatic about the situation (although still spends tens of thousands on renovations that likely have zero return).
I’ve always managed to avoid any NIMBY nonsense , I don’t buy in tear down neighborhoods unless I’m buying the fresh build , and I would never buy next to a vacant lot , because you never know .
Our only crap call was a cottage on 12 acres and nobody around us , but when the new builds came they were close to the property lines for best lake access and directly across the channel. It wasn’t bad , but it was never the same .
I’ve always managed to avoid any NIMBY nonsense , I don’t buy in tear down neighborhoods unless I’m buying the fresh build , and I would never buy next to a vacant lot , because you never know .
Our only crap call was a cottage on 12 acres and nobody around us , but when the new builds came they were close to the property lines for best lake access and directly across the channel. It wasn’t bad , but it was never the same .
Happened a few doors down from me. A retirement home was removed and replaced, renderings circulated to its neighbours were 'artist conceptions' and not to scale. 6m max average roof height per zoning was loosely interpreted to mean 8m, flat roof over the main bldg, averaged with several 3m entrance vestibules. Rooftop mechanicals don't count, nor does the 3m rooftop sound fence around them).
North side neighbors listen to trucks that must back into a service lane all day (beep... bleep) using, hear the industrial hvac buzz. Great view from now shady back yards.
Underground parking usually means a garage door and trench drain. At 3:00 AM the grinding of the door is followed by the clank clank of the poorly fitting trench drain grill. In the summer it's the roaring diesel garbage pick up a couple times a week, followed by three days of stench.
I’m somewhat appalled, yet not surprised, when urban planners and zoning offices approve a 6,000 sq ft house , then back pedal halfway through construction saying things like , we did forsee it looking like that .
You literally had a copy of the blue prints , site drawings and possibly an architectural rendering and spent 4 yrs at university studying exactly this .
Written by a Toronto Co-op occupant. 65 yo woman paying $1160/month all in for 2 bed. Her mom has a unit down the hall. Co-op is built on leased land (doesn't say from who). Capital projects coming up (kitchens, bathroom, heat pumps). Co-op has some money set aside but doesn't say if it's enough. Worried about rising rent to pay for everything. I don't know what to say. Your family has at least three bedrooms and two separate apartments with limited income in Toronto. Sounds like she has been lucky so far, but why would it be anyone elses problem to sustain that? While not ideal, the obvious first step is mom moves in and you could absorb almost a doubling of rent with minimal financial consequence. Mom is 90, this isn't going to be a decades long living arrangement but it buys some time.
Ha, taxes. Like hell they were declaring 42 beds as income. I suspect on paper the house was rented for something like $3000 a month to cover expenses and the rest of the rent was cash.
EDIT:
On a related note, this seems like low hanging fruit for the CRA. If 42 people are declaring a sfh as their principal residence on their tax return, an in depth chat with the owners and/or tenant on lease seems entirely justified.
It may not be as simple as a slum lord. I've seen similar arrangements in Whistler, a town with even higher numbers of transient workers looking to ski/bike and party for a year or so, and then move on. It's often an absentee landlord with three or four people on the lease. Those three or four then bring in the additional dozens (!) to lower their own rent and potentially turn a profit with all the comings and goings. Pay ~$3000/month to the landlord, charge ~$200/mo to 38 other kids, pocket $4600/mo.
And of the 42, I'd be willing to bet a solid majority are Aussies on a student work visa...
It may not be as simple as a slum lord. I've seen similar arrangements in Whistler, a town with even higher numbers of transient workers looking to ski/bike and party for a year or so, and then move on. It's often an absentee landlord with three or four people on the lease. Those three or four then bring in the additional dozens (!) to lower their own rent and potentially turn a profit with all the comings and goings. Pay ~$3000/month to the landlord, charge ~$200/mo to 38 other kids, pocket $4600/mo.
And of the 42, I'd be willing to bet a solid majority are Aussies on a student work visa...
It can also be a business owner. They know their staff need a place to live so you include board and pay less (or pay the same and subtract board). Shady if they took it this far but in boom towns it's a way to ensure you have the staff you need. I know of a resort operator in Ontario that will only hire staff if they stay on site. That's a way for them to reduce expenses (board at a resort is expensive) and extract many unpaid hours (you can't leave and you are within earshot, what else are you supposed to do with your time). Sketchy as but they have gotten away with it for decades.
Hardest part of any resort town is where do you house the help?
Too crappy they won’t stay, too spendy they can’t stay.
Even with 19 beds , line up for the shittery would be miserable.
I’m somewhat appalled, yet not surprised, when urban planners and zoning offices approve a 6,000 sq ft house , then back pedal halfway through construction saying things like , we did forsee it looking like that .
You literally had a copy of the blue prints , site drawings and possibly an architectural rendering and spent 4 yrs at university studying exactly this .
There's a hotel on Carlingview that went through the problem. Now a Best Western it was Novatel or similar. After it was built and occupied someone discovered it was too high considering the airport glide angles. They had to remove a story or two plus a half story to meet the airport code.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
:format(webp)/https://www.thestar.com/content/dam/localcommunities/richmond_hill_liberal/news/2022/08/04/such-an-eyesore-richmond-hill-resident-raises-concerns-about-monster-home-under-construction-in-don-head-village/10682459_RHmonsterhouse.JPG)
:format(webp)/https://www.thestar.com/content/dam/localcommunities/richmond_hill_liberal/news/2022/08/04/such-an-eyesore-richmond-hill-resident-raises-concerns-about-monster-home-under-construction-in-don-head-village/10682050_RHMonsterHomeLundStreet072622ss1.JPG)
