City
Backyard Studios and Unanswered Questions
It's been a busy couple of weeks at city hall. But I took particular notice of a recent move by Councillor Adam Vaughan, calling on the city to introduce or reconsider its stance on backyard studios. As part of his move, he invited Hy Rosenberg from BlueSky MOD (a company that manufactures them) to give a presentation on the topic.
Bluesky offers an ecological approach to the backyard studio debate. The company's current model is powered by "off-the-grid" and other eco-friendly technologies, such as solar panels and composting toilets. It's also manufactured from predominantly local and recycled materials. The pre-fabricated structure was originally designed for rural environments, but recently the company has been attracting attention from city enthusiasts - like Councillor Vaughan.
While I think the idea of allowing residents to construct backyard studios has some merit, there are quite of few problems that need to be addressed. First, what I like most about the idea of backyard studios is their ability to increase population density, without having to depend solely on massive condo developments. But, Councillor Vaughan is adamantly opposed to this, specifying that the studios should not be used as granny suites or rental units.
There's also a whole host of other issues that need to be dealt with. Should the city force them to be connected to the grid in case they do lose power? How should they be taxed? Can the studio and the main property be owned by multiple parties? Can they be multiple levels?
It's these problems that Councilor Vaughan passes over. He recently admitted that the plan is "fraught with difficulties", and went on to say "I'm not trying to create separate environments in that regard, but I don't think we should be outlawing all options without exploring them."
Like I said earlier, I support the idea, it's a great way for the city to increase its revenue base without having to vastly alter the downturn (specifically the more neighbourhood-oriented areas) landscape. I wish that Councillor Vaughan would have dealt with some of these problems before taking the proposition to the city's Planning and Growth Management Committee.
Photo: Blueskymod.com
Discussion
28 Comments
Sort By Oldest First / Newest First
Subscribe
Either we are going to in-fill alleys with living spaces, on or off grid, or we aren't. Toronto should, because street level homes lower crime rates with more 'eyes on the street' in a way that a condo tower cannot. Since you can end up with the same number of people on the grid in either configuration, it makes objective sense to get people on the street to improve street life: basic Jane Jacobs.
Now 'should' has little to do with 'will' in this sad city. You won't get in-fill easily, because adjacent property owners will go ape-shit, mostly through misunderstanding of what might happen to their property values, besides wanting to keep their neighbourhood class-pure. Condo-towers can happen because it's one rich developer, who has contributed to Toronto political campaigns, and can hire the lawyers he needs. Someone doing small scale in-fill doesn't have a fraction of that muscle.
We get the city the small minded property owner deserves...
We can't have jackasses building studio apartments willy nilly all over the place.
The great thing I find about said cities, are their nooks and crannies and the creative and unique ways of utilizing space. Parking spaces turned into restaurants; Alleyways turned into bistro's; garages built upon another garage for a studio. It's truly what makes those cities interesting.
Now imagine that in Toronto? Not in a million fucking years.
The size of wIndows facing the property line is determined by the proximity to the property line (fire code).
i.e. the closer you are to it, the smaller the window has to be. Glass block (yecchhh) is one way to have more "window" closer to the property line facing the neighbour's land.
And if you want to build higher than 14 feet, then the sturcture becomes an "ancillary building" which opens a whole other bullshit committee of adjustment can of worms...
Epecially the ridiucluos comments about something not fitting in the aesthetics of a neighbourhood - i.e. it's not Victorian so we don't want it, even though the neighbourhood is a mish mash of a hundred different architectural eras.
http://www.adamvaughan.ca/
Has anyone thought about the cost? or just about the look and the neighborhood.
Of course he lives in cottage country, along the shore of Lake Erie in the Niagara Area. His cottage is on the edge of another property and he rents from the primary property owner. There are different zoning restrictions out there, lot of the properties remain off of the grid and are not apart of the municipal water and sewage system.
Perhaps the building codes/zoning legislation in areas such as these should be considered as a case study?
Let's toss out the old way of facing adversity in Toronto. Instead of carping about why it WON'T happen, why don't we come together and find a way to MAKE IT happen? It's inevitable that Toronto will one day be forced to intensify, right? So for those of us who are passionate about repurposing under-utilized spaces, let's band together to force the issue sooner than later.
Otherwise, all this whining and complaining is just so much pissing into the wind.
Otherwise, who knows where downtown Toronto would find itself today?
Toronto would find itself exactly where it is. Artscape etc, re-uses existing buildings in the city withing the zones and bylaws and governement grants. It's graet for Artscape and artists in the city but where do the rest of us find ourseleves from it? No where better no where worse? Should we?
Couldn't agree with you more. This city is suffering from a lack of creativity and innovation in every venture.
What makes it worse, this exact concept is what is being taught in planning schools (I'm a recent grad). Unfortunately, the city doesn't see fit to hire any recent grads that may have new ideas and visions of the city. Rather, Miller and his fun-brigade seem to prefer not making the city departments justify their budgets through actually PERFORMING.
If these structures don't fit with the current by-laws, or city plan, or whatever, have planners and designers work together to make a building design that will fit with specifically written bylaws for this kind of intesification. (Personaly I think limiting them to one story but allowing them to be hooked up to the sanitary system would be fair).
The problem with a lot of infill, and the reason that the city has devised so many levels of restictive BS, is that owners are always trying to get away with sneaky variances and then the site gets over-built and becomes an eyesore.
Similarily, there should be nothing wrong with converting existing coach houses into liveable buildings as has been done all over the city. But how many are legal? Unfortunately, not many. We should be embracing this concept and making it easier for people to build these kinds of structures.
We can't grow as a city if we can't adapt our planing policies to new requirements. Simply rubber stamping neighhood killing, block busting condos is not a good way to make a liveable city.
Want to try refinishing some furniture? How about a place to work on your bike? Oh look, my friend the artist or artisan is in, maybe I'll knock on the door and buy something.
"The basic package costs $127,000 CAD (this does not include land, foundations, electricity, plumbing or furniture)." so I uped it to $200,000 for my post either way.
If it was $50,000.00 to $60,000.00 i could see that
I'd rather just cull a shipping container, build a Rube Goldberg type of power station and call it a day.
Prefab won't work in the alleys because you need to get a crane in there to lift it into position.
Spending 200 grand on a box in your backyard is retarded.
Well... any structure 120 sq. ft. or less doesn't need a permit or any red-tape loving liberals say so. And the bitchy neighbors can go screw themselves!
10 x 12 = all good.
Not true at all. Please read the building code before making such a statement.
108 sq. ft. is what you can build w/o a permit. Also, said structure must not be something other than a storage shed or a structure of that spirit. You cannot 'live' in this structure.