B
bizorky
Guest
The onus is on owners to have functioning brains.
Big tax hikes on abandoned properties. And no easy out by trying to get then knocked down.
|
|
|
The onus is on owners to have functioning brains.
Big tax hikes on abandoned properties. And no easy out by trying to get then knocked down.
D
dan e 1980
Guest
thanks shawn. but is there also a law the forbids construction of a structure next to the sidewalk? (out of downtown).
T
The Burgher of TO
Guest
there's a minimum setback required, which is measured from the centre of the street and varies depending on the classification of the road. arterials and more heavily trafficked streets require greater setbacks from the middle of the road.
the fire regulations i was thinking of didn't have anything to do with vehicular access or fire containment, it was because of the bylaw that requires occupants to have two independent means of egress. many walkups (especially older ones) have a central staircase, and then some form of exterior fire exit (if that). a rule like that makes it very difficult to economically build 5 and 6 storey midrise structures. it can be done, there just isn't as much incentive for builders to do it.
edit: i just remembered that there was an article about this in the star a couple years back. i pulled it out of the archives.
(Copyright (c) 2004 Toronto Star, All Rights Reserved. )
The problem in Toronto isn't building tall or small. It's building in between.
For years, planners have been trying to encourage the idea of intensifying the city's main streets with five- to six-storey buildings. Ground-floor units would be given to shops and restaurants, the upstairs apartments to residences and offices. It is a simple model, one that has worked brilliantly in Europe from London to Paris to Berlin.
Here, however, the concept has never taken off. Why? According to eminent Toronto architect Eb Zeidler, it has nothing to do with desire and everything to do with fire. Specifically, he argues, the trouble lies with the Ontario Building Code. It requires mid-rise structures to have two exits, one at either end of corridors that run the length of the building.
As Zeidler explains "This has led to a standard layout in apartment buildings; a central corridor with stairs at either end and apartments lined up on each side.... The solution is acceptable on a north-south street where every apartment has an east or west exposure. But if you want to put these buildings along east-west streets, only the south-facing apartments have sun exposure. The ones on the north side would get little sun and, therefore, don't attract buyers."
The European model preferred by Zeidler allows developers to use a single-stair approach. This eliminates the need for hallways and means every unit can enjoy north and south exposures.
By contrast, Toronto has created conditions that favour height while protecting the countless two- to three-storey buildings that proliferate along many of our most important thoroughfares, including Yonge, Queen, College and St. Clair Ave. W.
While these tiny boxes give neighbourhoods much of their appeal, they aren't especially attractive or, more important, efficient. Think of the Danforth, a vibrant, urban and hugely popular street with subway service and lots of amenities. How much better if it were defined by the low-rise buildings described by Zeidler?
Certainly, bringing more residents to the Danforth would also enable more people to take advantage of the Bloor subway, now woefully underused.
But building code details such as this are not framed with the larger picture in mind. Of course, safety is important. There's no evidence, however, that European apartments are any more dangerous because of the single-stair system. Indeed, Zeidler claims the European method is safer than ours.
Ironically, when the city launched its much-vaunted Main Streets program about a decade ago, hopes were high. The idea was to increase the population of the city without resorting to the multi- storey towers that neighbourhood groups despise.
The scheme was announced with much fanfare. No less a figure than Jane Jacobs was on hand to lend her approval to the scheme. That wasn't surprising. It's an idea that makes enormous sense.
After that came Toronto's new official plan. Adopted last year, it was explicitly devised to encourage growth on major arteries while keeping it out of single-family neighbourhoods.
So why has nothing happened?
"The two-stair plan entrenched in our building codes should be eliminated," Zeidler insists, "to give us the incentive to rebuild our main streets with residential/commercial buildings that are in scale with the streets...."
Others, while they agree with Zeidler, also point to the city's parking regulations as an obstacle to low-rise development. They force builders to provide parking spaces according to a formula based on the number of units. The demands tend to be so onerous that small-scale projects are often uneconomical.
Again, the rules were created in isolation of the larger whole. People might choose to live on a street such as the Danforth, for example, because they don't need a car or, therefore, parking.
As Zeidler makes clear, sometimes even the smallest details have major consequences. The fact they are unintended doesn't make them any less harmful.
Christopher Hume can be reached at chume @ thestar.ca.
[Illustration]
Toronto architect Eb Zeidler says the key to a new urban renewal may lie in changing the Ontario Building Code. Insisting on two stairways limits the kinds of buildings that will be constructed.
the fire regulations i was thinking of didn't have anything to do with vehicular access or fire containment, it was because of the bylaw that requires occupants to have two independent means of egress. many walkups (especially older ones) have a central staircase, and then some form of exterior fire exit (if that). a rule like that makes it very difficult to economically build 5 and 6 storey midrise structures. it can be done, there just isn't as much incentive for builders to do it.
edit: i just remembered that there was an article about this in the star a couple years back. i pulled it out of the archives.
-----------------------
Toronto Star. Toronto, Ont.: Jan 22, 2004. pg. B.02(Copyright (c) 2004 Toronto Star, All Rights Reserved. )
The problem in Toronto isn't building tall or small. It's building in between.
For years, planners have been trying to encourage the idea of intensifying the city's main streets with five- to six-storey buildings. Ground-floor units would be given to shops and restaurants, the upstairs apartments to residences and offices. It is a simple model, one that has worked brilliantly in Europe from London to Paris to Berlin.
Here, however, the concept has never taken off. Why? According to eminent Toronto architect Eb Zeidler, it has nothing to do with desire and everything to do with fire. Specifically, he argues, the trouble lies with the Ontario Building Code. It requires mid-rise structures to have two exits, one at either end of corridors that run the length of the building.
As Zeidler explains "This has led to a standard layout in apartment buildings; a central corridor with stairs at either end and apartments lined up on each side.... The solution is acceptable on a north-south street where every apartment has an east or west exposure. But if you want to put these buildings along east-west streets, only the south-facing apartments have sun exposure. The ones on the north side would get little sun and, therefore, don't attract buyers."
The European model preferred by Zeidler allows developers to use a single-stair approach. This eliminates the need for hallways and means every unit can enjoy north and south exposures.
By contrast, Toronto has created conditions that favour height while protecting the countless two- to three-storey buildings that proliferate along many of our most important thoroughfares, including Yonge, Queen, College and St. Clair Ave. W.
While these tiny boxes give neighbourhoods much of their appeal, they aren't especially attractive or, more important, efficient. Think of the Danforth, a vibrant, urban and hugely popular street with subway service and lots of amenities. How much better if it were defined by the low-rise buildings described by Zeidler?
Certainly, bringing more residents to the Danforth would also enable more people to take advantage of the Bloor subway, now woefully underused.
But building code details such as this are not framed with the larger picture in mind. Of course, safety is important. There's no evidence, however, that European apartments are any more dangerous because of the single-stair system. Indeed, Zeidler claims the European method is safer than ours.
Ironically, when the city launched its much-vaunted Main Streets program about a decade ago, hopes were high. The idea was to increase the population of the city without resorting to the multi- storey towers that neighbourhood groups despise.
The scheme was announced with much fanfare. No less a figure than Jane Jacobs was on hand to lend her approval to the scheme. That wasn't surprising. It's an idea that makes enormous sense.
After that came Toronto's new official plan. Adopted last year, it was explicitly devised to encourage growth on major arteries while keeping it out of single-family neighbourhoods.
So why has nothing happened?
"The two-stair plan entrenched in our building codes should be eliminated," Zeidler insists, "to give us the incentive to rebuild our main streets with residential/commercial buildings that are in scale with the streets...."
Others, while they agree with Zeidler, also point to the city's parking regulations as an obstacle to low-rise development. They force builders to provide parking spaces according to a formula based on the number of units. The demands tend to be so onerous that small-scale projects are often uneconomical.
Again, the rules were created in isolation of the larger whole. People might choose to live on a street such as the Danforth, for example, because they don't need a car or, therefore, parking.
As Zeidler makes clear, sometimes even the smallest details have major consequences. The fact they are unintended doesn't make them any less harmful.
Christopher Hume can be reached at chume @ thestar.ca.
[Illustration]
Toronto architect Eb Zeidler says the key to a new urban renewal may lie in changing the Ontario Building Code. Insisting on two stairways limits the kinds of buildings that will be constructed.
M
mark simpson
Guest
facade is unaffected
S
spmarshall
Guest
I went there during lunch - you can barely see that the roof collasped only on the side, which can be seen from Sherbourne. Pics will be up this evening.
D
dan e 1980
Guest
this is why all these new townhouse developments on weston road don't fit in nice. all the old structures on right on the sidewalk and then you have a break in the streetwall with the new townhomes. those 6ft or so square lawns are tacky and ugly. it forces someone to buy a lawnmower for no reason. it doesn't look nice at all. don't even get mew started on the pink bricks they use. >:
S
spmarshall
Guest
As promised, pics from today of the James Chalmers Building. It's fenced off now, as is the house threatened by the collaspe of its neighbour.
It was my first time venturing from the Glen Road entrance. It's an interesting area.
Glen Road:
Howard St:
Buildings at Howard and Sherbourne:
It was my first time venturing from the Glen Road entrance. It's an interesting area.
Glen Road:
Howard St:
Buildings at Howard and Sherbourne:
S
shawnmicallef
Guest
I exit the subway at Glen a lot as it 's the quickest way to walk to Cabbagetown -- cutting across St. Jamestown. I love that bit, where it T's Howard. The row of bricked up homes, then that perfect row of homes/stores on Howard, and then St. Jamestown rising behind it. Quintessential Toronto (though not the bricked up part).
D
Darkstar416
Guest
Also one of the most popular filming locations in the city as the scenery (including the dereliction on Glenn Rd) can easily stand-in for NYC.