Planned Sprawl in the GTA

[ProjectEnd]

So, for lack of a better spot, I want to drop something here.

I was saying in another thread today that there is simply no way the development industry can possibly meet current and growing demand in the near term.

Put simply, you could reduce development charges to zero, introduce as-of-right 50 storeys everywhere and nothing more would get built than is getting built today, due to labour shortages and material and equipment supply challenges.

So I wanted to be sure I wasn't talking completely out of school, so to speak.

So I messaged someone in the industry who is a major supplier of key equipment and personnel and asked that very question. If developers (clients) approached you tomorrow w/double the demand for equipment/people could you fulfill that in the near term?

This is the answer I got:

"As it stands we can barely find new apprentices. There are not enough to fill current demand. In the next ten years there will be a wave of retirements. It will devastate the workforce. Forget what you are talking about. We used to battle other companies with having different types of equipment.. It is turning into who has labour. Not uncommon for staff to be offered extras like free 407 transponders or even a free place to stay near the job site. To fix this problem will take 10 - 20 years. Sad. Considering it is not unheard of where first year apprentices make a lot of money"

* note in the above quote that the italics represent where I have modified specific statements to the general.

I did this after asking permission to quote said person; and they agreed provided I removed anything that would clearly identify them, or their business.

This is all true, but the piece I bolded is the most important. No developer, none, is going to build themselves into poverty. We'll sit on sites and approved projects because our mission isn't to "provide housing" (though YIMBY Twitter really seems to think it is), it's to make money. So it doesn't matter what we've got approved in the pipeline or what we could pull the trigger on tomorrow, nothing is going to get built unless it's accretive.

 

[christiesplits]

Modest proposal: How about placing a ban or moratorium on single-family detached houses in subdivisions?

 

[Northern Light]

Modest proposal: How about placing a ban or moratorium on single-family detached houses in subdivisions?

Sure; but worth saying, there is very little, of that going on in Toronto these days; with the exception of the odd lot that gets subdivided and one home becomes between 2-11 of them; you just don't see SFH subdivisions in the City proper.

You do see some in outlying areas (Seaton, in Pickering, Georgetown/Milton, and Caledon). So we could force density up a a bit there, and/or making a development site that far out non-performing, as the people who might go for townhomes or mid-rise wouldn't buy there. Still, I'd say sure, but as a region-wide initiative, that would have to come from the province.

I'm trying to think how you would do this; I suppose you could go as simple as a description of SFH as a form and prohibit new builds or subdivisions based on that model; or alternatively you could describe legal forms of communities and omit SFH as a permissible form. Though the easiest move would probably be bumping up minimum densities to a point where you simply couldn't achieve them with any significant amount of SFH in a plan.

 

[christiesplits]

Sure; but worth saying, there is very little, of that going on in Toronto these days; with the exception of the odd lot that gets subdivided and one home becomes between 2-11 of them; you just don't see SFH subdivisions in the City proper.

You do see some in outlying areas (Seaton, in Pickering, Georgetown/Milton, and Caledon). So we could force density up a a bit there, and/or making a development site that far out non-performing, as the people who might go for townhomes or mid-rise wouldn't buy there. Still, I'd say sure, but as a region-wide initiative, that would have to come from the province.

I'm trying to think how you would do this; I suppose you could go as simple as a description of SFH as a form and prohibit new builds or subdivisions based on that model; or alternatively you could describe legal forms of communities and omit SFH as a permissible form. Though the easiest move would probably be bumping up minimum densities to a point where you simply couldn't achieve them with any significant amount of SFH in a plan.

Thanks, Northern. Yes, I meant the outlying areas. I don't doubt it would involve significant (and lengthy) changes to zoning and planning law.

 

[innsertnamehere]

good luck with that, it's not really practical nor do I think really desirable.

 

[Northern Light]

good luck with that, it's not really practical nor do I think really desirable.

I take no inherent issue w/the SFH form.

Its also widely known here, that I'd be content to curtail the population growth in the GGH rather than merely fussing on how to fit it in.

That said, if we are stuck on the latter; we certainly need to avoid the worst of the sprawl forms.

I suggested going minimum density as a route and letting the developer and planners sort that out; would you object to that route?

I can think of ways to layout SFH a bit more tightly, providing one can site them in such a way as to reduce reliance on cars (served by frequent/semi-frequent transit, walkable/bikeable to a supermarket and schools etc.).

I think taking some space away from roads (reduced ROW) can do a great deal to boost density.

That said, the worst offenders in the Whitebelt, Greenbelt and beyond is the 'Country Estate' form where you see 9 lots with 90ft+ frontages go in on a cul-de-sac; that, in my opinion should be outlawed.

 

[innsertnamehere]

I take no inherent issue w/the SFH form.

Its also widely known here, that I'd be content to curtail the population growth in the GGH rather than merely fussing on how to fit it in.

That said, if we are stuck on the latter; we certainly need to avoid the worst of the sprawl forms.

I suggested going minimum density as a route and letting the developer and planners sort that out; would you object to that route?

I can think of ways to layout SFH a bit more tightly, providing one can site them in such a way as to reduce reliance on cars (served by frequent/semi-frequent transit, walkable/bikeable to a supermarket and schools etc.).

I think taking some space away from roads (reduced ROW) can do a great deal to boost density.

That said, the worst offenders in the Whitebelt, Greenbelt and beyond is the 'Country Estate' form where you see 9 lots with 90ft+ frontages go in on a cul-de-sac; that, in my opinion should be outlawed.

That's pretty much how it already works - the Growth Plan has minimum density requirements for greenfield areas. IIRC the minimum is 50 people and jobs per hectare.

The Liberals had increased this to 80 people and jobs per hectare in 2017, which was considered at the time to largely eliminate the ability to construct new single-detached dwellings. The PCs dropped it back to the original Growth Plan level of 50 again in 2019, and have kept it at that.

A lot of municipalities have maintained the 80 minimum in their official plans however, so I would say that the majority of new suburban developments are planning at that density now.

Estate subdivisions have already effectively been outlawed, there are very few of them being built today in the GGH. Palgrave area is the only place I'm aware of that still really has policy encouraging them. A lot that are getting built still are based on old entitlements from many years ago.

Modern GTA suburban areas are actually quite dense. It's rare to see lots with more than 40ft of frontage, and often subdivisions are full of townhouse and semi-detached blocks. Modern GTA greenfield areas are looking at less than 25% of new units being SFH.

 

[goreckm]

Modest proposal: How about placing a ban or moratorium on single-family detached houses in subdivisions?

I have a more fun secret dream if I am ever declared King of Toronto. Choose one block of semis/SFH somewhere random in the city every month and raze it to the ground completely, then approve new mid-rise development for the area with large floor plans, and give the displaced families a unit there for their sacrifice.

Anyways, it has a similar chance of happening, but, why not go for the gold if you're king.

 

[Northern Light]

I have a more fun secret dream if I am ever declared King of Toronto. Choose one block of semis/SFH somewhere random in the city every month and raze it to the ground completely, then approve new mid-rise development for the area with large floor plans, and give the displaced families a unit there for their sacrifice.

Anyways, it has a similar chance of happening, but, why not go for the gold if you're king.

I have a similar'ish notion, which is that complete Toronto's road grid of minor arterials in the suburbs at 1km spacing (many are currently 2km) would serve to create a denser grid of transit routes, cycling options, and 'high street' (shopping) opportunities. When buying up the requisite land, but enough to allow midrise throughout the interior areas between major intersections and then hirise at major intersections.

Its a hideously expensive idea, but I would argue the utility and net gain is pretty high too; and worth looking at, at least selectively, if not universally througout the City.

 

[Islington Express Bus]

Estate subdivisions

What is an estate subdivision?

 

[innsertnamehere]

large ruralish type lots for large residential homes. Typically around an acre a lot, often with over 100ft of frontage for each property.

Something like this:

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.ca

 

[Islington Express Bus]

Oh man, I hate those so much. There's a bunch in east Brampton. Good to hear they're effectively banned.

 

[Sunnyside]

I have a similar'ish notion, which is that complete Toronto's road grid of minor arterials in the suburbs at 1km spacing (many are currently 2km) would serve to create a denser grid of transit routes, cycling options, and 'high street' (shopping) opportunities. When buying up the requisite land, but enough to allow midrise throughout the interior areas between major intersections and then hirise at major intersections.

Its a hideously expensive idea, but I would argue the utility and net gain is pretty high too; and worth looking at, at least selectively, if not universally througout the City.

Isn’t the only place where the concessions aren’t 1km apart North York? Scarborough and Etobicoke appear to have a tighter grid like you suggest already.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Isn’t the only place where the concessions aren’t 1km apart North York? Scarborough and Etobicoke appear to have a tighter grid like you suggest already.

They could "create" new arterial roads using roadway jogs, Dundas Street is such an arterial road, made up of several streets using jogs.

See

The many streets of Dundas​

at this link.

TTC work crews laying new tracks on Dundas Street Diversion east of Yonge Street in 1923, linking former Agnes and Wilton Streets, and in the process, creating the triangular parcel that later became Dundas Square. Image: Toronto Archives Fonds 16, Series 71, Item 2190.

See also https://www.blogto.com/city/2012/09/a_brief_history_of_what_is_now_known_as_dundas_street/

 

[innsertnamehere]

Isn’t the only place where the concessions aren’t 1km apart North York? Scarborough and Etobicoke appear to have a tighter grid like you suggest already.

Scarborough has around 800 metre wide concession blocks for the east-west direction, but the north-south direction remains at 2km.

Scarborough north of the 401 has several east-west arterials which break up the 2km gaps though, with Huntingwood and McNicoll.

Most of the GTA operates on a much larger concession grid than Scarborough, with varying levels of attempts to introduce new arterial roads within them. York Region is probably the worst offender with almost no new arterials to break it up and a concession grid which is in itself pretty disconnected with a lot of gaps.

One of the best things a city can do is shrink it's arterial grid size in my opinion. It just makes it a more pleasant city for everyone. Less traffic, better for transit, density, and walking, etc. I find the severity of traffic in any given part of the GTA corresponds fairly closely to how large the arterial road grid is.

2kmx2km:
- All of York Region
- Toronto
- North York
- southeast Mississauga
- Burlington
- Oakville
- Northern Durham Region

3km x 1.25km
- Brampton
- Rest of Mississauga
- Halton Hills
- Caledon

1.5km x 1.5km
- Milton

2km x 1km
- Etobicoke

2km x 800m
- Scarborough
- Pickering
- Ajax
- Whitby
- Oshawa

and the winner for smallest concession grid:

1km x 800m
- Hamilton

Hamilton Mountain, despite being just as suburban as any other part of the GTA, notably has no real 6-lane roads and indeed many of the concession arterials operate perfectly fine as 2-lane roads with bike lanes, and minimal real traffic issues. Even the 4-lane roads are usually built to much lower design speeds and designed to have much lower volumes than other GTA municipalities as each arterial simply needs to handle far less traffic.

Hamilton also sees very high suburban transit ridership and has a dense bus grid providing frequent service.

It's a similar storey for north-south arterials in Scarborough, which have a dense bus grid, lower design standards for lower vehicle volumes, basically no traffic, and some of them have never needed to be widened to 4 lanes.

Now compared to the mega-beast roads in Mississauga and York Region which have to shove tons of traffic onto a very small grid of arterial roads... HIghway 7 through downtown Vaughan is a total traffic sewer as it's the only east-west arterial for 6 kilometres between Steeles and Rutherford! That same distance in Hamilton would have 6 different arterial roads to disperse the traffic!