News   Jul 22, 2024
Hazelview and Fitzrovia Break Ground on Affordable Housing at Bloor & Dufferin
 71     0 
News   Jul 22, 2024
News Roundup for July 22, 2024
 332     0 
News   Jul 22, 2024
Colour and Texture
 393     0 

Post: How high can high-rise count go, ask neighbours

A

AlvinofDiaspar

Guest
From the Post:

How high can high-rise count go, ask neighbours
Yonge-Eglinton

By James Cowan

Residents in the Yonge-Eglinton area, earmarked for development in Ontario's new growth plan, are wondering how many more high-rise condominiums their community can handle.

The province last week unveiled its plan to contain sprawl in the Golden Horseshoe, including designating 25 hot spots where residential and business development will be focused. Included on this list of "urban growth" hubs is Yonge-Eglinton centre, a community with an uneasy relationiship with intensification.

Residents rallied unsuccessfully five years ago to block Minto's plan to build a 51 storey condominium. With the tower under construction and other projects on the way, some locals are worried their community will not be able to accomodate the intensification proposed in the province's plan.

"You really start to wonder how much more you can put into that general area," said George Millbrandt, co-chairman of the Federation of North Toronto Residents Association. "You can keep on packing things in, but then other things start sufferning, be it hard or soft services."

Karen Stintz, the local councillor, argued residents are entitled to be wary of the province's 25 year plan.

"The residents of Toronto who have been living with intensification are not seeing the benefits," she said. "They are not seeing improvements to their public transit, they are seeing increased congestion, they are seeing increased community times for jobs."

Toronto has already designated Yonge and Eglinton as an rea for increased development under its official plan. While planners argue the neighbourhood's proximity to subway makes it an ideal choice for intensification, Mr, Millbrandt said other factors must be taken into consideration as well.

"It's good to try to get people to live and to work in areas with access to public transporation, but our concern is the overall infrastructure," he said. "Things just have a finite capacity, whether its roads or sewers or water or sewage, it's easy to get to the position of overloading those facilities."

A spokesman for David Caplan, Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal, did not return calls yesterday. The government is investing $7.5 billion in infrastructure across the Golden Horseshoe, including $4.1 billion towards public transit.

Locations in North York, Etobicoke, Scarborough and the city's downtown have also been identified as urban growth centres. Ms. Stintz said the province's plan wil only encourage more controversial projects like the Minto development. She noted there are already signs that developers are buying up land occupied by single family homes for the construction of towers.
_________________________________________________

"It's good to try to get people to live and to work in areas with access to public transporation, but our concern is the overall infrastructure," he said. "Things just have a finite capacity, whether its roads or sewers or water or sewage, it's easy to get to the position of overloading those facilities."
Click to expand...

Indeed, so I suppose it would pleases him to no end when transit gets priority treatment on local arterial roads; new sewer lines be built; schools and libraries get expanded such that intensification en masse can occur? Or are we playing the "let's keep infrastructure at a level that barely suffices for existing land uses so no further change is possible" game of veiled NIMBYism?

She noted there are already signs that developers are buying up land occupied by single family homes for the construction of towers.
Click to expand...

I can't wait!

AoD
 
No development is acceptable in this area according to the residents. Newcomers haven't earned a place in this suburban paradise.
 
IMO, development should rarely if ever exceed the maximum allowed height and size for condos or other buildings. IIRC, many condos built in the city are in complete violation of unenforced height restrictions.
 
Abeja:

IMO, development should rarely if ever exceed the maximum allowed height and size for condos or other buildings. IIRC, many condos built in the city are in complete violation of unenforced height restrictions.
Click to expand...

So are practically all developments currently in the city, if you go by zoning by-laws from a certain period of time The issue here (and elsewhere) is whether the by-laws, often drafted years ago, makes sense or not as they stand now. Given the focus on Y+E as a "centre", I'd argue they clearly don't!

BTW, height in many cases is a far less important issue in a planning perspective than the density (both min/max), massing of the building and the way it fits into the general urban context.

AoD
 
I don't like the NIMBY attitude, but any intensification must come with added capacity for transit, schools and other services.
 
So are practically all developments currently in the city, if you go by zoning by-laws from a certain period of time The issue here (and elsewhere) is whether the by-laws, often drafted years ago, makes sense or not as they stand now. Given the focus on Y+E as a "centre", I'd argue they clearly don't!
Click to expand...
Perhaps you're right for the modern concrete and steel metropolis. I was thinking of some of my favourite classic cities, such as Paris, Rome, London, Zagreb and Prague where there are strictly enforced height restrictions (and design requirements). I can't imagine Paris with Y&E style development surrounding the Effiel Tower.
 
Y&E ain't Paris. It's an existing high rise node. I think the key to preserving low rise areas is just that - limiting heights in areas that aren't already filled with high rises. Remember the ROM condo?
 
Perhaps you're right for the modern concrete and steel metropolis. I was thinking of some of my favourite classic cities, such as Paris, Rome, London, Zagreb and Prague where there are strictly enforced height restrictions (and design requirements). I can't imagine Paris with Y&E style development surrounding the Effiel Tower.
Click to expand...

Part of the reason why these European cities are so dense and urban is because they do not have many single-family detached houses that Toronto has throughout downtown and the suburbs. Looking at these cities to justify a height limit is fallacious, because Toronto cannot reach comparable densities by building solely low- and mid- rise buildings unless it bulldozes these neighborhoods - many of which are well-established and tightly-knit, and built in "historical" architecture (at least in Toronto terms). These cities also do not have as strict greenspace, parking, and setback restrictions as Toronto. The only way to reach comparable densities to European cities is to build high where there is least opposition - along avenues and at city nodes.
 
Yes, Toronto definitely made a mistake when it decided not to be 700 years old.
 
Yeah, visit Paris sometime and see how afraid they are of tall buildings... :rolleyes

parisladefensedsc045251280x960.jpg
 
In fairness to Abeja de Almirante, there are very few tall buildings in Paris proper. Most of the tall buildings are in the "suburbs" of Paris like La Defense. Of course, Paris is very small and the suburbs are well served by public transit.
 
In fairness to Abeja de Almirante, there are very few tall buildings in Paris proper. Most of the tall buildings are in the "suburbs" of Paris like La Defense.
Click to expand...

That would further discredit Abeja, actually, since Yonge and Eglinton IS a suburb.

Oh, and news on the Bloor West Village front. A 10 storey building has been approved for the former theatre at Bloor-Jane. It replaces a 10-storey BILLBOARD. Regardless, the NIMBYs were up in arms over it. Bloor-Jane is already an ugly corner in need of whatever help it can get.
 
The Y+E people amuse me. These are the very people famous for being able to discuss little more than the increase in the value of their houses. Yet they seem ignorant of the reason for that increase.

One suspects they will oppose development much less when developers start offering large cheques for their homes.
 
There appears to be a slight misconception that european cities don't have suburbs with single detached homes. Many of them including Paris do have extensive suburbs, although unlike NA there was not a postwar building boom of suburbs in the 50s and 60s, which helped Europe to escape that type of development, however since the 1970s there has been extensive suburban development that isn't too far off from the North American experience - Europe just 'missed out' on a couple of decades worth of suburbanization due to the impacts of WWII and no baby boom like Canada, U.S, N.Z. and Australia.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top