amh
Active Member
Yes, we hear you loud and clear, ProjectEnd. You have been heard and acknowledged.
Toronto 41-45 Spadina Road | 55.5m | 15s | ProWinko | a—A
- Thread starter GabrielHurl
- Start date
Yes, we hear you loud and clear, ProjectEnd. You have been heard and acknowledged.
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
sitruc
New Member
Don't be so hyperbolic. The Annex already has great density. There are lots of other transit nodes in Toronto with endless single family homes that could easily be redeveloped. Additional density shouldn't constantly come at the expense of our heritage, especially when there's literally a surface parking lot down the street from Spadina Gardens.
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
Much of the surface parking lots are slated for development near and around that transit hub intersection though. And for what that's worth.
RickyBobby
Active Member
That's City-owned for access to transit. There isn't "great density." There's some. And few stations are north-south interchanges. Three are, to be exact and thus one has less than them all.
amh
Active Member
Nope, sorry. You either want towers everywhere on every single lot or you are an anti-density elitist and you are simply wrong.
(Sarcasm in case anyone was wondering.)
At this point, YIMBY's are as reactionary and cringe as NIMBY's in this city.
(Sarcasm in case anyone was wondering.)
At this point, YIMBY's are as reactionary and cringe as NIMBY's in this city.
sitruc
New Member
Toronto population density maps (link and attached photo):
ArcGIS Web Application
www.arcgis.com
Developing a city owned surface parking lot next to transit that can table over the existing tunnels or developing a heritage property.... hmmm... tough choice....
Majority of houses in the Annex contain several apartments and lots of mid-rise apartment buildings throughout the area. This is a neighbourhood with wonderful 'missing middle' type housing. Let's not forget the numerous 30+ story towers either U/C or in the pipeline around Bloor and Spadina. Like I said, the Annex already has great density. Why pack people in like sardines in Hong Kong when there are tons of other logical places for development throughout Toronto.
Last edited by a moderator:
junctionist
Senior Member
A lot of people don't realize how dense a lot of low-rise neighbourhoods are in the pre-amalgamation City of Toronto. The streets are narrower, the front yards and backyards are smaller, the setbacks between buildings are small or non-existent, there's little surface parking, etc. Many single-family houses have been subdivided into apartments. Yet people look at them and think that the density must be as low as a recent subdivision in Vaughan.
AlexBozikovic
Active Member
While this is true to a point, density in Toronto is strongly correlated with apartment buildings. In the Annex, a handful of blocks with towers has the bulk of the density. And overall the neighbourhood is far less dense than Yonge-Bloor.
Density 2016:
The Annex also has fewer people than it did in 1971 and continues to shrink. The only growth is where there are apartments and where new apartments are getting built. Change in population 1971-2016:
Maps via censusmapper.
Last edited:
maestro
Senior Member
The broader issue is that Ontario has to justify transit investment with intense densities. Other countries manage frequent high order transit within Annex densities.
The strong neighbourhood connection should be at the forefront of the conversation and not that it hasn't grown in population since build out. I understand if you're a proponent of Toronto/GTA requiring to continue to add hundreds of thousands to millions of people through intensification of the urban area. Neighbourhood block busting plus tall tower nodes in key transit corridors is required. However, I think that is a small minority of us that look forward to that reinvented Toronto.
The strong neighbourhood connection should be at the forefront of the conversation and not that it hasn't grown in population since build out. I understand if you're a proponent of Toronto/GTA requiring to continue to add hundreds of thousands to millions of people through intensification of the urban area. Neighbourhood block busting plus tall tower nodes in key transit corridors is required. However, I think that is a small minority of us that look forward to that reinvented Toronto.
AlexBozikovic
Active Member
It’s not just that it “hasn’t grown” - it has shrunk dramatically and continues to shrink.
The annex is really two neighborhoods: an expanse of increasingly empty, expensive houses, and small pockets of apartments where the majority of the people live.
AlbertC
Superstar
I would say that the emptying expanse of expensive SFH's is a common trend for many adjacent neighbourhoods as you head in a westward direction. From the Annex to Seaton Village, Christie Pits, Dovercourt Village, Wallace Emerson, etc. As the children of these households continue to be pushed out due to the unaffordability to remain in these communities, these areas will become increasingly like "seniors" areas.
Some other areas like Davenport West, Dufferin Grove, Roncy/Sorauren, and the Junction have seen some revitalization or influx of new residents in the past decade or so. But even in those areas, they might only be treading water in terms of the population replacement rate, or still on the slightly underperforming side. That along with often these new residents are living in newer higher density developments instead of the traditional SFH housing stock anyways.
Some other areas like Davenport West, Dufferin Grove, Roncy/Sorauren, and the Junction have seen some revitalization or influx of new residents in the past decade or so. But even in those areas, they might only be treading water in terms of the population replacement rate, or still on the slightly underperforming side. That along with often these new residents are living in newer higher density developments instead of the traditional SFH housing stock anyways.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
The re-consolidation of the SFHs in the old city has been going on for awhile - the only way to counter that trend is to re-intensify. Economic viability of this project aside, what's proposed here isn't a bad way to add density without totally destroying the existing fabric - and is broadly in-line with some of the re-intensification projects from the 1970s (though admittedly aimed at a rather different demographic).
AoD
rdaner
Senior Member
This is all true however the zoning in these areas has recently changed so there should be some movement to more intense forms.
Northern Light
Superstar
Except for that fact that the above is not accurate.
If we review the census data for 'The Annex' in respect of population, we would find the following:
Source: City of Toronto Neighbourhood profiles: "The Annex"
2006: 27, 482
2011: 29, 177
2016: 30, 526
Alternatively, if you take a tighter area as Wikipedia does:
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Annex
You see a population higher than in 2006 and otherwise roughly treading water.
The population density, according to the above is 9,684 per km2, which is double the City average and double the average density of Berlin, Germany.
The idea that this is some empty place with giant tumbleweeds rolling down the streets is way too much, and the area is clearly not in a state of population collapse.
The houses will rollover as the old generation moves into LTCs and passes on ........and young families will take their place, as happens in every area.
Will it again arrive at peak-density within single family homes? Probably not, because the relative value of SFH here is greater in that form, that divided up into rooming houses.
Though some may yet see apartments in basements or on second floors to help pay for mortgages when ownership rolls over.
But I see no reason for panic or lament, that average household size is smaller or that rooming houses are less common.
I'm always fascinated to see people who have never lived in rooming houses and never would, lament them; it's a perfectly livable space they say, except, of course, for them or their family.