Toronto Chelsea Green (was 33 Gerrard) | 297.25m | 90s | Great Eagle | a—A

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The older inner residential areas of Toronto give the city some of its loveliest neighborhoods. They also give the city a character which is not the same as Paris or Barcelona but which is distinctive and valuable in many senses of the word. There is lots of room for increased density without demolishing those areas. Rebuild Eglinton East before ruining Rosedale, for example.

Not that Rosedale will let you ruin it, as a function of the political power of its residents. Clearly not advocating a slash and burn approach, but I suspect with the way the property prices are going, it will only be a matter of time before all the low scale neighbourhoods in the core/shoulder are for practical purposes untouchable.

And I am not sure if it is fair to demand one redevelop Eglinton before _____ (insert neighbourhood) or demand that density should only be added to a certain area of the core (the this is not downtown refrain) just as a way to ensure stability in these neighbourhoods.

AoD

 

[Edward Skira]

Up until the 1970's all sorts of single family areas were torn down and replaced with higher density developments. Our downtown would be a fraction of its size if that hadn't happened. The Yorkville that we know today would not exist if today's zoning rules had existed in the 1960's. Even Rosedale wasn't spared as there are all sorts of low rise apartments scattered around the area. Try that today.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Up until the 1970's all sorts of single family areas were torn down and replaced with higher density developments. Our downtown would be a fraction of its size if that hadn't happened. The Yorkville that we know today would not exist if today's zoning rules had existed in the 1960's. Even Rosedale wasn't spared as there are all sorts of low rise apartments scattered around the area. Try that today.

Indeed - there are pluses and minuses to both - we did preserve some worthwhile neighbourhoods (and to be fair, if the full pressure was brought to bear on Yorkville it wouldn't exactly be what it is either) but I feel that the pendulum might have swung too far the other way around - and left us wondering why we have so much difficulty in adding density in such limited forms.

AoD

 

[Tewder]

at a certain basic level, all single family housing is anti-urban - even old Victorians.....

No. You are applying a straight jacket to the concept of urban. Small towns, villages and yes low-rise, inner-city neighbourhoods can all be urban. It's not just about high rise density, if it were City Place would be some sort of urban ideal... it isn't.

I agree we probably should preserve some Victorian houses of the best quality in some areas, but in reality, there are simply too many of them in Toronto occupying too much valuable land very close to downtown.

A lot of UTers are quick to point to places like Paris and Barcelona as examples of exceptional urbanity... but let me ask you, how many single-family homes exist in the cores of cities like that? Answer - almost none... the truth is, it's the density from multi-family dwellings that is one of the underpinnings that has helped to create the urban experience that we all love in European cities (among many other factors)..

It seems to me that some here want to destroy the very fundamental things that make Toronto unique, that make Toronto's built form and version of 'urban' unique among other large cities, wherever they are in the world.

We used to take pride in Toronto as a 'city of villages'. We used to laud the quality of urban life that people could live here across the many inner-neighbourhoods of the city, while only being a streetcar or subway stop away from a variety of other urban forms (urban sky-rise cores, urban beaches/boardwalks, urban parks and green-spaces, etc). It was accessible, it was diverse and it was all at a comfortable human scale. Now this isn't good enough. Now we are either not 'Manhattan' enough, not 'Asian boom-town' enough, not mid-rise 'Barcelona' enough. Good grief! Guess what, we will never be any of those things enough! Toronto is Toronto and we should be making Toronto the best unique version of Toronto we can be, rather than some second-rate version of somewhere else.

There are still many, many ways that Toronto can increase density without sabotaging the fundamental character of its built form or urban form... and we've already seen many creative ways that density is being added without compromising heritage structures, streetscapes or neighbourhood character. The creative solutions that work are continuing to define Toronto's uniqueness, and continue to separate us apart such that when somebody from Chicago, New York or Barcelona comes to Toronto they appreciate that they've traveled to a unique city with its own urban identity and with its own lessons and ideals to show the world.


Bottom line: We do not need cookie-cutter solutions to urban development and city building. We need to believe in the 'local' and take inspiration from it... and we need to take inspiration from other places - ideas that work - but reinterpret/reimagine them in new ways that fit here and that contribute to our unique sense of place and self among the crowd. This is the urban Toronto I would advocate for.

In Barcelona and Paris (which happen to be my two favourite cities), most streets are lined with small retail because the density is sufficient to support that. These two cities function as if the entire city of Toronto are like the St Lawrence Market area., which I think is a much superior way of urban life.

Those cities respect and safeguard their heritage built forms, which is why they don't have many high rise towers or other incongruent forms of urban development. They embrace, celebrate and work with the urban forms they have. These are the urban lessons for Toronto, and not the specifics of their urban forms.

Also, you are complaining about Rosedale or Cabbagetown but most of Paris within the périphérique is unattainable to all but the wealthiest in society. Diversity is disappearing there as rapidly as it is in London, New York and many other places you would cite as urban ideals. This hardly seems like a reason to destroy Toronto's unique built form.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

We used to take pride in Toronto as a 'city of villages'. We used to laud the quality of urban life that people could live here across the many inner-neighbourhoods of the city, while only being a streetcar or subway stop away from a variety of other urban forms (urban sky-rise cores, urban beaches/boardwalks, urban parks and green-spaces, etc). It was accessible, it was diverse and it was all at a comfortable human scale.

And how many have, and will have access to those inner-neighbourhoods? And are they all so unique that none can brook change in built form? And interesting that one should raise the spectre of inner city Paris - because we are creating our version of it (with less density, efficiency and excellence, I might add, but I digress).

There are still many, many ways that Toronto can increase density without sabotaging the fundamental character of its built form or urban form... and we've already seen many creative ways that density is being added without compromising heritage structures, streetscapes or neighbourhood character.

We already sabotaged that fundamental character - all the possibilities/creative ways are enabled by previous generations of interventions (those parking lots didn't come from nowhere). Purely for the sake of argument - I am not sure why it is all that great to plop a tower atop a warehouse in the Two Kings, change the fundamental character of the area and consider that acceptable and not have some intervention in the existing single/semi-detached areas just because they are "villagey"- by my recollection, those warehouse districts are a far, far more uncommon typology in the city.

AoD

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

No. You are applying a straight jacket to the concept of urban. Small towns, villages and yes low-rise, inner-city neighbourhoods can all be urban. It's not just about high rise density, if it were City Place would be some sort of urban ideal... it isn't.

It is interesting you mention this. Some of the most urban places I have visited have been rural parts of Poland, Czech Republic and The Netherlands.

We used to take pride in Toronto as a 'city of villages'. We used to laud the quality of urban life that people could live here across the many inner-neighbourhoods of the city, while only being a streetcar or subway stop away from a variety of other urban forms (urban sky-rise cores, urban beaches/boardwalks, urban parks and green-spaces, etc). It was accessible, it was diverse and it was all at a comfortable human scale. Now this isn't good enough. Now we are either not 'Manhattan' enough, not 'Asian boom-town' enough, not mid-rise 'Barcelona' enough. Good grief! Guess what, we will never be any of those things enough! Toronto is Toronto and we should be making Toronto the best unique version of Toronto we can be, rather than some second-rate version of somewhere else.

There are still many, many ways that Toronto can increase density without sabotaging the fundamental character of its built form or urban form... and we've already seen many creative ways that density is being added without compromising heritage structures, streetscapes or neighbourhood character. The creative solutions that work are continuing to define Toronto's uniqueness, and continue to separate us apart such that when somebody from Chicago, New York or Barcelona comes to Toronto they appreciate that they've traveled to a unique city with its own urban identity and with its own lessons and ideals to show the world.

Exactly. There is no reason why we need to sacrifice built form and character of our low-rise neighbourhoods in order to build density. We can preserve the built form and preserve the character and increase density all at once by just loosening our zoning laws a bit to allow denser forms of low-rise housing - townhouses, duplexes, multiplexes, etc.

Montreal has some very great examples of denser low-rise built-forms. We do not need to go to Europe or Asia for examples.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Exactly. There is no reason why we need to sacrifice built form and character of our low-rise neighbourhoods in order to build density. We can preserve the built form and preserve the character and increase density all at once by just loosening our zoning laws a bit to allow denser forms of low-rise housing - townhouses, duplexes, multiplexes, etc.

Montreal has some very great examples of denser low-rise built-forms. We do not need to go to Europe or Asia for examples.

I think it can be done with finer grain - some neighbourhoods can see more change than others, and still more yet see the types of changes you are suggesting. What I am saying in general is that we need to move away from the notion/expectation that you cannot touch these neighbhourhoods because they are "stable".

AoD

 

[Stupidandshallow]

What I'd like to see myself is some kind of policy to encourage making Victorian homes into apartments. They're quite large and could easily hold 5-6 units, if not more in larger ones. Plus I've always found it a glaring example of the unfairness of capitalism that a small number can afford such amazingly placed homes on large lots in a city that suffers severe rental shortages. So encourage the conversion of these buildings. It'd increase rental stock without changing the built form of the city too drastically. Tied with a policy to encourage laneway additions and housing and we could easily increase the amount of rentals in this city without having to demolish our heritage either.

Interestingly enough, many victorian houses in the downtown core (which I define as Bathurst to the Don River and Bloor to the Lakeshore) have been converted from rooming houses or multi-unit housing to single-family dwellings. I don't think policy is necessary here. If anything maybe reform on laws pertaining to rental housing that discourage the type of conversion/development you are talking about.

I live in Cabbagetown, and yes there are wealthy residents, but there are also those who have lived here for eons and could not afford to buy the very house they currently occupy/own -- so there is definitely a mix of income levels. There are also co-op apartments and housing peppered throughout the neighbourhood (some even in Bay and Gable houses). I think we see this throughout the downtown core, which makes it quite unique. Our downtown isn't very segregated.

Perhaps you were referring to neighbourhoods outside of the core.

 

[Tewder]

And how many have, and will have access to those inner-neighbourhoods? And are they all so unique that none can brook change in built form? And interesting that one should raise the spectre of inner city Paris - because we are creating our version of it (with less density, efficiency and excellence, I might add, but I digress).

I'm not suggesting there can't be change or evolution. There must be! I'm just arguing that there's a fundamental difference of paradigm between Ksun's version of 'raise it all because it's not as good as somewhere else' vs 'let's take a look and see what we have that's worth building on, that's worth embracing as unique (rather than inferior for being different to other urban forms).

Gentrification is an issue that is not unique to Toronto, obviously. I still feel there are ways to add affordability without compromising established areas. In the end a diversity of housing styles and urban form will only add to the richness of the city's built form.

Purely for the sake of argument - I am not sure why it is all that great to plop a tower atop a warehouse in the Two Kings, change the fundamental character of the area and consider that acceptable and not have some intervention in the existing single/semi-detached areas just because they are "villagey"- by my recollection, those warehouse districts are a far, far more uncommon typology in the city.
AoD

Yeah, I don't think the answers are easy ones. We cannot save everything and there will always be compromise. I do think we owe ourselves this exercise though. Some solutions will be less successful than others but as Lenser says we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I think it can be done with finer grain - some neighbourhoods can see more change than others, and still more yet see the types of changes you are suggesting. What I am saying in general is that we need to move away from the notion/expectation that you cannot touch these neighbhourhoods because they are "stable".

AoD

Agreed, with the caveat that perhaps something is worth protecting? We have to decide that. Again, not an easy choice. Some wanted a hands-off approach to the Distillery. Personally I feel that the approach chosen was the right one but I do understand the other perspective.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

Interestingly enough, many victorian houses in the downtown core (which I define as Bathurst to the Don River and Bloor to the Lakeshore) have been converted from rooming houses or multi-unit housing to single-family dwellings. I don't think policy is necessary here. If anything maybe reform on laws pertaining to rental housing that discourage the type of conversion/development you are talking about.

On that topic, many of those houses are also flat-out falling apart in disrepair. I've been to many of them as my friends live in student rooming conditions in the core, it is not pretty.

These houses we admire so much from the outside are old old old housing stock. This is going to catch up with us eventually.

 

[stjames2queenwest]

ya the neighbourhood north of queen between Beverly and Spadina is mostly OCADU and UoT students, I've been in many of them and the landlords have only done the bare minimum of upkeep, go further west into Kensington and some of those are even worse. Sad really, there are certain types of landlords in this area who have absolutely no concern for these buildings long term, and in no way appreciate what they could be architecturally. In fact they don't even care about keeping their tenants happy because they know the proximity and demand from students will keep these rooms full no matter what. They just want money, and don't want to spend any.

On the other hand cabbage town is a mixed income, well kept GEM.

 

[Tewder]

On that topic, many of those houses are also flat-out falling apart in disrepair. I've been to many of them as my friends live in student rooming conditions in the core, it is not pretty.

These houses we admire so much from the outside are old old old housing stock. This is going to catch up with us eventually.

I'd argue that the state of disrepair is about a lack of admiration. Most of those landlords are Ksun-like individuals that see no value in the existing built form. Many are worse in not seeing any value in any built form.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I'd argue that the state of disrepair is about a lack of admiration. Most of those landlords are Ksun-like individuals that see no value in the existing built form. Many are worse in not seeing any value in any built form.

And when they admire it, chances are it will be bought up and restored as single family housing - the pattern of population decline in gentrifying areas is pretty well documented.

AoD

 

[TDotTeen]

I find this discussion very interesting, and it's something I've been thinking about for quite some time. I do think that there is something special about Toronto's low-rise neighbourhoods (I live in one of them myself), but I also agree with others that there is room for growth and change in at least some of these neighbourhoods.

I also take issue with the accusation that gets thrown around (not specifically calling you out Tewder, it seems to be a common argument) that by desiring to see certain types of growth in Toronto, people are actively wishing to be like another city, at the expense of what makes Toronto what it is. Like I said, I agree that low-rise neighbourhoods are among Toronto's most beautiful areas and do contribute to a unique urban character, but that doesn't mean that we should be constricted by them. And yes, there are things that Paris, Barcelona, New York, etc. do well that would be nice to see in Toronto, and I think it is possible to learn those lessons without becoming "some second-rate version of somewhere else." It is important to remember that those cities became what they are over by going through their own periods of growth and change. New York today hardly resembles the city as it was in the late 19th century, when it was predominantly low and mid-rise (pre-high-rise boom). The difference is even more dramatic the further back you go. I'm sure that if you had asked a New Yorker in 1850 to describe the character of his/her city, it would be very different from the answer someone might give today, and thats ok. In Toronto, we shouldn't necessarily be stuck in a certain mould just because we hit our boom 100+ years later.

Then again, perhaps we should recognize the value in low-rise neighbourhoods that function successfully today, whether they be higher-income enclaves or lower-income subdivided houses. There is always room for improvement, but if it ain't broke (for the most part), don't fix it.

As others have said, we need to find a balance between preservation and progress. If Toronto is to grow sustainably, there are going to have to be some houses - probably even some beautiful old victorians - torn down. I think that our focus should lie in identifying that which deserves to be saved, whether individual buildings of architectural merit or entire neighbourhoods, and then restricting zoning in those places (or compiling comprehensive heritage lists) and loosening it in other places to allow for more natural growth. The key to this is to recognize that not every victorian neighbourhood in the old city is going to be (or, in my opinion, should be) saved.

Also, as a note, and as others have pointed out, there are certainly ways to increase density incrementally and while keeping a low-rise built form. Simply allowing smaller multi-unit buildings to be built on some of our smaller streets may be a good way to do this.

 

[salsa]

Walkable?

Let's see. Are neighbourhoods such as Rosedale walkable? In theory yes, because it is so damn close to Yonge/Bloor, but how many of those residents live walkable lives and don't depend on cars? Does the layout of the streets with all the cul-de-sac encourage public transport? They do look picturesque but that doesn't hide the fact that they are anti-urban and the worst use of land.

Is Rosedale the only old neighbourhood you can think of that is not walkable?