Toronto Forma | 308m | 84s | Great Gulf | Gehry Partners

[RC8]

it is a good idea, but how to convince suburban minded Torontonians to give up their idyllic expection for a single family house, not sharing a wall not to say ceiling and floors with neighbours, with a backyard, a garden and a two car garage? Before that expectation is completely crushed, nothing can be achieved.

Just buy their houses at market price, tear them down, and build beautiful mid-rise residential neighbourhoods in their place. Make sure that these new neighbourhoods are well connected to transit, schools, offer shopping and dining within walking distance, and there will be families buying there. Governments may need to reduce taxes and fees for developers doing this sort of thing, but they will pay for themselves in the long term.

The success of the West Don Lands and Queens Quay East are crucial to show Torontonians mid-rise neighbourhoods are a viable alternative to suburbs. Thankfully we have the Portlands, too.

 

[SP!RE]

Large, purpose-built vertical farms like the one pictured above will never happen anytime soon if ever. They would require vast amounts of light energy, for one, and for the most part, most plants just refuse to grow in highrises like those.

Kiss+Cathcart are a firm who have done some great investigations into urban vegetable and plant-growing, and it seems that smaller-scale, spread-out farming (as opposed to towers full of it) is one of the best approaches we've got, making use of hydroponics, etc.

 

[RC8]

I'm a bit confused by what you mean as 'midrise buildings.' I conventionally assume 4-8 levels, and without a 'tower' shape. I forget the exact regulations, but all midrise buildings built nowadays have most of the same requirements as highrises (elevators, hallways, fire alarm and sprinkler systems, expensive construction), just spread over fewer units. You can brush them off as just silly regulations, and to some extent they are, but the days of the four storey walkups are gone.

4-8 levels sounds about right. They may or may not have a tower shape depending on the type of community. I have lived in several modern mid-rise buildings in the past and it's actually really easy to design them so that hallways are mostly lit by natural light, for example. The fire alarm systems can be significantly less complex (less chance of a false alarm per building means less protocols to deal with false alarms are required. Because people can be evacuated from their windows, the possibility of a fire is less dramatic. I also (living on a 5th floor) rarely if ever used the elevator. It was there, but it was far from crucial for most residents. You also need rather simple pumping systems for water compared to high-rises.

Nowadays I live on a 33rd floor and I while I love it, my reliance on high-tech solutions means my building's functionality is completely dependent on a large cash-flow and electricity to make everything tick. My energy per capita consumption levels are still way lower than if I lived in a low-rise structure, but quite a bit higher than when I've lived on mid-rises.

 

[balenciaga]

but the idea or process of expropriation and forcing people to conform against their will. People are not bad for wanting to live in their own low-rise single-family home. They are just standard people doing what gives standard people a higher standard of living based on what they believe to be their best interests. Higher density living only makes sense as a trade-off for the additional benefits a city provides.

I am not suggesting property expropriation. I am suggesting low rised properties could be bought at prices the owners are willing to sell and can be replaced with mid rise apartment communities.
People are not bad for wanting to live in big houses, true, but expecting others to subsidize their lifestyle is another matter. Low rise lifestyle put much stress on energy, transport and other infrastructure. Building a subway to Vaughan, or Richmond Hill, or northern Scarborough are examples low rise lifestyle put a strain on the city's infrascture. Did you know someone who lives 20KM away from downtown pay the same amount in TTC fare as someone who only travels for 10 minutes? The latter is subsidizing the former rider.

In an ideal world everyone would live in their own low-rise house, it's just that once a community reaches a certain size the cost-benefit equation of this choice becomes more complex.

Not true.
If I win $5M from lottery tonight, I will still choose to live in a condo in a dense area. Your assumption that everyone wants a single detached house in the beautiful and quiet suburb is simply wrong. Many people don't choose this kind of lifestyle not necessarily because they can't afford it, but because it doesn't appeal to them, including myself.

 

[TOareaFan]

Not true.
If I win $5M from lottery tonight, I will still choose to live in a condo in a dense area. Your assumption that everyone wants a single detached house in the beautiful and quiet suburb is simply wrong. Many people don't choose this kind of lifestyle not necessarily because they can't afford it, but because it doesn't appeal to them, including myself.

I don't doubt your word for a minute that this would be your choice....but you should accept that this puts you in the minority. Take a look at tv commercials for lotteries......they never show the winners buying condos and living an urban/dense lifestyle....no they show them in big homes, large (sprawling) vacation properties, etc......they don't do this by accident, their market research shows them very clearly what kind of life the majority (not all, but a large majority) dream off if "money was no object"....so they entice them to buy tickets to the lottery by showing them their dream life.

 

[Oliver Tweed]

I agree with what was raised above -- that Toronto needs more mid-rise residential -- but it's not necessary yet to tear down single family homes. There are many, many places right along major corridors that can be developed before we need to start razing single family homes. Look at Danforth Ave. There are very few mid or high rise residential buildings despite the subway running right beside it.

 

[Oliver Tweed]

I don't doubt your word for a minute that this would be your choice....but you should accept that this puts you in the minority. Take a look at tv commercials for lotteries......they never show the winners buying condos and living an urban/dense lifestyle....no they show them in big homes, large (sprawling) vacation properties, etc......they don't do this by accident, their market research shows them very clearly what kind of life the majority (not all, but a large majority) dream off if "money was no object"....so they entice them to buy tickets to the lottery by showing them their dream life.

Wrong. While expensive real estate exists in both urban and rural/coastal areas, the highest concentration of expensive homes by far are in large cities. A condo in NYC sold recently for $90 million, to give one example.

 

[Oliver Tweed]

I don't doubt your word for a minute that this would be your choice....but you should accept that this puts you in the minority. Take a look at tv commercials for lotteries......they never show the winners buying condos and living an urban/dense lifestyle....no they show them in big homes, large (sprawling) vacation properties, etc......they don't do this by accident, their market research shows them very clearly what kind of life the majority (not all, but a large majority) dream off if "money was no object"....so they entice them to buy tickets to the lottery by showing them their dream life.

Wrong. While expensive real estate exists in both urban and rural/coastal areas, the highest concentration of expensive homes by far is in large cities. A condo in NYC sold recently for $90 million, to give one example.

 

[Lenser]

The city doesn't have to buy Victorians "block by block." If indeed land values continue to soar, interested owners will sell out to developers and mid-rises will come up in their place. You know... market forces. Just like old houses in poor shape in dozens of neigbourhoods in the core are being torn down and replaced by taller houses that take up more of their allotted land plot - it's about maximizing value. In the end, it's the value of the land itself that will drive the move to mid-rise verticality.

However, you can also expect many Vic owners militantly vowing to keep their houses as is. Indeed, a two or three story detached home in the core will is becoming a prized, very dear status symbol - not unlike the brownstones of Manhattan. The people who live in them will cherish them and gleefully congratulate themselves for being able to avoid the pedestrian route of living in the sky.

Urban density will go up - it's practically inevitable. But there's room for all kinds of living in the city.

 

[RC8]

Lenser,

Market forces are being constrained by regulatory fees that make mid-rises a lot less financially viable than they should be. Small amendments to some of our regulations would lead to intense mid-rise development all over the city.

Also, I'm actually not a huge fan of tearing down too many victorian homes in Toronto's core. I think they have a huge cultural potential as retail destinations. I'm thinking places like Hillsdale would be great for mid-rise intensification.

 

[Lenser]

RC8: understood. I wasn't aware that regulatory fees are screwing with mid-rises. What's the thinking behind their implementation, historically?

 

[67Cup]

I agree with what was raised above -- that Toronto needs more mid-rise residential -- but it's not necessary yet to tear down single family homes. There are many, many places right along major corridors that can be developed before we need to start razing single family homes. Look at Danforth Ave. There are very few mid or high rise residential buildings despite the subway running right beside it.

I agree with this. I used to drive regularly along Eglinton Ave. East and always was of the opinion that the corridor was a prime candidate for "Euopeanization." There is room for extensive mid rise housing, attractive retail and manifold services in the stretch from Victoria Park to Kingston Rd. Much of the real estate is presently taken up with decaying apartment buildings from, I would guess the 60's and 70's, and strip malls that are crying out for redevelopment. With the development of rapid transit along that stretch, this seems to me the prime location for the kind of densification we are talking about.

Sorry, I realize this has little to do the Mirvish proposal.

 

[renvel]

Mid rise development alond arterial streets

I agree with this. I used to drive regularly along Eglinton Ave. East and always was of the opinion that the corridor was a prime candidate for "Euopeanization." There is room for extensive mid rise housing, attractive retail and manifold services in the stretch from Victoria Park to Kingston Rd. Much of the real estate is presently taken up with decaying apartment buildings from, I would guess the 60's and 70's, and strip malls that are crying out for redevelopment. With the development of rapid transit along that stretch, this seems to me the prime location for the kind of densification we are talking about.

Sorry, I realize this has little to do the Mirvish proposal.

How about Laurence Ave. West from Allan Roan to Yonge St.
I always wonder , what the city builders thought , when they lined up such an arterial streets with bungalows ?

 

[Hanlansboy]

Large, purpose-built vertical farms like the one pictured above will never happen anytime soon if ever. They would require vast amounts of light energy, for one, and for the most part, most plants just refuse to grow in highrises like those.

Kiss+Cathcart are a firm who have done some great investigations into urban vegetable and plant-growing, and it seems that smaller-scale, spread-out farming (as opposed to towers full of it) is one of the best approaches we've got, making use of hydroponics, etc.

I just saw a show on the Discovery Channel, forget the name of the architect, but as a compromise, as you've mentioned, they have urban farming on a smaller, yet equally appealing. Staggered extended balconies, capable of handling a small garden big enough to grow your own fresh veggies and fruit, with a retractable plexiglass roof over each one so in the winter, it becomes a green house, all grown under natural sunlight. I can't find a pic of it on line, but admittedly, it's a bit strange looking, and would really stick out, but they propose a colony of these mid to high rises near the port lands. I still believe that as the suburbs continue to grow outwards, we will have to consider, somehow, growing our own food without having to use farmland. Living in a condo and farming don't exactly go hand in hand, but from the looks of it, we may see it, on a smaller scale to start off with, sooner then we think.

 

[buildup]

I've often wondered about urban veggies and their exposure to urban toxins - carbon monoxide, sulphur, soot etc. Is it healthy?