News   Jul 26, 2024
 852     0 
News   Jul 26, 2024
 2.3K     2 
News   Jul 26, 2024
 1.9K     3 

Tower Renewal For GTA: Rethinking "Tower in a Park"

jaycola

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
502
Reaction score
40
I think this recently released report on the status of Toronto's aging rental apartments, commissioned by David Miller, warrants further discussion.

I hope it doesn't get burried as a leftist Miller project seeing as the 2000 or so apartment highrises represent a significant percentage of the GTA's housing stock and many are found in the high priority neighbourhoods in the city.

The idea of developing the vacant and underused land surrounding these "Towers in a park" is very intriguing.
Adding retail, public spaces, additional housing and needed vibrancy to these aging complexes is a worthwhile project in my opinion.


towerrenewal.ca
Full Report is available here

Article Hume: Highrise apartments are towering issue in Greater Golden Horseshoe Published On Sun Dec 5 2010

By Christopher Hume
Urban Issues, Architecture

No issue looms larger on the Toronto horizon than residential tower renewal. In this city alone, there are upwards of 1,000 such highrise buildings; throw in the rest of the Greater Golden Horseshoe and it’s nearly 2,000.

Constructed in the decades after World War II, these ubiquitous “towers in the park” can be found everywhere from Mississauga to Markham, Etobicoke to East York. They’re not much to look at it and they take up vast amounts of space and energy. Still, about one million people inhabit these vertical villages, many of them poor and/or recently arrived in Canada.

However, a report released Monday argues these tower communities could be remade to accommodate modern economic, environmental and social needs. This is not exactly news; cities across Europe long ago launched campaigns to update their residential highrise stock. In Toronto, the city published the Mayor’s Tower Renewal Opportunity Book in 2008...

It turns out the people who live in these buildings tend to be at the lower end of the economic ladder. They rely on public transit rather than cars, and are poorly served by public and private sectors.

What’s interesting, though, is that the seeds of regeneration will be planted in the vast green swaths that surround these towers. They will be where new development goes: retail, commercial and residential.

The planning regimes at the time restricted the building envelope to 20 or even 10 per cent of a site. That’s why Stewart argues the easiest way to bring about change is to change the zoning regulations.

”Technically, it’s illegal to open a store on the ground floor,” he says, “or run a fruit stand. We should allow people to be more entrepreneurial, and give them a stake in the neighbourhood.”

There’s no use pretending these highrise clusters can be turned into satellite downtowns, but the possibilities are endless. Given the crisis of global warming and inadequacy of the towers, it now seems clear the existing condition will be temporary. Changes will be made because they must.

The word density might strike fear into the heart of many a suburbanite, but as car culture slowly draws to a close, distance will once again become isolation. The idea here is not only to connect these communities to the city beyond, but also create better internal connections...

The report outlines a number of steps, big and small, that could help turn around a city in which these “inner-suburbs” are increasingly becoming locations of poverty, especially immigrant poverty.

“There could be many different outcomes,’ Stewart notes. “The results could be very dynamic.”
Or not.
Issues of ownership and regulatory inflexibility will inevitably arise, but change will come. The question is whether we control change or it controls us.
toronto-tower-renewal-4.jpg
 
Last edited:
Yes, the city should remove unnecessary zoning restrictions, I don't see why the right wing would be against it.
 
Spin it as economic growth, environmental cost savings, etc., instead of focusing on the social warm fuzzies stuff, give it a new name...Bam, it becomes a Ford initiative.
 
I never understood Tower Renewal. If the development of surplus land surrounding these large apartment buildings was economically feasible then why wouldn't the property owners have already made applications for re-development?

If you truly want Tower Renewal and urban vibrancy in these communities the easy solution is to allow the landlords to convert the existing buildings to condominium and agree to re-invest xxx amount of the profits into new area improvements, be it retail, townhouse development, etc. Perhaps even encourage new rental unit development on surplus lands through subsidies. Unlocking the value gap that exists between the rental form of ownership and the condo form will enhance the quality of living for everyone involved.
 
Here is an example from the document that is quite telling.
Urban_Asset.pdf

In this image they have overlayed a coupe blocks in the College and Grace neighbourhood with a similar sized Apartment block at Bathurst and Steeles.
There is a wealth of land in these apartment blocks that could be developed for residential, commercial and recreational uses.

One reason why the owners of these lands have not redeveloped them is because under the present zoning, thay cannot add a 2nd residential building to the site nor are they zoned for any other non residential uses.

Condo conversion is not an option where there are greater than 6 rental units at or below the "affordable" housing threshold.
Lower cost rentals are a resource the city cannot afford to lose.

Look at the image to the right. It shows the vast available land in that corridor. Imagine how that neighbourhood could be revitalised if they were to open up the zoning to a variety of uses and development types.

5274987188_4aac390332_z.jpg
 
One reason why the owners of these lands have not redeveloped them is because under the present zoning, thay cannot add a 2nd residential building to the site nor are they zoned for any other non residential uses.

Right. Because developers have never before in Toronto's history successfully rezoned infill locations into residential high density land. :rolleyes:

Condo conversion is not an option where there are greater than 6 rental units at or below the "affordable" housing threshold.
Lower cost rentals are a resource the city cannot afford to lose.

I completely disagree. It's not an option because the ideologues seem to feel that private rental apartments in Toronto should be regulated while other essential industries are free market driven. Does council regulate the price of bread at Loblaws? The vacancy rate in Toronto is north of 3%. There's plenty of availability for lower priced apartments. You're argument is baseless. Furthermore, the enormous surge in investor condos has driven renters into that market and sucked demand from the lower end away. Thats kept rents in check for probably the last 10 years.

You want Tower renewal? Let owners condo older towers and make them replace lost units. There's your renewal. Homeownership to low income tenants, new rental stock, profit for landlords. Win/Win/Win.
 
There's plenty of availability for lower priced apartments. You're argument is baseless.

The only thing baseless in this thread is your argument that there's plenty of availabilty of lower priced apartments.

I work in the Apartment industry and know vacancy rates are very low and if a building is affordable, well located and well maintained, there are no vacancies.

Rental Housing in the City of Toronto
Rental housing supply and availability in the City of Toronto have not returned to a healthy state.
The overall supply of primary rental housing (the total number of private rental and social
housing units) has not increased over the last decade. Whereas, over the same period, 95% of all
new housing construction was for the ownership market. Vacancy rates in private rental housing
had moderated a few years ago, following a 30 year period of very low rates. However, vacancy
rates have begun to decline again and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation forecasts even
lower rates over the next two years. Lower rates mean that rental housing will be less available
for tenants seeking accommodation.
Most of the City’s housing with affordable rents (at or below average market rent) is in private
rental housing. Thus, protecting the City’s rental housing stock also protects a large supply of
affordable housing. About half of all households in the City are renters, and a mix of incomes in
and access to all neighbourhoods throughout the City are important City objectives. Protecting
existing rental housing, with both affordable and mid-range rents is essential for the City’s
growth and vitality. The rental housing needs of current and future residents depend on
protecting existing rental housing and increasing the supply of rental housing to meet future
growth.

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2007/pg/bgrd/backgroundfile-4968.pdf
 
Last edited:
It's also naive to assume that if it's economically feasible, it would have happened already. For one, we have a legacy of anti-urban suburban planning that encouraged the proliferation of these wastes of land. Mixed-use is still officially discouraged. To quote the article above:

The planning regimes at the time restricted the building envelope to 20 or even 10 per cent of a site. That’s why Stewart argues the easiest way to bring about change is to change the zoning regulations.

â€Technically, it’s illegal to open a store on the ground floor,†he says, “or run a fruit stand. We should allow people to be more entrepreneurial, and give them a stake in the neighbourhood.â€
The intensification of these lands around suburban towers is also relatively unprecedented and was never really embraced by the planners who decide where bus stops go and parking regulations until recently. Hence, because of conditions external to the market, the current reality in terms of intensification of the underused suburban tower green spaces is probably not indicative of market potential at all.

Lastly, I'd like to note that the green spaces around these towers have some potential to make redevelopment unique and pleasant. There should be planning guidelines to try to fit new buildings into these spaces by retaining some existing trees and landscaping and enveloping some of the spaces in courtyards and perhaps part of the public realm if possible. The existing greenery could really enhance new development if embraced rather than completely destroyed. If the towers in the park also had institutions, offices, stores, fruit stands, higher density (relative to the land area), and cafes in that park, the towers in the park format wouldn't necessarily be something to loathe.
 
There's already many examples of towers in the park redeveloping their 'parks.' However, 20 down, 980 to go, or whatever the numbers are, still leaves more than enough room for a city program to play a big role.
 
Actually, the new report described in Hume's article was commissioned by the Province and can be found here;

http://www.era.on.ca/blogs/cugr/tnr_body.html

It was prepared by the Centre for Urban Growth and Renewal, a not-for-profit research group created by ERA Architects, planningAlliance and regionalArchitects; and extends much of the earlier work done in Toronto across the entire GTA and Hamilton.

As for private landlords intensifying their sites, there are many factors to consider. First off, some close to transit, have already taken the plunge (St. James Town, 495 the West Mall, across from Fairview). Others are sniffing around the idea. Most importantly, ownership of these buildings is very fragmented - often, individual buildings in a block will be owned by different groups which hampers land assembly. Also key, is the fact that many are fully paid off, and owned by second-generation landlords who are very risk-averse. Any type of redevelopment will likely follow patterns similar to the general real-estate market - sites with proximity to transit will become most attractive.
 
Also key, is the fact that many are fully paid off, and owned by second-generation landlords who are very risk-averse. Any type of redevelopment will likely follow patterns similar to the general real-estate market - sites with proximity to transit will become most attractive.

Precisely my point above. So you want private, risk-adverse property owners to spends millions retrofitting their buildings for theoretical energy savings and the carrot you dangle in front of them is the ability to intensify their sites with new development- something they are probably able to do anyway but don't want to because of the associated risks? Not much of a plan!

If you want these kinds of investors and owners to 'green' their towers the biggest benefit to them is to allow them to unlock the value trapped in these aging structures through condo conversion. The buildings will get completely retrofitted and improved and everyone wins. Make them replace lost units in new buildings on the greenfield space. I'm sure they would rather own brand new lower end rental buildings than 50 year old lower end rental buildings.
 
Precisely my point above. So you want private, risk-adverse property owners to spends millions retrofitting their buildings for theoretical energy savings and the carrot you dangle in front of them is the ability to intensify their sites with new development- something they are probably able to do anyway but don't want to because of the associated risks? Not much of a plan!

Planning culture in part has made these owners risk-averse. This sort of intensification wasn't supposed to happen originally and the city would not have been cooperative in providing the infrastructure and planning, hence decreasing willingness on the part of owners to attempt it. Others may be conservative, but a city planning program can effectively encourage them to consider the market potential.

If you want these kinds of investors and owners to 'green' their towers the biggest benefit to them is to allow them to unlock the value trapped in these aging structures through condo conversion. The buildings will get completely retrofitted and improved and everyone wins. Make them replace lost units in new buildings on the greenfield space. I'm sure they would rather own brand new lower end rental buildings than 50 year old lower end rental buildings.
That hardly seems to prioritize the development of these underused lands around, which is an important part of the plan. Units probably won't be lost from the buildings since new high-rise living spaces are on average smaller today than in previous decades when these towers were built.
 
That hardly seems to prioritize the development of these underused lands around, which is an important part of the plan. Units probably won't be lost from the buildings since new high-rise living spaces are on average smaller today than in previous decades when these towers were built.

So how do you propose encouraging building owners to develop these underused lands? By asking them to spend $$$ retrofitting and then taking on development and market risk that they don't want? The Tower Renewal plan is a fantasy.
 

Back
Top