Why more skyscrapers than "Avenue" style building proposals?

[fedplanner]

I've been wondering...

It seems like once or twice a week there is a new tall building proposed in Toronto. Yet "Avenues" style buildings like Haven on the Bluffs and Queensbury Terrace seem far less common of an occurrence. Toronto's Official Plan strongly encourages this type of development, and Toronto's chief planner, Jennifer Keesmaat, is a strong advocate of low-rise and mid-rise buildings to one day line the avenues. According to Keesmaat, there is more than enough space along Toronto's avenues to accommodate Toronto's anticipated population growth. How come we don't see more of them?

I remember reading a post by Mike in To awhile back that briefly touched on the issue. I wasn't able to find the post, but if I recall correctly, the building code, NIMBYism, and the expense of navigating the planning process are discouraging low-rise development. The theme was that low-rise buildings must overcome similar obstacles as high-rise buildings, which make them less cost effective.

Is there more to it? Could Torontonians prefer high-rise buildings? I've noticed that prices for condos increase by several thousand dollars by floor. Top floors command a premium over lower floors, so I'm assuming that is because there is greater demand for higher floors with a view than lower floors. Are there any other reasons why high-rise proposals are more common than low/mid-rise (5 to 12-storey) proposals for the avenues? (At least it's my perception that they are more common from reading this forum.)

 

[diminutive]

It's a mix of causes, but the most important issue is simply poorer economics versus high rises. Midrises have many of the fixed costs of high rise buildings, but split over fewer units. They're also less able to deliver amenities like gyms or security for the same reason. Living on lower levels facing a major street is also seen as undesirable due to noise and sight issues.

There's no shortage of space along Toronto's avenues, but much of the space isn't fungible for where we've seen the most condo development. A series of midrises near Eglinton and Vic Park is hardly a substitute for a condo in, say, the Entertainment District.

 

[blahblahblah]

My sense is alot of these "avenue" buildings are being built or being planned to be built. There have been alot in the Beaches and your Queensbury Terrace is a good example. It is further east, a small site, yet it is (I hope) going ahead. Any corner lot over 10,000 square feet in a decent neighbourhood is active. If a piece of land isn't moving, there are good reasons why not, and those reasons will disappear with time. There is still money to be made on these sites for a developer and there are alot of non high rise builders anxious to tackle them. The good sites are likely disappearing fast and now one has to try to assemble pieces and that is just hard and time consuming.

 

[wolfewood]

More to get notifications of this than to contribute my own opinion, I'd say the first two responses seem about right. You don't hear much about these because there aren't many (bad economics et. al) but they do exist (from my own observances and from urbandreamer's updates that regularly feature 4-12s buildings he likes).

I figure that the completion (and talk of completion) of LRTs on Sheppard, Finch and Eglinton will spur a bit more growth since they will operate much like super versions of the streetcars that built the low-and mid-rise neighbourhoods of the city in the 20th century. That at least seems to be the most palatable and likely situation for developers, Council and current residents.

 

[TrickyRicky]

The planners can talk all they want about "avenues" but really these discussions are irrelevent if the owners of existing properties lack the financial incentive or there is a lack of sophistication required to transition from building owner to building developer. We are seeing more mid-rise development now precisely because there are a few (not many) actors with enough sophistication to build and in general land prices are climbing.

The barriers to build are primarily financial and due to the complexity of the undertaking that discourages property owners from changing the status quo. For many this might be a good thing because in the absence of these barriers you would see a wholesale bulldozing of our entire catalogue of old building stock. I could point out off the top of my head half-a-dozen properties where the owners just went ahead and started adding density to their buildings along main-streets only to run out of money or get lost in the regulatory environment and essentially abandon their buildings.

 

[balenciaga]

Besides the economics mentioned above, another reason is midrises will require much bigger land to achieve the same level of density. In the case of downtown, we may have a parking lot here and there, but do we have a whole avenue to be developed into 6-12 story mid-rise?

If all the old 2 story buildings on Yonge, Queen, Dundas, John, McCaul, Beverly, Church, Bathurst can be erased and replaced with midrises, that will be fantastic. Being stuck with rows of such lowrises, what can be done is to fill those surface lots with highrises.

 

[Torontovibe]

Besides the economics mentioned above, another reason is midrises will require much bigger land to achieve the same level of density. In the case of downtown, we may have a parking lot here and there, but do we have a whole avenue to be developed into 6-12 story mid-rise?

If all the old 2 story buildings on Yonge, Queen, Dundas, John, McCaul, Beverly, Church, Bathurst can be erased and replaced with midrises, that will be fantastic. Being stuck with rows of such lowrises, what can be done is to fill those surface lots with highrises.

What about Bloor/Danforth? With all the years that it had a subway, you would think that it would be lined with mid-rise buildings by now. Not only that but there are so many small, ugly buildings, that basically anything would be an improvement. (especially on the Danforth) I hope it won't take much longer.

 

[balenciaga]

What about Bloor/Danforth? With all the years that it had a subway, you would think that it would be lined with mid-rise buildings by now. Not only that but there are so many small, ugly buildings, that basically anything would be an improvement. (especially on the Danforth) I hope it won't take much longer.

that is both stupid and frustrating too. I think at least 500-1000 people should be able to live within 10 minutes walking distance of every of the limited subway stations we have. The Bloor/Danforth line outside the Sherbourne-Spadina range is basically a suburban line.

That's why I always say north of Queen St, Toronto is basically a linear city with all the urban elements alonge Yonge st. The rest is just a huge suburb. Horrible planning.

 

[11th]

that is both stupid and frustrating too. I think at least 500-1000 people should be able to live within 10 minutes walking distance of every of the limited subway stations we have. The Bloor/Danforth line outside the Sherbourne-Spadina range is basically a suburban line.

That's why I always say north of Queen St, Toronto is basically a linear city with all the urban elements alonge Yonge st. The rest is just a huge suburb. Horrible planning.

North of Queen, are you sure? That's a bit stretched of a generalization. How exactly is "urban elements"?

 

[balenciaga]

North of Queen, are you sure? That's a bit stretched of a generalization. How exactly is "urban elements"?

yes, it is a bit over generalization but by not too much.
Urban elements refer to mid to high rise buildings, a nodal network of retail like you see in Yorkville (not everything on one main street), and very few low rise single family houses nearby.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

If all the old 2 story buildings on Yonge, Queen, Dundas, John, McCaul, Beverly, Church, Bathurst can be erased and replaced with midrises, that will be fantastic. Being stuck with rows of such lowrises, what can be done is to fill those surface lots with highrises.

What about Bloor/Danforth? With all the years that it had a subway, you would think that it would be lined with mid-rise buildings by now. Not only that but there are so many small, ugly buildings, that basically anything would be an improvement. (especially on the Danforth) I hope it won't take much longer.

What could be a great discussion thread is not helped with inflammatory comments such as these. Bulldozing and rebuilding these areas is akin to ripping the heart and soul out of the city of Toronto.

 

[balenciaga]

Bulldozing and rebuilding these areas is akin to ripping the heart and soul out of the city of Toronto.

you are exaggerating.
Most of the houses mentioned are just regular residential houses, which can be found in pretty many otherl cities in North America (Queens, NY for example) Hardly the heart and soul of anything particularly.With the except of a limited number, most are just cheaply built homes (those near Chinatown on Huron st for example) Your are attaching too much personal emotion to everything you are family with.

A city needs to grow and sometimes say goodbye to its history.

But don't worry, I don't think those lowrises will be have any chance of being bulldozed in our lifetime. There would be a massive NIMBY outcry.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

you are exaggerating.
Most of the houses mentioned are just regular residential houses, which can be found in pretty many otherl cities in North America (Queens, NY for example) Hardly the heart and soul of anything particularly.With the except of a limited number, most are just cheaply built homes (those near Chinatown on Huron st for example) Your are attaching too much personal emotion to everything you are family with.

A city needs to grow and sometimes say goodbye to its history.

But don't worry, I don't think those lowrises will be have any chance of being bulldozed in our lifetime. There would be a massive NIMBY outcry.

You just backtracked on what you wrote above, which stated nothing about houses. Further, we've said goodbye to far too much of our history already if you knew much about this city.
I'm sensing that you look to bait people around here (I'll withhold the word trolling) and as such you'll perhaps be happy to know that I will no longer be tempted into responding to your half-baked, nonsensical comments or posts any longer.

 

[typezed]

Maybe the blockbuster dynamic has an impact. This is a quote from a director who hasn't worked for awhile: "It's hard to make films that are $10-$20 million films these days. Everybody wants to make "The Hobbit" or these films that cost between $100-$200 million, but they have the chance to make a billion dollars."

Everything in all kinds of commercial markets is go big or go home.

In residential housing, builders don't construct individual houses on scattered properties anymore. Instead they buy up farmland, bulldoze everything, and build "communities". Our built fabric would probably be improved if we did it the former way, we'd get neighbourhoods that more resemble our older downtown neighbourhoods rather than cookie-cutter isolated car-dependent places of the burbs.

I'm skeptical that building taller and taller towers is smarter or more efficient economically than building modest midrises. But a few dominant players will shape the arena to advantage themselves and easily steamroll smaller competitors. There are companies like Streetcar building midrises in interesting areas of the city, but we pay a lot less attention to their works than to the L Tower or Aura.

 

[sixrings]

What could be a great discussion thread is not helped with inflammatory comments such as these. Bulldozing and rebuilding these areas is akin to ripping the heart and soul out of the city of Toronto.

First of all I'd like to say that there are areas of Toronto which are low format and I love. For example queen street west, king Street East, bloor west village and the eglinton way. All that being said there are many areas where we are being wishful to think that the areas will change without some sort of redevelopment. For example, eglinton west, the danforth, near Dundas west. Currently these places all have an excess of dollars stores or for lease signs. Maybe in a dream world these areas would look the same as the former areas but they don't. Some of the areas are suffering because a mall is close by (eglinton west and yorkdale) others because of the railroad tracks and others (the danforth) because the houses in the area where never constructed as well so they are the slowest to be reclaimed by gentrification. In the past these places may have worked. Before the competition of malls before the sprawl and people had more choices where to live. However currently I can't say that there is much hope for the future of these places without some extra density. It's not about ripping out the heart of Toronto. Some of these hearts are on life support. It's about giving a heart transplant. each of these areas are suffering on top of subway routes which is the most ironic thing. Developers are able to get mass amounts of land and build condos at Kipling and sell them extremely fast because of their subway access. If we made it more profitable and easier for developers they would jump at the chance of developing and bringing life back to these areas. However fear and nimbyism can stop even the best intentions. All that being said. The subway has been a failure to parts of Bloor and parts of the danforth. I hope the same mistakes are not repeated on eglinton. I hope eglinton residents especially those around dufferin and eglinton embrace mid rise living with shops underneath. It won't be a heart being ripped out, rather it will be new life to a dying area.