Why more skyscrapers than "Avenue" style building proposals?

[fedplanner]

I realize I'm feeding the beast, but I like the 2 and 3-storey characteristic of Danforth/Bloor/Queen and so on. I would hate to see these go in the name of redevelopment. This is why I'm such a strong believer of dense development on vacant and underutilized lots. It takes the development pressure from areas that are worth preserving.

Haven on the Bluffs - http://goo.gl/maps/Ubn5N
Queensbury Terrace - http://goo.gl/maps/qTXd6

 

[sixrings]

I realize I'm feeding the beast, but I like the 2 and 3-storey characteristic of Danforth/Bloor/Queen and so on. I would hate to see these go in the name of redevelopment. This is why I'm such a strong believer of dense development on vacant and underutilized lots. It takes the development pressure from areas that are worth preserving.

Haven on the Bluffs - http://goo.gl/maps/Ubn5N
Queensbury Terrace - http://goo.gl/maps/qTXd6

I'm in favor of what you are suggesting. However in some places there is simply not much vacant or unused lots to be redeveloped. On eglinton west there is one lot beside a gas station, another at oakwood avenue and another across from the no frills. That isn't enough development potential to see the area transformed. I would be willing to start here though and to see what happens.

What I look most forward to is the Lawrence heights redevelopment and the surrounding areas of downsview park. The reason being is that this is a massive chunk of land that is effected height wise by the airport at downsview park. 14 floors will be the maximum height. It will be very interesting the result in 30 years.

If it wasn't so far from a subway (I live a brisk 2 minute walk to a station) my favorite street to live on would be Dundas from Keele to about runneymede.

 

[balenciaga]

I realize I'm feeding the beast, but I like the 2 and 3-storey characteristic of Danforth/Bloor/Queen and so on. I would hate to see these go in the name of redevelopment. This is why I'm such a strong believer of dense development on vacant and underutilized lots. It takes the development pressure from areas that are worth preserving.

The whole point of building subways is to make it possible for a lot more people to lhave easy access to rapid transit, so with the exception of Queen St, Yonge, Bloor and Danforth naturally should go highrises.

I agree that the priority should be development of vacant lots, but there are not enough of them, are there? Why do we spend billions of $ to construct a subway yet only a handful of residents end up living within walking distance from its stations, does it make sense to you?

You like to see the characters of the low rise neighbourhood on Bloor W and danforth. Well, the city shouldn't circle around what you want to see. It needs to function the best way it can.

I like the idea of midrises too, but they simply don't provide enough units because there is not enough land for them, unless of course most of the low rises are gone.

Speaking of the 2-3 stories characteristics, can't you see that they don't have to be maintained when they are so close to subway lines? A little bit farther away (say 1000M or more), you can keep all the 2 stories you want, and that's still like 90% of the space. Still not enough? Do we really want nothing but 2-3 storey characteristics at Yonge/Davisville, Bloor/Bathurst, or Danforth/Broadview? Doesn't the city have enough of these characteristics elsewhere? Doesn't people's need to live close to rapid transit trump some people's desire (who don't even live in these areas) to keep the appeal of the old city in the 1920's?

As to Queen St West between University and say Ossington, the issue is most buildings are ill-maintained and look bad. They don't scream one of the most import commercial streets in downtown Toronto. If they all look like those red brick midrises on King East, I am totally fine with it. Additionally, I am not sure how much historic or architecture value those houses really hold. Just because they are built 100 years ago doesn't mean we should keep them forever. When the need to urbanization and densification reaches a certain point, I am afraid an entire downtown street composed of primarily 1-3 storey houses (Queen, Bathurst, Dundas) will stop making sense. I am not talking about building 40 storey glass boxes everywhere, but won't 4-10 story well built mixed-use midrises provide 10 times the economic benefits, living space and employment for the people of Toronto?

I am sorry if I am seen as biased or "anti-heritage" I just don't think so many lowrises in either downtown or along our subway lines make much sense. Paris and Vienna don't have many highrises, but they have very few 1-3 storey lowrises too. Lowrises seldom make sense in big cities just because they are a gigantic waste of prime space.

 

[Torontovibe]

All the single family houses, near the Spadina Subway stations should be bought up by developers and redeveloped, especially the section between Eglinton West Station and Lawrence West Station. There is a huge area there, that is perfect for a complete overhaul. The houses in that area are all pretty generic, so it won't be any loss to the city, architecturally.

 

[regionalArchitects]

Interesting discussion. You've captured the main reasons more of these buildings don't get built already (economics being the primary one), but there's also;

Land Assembly - Most of the development in the Entertainment District or the Waterfront is built on large parcels that required no assembly. Parcels like this are few and far between on the Avenues, and the risk of land assembly for a 50 unit building is hardly worth the trouble (relative to the risk of going to the OMB to add another 50 units to a tower, for example).

Approvals - Since most Avenues properties border low-rise neighborhoods, they receive a greater amount of attention during approvals (relative to a tower downtown). Every 2m projection beyond the angular plane is hotly contested, while downtown, approvals to add double the permitted density are routinely negotiated.

Rental Replacement Policy - Currently, the City mandates that a developer replace any existing rental units demolished during construction. Adding 4-5 rental units into a 50 unit condo can be one thing that tips a proforma into the red. The city is actually looking into this as part of their OP Review that is currently underway, and may consider loosening some of these policies.

Interestingly, the current uncertainty in the real estate market may be one thing that pushes some developers into smaller, mid-rise buildings. The main advantage of a small building is how quickly it can be designed, built and turned over (a couple years vs 5-6 years). Some developers see this as a way to protect against that uncertainty.

One last thing - when talking about density around subways, it is important to look at the built form in detail (beyond the height of the tallest buildings). The area around Dufferin station, for example, has a similar residential density as the area around Yonge-Eglinton, while the area around St. Clair and Yonge is higher than both. The first has few buildings taller than 3 stories, but very small properties with second suites, the second has very tall towers-in-the-park that transition abruptly to extremely low-density detached houses, while the third has shorter, compact towers that extend for several blocks in all directions.

 

[Memph]

One last thing - when talking about density around subways, it is important to look at the built form in detail (beyond the height of the tallest buildings). The area around Dufferin station, for example, has a similar residential density as the area around Yonge-Eglinton, while the area around St. Clair and Yonge is higher than both. The first has few buildings taller than 3 stories, but very small properties with second suites, the second has very tall towers-in-the-park that transition abruptly to extremely low-density detached houses, while the third has shorter, compact towers that extend for several blocks in all directions.

I highly doubt the area around Dufferin Station is as dense as Yonge-Eglinton, unless you're including large amounts of single family neighbourhoods. Do you have any evidence to back your claim? At St. Clair and Yonge, I think the residential density is no greater (lots of offices) than Yonge-Eglinton, although the built density might be higher (but only along Yonge and St Clair Avenue, not the side streets like with Y&E).

 

[doady]

I agree "Avenues" style development would be best for Toronto. I believe Toronto needs to ban all residential development greater than 4 storeys to encourage more of "Avenues" style of development. Lifeless and crime-ridden high-rise neighbourhoods belong in the 905, not Toronto.

 

[RC8]

4-story buildings do not make avenues.

The ideal building height is 10 stories with 4 story podiums, as far as I'm concerned (depending on street width - where the wider the street the taller the podium needs to be). You can walk up and downstairs, you can watch and talk to your kids down at ground level from your window, but live in high enough densities to create economies of scale that facilitate convenience and transit infrastructure. It is also still profitable for developers.

Other countries have figured this out, already. High rise buildings are very efficient but also present many unique complications and are not very dynamic.

 

[Electrify]

All of you wanting to see mass expropriation to make way for high rises should look up the history of urban renewal and modernism. You will also learn why such planning theories are panned today. Also, I think one of the reasons why so many high rises are focused around subway stations compared to some cities is because there is such a lack of good transportation in this city.

Personally, I'd rather see numerous mid to high rise cores (10 stories, more or less max) throughout the city than having a few select places for high rise condos and long corridors planned for mid rise avenues like we have right now.

Also the idea of building avenues of mid density rather than cores was to ensure that the Toronto Street Railway remained profitable, not because it was better urban design.

 

[balenciaga]

All of you wanting to see mass expropriation to make way for high rises should look up the history of urban renewal and modernism. You will also learn why such planning theories are panned today. Also, I think one of the reasons why so many high rises are focused around subway stations compared to some cities is because there is such a lack of good transportation in this city.

Personally, I'd rather see numerous mid to high rise cores (10 stories, more or less max) throughout the city than having a few select places for high rise condos and long corridors planned for mid rise avenues like we have right now.

Also the idea of building avenues of mid density rather than cores was to ensure that the Toronto Street Railway remained profitable, not because it was better urban design.

Well, if 1-3 storey low rises have already occupied most of the land in the core and near the core, where do you construct numerous mid to high rises throughout the city, without expropriation?

I agree with you that have a city mostly mid rise is far better than 95% East York/Scarborough kind of low rise with a few transit corridors planned for highrise towers. Paris has almost no skyscrapers in central zones but achieved a density 5X that of Toronto, which seem to have a lot of tall towers.

As someone pointed out in another post, it is simply stupid to have multiple 40+ towers at Yonge/Eglinton, while you see nothing but extreme low density pure suburban-type houses on all the side streets only 3 minutes away from the intersection.

 

[11th]

Well, if 1-3 storey low rises have already occupied most of the land in the core and near the core, where do you construct numerous mid to high rises throughout the city, without expropriation?

I agree with you that have a city mostly mid rise is far better than 95% East York/Scarborough kind of low rise with a few transit corridors planned for highrise towers. Paris has almost no skyscrapers in central zones but achieved a density 5X that of Toronto, which seem to have a lot of tall towers.

As someone pointed out in another post, it is simply stupid to have multiple 40+ towers at Yonge/Eglinton, while you see nothing but extreme low density pure suburban-type houses on all the side streets only 3 minutes away from the intersection.

Wonder if that's the situation/problem for all cities built on a grid-plan - Manhattan excluded since it's built on an island.

 

[TrickyRicky]

Ultimately this discussion of "ideal" built form is irrelevent anyways. Toronto will always be predominantly low-rise, with some small sections of higher density development and highrise clusters regardless of what anyone here wishes. The presence of neither low density residential, nor high density skyscrapers is threatening to the city as a whole. It IS however threatening to some people with local interest on a case-by-case individual basis. It is not our job to judge these people for expressing their interest, while at the same time we may champion the kind of built form they are against.

For me the point of a city is to provide a diversity of living and working options. An entirely high-density city or low density city is an unfortunate and stiffling outcome. Mid-rise density neighourhoods are worth championing here in Toronto because they are such a rare built form for us and would add to the diversity of neighbourhoods and living options available to our citizens.

 

[adma]

Look at it this way: they're being built, but incrementally (i.e. pipe down, it doesn't take overnight). And if it doesn't seem that way in UT, it's because they aren't as "sexy" for the thread-poster as skyscrapers--nor are their locations, a lot of the time. And face it: a lot of them are a lot more speculatively "plain jane" (or on Chedingtonista occasion, "plain jane in whore makeup") than what those who get hard over Clewes or Freedville are prepared to tolerate. So: no rush, pipe down, they'll continue to happen, Beaches Licks protesters notwithstanding...

 

[adma]

I am sorry if I am seen as biased or "anti-heritage"

Well, more a little obtuse t/w our "heritage landscape", loosely speaking. Just like statements like "In fact, women are simply less interested in arguing about things online. She are probably busy shopping for clothes and furniture etc." make you seem a little obtuse t/w women...who, incidentally, have been a prime impetus in many a heritage movement here and there...

 

[Palma]

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.

Again. what is this fascination with high rise buildings? Who cares if low rise does not achieve high density. Do they talk this way in European cities? How many tall buildings do you see in Paris or Rome or Amsterdam? In these cities, old buildings do not get torn down like in Toronto. When a plane is full, you need to hop onto another plane. Lets encourage density where it is really lacking - Vaughan and north of Hwy 401. But again, just build houses that are closer together and not 50' frontage. They do not need to be tall buildings.