News   May 03, 2024
Assembly's Blueprint for Sustainable Urban Living in the GTHA
 778     1 
News   May 03, 2024
RAD's State of the Market 2024 to Feature Talks on AI and Real Estate
 500     0 
News   May 03, 2024
Congratulations to our Avontuura Guides Winners!
 248     0 

Why more skyscrapers than "Avenue" style building proposals?

Europe is warming up to high-rise development. Things don't get torn down as they do in Toronto as those cities are long established with top grade architecture and fairly stable population numbers.
 
Palma said:
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.
Click to expand...

The formula is simple. To achieve the same relative density for a given land area you either build large number of low and mid rise buildings with a slightly higher ratio of mid rise. For every low rise single family building you want to retain you need to increase the height at the other end.

700 residences can either be built as 700 individual homes or one 700 unit building or something in between. The problem as I see it in Toronto is that people want to keep the single family homes and fight against something as simple as a 5 - 15 story building and so where they can the city and developers try to squeeze as many people into one location as they can so that they can meet the desired density.
 
I'd argue that single family homes mixed in with highrises is something that can be traced back to the 19th century when toronto was building single family homes while the rest of the continent was building rowhomes and apartments. The GTA's built form is low density neighbourhoods punctuated by highrises at every major intersection. This is a characteristically Toronto trait that is extremely uncommon on this continent and I wish to see continue in essence, but with more midrises in between and the single family homes being built much closer together.
 
innsertnamehere said:
I'd argue that single family homes mixed in with highrises is something that can be traced back to the 19th century when toronto was building single family homes while the rest of the continent was building rowhomes and apartments. The GTA's built form is low density neighbourhoods punctuated by highrises at every major intersection. This is a characteristically Toronto trait that is extremely uncommon on this continent and I wish to see continue in essence, but with more midrises in between and the single family homes being built much closer together.
Click to expand...

But that is characteristically different from a European city design, which is what some people aim to produce in Toronto.
 
innsertnamehere said:
The GTA's built form is low density neighbourhoods punctuated by highrises at every major intersection. This is a characteristically Toronto trait that is extremely uncommon on this continent and I wish to see continue in essence, but with more midrises in between and the single family homes being built much closer together.
Click to expand...

Maybe a way to achieve these greater densities is a blanket doubling of residential densities city wide?

Across the board, allow a second residential unit wherever it is possible to build one. On a bungalow, allow 2nd story additions for 2nd units (or third where a basement apartment exists). Where a detached property has a very deep yard, allow a 2nd unit to be built at the rear of the property (whether accesses from a laneway or the front of the street. Allow Garages to be converted for residential uses too. Where lots have wider frontages allow further increases in density.

Most single family residential homes could accommodate an additional unit without much effect on infrastructure and service costs to the city and with little negative impact on the neighbourhoods. More people is exactly what many of these neighbourhoods need.

This residential density increase should extend to the avenues as well doubling the present density and allowing more height on major streets and many secondary roads.
 
innsertnamehere said:
I'd argue that single family homes mixed in with highrises is something that can be traced back to the 19th century when toronto was building single family homes while the rest of the continent was building rowhomes and apartments. The GTA's built form is low density neighbourhoods punctuated by highrises at every major intersection. This is a characteristically Toronto trait that is extremely uncommon on this continent and I wish to see continue in essence, but with more midrises in between and the single family homes being built much closer together.
Click to expand...

Yea, it's definitely not a recent phenomenon. I'm not sure it'll be very effective in the long run for a number of reasons.

Even if modest average density is achieved, I don't think the areas would be very pedestrian friendly or desirable. Toronto's 'Avenues' tend to be quite far from eachother, which would limit any agglomeration benefits from adding density. Someone buying a condo on Sheppard wont or cant walk up to Finch in the way that someone on King could easily walk to Queen or Dundas. The only businesses which would generate much walk in traffic then would be the hyper local types (e.g. drycleaners.) In turn, the low density surrounding most of these avenues further inhibits succesful commercial activity and, by extension, walkability since there simply aren't as many potential walk in customers as possible.

As an anecdote, most of the people I know who live in these suburban condos/apts still tend to drive most places.

P.S. I wonder if something like what happened to downtown in the post-war era may happen in the suburban 416. A lot of the housing stock is seen as undesirable for various reasons, but redevelopment is way more difficult than a greenfield 905 project. And unlike downtown, these areas aren't particularly close to desirable employment or recreation areas to justify premium prices.
 
Last edited:
jaycola said:
Maybe a way to achieve these greater densities is a blanket doubling of residential densities city wide?

Across the board, allow a second residential unit wherever it is possible to build one. On a bungalow, allow 2nd story additions for 2nd units (or third where a basement apartment exists). Where a detached property has a very deep yard, allow a 2nd unit to be built at the rear of the property (whether accesses from a laneway or the front of the street. Allow Garages to be converted for residential uses too. Where lots have wider frontages allow further increases in density.

Most single family residential homes could accommodate an additional unit without much effect on infrastructure and service costs to the city and with little negative impact on the neighbourhoods. More people is exactly what many of these neighbourhoods need.

This residential density increase should extend to the avenues as well doubling the present density and allowing more height on major streets and many secondary roads.
Click to expand...

I think an edict (I lost my words for what a municipal law regarding density is...) like that would be extremely difficult to pass. My experience, granted it is in Vaughan, is that there is a TON of pressure against this type of density. Vaughan right now is trying to legalize basement apartments (partly as a means of making the area affordable to those who can not buy) and is facing a lot of backlash against it.
 
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/art...jennifer-keesmaat-pushes-for-lots-of-mid-rise

Growing Up: Toronto planner Jennifer Keesmaat pushes for lots of mid-rise

Published on Wednesday January 16, 2013
Wendy Gillis
Staff Reporter


And Toronto’s chief planner has resolved to make it easier for developers to build even more.

But Jennifer Keesmaat isn’t calling for just any kind of building, anywhere: Rather than more superstructures in the downtown core, Toronto needs moderate-sized buildings all across town, she said.

Citing Eglinton Ave. as an example, Keesmaat says many Toronto streets are prime real estate for mid-rise building, defined as five- or six-storey buildings on narrow streets, and up to 11 storeys on wide arterial roads. Such streets have the space to accommodate mid-rise buildings, often host businesses and services that would benefit from increased density, and most important, are served by transit.
Click to expand...

But mid-rises are still the exception to the skyscraping rule, so to encourage developers Keesmaat will be streamlining the process through “as-of-right” zoning.

That means streets such as Eglinton will be pre-approved for mid-rise building, allowing the developer to bypass the onerous and often expensive process of rezoning. The pre-approved zoning will be based on the city’s Avenue studies, thorough examining factors such as street character that have been conducted on 19 streets thus far.
Click to expand...
 
4 storeys max would be best, imo - no need for elevators. Go to Montreal, you'll see countless walk-up apartments ("plexes"), that's what Toronto needs. European cities are full of apartments that predate elevators too. Toronto needs to ban elevators across the city and institute a 4 storey height limit and force developers to build low-rise apartment complexes instead of all the crappy high-rise apartment towers they're building now. It woudl make the city more urban and more environmentally friendly.
 
All well and good unless you're in a wheelchair. Doesn't multi-storey residential construction have to have elevators?
 
Some concrete policy examples to spur mid-rise development along avenues etc. at each of the 3 levels of government:

-Municipal: Tax residential properties below 30 units at the regular residential rate
-Provincial: Audit the building code to smooth out small issues that hand-cuff midrise projects
-Federal: Review lending policy. Certain cut-offs such as the 4-unit threshold above which residential property must be classed commercial requiring environmental assessments etc. penalize smaller buildings.
 
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...s-ways-to-develop-the-avenues/article7348827/

By latest count, Toronto’s skyline boasts 185 construction cranes. That is good news for the construction industry and good news for the city. “We have sucked up like a vortex all of the cranes in North America,†marvels Jennifer Keesmaat, the city’s chief planner since September. Some whopping big projects are crossing her desk, including towers of 80 storeys or so.

...

The Avenues, as planners call them, are crying out for more development. Many are served by streetcars, buses or other transit. One of them, Eglinton, is to get a new light-rail line, part of it running underground. The Avenues usually have lots of shopping and good access to local parks and community centres. Development there is “not quite as a dramatic†as all the glass condo towers in the sky, Ms. Keesmaat said, but “it can be a great way to build out communities†and revitalize streets.

The question is how to make it happen. Planners have been trying for years to build density on the Avenues. Developers often find it hard to assemble significant parcels of land on streets with many different building owners. Architects find it hard to build modest-sized buildings given the welter of city design and engineering rules.

Ms. Keesmaat said she wants to make it easier and that it is one of her priorities for the new year. Among the ideas being considered is allowing mid-rise development on the Avenues “as of right†– in other words, without the hassle of applying for a zoning change.

Another problem she will have to overcome is public opposition. Although you might expect a modest mid-rise condo of six or eight storeys to attract less controversy than a mammoth tower, in fact, some local residents often fight even these projects. Proposed condos on Ossington Avenue and Queen Street East, among other places, have run into opposition from residents who fear they will bring congestion and change the character of the neighbourhood.

“We have a very clear framework,†Ms. Keesmaat rejoined. “If some people don’t like that, there is not much we can do about that.†She hopes the city will come around to seeing the merit of developing the Avenues. “We have the opportunity to absorb and accommodate a significant amount of density in mid-rise forms in a non-onerous way that results in a very high quality of life,†she said in her speech.
Click to expand...

About time!
 
How would that even work? I can't imagine there's a simple way to just "allow" mid-rises without massive zoning changes since they're legal bylaws.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top