[Northern Light]

That's the thing... architects and developers probably hire people with better taste on average than your median city hall planning functionary.

Now that one is tough too, LOL

I mean look at the median quality of what we've seen here over the last few years.......

I'm happy to (proverbially) throw both sides under the bus.

****

There are ways to 'regulate' aesthetics, to a point, effectively. But aside from enabling legislation to do so; it's not a small task to set it up, and any process will add a layer of approval (think of it as mandatory design review) which could easily add months to the typical approval.

It doesn't have to............

IF you look at Paris, France, it is very prescriptive in its designs in many areas. If you comply, the process isn't unduly onerous.....errr, for France.

But what makes it 'work' is a very clear description of roof-style, window-style, material, colour etc. etc.

You need something of a public consensus on what should be required........but you will, to some degree, stifle innovation. Whether you add cost or not is an interesting question, as a prescriptive system can result in more people making fewer designs of windows, doors etc. which can lead to more price competition, It's all very complex.

 

[Koops65]

You also need to remember that 28 floors isn't particularly tall, for Toronto...

 

[Spooderman]

You also need to remember that 28 floors isn't particularly tall, for Toronto...

Yes, but location matters. Three 100-meter-tall buildings in the middle of a residential neighborhood where the max height is 12 meters isn’t ideal. Instead of that, we could build a couple of 6-story apartments that wouldn’t disrupt the character of the neighborhood while still housing the same number of people. Look at the West Village in NYC, Montreal, and Boston — they effectively house more people than Toronto in a smaller space without needing tall buildings like that. The smaller building on the west side of the development seems like a much more feasible option for the neighborhood.

 

[Koops65]

I get what you're saying... but it isn't three 100 metres tall towers. The tallest is 85 metres, it says so right in the thread title. The others are even shorter.

 

[Spooderman]

I get what you're saying... but it isn't three 100 metres tall towers. The tallest is 85 metres, it says so right in the thread title. The others are even shorter.

Ik I’m just exaggerating a little bit to prove my point

 

[Parkdalian]

Yes, but location matters. Three 100-meter-tall buildings in the middle of a residential neighborhood where the max height is 12 meters isn’t ideal. Instead of that, we could build a couple of 6-story apartments that wouldn’t disrupt the character of the neighborhood while still housing the same number of people. Look at the West Village in NYC, Montreal, and Boston — they effectively house more people than Toronto in a smaller space without needing tall buildings like that. The smaller building on the west side of the development seems like a much more feasible option for the neighborhood.

I think your own example explains why your vision for the city is not being built. The West Village in NYC is extremely expensive - a quick Googling shows that most properties are in the tens of millions of dollars. This Mirvish development was meant to provide housing for renters. (And, has been noted, it is even a little expensive for that!)

As well, to build enough 6-story buildings to match the density of these few tall buildings would require the destruction of many more single-family homes. I'm all for the destruction of single-family homes (I think it's bananas that we have streets filled with them literally meters from our CBD), but this is literally an unwinnable war in a democratically elected city. No councillor would last more than one term if they tried to push for the wide-scale destruction of single-family homes required to make our city look like the East Village or Montreal. Many of the people living in these dumb buildings are too fixated on the idea that they can live a suburban life in the downtown of one of the largest cities in North America: backyard, on-street parking, only houses around them.

I would also point out that "disrupt the character of a street" is exactly the sort of argument that is made to keep these homes, so I think you'll need different talking points if you want to get people on your side. (I'd also point out that the idea that buildings can "disrupt the character of a street" is really just NIMBYism in a better outfit.)

 

[rdaner]

Taken 28 October.

 

[maestro]

Mirvish Village is the peak of large scale intensification in Toronto. Still, the height and scale of the buildings and the amount of outdoor space is not more desirable than a walkable neighbourhood home with a modest private yard or space for a family car that isn't mandatory for work commutes. Urbantoronto never inferred suburban sprawl with our low density streetcar neighbourhoods in the past. The Annex, for example, is what we heralded as the best of Toronto eventhough the Graphic Arts Tower had us coming back for more information. Then there's the affordability aspect which is tied to smaller square footage than lower priced square footage. I don't want to go too much further into affordability which is more complex than simple supply and demand. Much of it has to do with policy from all levels and the two parties that saw housing as a cash cow commodity that also got us out of the depressed 1990s. It's undeniable that smaller household square footage and intense multi-family is connected to the record low birth rate in Toronto.

Outsourcing population stability and growth is costly Canadians billions in incentives to move here. As much as we admire skylines not enough people are interested in relocating to Toronto to live in a undersized two bedroom apartment on the 50th floor on their own.

 

[LUVIT!]

I read this twice and am still trying to understand? We go through boom and bust cycles and we're going through a bust now. The market speaks. Demand vs supply. Now we have some demand and a vast supply of hotel room sized boxes that few want. What can our government do? Anyhoo.

 

[evandyk]

It's undeniable that smaller household square footage and intense multi-family is connected to the record low birth rate in Toronto.

I doubt that's true. Birth rates have been declining around the world in countries that have very different housing markets.

Mirvish Village will make it possible for a lot more families to afford to live in the Annex than did before it was built. We were close to being one of those families, until another opportunity came up.

 

[Northern Light]

I think your own example explains why your vision for the city is not being built. The West Village in NYC is extremely expensive - a quick Googling shows that most properties are in the tens of millions of dollars. This Mirvish development was meant to provide housing for renters. (And, has been noted, it is even a little expensive for that!)

As well, to build enough 6-story buildings to match the density of these few tall buildings would require the destruction of many more single-family homes. I'm all for the destruction of single-family homes (I think it's bananas that we have streets filled with them literally meters from our CBD), but this is literally an unwinnable war in a democratically elected city. No councillor would last more than one term if they tried to push for the wide-scale destruction of single-family homes required to make our city look like the East Village or Montreal. Many of the people living in these dumb buildings are too fixated on the idea that they can live a suburban life in the downtown of one of the largest cities in North America: backyard, on-street parking, only houses around them.

I would also point out that "disrupt the character of a street" is exactly the sort of argument that is made to keep these homes, so I think you'll need different talking points if you want to get people on your side. (I'd also point out that the idea that buildings can "disrupt the character of a street" is really just NIMBYism in a better outfit.)

Honestly, I respect you as a poster, but I don't think this post looks good now, never mind how it ages.

It reads as badly as a firm NIMBY...."I want what I want when I want so give it to me"

There's a failure to recognize that your vote and preference is no more (or less) important than the next persons. AND

That most 'next' people don't share your vision.

Its not merely hirise vs lowrise or the aesthetics of brick vs precast though those certainly play a role.

Its the among of living space one desires. Even if you don't have kids...........let alone if you do.

Its easy for single people or those in tight couples with high personal space tolerance to say everyone should live in 500ft2, or even 700ft2.

The reality is most people desire, if not need, at least 1,000ft2, even if they're single.......a family of 4 needs 2,000ft2., plus a yard.

I say that as a champion of higher density, someone who lives in multi-storey rental building, and uses transit regularly.

I'm always astounded by people thinking their preferences (not better ideas) should prevail over the preferences of others.

We can and should offer better rental and midrise accommodation (but we haven't been) ; but even now, the stuff people want to be excited about, new mass-timer, and 6-9s mainstreeet builds...are coming in
with 500ft2 1bdrms, 2bdrms at sub 700ft2, and few 3bdrms, most under 1,000ft2
.
Few people who have or want to start families will accept this.

Yes, we can be more efficient that traditional SFH in more places, and we should. Scrapping SFH bungalows along Victoria Park for midrise sounds grand.

But the idea that small little boxes in the sky are the answer for everyone and anyone not interested is the enemy strikes me as a profound problem and something that sets the cause of good urban planning back.

It can, it has, and it will produce a virulent backlash.

Unless and until, we achieve minimum unit sizes, 25% or more 3-bedroom accommodation, and greater outdoor space and/or sidestreets kids can go play on safely........ we're setting up a no-win situation.

 

[citylights]

I'm always astounded by people thinking they're preferences (not better ideas) should prevail over the preferences of others.

Obviously, the geographic context is important in this debate.
But, as far as downtown Toronto is concerned...
Flip this argument around.
Why should the preferences of a few dozen people who presently live in a neighborhood prevail over the housing needs of a few (or many) hundred others who would love to call that same neighborhood home in the future?
Especially in one of the most urban areas in the country, that's serviced by one of the busiest transit systems in the entire continent.
It's gatekeeping, it's selfish and it's an attitude we desperately need to change as our population increases.

For those who prefer a big property and yard, the suburbs exist to accommodate that.
And frankly, if we unlocked more land for higher density housing (as it becomes available), we'd make it more feasible for builders to offer large 1,000+sf units at lower price points because land costs would decrease... and perhaps with more activity, development charges could too.

 

[Northern Light]

Obviously, the geographic context is important in this debate.
But, as far as downtown Toronto is concerned...
Flip this argument around.

Sure.

Why should the preferences of a few dozen people who presently live in a neighborhood prevail over the housing needs of a few (or many) hundred others who would love to call that same neighborhood home in the future?

The problem I have with this statement aside from being erroneous as pertains to numbers.....on the site specific level is:

1) Who here suggested no development or intensification with everything frozen in time? No one, that's who. The idea that its hirise or bust and that you can't deliver reasonable unit sizes or sympathetic hirise architecture is wrong.

This is not a matter of leaving SFH anywhere, this site (Mirvish Village was almost entirely commercial. No one suggested replacing with with 19thC Victoria SFH or duplexes.

The debate point was one of delivering housing and communities in a style that appeals to more people, in sizes that are more practical for families.

There is a lot of in-between space. The suggestion that someone is being unreasonable and obstinate because they don't think every block should be a modernist hirise is too much.

It's gatekeeping, it's selfish

But wanting to live in the very same area is not? Of course it is; its all self-interest. The question if one of balancing competing self-interests.

and it's an attitude we desperately need to change as our population increases.

As I've stated many times, we don't need to increase our population. The fertility rate would have us decreasing.

I would prefer a world with 3 billion humans not 8.5 billion. I will reiterate, I'm not talking about some sort of mass cull, just allowing the population to fall to a more reasonable level.

The idea that we must grow, because we must grow, because we must grow is entirely wrong. Its not environmentally sustainable and results in a deteriorating quality of life, longer commutes, higher land costs etc.

For those who prefer a big property and yard, the suburbs exist to accommodate that.

No one is suggesting that every person gets 1/2 an acre of land and a ranch style home, at the corner of Bloor and Bathurst.

Your desire to take this to utter extremes makes a conversation extremely challenging.

The Annex is already a dense neighbourood with mixed tenure, apartments, houses, rooming houses, townhomes, condos etc. No one suggested replicating suburbia here, my goodness.

And frankly, if we unlocked more land for higher density housing (as it becomes available), we'd make it more feasible for builders to offer large 1,000+sf units at lower price points because land costs would decrease... and perhaps with more activity, development charges could too.

Except this isn't true. We've already done that lots of times, and developers have consistently delivered the same small units at ever inflating prices.

This is true, because:

1) We've grown the population faster than the housing supply. (which was a choice)

2) We've permitted investor-driven housing markets that have little or nothing to do with providing livable housing but a more akin to a ponzi-scheme or a Vegas-betting regime on credit.

3) Developers are profit-driven and have no desire to build units cheaper, as that would mean less profit, why on earth would they do that? They aren't running a charity.

4) We don't require minimum unit sizes

5) We only 'nominally' require 10% 3 bedroom or greater units, when to accommodate families in multi-res housing the number needs to be at least 25%

*******

This is not a case of people advocating for suburbia downtown, it is not anti-development Nimby'ism or wholesale opposition to intensification or height.

It is, if people allow it, a discussion about reasonable transitions, about compatible architectural styles, about building what most people want and need not what makes the most profit.

PS, I've led the charge of higher as-of-right heights on main streets, for ditching parking minimums, for mid-rises on the Avenues, and I rent and live in a hirise, so please, ditch the gatekeeping nonsense.

 

[evandyk]

The reality is most people desire, if not need, at least 1,000ft2, even if they're single.......a family of 4 needs 2,000ft2., plus a yard.

I mostly agree with your entire post regarding family-sized units, but I think this overstates the expectations of the types of people who would like to live downtown with kids. Our last apartment was 1150 sf and it was plenty for a family of three, but didn't end up working out for us as our kid got bigger - because of the lack of access to outdoor space. We had a really long, narrow balcony that was nice to sit on, but didn't really have room even for a dining table.

We built a laneway house that is 1350 sf and has access to a shared backyard, and it's perfect for us. We'd want one more bedroom if we had one more kid, but that doesn't bring you to 2000 sf. People who want to live close to the subway and have a short commute to work recognize the compromises you have to make. It's just right now there is a real shortage of places in that 1500 sf range with some quality outdoor space (even if it's shared). 2000 and your own backyard isn't necessary at all.

I have a lot of friends and colleagues who have moved to the suburbs and regret it. The problem is that it costs $1.5M for an apartment/stacked town that you can live in with two kids close to the subway, and half that for a much bigger house far away from your office.

 

[IsaacKhouzam]

3) Developers are profit-driven and have no desire to build units cheaper, as that would mean less profit, why on earth would they do that? They aren't running a charity.

I don’t think the fact that developers are profit-driven precludes the possibility of cheaper units. By that logic prices would never go down in any sector! If costs (land, construction, development fees, etc.) went down and developers felt that there was a market for larger units at lower prices, it would be in the interest of making profits to offer them. Until recently, small units have sold well and costs have been high, so small units are what we’ve gotten; but if there were demand for larger units and the ability to provide them, there’s no reason to think they wouldn’t be built. As far as I can tell, the reason we don’t see them being built now is because costs are high and the demand for larger units in denser forms is not sufficiently strong. People in Toronto who want (or think they want) more space don't envision themselves living in an apartment, and nobody has yet had the vision to make a compelling case to the contrary.