isaidso said:
People vastly under-estimate how much opportunity there is for intensification beyond our low rise residential neighbourhoods. Greater Toronto - Hamilton could accommodate millions more people focusing solely on our arterial roads, 17 nodes (downtown, MCC, VMC, etc.), and brown fields. If we exhaust opportunities to intensify then look at low rise neighbourhoods but we could keep growing as we have for 50+ years before reaching that point.

The idea that all parts of the city need intensification doesn't make sense nor is it desirable. I'd hate for Toronto to end up like Paris with fairly uniform density from one end to the other. Diversity is our strength/trump card and that extends to having super high density areas, mid density, and yes, low density too. Low density and parkland offer an oasis and visual break. People are too quick to destroy things without considering that these places have some benefit. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.

1 of those 17 nodes (downtown Toronto) could conceivable fit another 200,000 all by itself and its only 17 sq km. There are LOADS of places in Greater Toronto - Hamilton that could accommodate 50,000 to 100,000 people with similar density. We don't need to touch neighbourhoods like the Annex, Cabbagetown, Danforth, Leaside, etc. if we're smart about growth. Besides, it's not like these places don't have arterial roads going through them where one can build a wall of mid-rises (6-12 floors).
Click to expand...
Again. Nobody. Is. Advocating. For. Mass. Demolition. It. Is. Merely. A. Strawman. You. Have. Invented.

Upzoning the Yellowbelt would create the diversity you write about. We'd likely have pockets of high (and medium) density in what are currently low density areas. What kind of benefit is there to more shoebox condos along arterials?
 
Just doubling density in the Yellowbelt (allowing duplexes) would create a lot of housing without really changing the character of the areas.
 
isaidso said:
The idea that all parts of the city need intensification doesn't add up nor is it desirable. I'd hate for Toronto to end up like Paris with fairly uniform density from one end to the other. Diversity is our strength/trump card and that extends to having super high density areas, mid density, and yes, low density too. Low density and parkland offer an oasis and visual break. People are too quick to destroy things without considering that these places have some benefit. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
Click to expand...
Around 90 percent of the land in Toronto is singe family housing. If anything we are deeply lacking diversity in housing typology. Plus, It would only take a few walk up apartments per block to double the density of the yellowbelt. The block adjacent to this lot would require ~4 buildings (10-15 units each) per block to double capacity, and it's already reasonably dense. Hardly a blockbusting manoeuvre. There are more accurate calculations on this than mine.
 
Ward8 said:
Around 90 percent of the land in Toronto is singe family housing. If anything we are deeply lacking diversity in housing typology. Plus, It would only take a few walk up apartments per block to double the density of the yellowbelt. The block adjacent to this lot would require ~4 buildings (10-15 units each) per block to double capacity, and it's already reasonably dense. Hardly a blockbusting manoeuvre. There are more accurate calculations on this than mine.
Click to expand...
it's far less than 90%, but still a lot. It's about 60% of land area IIRC.

in terms of actual dwelling numbers, about 24% of dwellings in the City of Toronto in 2016 were detached dwellings. I suspect that has declined significantly since then, though we are still waiting on 2021 census data to confirm.
 
innsertnamehere said:
it's far less than 90%, but still a lot. It's about 60% of land area IIRC.
Click to expand...
I did recall incorrectly. Just looked it up again and it has 75% as "neighbourhoods." Probably a slice of that is not SFZ. I think the figure I was recalling includes employment and open space. The calculation I was referring to was establishing how much geographic space is available for intensification. Approx 5%. There are caveats, but the central point stands.
 
A benefit of allowing duplexes, triplexes, etc. in yellow-belt areas that I think is often overlooked is that this could increase housing supply with much greater speed.

To keep a bit more on-topic with this thread, take this project as an example. The developer has been moving with reasonable speed and seems to be completing this about as quickly as can be done in the Toronto market. It will still be ~6 years from the beginning of demolition to when residents begin moving in. It is a similar timeframe for not just highrise construction, but most of the avenue midrise buildings.

Smaller-scale projects could add units in a fraction of the time, often in not much more than a year of construction.

I do think one potential wrench in this argument would be if municipalities upzone without ensuring their planning and building departments are staffed sufficiently to make sure the municipal approvals don't hold things up.
 
Last edited:
evandyk said:
If you include semi-detached, it must increase that number above 24%
Click to expand...
including semi-detached gets you up to 30%.

Again, this is 2016 data. Since then a very significant amount of apartment completions (probably around 100,000 units, or about a 10% increase in units city-wide) have occurred which will push the % down.

I don't believe census data separates single-detached with secondary units either (i.e. basement suites), though duplexes qualify as a separate unit type.
 
innsertnamehere said:
in terms of actual dwelling numbers, about 24% of dwellings in the City of Toronto in 2016 were detached dwellings. I suspect that has declined significantly since then, though we are still waiting on 2021 census data to confirm.
Click to expand...

76% of people in Toronto live in apartments?
 
Edward Skira said:
76% of people in Toronto live in apartments?
Click to expand...

From the 2016 Census:

1641857363460.png


Source:

 
Interesting. I learned something here. Had no idea how small single family actually is even though it takes up a lot of space. Shows how much room we have to grow without having to sprawl to Lake Huron.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top