[Mercenary]

Article by @AlexBozikovic in the Globe and Mail:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/art-and-architecture/article-with-doug-fords-development-plans-for-toronto-suburbs-sometimes-big-is/

Points out that we have a very, very poor track record master-planning livable, well-designed communities of this scale in the GTA. (He also made a similar point about East Harbour.)

I don''t agree with him. I think the developers have matured enough to create vibrant communities. None of them have been actually built but are under construction.

Such as the 2150 Lake Shore, Square One Development, M City, etc. Have to wait and see the details of the plan before it can be criticized. Also Toronto needs a lot of housing, and create housing near Transit makes sense.

 

[Northern Light]

I thought his article was solid, and on point. We need more density - but built in a sustainable way and city building is hard to do quickly. There was separate editorial in the Globe on our housing crisis nationally - which I think is good as at it is starting to get more open minded discussion. At some point - we need more 3 bedroom plus housing for people wanting to raise kids. I have 2 kids - you can do it in a 2 bedroom condo - but it is pretty tough. We therefore need houses and townhomes and I dont think that necessarily equates to sprawl - but that is often how it is painted. Of course we want to densify existing neighborhoods - and should - but some expansion out seems necessary too.

It's easy to do three-bedroom condos and midrises. We don't do it, because zoning is s*it and it's unprofitable in our real estate market, but it's do-able.

Zoning is certainly part of it. But let's add; there is room to retain a variation of SFH in Toronto, neighbourhood interiors; just not so much along arterials/main streets excepting some heritage.

I would argue strongly for targeting areas of Etobicoke and Scarborough where the are 20m/60ft lots.

Quite literally, rebuilding those as 30ft lots would double the SFH density and meet a lot of demand; doing some of it as 20ft lots, would see up to triple the room.

Taking, one-storey ranch homes and booting them to 2-3s in the change could be even bigger; and in some areas, re-doing awkward street grids and introducing lane-way garages/housing (at the expense of driveways and back yards) and reducing 14M road rights-of-way to 7-10M would free up tons of land too.

You do that and you take all the arterial edge-stuff, say, along a McCowan Road as an example and take that all mid-rise; and you could triple the density easily, add 50% more SFH (losing the stuff on the arterials for midrise); and
give people a range of lifestyle choices,, unit sizes and tenures) .

But that requires bold government leadership, a willingness to expropriate, and some serious capital. I believe the vast majority of the cost could be covered by private capital, but government would have to lead the way.

 

[Northern Light]

I wanted to provide an example of the above. So I thought about area of 'The Beach' that used to be the race track, that was re-done with mid-rise along Queen and SFH interiors.

I decided to start by just looking at the interior and what kind of density there is:

Within those white lines, the number of homes per road varies from 16-26, so over a 3 hectare area that you see here, there are 91 homes.

This comparable sized area off McCowan holds roughly 1/2 that.

This area of Etobicoke shows even more promise:

Of course there is nothing more promising than this: (smiles)

Currently an average of 1 home per hectare.

Redeveloped to a standard slightly more generous than our Beach example, 20 homes per hectare say, that's 1,040SFH gross, or 980 net gain.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

I don''t agree with him. I think the developers have matured enough to create vibrant communities. None of them have been actually built but are under construction.

Such as the 2150 Lakeshore, Square One Development, M City, etc. Have to wait and see the details of the plan before it can be criticized. Also Toronto needs a lot of housing, and create housing near Transit makes sense.

When he says "The Toronto suburbs have zero examples of this being done successfully," I just kind of shrug. It's 2022. VMC subway opened in 2017. How many examples of this are there, really?
His link goes to VMC and there's also Markham Centre, which is a pretty different beast. They're both brand new communities and I think for someone who likes talking about how cities grow and such, it's rather overstating it to point out that a brand new community hasn't succesfully achieved its objectives. When did Toronto, which was officially founded int he 1830s, become a successful downtown? 1900? 1950? 1970? 1990?

Just a lack of perspective, IMHO.

And just per the above post which came in as I was typing: The Woodbine development is pretty straightforward New Urbanist design. I would imagine that the density you see there is very similar to Cornell and, therefore, what many would cite as an "ideal" example of suburban retrofitting. Indeed, what that community has that Cornell does not have is an urban location with a pretty vibrant main street. I think dropping an NU built form on the urban edge is better than a typical subdivision but where you really get a successful design is when you can drop it somewhere like Queen and Woodbine.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Also, people complained about Cityplace being a failure when it was getting built for years but those complaints have largely dried up now that it's closer to completion.

I'm quite hopeful for VMC to be honest, a lot of work is going in to getting it right. Everyone looks at Mississauga as it's the oldest and most developed and assumes all suburban centres will be similar "failures", but I just don't think that's true. Even Mississauga is on track to have some substantial improvements in the next decade, I think, though it'll be far from great.

 

[Northern Light]

When he says "The Toronto suburbs have zero examples of this being done successfully," I just kind of shrug. It's 2022. VMC subway opened in 2017. How many examples of this are there, really?
His link goes to VMC and there's also Markham Centre, which is a pretty different beast. They're both brand new communities and I think for someone who likes talking about how cities grow and such, it's rather overstating it to point out that a brand new community hasn't succesfully achieved its objectives. When did Toronto, which was officially founded int he 1830s, become a successful downtown? 1900? 1950? 1970? 1990?

Just a lack of perspective, IMHO.

The distinction being made is that downtown Toronto didn't emerge all at once.

It grew in bits and pieces, a new street here, a new block there, with a gradual increase in height from 1-3s originally to skyscrapers today.

By building it all at once, if nothing else you get a uniformity of architecture that would not otherwise be the case.

Variety in architecture, not just in material or period/era style, but in scale, in lot size, in form and use (old brickwarehouses becoming lofts show that gradual shift over time) is nearly impossible to achieve
when building at scale on a greenfield/brownfield.

In light of a housing supply crunch, it's hard to argue for a purposeful 25 year phase-in for a site (though it may well be that long anyway); but there is an argument to be made
for compelling the use of different architecture firms; and for breaking up the site, for planning purposes into smaller chunks, with only the key high-level bits decided for the entire site, and
different firms and even different City Planners looking at different chunks of a large site, so that there's more 'flavour'.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

The distinction being made is that downtown Toronto didn't emerge all at once.

It grew in bits and pieces, a new street here, a new block there, with a gradual increase in height from 1-3s originally to skyscrapers today.

Well, Richmond Hill and Markham are growing in bits and pieces. And these specific communities will take 20-30 years to build out.

By building it all at once, if nothing else you get a uniformity of architecture that would not otherwise be the case.

Variety in architecture, not just in material or period/era style, but in scale, in lot size, in form and use (old brickwarehouses becoming lofts show that gradual shift over time) is nearly impossible to achieve
when building at scale on a greenfield/brownfield.

I get it - they are master-planned communities but we haven't seen a design for any actual buildings here so it's too early to talk about variation in architecture though again, I partially agree in that there's concerns if one architect is going to oversee the whole thing. But over 20 years, people working there today won't necessarily be there tomorrow.

There are pros, there are cons.
I've said this in Yellowbelt discussions too but you have to look at it not in terms of this little island but the larger evolution of Markham and RH and what is already there. There isn't a gradual shift on these sites, it's true, but there's certainly a gradual shift from what is literally next door, to the north, south east and west. So it's really a Q of how we're framing things.

In light of a housing supply crunch, it's hard to argue for a purposeful 25 year phase-in for a site (though it may well be that long anyway); but there is an argument to be made

I think it's less a discussion of phase-in than practical realities. Some areas can't even be touched for 10-15 years, because of the subway construction. Then it's still a Q of how fast buildings can practically come on line. North York Centre is maybe a better example than downtown Toronto. It started in the mid-80s and, last I heard, is at about 70%. It wasn't a blank slate, like these sites mostly are, but it's still a better reference for how long these things take to build out.

But I definitely agree, these communities are going to need diversity of design and "flavour" to be successful. Even VMC has the benefit of Smart Centres on one side and QuadReal on the other etc. and so, yeah, there is the potential for planning this all out now not allowing for a more 'organic' development over time - and ultimately that could be what determines whether all this density evolves into a real, liveable community. Or not.

 

[Mercenary]

I think Toronto and GTA is evolving into what Tokyo is today. You have major nodes spread out all over Tokyo who have their own central business district, shopping, transit, housing, jobs, entertainment.

Toronto is doing that with major cluster developments in Downtown, Yorkville, East Harbor, 2150 Lake Shore, Yonge-Eg, Yonge-St.Clair, Yonge-Finch, Yonge-Steeles, High Tech, Golden Mile, Yorkdale Mall, Square One, Vaughn, Scarborough Town Center, Markham downtown, Woodbine re-development, Pearson Airport Transit hub, etc.

I infact love it. Gives Toronto a very unique feel unlike any city in North America. I just wish the architecture isn't so bland and is unique and transit catches up.

 

[Undead]

I think Toronto and GTA is evolving into what Tokyo is today. You have major nodes spread out all over Tokyo who have their own central business district, shopping, transit, housing, jobs, entertainment.

Toronto is doing that with major cluster developments in Downtown, Yorkville, East Harbor, 2150 Lake Shore, Yonge-Eg, Yonge-St.Clair, Yonge-Finch, Yonge-Steeles, High Tech, Golden Mile, Yorkdale Mall, Square One, Vaughn, Scarborough Town Center, Markham downtown, Woodbine re-development, Pearson Airport Transit hub, etc.

I infact love it. Gives Toronto a very unique feel unlike any city in North America. I just wish the architecture isn't so bland and is unique and transit catches up.

Apart from the jobs. IIRC, the suburban density clusters have very few jobs in and immediately around them. We would do well to get the 905 highway oriented offices to densify inside the resi clusters.

 

[Mercenary]

Apart from the jobs. IIRC, the suburban density clusters have very few jobs in and immediately around them. We would do well to get the 905 highway oriented offices to densify inside the resi clusters.

I think with Covid and work from home, you could see major corporations set up field offices scattered all over where people can come in and work for a couple times a week instead of trudging all the way to downtown. So if for example you work for the major banks and live in Richmond hill, you can pop into their field office located in High Tech area and work instead of trekking all the way to downtown.

 

[WislaHD]

It's easy to do three-bedroom condos and midrises. We don't do it, because zoning is s*it and it's unprofitable in our real estate market, but it's do-able.

Larger bedroom sizes don't absorb as quickly as smaller units in the Toronto housing market. The Toronto construction industry is also such that you require ~80% of the project to be sold first in order to secure a construction loan in most cases. This incentivizes developers who need to move quickly through pre-approval stages and to construction to build smaller units overall in order to drive absorption and reach 80% sold target quicker.

The City of Toronto adopted the Growing Up guidelines a few years back which mandated 10% of units to be 3-bedroom units in many new builds. Since then, average unit sizes for studio, 1 bedroom, and 2-bedroom units have decreased significantly. I suspect there is causation there, as developers now must sell studio, one, and two-bedroom units much quicker than before in order to offset the 3-bedroom units which just don't have as high of a demand and won't be absorbed in the timeline needed for the developer to secure their construction loans and meet their profit metrics. Thus, the other unit types are seeing their average sizes decrease quickly.

Of course, other considerations like inclusionary zoning, and project delays due to prolonged planning approvals and appeals to LPAT, will also incentivize smaller units in order to subsidize those accrued costs.

Maybe the smaller unit sizes with new development was a trend that was going to occur anyway, but the relationship between well-intentioned planning policies and outcomes might be worth looking at. My personal opinion is that if given the option between having a much larger stock of 800-900 sf two-bedroom condos being built but few three-bedroom units, or a mandated 10% three-bedroom policy (which will go for >$1million and be out of reach for many purchasers (especially young families) and likely end up as divvied up secondary student housing managed by investor-owners) and your choice of 500-600 sf sized units that are being called "two-bedrooms", then the former is a more accessible housing market for most people.

I've been to other cities and countries where 3 and even 4 bedroom apartments were the norm, and very much livable for a family. Due to the specific ways we plan, build, and finance new housing in Toronto/Ontario, I am left thinking that new family-oriented housing stock needs to come from the missing middle, rather than high-density development.

 

[Northern Light]

I think with Covid and work from home, you could see major corporations set up field offices scattered all over where people can come in and work for a couple times a week instead of trudging all the way to downtown. So if for example you work for the major banks and live in Richmond hill, you can pop into their field office located in High Tech area and work instead of trekking all the way to downtown.

The opposite is happening; the banks are all pulling their suburban offices back to the core.

A couple of larger campuses will hang on for awhile, but there are no plans for net new suburban space for the banks, if anything, less.

Though that will depend in part on total need, whether our banks all attempt to grow (as BMO is currently) and if so, how much accretive employment is added in the GTA as a result.

 

[Undead]

I think with Covid and work from home, you could see major corporations set up field offices scattered all over where people can come in and work for a couple times a week instead of trudging all the way to downtown. So if for example you work for the major banks and live in Richmond hill, you can pop into their field office located in High Tech area and work instead of trekking all the way to downtown.

I doubt this will happen. Too expensive and complicated to open satellite offices when everyone's concentrating downtown as NL pointed out. Easier to just let everyone take 2-3 days from home.

Additionally, various City policies and incentives to turn the suburban centres (North York, STC, Etobicoke, Yonge-Eg) into mixed used nodes with significant employment uses have failed.

Generally, businesses have opted to set up shop along the 905 highway corridors or concentrate downtown.

 

[AlexBozikovic]

Thanks for sharing my piece, @allengeorge.

There hasn’t been a lot of detailed discussion, here or elsewhere, of these proposals.

In short, the ”Bridge” scheme, designed by IBI, has been kicking around for a while and is almost plausible. The “High Tech” scheme, by Quadrangle, is a joke. Among other problems, there’s almost no open space, and what there is lies in a hydro corridor.

It’s also worth noticing that the Bridge plan is only half of a larger land assembly. So whatever problems currently exist, with respect to the built form, mix of uses and open space, will only get worse with time.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Thanks for sharing my piece, @allengeorge.

There hasn’t been a lot of detailed discussion, here or elsewhere, of these proposals.

In short, the ”Bridge” scheme, designed by IBI, has been kicking around for a while and is almost plausible. The “High Tech” scheme, by Quadrangle, is a joke. Among other problems, there’s almost no open space, and what there is lies in a hydro corridor.

It’s also worth noticing that the Bridge plan is only half of a larger land assembly. So whatever problems currently exist, with respect to the built form, mix of uses and open space, will only get worse with time.

I think 2 things are getting slightly co-mingled here.
The High Tech TOC is part, but not all, of the Richmond Hill Centre Urban Growth Centre, most (if not all?) of which is owned by Metrus.
The Bridge TOC is a little more than half of the Langstaff Gateway Secondary Plan Area/Growth Centre. It's not a single land assembly as the majority of the lands east of the rail corridor are owned by a second (non-DeGasperis) group, though the TOC is all within a single land assembly. So we're now seeing the developers' plans for those TOCs, which are half (give or take) of their respective growth centres.

There's been some imprecision regarding the relationship between:
a) The Urban Growth Centre (which is split between Markham and RH)
b) The Langstaff Gateway Master Plan/Secondary Plan (developed by Peter Calthorpe, which is not a prior development scheme) and now the Bridge TOC and
c) The Richmond Hill Centre Master Plan (by Urban Strategies) and RHC Secondary Plan ( still in draft form) and the High Tech TOC

Not surprisingly given the circumstances (it's been a full decade since the subway was announced and put on ice and now the developers are partnering with the Province) both of the TOCs are pretty significant increases from the height/density envisiioned by the 2 muniicpalities (3, if you count York Region) and you can see why they're not thrilled. Good to see some reporting on it.