[allabootmatt]

Curious the forum's thoughts on something I've been thinking about.

Basically, we may be seeing the beginnings of a backlash against development in Toronto, perhaps much less severe than but not dissimilar to what happened in the 1970s. We're now into about year ten of a pace of construction that would boggle minds in virtually any other North American city. For the first eight years of this or so, it was easy to view the boom as a win-win: filling in plenty of underused land in the greater downtown, and not putting undue strain on infrastructure that could support a larger residential population.

Neither of those conditions is still the case, or so it seems to me. The stock of obvious development sites (parking lots and the like) has been all but exhausted, leaving developers to go after what are in many cases quite attractive existing buildings. And downtown infrastructure is increasingly overloaded, especially the TTC. Given the scale of what's being proposed, that we don't have shovels in the ground *now* on a DRL from Pape to at least Front and Spadina is a planning failure of potentially historic proportions. Bigger streetcars will help, but are a band-aid solution in the context of the densities we're talking about.

Most of all, it seems like developers' proposals are reaching a sort of decadent, anything-goes quality. Blockbusting Yonge Street for 60-story towers? Check. Knocking down brick-and-beam warehouses willy-nilly in the Entertainment District? Check. 60, 70, and 80 story buildings being proposed all over the place? Check and check! I applaud, for example, the ambition of David Mirvish and Frank Gehry. But knocking down a block and a half of King Street? Seriously?

I'm the furthest thing from anti-development. The boom has been one of the best things ever to happen to Toronto, which is immeasurably more vibrant than it was a decade ago. I simply fear that, barring a sudden crash in the housing market, we are reaching a stage where things are getting out of control.

A comprehensive strategy on the part of the City to preserve historic structures, aggressively improve infrastructure in the greater downtown, and encourage some amount of development pressure onto 'Avenues' mid-rises seems overdue to me. Without this, things could get pretty ugly.

 

[RC8]

The problem is not development, the problem is that the political structure of our city is not dynamic enough to keep up with it. Widened sidewalks, bike lanes, and increased bus/streetcar service (more affordably priced if over a subway) could easily accommodate many more commuters in our streets. We could add more hospitals and schools too but while we have the resources we frustratingly do not have enough control over them.

That said, Toronto is far from being overdeveloped and even further away from collapsing. Many of the people in our streets are visitors from our suburbs. Those who live near the core exercise very minimal impacts on the most expensive types of infrastruture (roads, subways, etc) and can be found mostly on bikes or walking. If anything we should be looking at increasing densities North of Bloor and South of Danforth so that even more people can live closer to work and put less of a strain on infrastructure.

 

[urbandreamer]

You know what's great about life?

The Market. Will. Sort. Itself. Out.

See you somewhere on the chart.

 

[mig174]

You know what's great about life?

The Market. Will. Sort. Itself. Out.

See you somewhere on the chart.

Leave it to a libertarian to say nothing at all.

Contrast Toronto to big metropolitan cities like NYC (which Toronto is so obviously trying to be like), Chicago and you're left with a bitter taste in your mouth. There are simply no wide avenues (save for University Ave) that can accommodate a lot of traffic, the sidewalks are tiny, and everything is concrete. It's a bit scary to think how the TTC will handle the onslaught of new residents, especially without a DRL.

 

[fedplanner]

Leave it to a libertarian to say nothing at all.

Contrast Toronto to big metropolitan cities like NYC (which Toronto is so obviously trying to be like), Chicago and you're left with a bitter taste in your mouth. There are simply no wide avenues (save for University Ave) that can accommodate a lot of traffic, the sidewalks are tiny, and everything is concrete. It's a bit scary to think how the TTC will handle the onslaught of new residents, especially without a DRL.

Negative taste in your mouth? Maybe from the bullshit spewing out of it. What is it with this forum attracting all the irrational negativity?

 

[Josef]

Is Toronto's Building Boom Going Too Far?

No.

 

[000]

No.

Yes. (no time to explain!)

 

[andrewpmk]

We have built a huge number of condominiums in Toronto without building any supporting infrastructure. Toronto has built very few new subway lines, the proposed light rail lines have not been built yet, it has not expanded the GO train system and it has built no new roads. Furthermore most of the condos built in Toronto are not designed for families. Most of the units are too small, and very few new schools have been built in neighbourhoods with high levels of condo construction. The Greenbelt has severely limited single family housing construction but the condos we've built are not a good enough substitute for families.

 

[Hipster Duck]

I'm with you more or less 100%, Matt.

Up until now our boom has been a godsend: it ate up all those hideous parking lots and infused the city with life and people. Even when the architecture of the condos was mediocre, I reminded myself that it was far better to have some bland condo box than a gravel parking lot. Those days are numbered, though, and we are starting to trash really fine corners of the city to build condos.

In a way, the DRL - and high quality regional transportation, more broadly - is both a symptom and a cause of the rush to move back downtown. Yes, the DRL is sorely needed now that 100,000 new people live in the core (this is the miracle of the 2000s, not Milton), but people are moving to downtown in droves because it is the only part of the region where there are viable alternatives to the car which is increasingly mired in round-the-clock congestion.

I also agree with you in terms of what we need to do: we need to make other parts of the city desirable enough from an urbanism and urban transport standpoint so that downtown doesn't take the lion's share of development. I'm not suggesting we go back to the 1980s where we created "stick" policy to dissuade growth from happening in the downtown and to move it to the less desirable metro centres, I'm suggesting we have a "carrot" policy of improving the transit and urban form of the outer-416, while at the same time acknowledging that downtown services and transit need to be vastly improved just to keep up, let alone foster new growth. The avenues plan, as you suggested, would be good to stick to but no developer wants to invest in building an avenues-style condo in some fading corner of Scarborough if the transit and urban amenities aren't up to snuff.

 

[Tewder]

I agree with Hipster. The condo boom has gone too far because it is overstaying its welcome, quite simply. Inadequate services and infrastructure to keep up with the rampant boom-burg development, coupled with a decripit, ugly and dispiriting public realm... none of this speaks to enlightened urbanism. We can't even seem to hold on to bike lanes, never mind expand public transit. The developers are wielding too much power and influence, and they do not have the interest of the city in mind. Not a good scenario any more.

 

[allabootmatt]

I agree with Hipster. The condo boom has gone too far because it is overstaying its welcome, quite simply. Inadequate services and infrastructure to keep up with the rampant boom-burg development, coupled with a decripit, ugly and dispiriting public realm... none of this speaks to enlightened urbanism. We can't even seem to hold on to bike lanes, never mind expand public transit. The developers are wielding too much power and influence, and they do not have the interest of the city in mind. Not a good scenario any more.

Then again, the out-of-controlness may be a blessing in disguise. Not unlike with a lot of U.S. politicians suddenly discussing climate change after it smacked them in the face with Sandy, at some point the fantasy that Toronto can get away without better infrastructure etc will hit reality if you throw enough people in the core--people who will vote.

 

[nrb]

I agree with Hipster. The condo boom has gone too far because it is overstaying its welcome, quite simply. Inadequate services and infrastructure to keep up with the rampant boom-burg development, coupled with a decripit, ugly and dispiriting public realm... none of this speaks to enlightened urbanism. We can't even seem to hold on to bike lanes, never mind expand public transit. The developers are wielding too much power and influence, and they do not have the interest of the city in mind. Not a good scenario any more.

+1

The condo boom is also wreaking havoc on the rental market. Toronto's vacancy rate is is ridiculously low and developers are not building rental units to compensate because it isn't as profitable as condos. Then you have to deal with the whole investor buys condo-rents it out at insane rate phenomenon that pushes the rental market ever upward. Can't wait for the market to crash and end this nonsense.

 

[Tewder]

Then again, the out-of-controlness may be a blessing in disguise. Not unlike with a lot of U.S. politicians suddenly discussing climate change after it smacked them in the face with Sandy, at some point the fantasy that Toronto can get away without better infrastructure etc will hit reality if you throw enough people in the core--people who will vote.

Yes perhaps, though it's a shame we have to hit a crisis before change can happen, and all the more so that these types of infrastructure issues are not short-term, quick-fix problems and we'll be left in crisis mode for a long time. We're talking a 'generation' of crisis!

... and whether with transit or the urban realm this has been discussed elsewhere in other threads, the politicization of spending in Toronto in a way that is somewhat unique, i.e. whereby neither the left nor right sides of the spectrum find it in any way expedient to spend taxpayer dollars on the common good (public infrastructure etc), that it's all about the entitlement of smaller, more vocal interest groups (and I include developers in this category)! In other words, there is little to no vision or leadership to stear our ship through these rising seas.

... and though the Sandy comparison is fair I somehow find their governing irresponsibility a little more, well if not tolerable then understandable, in a more right-wing, free-enterprise, 'as little government/taxation as possible'-type context than it is in ours, which is supposed to be more socially 'enlightened'.

 

[TrickyRicky]

I share Matt's sentiment on this subject. This isn't just about condos though. Condo's are like climate change. Everyone wants to talk about climate change but climate change is a symptom not the disease.

I believe however that Urbandreamer is fundamentally correct. The air outside has the smell of end of boom hubris about it. We are obviously totally naive and unable to deal with the development juggernaut that is steaming over our central city. But we should not be surprised if the market overshoots and there are casualties along the way. This is how it is and always will be.

nrb, I don't believe history supports your comment. Developers did not build rental units when they weren't building condos either. It would seem that new rental constructions are not very profitable, period. If anything the condo boom over the long-run is saving the rental market, if not the finances of individual condo investors. The rental market is a real functioning market. The high rental rates you see are the real market rates.

 

[diminutive]

I *mostly* agree with Hipster Duck in that any perceived 'overdevelopment' of the core is a result of the reluctance to develop elsewhere in the 416. You can see this in transit figures in and out of the core, where almost all new jobs in the core are served by GO or walking/biking. If you work downtown, and are childless, it makes sense to live in a condo. If you work downtown and have a family it's easier to live in the inner-905 and GO. There are a ton of popular neighbourhoods (Parkdale, Junction, Annex, Riverdale, Beaches) where nothing has really been built and are now priced well beyond the reach of most. Part of this is that we haven't built RT to these areas, but even along the BD or Spadina lines we've more or less tried to keep areas stable. (e.g. Giraffe @ Dundas West being prohibited, while FAR uglier projects get approved in the core)