[Tewder]

Good points diminutive. Expanding the RT system would help to decentralize the city, and relieve it somewhat.

 

[diminutive]

Good points diminutive. Expanding the RT system would help to decentralize the city, and relieve it somewhat.

Yea, I do think it's weird that an Ajax->Union commute is time-competitive with a Parkdale-King/Bay commute.

Anyways, beyond that though, only part of it is RT access. There are dozens of existing subway stations where we've discouraged densification. Essentially all of the BD & Spadina line stations haven't been accompanied by any substantial densification. Some examples (Glencairn) are more glaring than others. I'm not expecting Danforth and Coxwell to look like Kowloon but its a bit odd to expect some parts of Toronto to look like the 1950s in perpetuity while the core absorbs all of the growth it can.

It's been a conscious zoning decision to leave most of the City untouched from development, and in the long run its created a weird kind of duality where housing supply has only kept up with demand for 1-2 bedroom condos in the core and family homes in the 905 resulting in a big affordability gap everywhere else.

 

[ttk77]

And yet every time a high or mid-rise condo gets proposed for areas outside the core, it's not zoning that seems to get in the way. The people that live in those neighbourhoods do everything they can to keep them from getting built. I think the problem is less in the zoning and more in the fact that the inner 'burbs close to the core are still incredibly popular places to live. People living there get the suburban lifestyle but still get to maintain the benefits of living in a large urban centre.

I'm curious to know if other cities that have managed to spread out their densification did so at a time when their inner suburbs were much less popular places to live.

 

[toraerach]

And yet every time a high or mid-rise condo gets proposed for areas outside the core, it's not zoning that seems to get in the way. The people that live in those neighbourhoods do everything they can to keep them from getting built. I think the problem is less in the zoning and more in the fact that the inner 'burbs close to the core are still incredibly popular places to live. People living there get the suburban lifestyle but still get to maintain the benefits of living in a large urban centre.

It would be easier to sell densification to the outter core if it was easier for developers to build midrises. The lovely little projects going up on Dundas West, Gladstone, Carlaw, etc. should be a model for redevelopment across the "shoulder areas." They certainly haven't seen the huge backlash Giraffe got.

 

[diminutive]

And yet every time a high or mid-rise condo gets proposed for areas outside the core, it's not zoning that seems to get in the way. The people that live in those neighbourhoods do everything they can to keep them from getting built. I think the problem is less in the zoning and more in the fact that the inner 'burbs close to the core are still incredibly popular places to live. People living there get the suburban lifestyle but still get to maintain the benefits of living in a large urban centre. I'm curious to know if other cities that have managed to spread out their densification did so at a time when their inner suburbs were much less popular places to live.

Yea, I guess I kind of compressed two issues (zoning and public opposition), but they're related no? I thought that the normal course was something like; developer wants to exceed zoned density -> public opposes -> city denies zoning amendment. If a developer was rejected while complying with zoning, wouldn't they just be guaranteed a win at the OMB?

Nonetheless, I take your point. Certainly densification of these areas has been received poorly, to say the least.

It would be easier to sell densification to the outter core if it was easier for developers to build midrises

Is that true? That beaches project which is getting flack is midrise, as is the one on Ossington.

More over, midrises are problematic in that they tend to be more expensive and positioned as luxury properties.

 

[allabootmatt]

For a bit of perspective on the scale of what's going on in TO, the following describes a city I don't think of as being too dissimilar:

'In the past decade, 13 high-rise condo towers of 20 stories or more have been built in San Francisco. Another four such projects have been approved by the city, according to the Mark Company, a real estate marketing and sales firm.'

!!!!

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/18/r...fe-without-starchitects.html?pagewanted=1&hpw

 

[MisterF]

Zoning is basically irrelevant when it comes to intensification around subway stations - it's just a regulation that implements the Official Plan and is easily amended. What matters is Official Plan policies.

 

[doady]

To solve this problem, what Toronto needs is a strict 4 storey height limit throughout the whole city for residential and 3 storeys for commercial. There also should be a ban on elevators to reduce electricity consumption; all apartments should be walkups only. All the vibrant neighbourhoods and streets in Toronto are low-rise. Toronto needs to realize that fact and embrace low-rise development and put a stop this high-rise development that's destroying the vibrancy of the city and killing our streets.

 

[Automation Gallery]

Toronto leading the western world in high highrise development

Toronto’s stretch into the skies is capturing the attention of the world.

Tall-building development here is outpacing every other city in the Western Hemisphere with 15 skyscrapers exceeding roughly 45 storeys now under construction, according to a new study by the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat.

That means by 2015, Toronto will be home to 44 highrises exceeding 150 metres, more than triple the 13 skyscrapers that graced the city’s skyline in 2005, says the Chicago-based clearing house on all the latest in tall building design and construction.

In a report titled “Canada Rising,†the well-respected council points to the Great White North’s fast-paced push upwards in just the last eight years. And it credits Toronto with “spearheading a countrywide interest in tall building development†that has seen a dramatic shift away from simply highrise office towers to homes in the heavens that are transforming the look and feel of Canada’s major cities.

“There’s no doubt that Canada is at the forefront of discussion around how to create more vibrant urban centres, increase density and build more sustainable cities,†said council spokesperson Kevin Brass.

“Tall buildings are a big part of that.â€

So far at least, the 37-year-old First Canadian Place remains the tallest building in Toronto at 298 metres, the council notes. But not far behind are newcomers Trump International Hotel and Tower at 277 metres and Canderel’s 272-metre condo project at College and Yonge Sts., touted to be Canada’s tallest residential building.

Workers have just started pouring the 48th floor of what will be a 78-storey tower with nearly 1,500 residents — so unusually big for a condo project that it will have two condo corporations so residents can be moved in in two phases starting next summer.

“Ten years ago, the average highrise was 30 to 35 storeys. Today, 60 is becoming commonplace. Those heights are going to become the new norm as (building) sites become more scarce,†says Riz Dhanji, vice president of sales and marketing for Canderel Residential Group.

“We’re turning into a very exciting city. The tall buildings are bringing the density and the people into the downtown core and making us more of a walkable city, which is fantastic.â€
More..........http://www.thestar.com/business/art...he-western-world-in-high-highrise-development

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

Developer James Rouse and Jane Jacobs appeared together in 1980 at the Boston Great Cities Conference. Their subject was the question of whether cities should be developed with big plans and inspiring visions or modest steps and incremental change.

Rouse spoke first, recalling the words of Daniel Burnham, "Make no little plans, for they have no magic to stir men’s blood," he said.

Jacobs followed and began, "Funny, big plans never stirred women’s blood. Women have always been willing to consider little plans."

The applause was deafening.

Rouse argued that big plans could give the world exciting new communities. Jacobs said big plans lead to big mistakes and stifle imagination and alternatives. Rouse claimed big plans avoid wasteful haphazard piecemeal development. Jacobs saw big plans as routinizers, formulas, smootherers.

I vote for Jane.

 

[Mongo]

Does it have to be one or the other? I would prefer big plans for city-wide issues, such as transit, and little plans for more local issues, such as building planning codes.

The lack of big plans is one reason why we are still waiting for a Downtown Relief Line, after decades of inaction.

 

[balenciaga]

To solve this problem, what Toronto needs is a strict 4 storey height limit throughout the whole city for residential and 3 storeys for commercial. There also should be a ban on elevators to reduce electricity consumption; all apartments should be walkups only. All the vibrant neighbourhoods and streets in Toronto are low-rise. Toronto needs to realize that fact and embrace low-rise development and put a stop this high-rise development that's destroying the vibrancy of the city and killing our streets.

absolutely nonsense. I can only take it as sarcasm. Following such an approach, Peterborough will become a suburb of Toronto in no time.

I would suggest no buildings under 20 stories should be allowed in the downtown core and anything lower than 4 stories high without a heritage designation should be gradually demolished and replaced with taller buildings. In inner suburbs south of Eglinton anything lower than 6 stories should be banned. Plus no 1-3 story single family houses should ever be added within the 416.

If anything, it is the incredibly boring low rise suburbs such as East York and North York that are killing Toronto.

 

[Lenser]

And I am delighted that not all of us subscribe to the same opinions about which neighbourhoods are 'correct' and deemed worthy of being imitated - and conversely, which ones ought to be bulldozed promptly or otherwise legislated out of existence. Hugely relieved, matter of fact.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

To solve this problem, what Toronto needs is a strict 4 storey height limit throughout the whole city for residential and 3 storeys for commercial. There also should be a ban on elevators to reduce electricity consumption; all apartments should be walkups only. All the vibrant neighbourhoods and streets in Toronto are low-rise. Toronto needs to realize that fact and embrace low-rise development and put a stop this high-rise development that's destroying the vibrancy of the city and killing our streets.

You were being sarcastic, right?

 

[marsh]

Yes - i think Toronto's building boom has gone to far. I think of all the condo units coming on the market in the next 2 year and overwhelmed and there are still massive projects planned.

I am all for intensification that is thoughtful and takes into acccount neighbour needs and infrastructure and public realm and heritage preservation. But what we're experiencing right now isn't intensification - its rampant overdevelopment by greedy developers and speculators. Further I think we risk creating more problems in the long term. The overwhelming majority of new condos being built are small 1 bedrooms - under 700 square feet suitable for 1 or 2 people. I recognize that families are getting smaller and that we need to adjust our expectations as a society of living in monster homes, but the condos being built today are not flexible enough to meet future growth. We are going to have city of singletons. What happens when they have a family? (We need families who will have children who will live in the city to help our city to continue grow economically) If they are lucky, they will be able to afford to live in single or semi attached homes in Toronto, otherwise they will move out to the suburbs where there are schools and playgrounds and homes that are bigger and cheaper. So how are we solving urban sprawl in the longrun? I think there needs to be a diversity of housing - in some places highrises are appropriate, in other places, low rise and other places single family homes/semi detached/townhomes. Intensification doesn't mean buldozing every block on the downtown core and replacing with 40+ 50+ 60+ condos. Also concerns have been expressed by the city that condo developers are taking up valuable land that are zoned commercial. So if business in Toronto is to expand - where is it going to go? I would be more supportive of the Ghery Mirvish proposal if they reduced the plan to 2 towers - 1 residential and for business/office space.

Lastly, people keep saying if we build condos and achieve intensification "infrastructure will come". Well how many years have we been going through for this condo craze? And what have we seen in terms of improvement infrastruture? Some new subway cars? A subway out to Vaughn? The DRL now being a "priority" for the province?

We desparately need infrastructure improvements now - from extending subways, parks, to building schools and daycare so families will stay in the core, to improving our water/sewage symstems (I live on street where a new tower is being built and twice in the summer the under ground water pipes burst - this never happened before in the 9 years I've lived on this street and I can't help but think that construction is causing some disburtubance underground which is putting pressure on already obsolete water and sewage systems.

Lastly I think if we want infrastructure improvements like the DRL, we need to face the harsh reality that we are going to have to raise more revenue - the city is cash strapped and the province is cash strapped. We could start by reinstating the vehicle registration fees that Ford abolished and earmark those funds to for improving our roads and highways like the crumbling Gardiner. We may have to raise property taxes (which nobody wants to hear). I also think developers should be charged more fees if they want to build in the down town core and earmark those fees towards expanding our subway and TTC system. I think developers are making a killing and can afford it. They use the downtown location of their projects as a marketing tool - therefore they should contribute as well to the infrasture of the city. I don't think s37 funds are enough (and are largely a joke).

My biggest worry though is that all of this condo development is going to lead to a market crash and that will hurt us all and will take years to recover.