News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.7K     0 

ponyboy

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
950
Reaction score
940
this article and reader comments raise some interesting points we may want to discuss on this forum. Seems odd that there is no references to Toronto anywhere.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/taller-buildings-cheaper-homes/

NYTimes: Taller Buildings, Cheaper Homes (May 4, 2010)

By EDWARD L. GLAESER

Jane Jacobs is one of history’s greatest urban thinkers. In most areas, Jacobs was a peerless analyst of urban life. She understood the virtues of busy neighborhoods, the economic opportunity that comes from urban innovation and the value of small firms and industrial diversity. She even presciently grasped the fact that cities are good for the environment, a point that I have re-emphasized in a past post.

But she wasn’t always right.

Her view of city life, expounded most eloquently in her 1961 classic “The Death and Life of Great American Cities,†drew heavily on her own experience living in Greenwich Village. She saw so clearly the very real virtues of moderate densities and older buildings, like those found in the Village, that she became too friendly toward historic preservation and too hostile towards high density levels. I’ll address historic preservation next week and focus here on Jacobs’s unfortunate fear of heights.

Here are some of her own words:

“It follows, however, that densities can get too high if they reach a point at which, for any reason, they begin to repress diversity instead of to stimulate it. Precisely this can happen, and it is the main point in considering how high is too high.â€

“For most districts …. The ultimate danger mark imposing standardization must be considerably lower; I should guess, roughly, that it is apt to have at about 200 dwellings to the net acre.â€

Her preferred density level seems to have been about 150 housing units per net acre, which means six-story buildings if units average 1,600 square feet. Six stories also seems to be the maximum height that people are willing to walk up regularly, which may explain why it is the norm in many older pre-elevator areas.

Now I don’t have anything against Greenwich Village or six-story buildings, but the perspective of the economist pushes strongly against any attempt to postulate or, far worse, regulate a single perfect density.

Indeed, to anyone who respects consumer sovereignty, there is something a little jarring about Jacobs’s question: “What is the proper density for city dwellings?â€

Why in the world should there be a “proper density� A good case can be made that cities succeed by offering a diverse menu of neighborhoods that cater to a wide range of tastes. Some people love Greenwich Village, and that’s great, but I was perfectly happy growing up in a 25-story tower, and I don’t see anything wrong with that, either.

Jacobs was reacting to the Le Corbusier-inspired public housing passions of the 1950s, when tall structures reflected the passions of planners more than consumer demand. Jacobs was right to emphasize that shorter neighborhoods also have tremendous virtues. I’ve actually tested Jacobs’s hypothesis that city streets are safer when buildings are shorter and found some evidence, admittedly debatable, supporting her view. But Manhattan’s crime levels have fallen dramatically in recent decades, proving that with sufficient policing, safe streets can be perfectly compatible with tall buildings.

Jacobs feared high densities because she thought that they would lead to too little diversity, but there are good reasons to think that she get things backward. Restricting new construction and keeping buildings artificially low means that housing supply cannot satisfy demand. The result is high prices and cities that are increasingly affordable only to the prosperous.

The laws of supply and demand are not subject to legislative appeal. When demand for a place is strong, as it has been in New York since the 1970s, then that place must either build substantially or experience rapidly rising prices. Yet despite skyrocketing prices, building dramatically slowed in Manhattan between the 1960s and the 1990s. Even more remarkably, the height of new residential buildings seems to have substantially declined.

This decline in heights doesn’t reflect a lack of demand for tall buildings; the high prices paid for units in Manhattan’s aeries belie that interpretation.

Market forces pushed for taller structures, but structures got shorter, at least until the Bloomberg years, because of a regulatory environment that made construction increasingly more difficult. My work with Joseph Gyourko and Raven Saks suggests that perhaps one-half of the cost of a Manhattan condominium can be understood as the price of land-use regulation.

Restricting supply led to higher prices and a city with space only for the rich. In the 1950s and 1960s, middle-income people, like Jane Jacobs and my parents, could afford Manhattan. Equivalent families today can’t afford the city, and that’s a pity. By contrast, Chicago, with its longstanding pro-construction ethos, remains far more affordable even in prime locations.

If you love cities, then you should want more people to be able to enjoy them, and that means embracing, not eschewing, densities over 200 units per acre. Certainly I experienced plenty of diversity and street life in the tall, rental building where I grew up.
 
Thanks for the article.

In my personal experience, there is a certain height of residence where I feel very disconnected from the city. I can't fully explain why it does this to me, but unreliable elevators really compounded the problem.

I don't mind the high rises being built in Toronto, but at the same time we are neglecting the medium-density market completely. The choices in this city are either single-family-detached or glass tower... what about everything in-between?
 
yeah, personally I prefer to be just at or above the treeline for connection with the ground and able to see activity, which usually is 5-6 floors tops, and then have the option to walk up/down whenever I want. I guess we can think of the 5+ floor podiums of most of the new projects in Toronto as the kind of density that many want akin to Paris. The kind of street wall scaling to people and retail at the sidewalk accomplishes a lot. The fact that we then have towers placed upon these podiums is mostly positive. The shading effects are usually exaggerated by the detractors, and light actually bounces off of glass into many places. Having more units in a development spreads costs of having nice common facilities, etc. The greater supply of units in towers promotes a more competitive development industry and increases supply (eventually moderating prices). MOre density in built-up areas through high-rise construction reduces energy use and create critical mass of people living in cities (both voting power, and sprawl prevention). With the growing density of downtown Toronto, I only hope that higher levels of government provide for the infrastructural help to keep up (e.g. high speed transit, sidewalks, parks, fibre, pipes, etc.). Rather than bemoan high-rises, I would like to seen most energy focused on building really good street level and podium design.
 
Last edited:
In my personal experience, there is a certain height of residence where I feel very disconnected from the city. I can't fully explain why it does this to me, but unreliable elevators really compounded the problem.

I don't mind the high rises being built in Toronto, but at the same time we are neglecting the medium-density market completely. The choices in this city are either single-family-detached or glass tower... what about everything in-between?
I think the biggest problem is that when you're up in a high rise condo or something, there's no communal space to be with your neighbors, except for the condo fitness facility or whatever (which eats up money.) In a 3-6 story building, it's more of a neighborhood setting instead of an office building. However, I think if you did something like a midway terrace with public restaurant or a large lobby and dynamic entrance area (little grocery stores and such,) it might be a much better neighborhood-like area.

I agree with your second comment. Toronto has almost nothing to offer in that European-type midrise apartment/condo market, and we really should. I would honestly advocate for full demolition of blocks or even neighborhoods throughout the city and GTA to allow for that. Just a block or two of 6 storey mixed use buildings in a subdivision could breathe life into it, and I think that entire neighborhoods (especially of samey postwar suburban houses,) could be demoed to allow for new communities like that.

I mean, I remember playing through Assassin's Creed 2 (I'm too cheap to actually go to Italy,) and look at the totally realistic buildings and crowds in Florence and Venice, and wondering why Toronto can't have that type of density that worked all throughout cities from ancient times up until WWII . Or even the town of San Gimignano, and wondering why that kind of density can't be a small town today in Southern Ontario, or even Stouffville or Bolton.
There definitely is something important being missed in the whole skyscrapers or subdivisions mindset. Not that skyscrapers are bad (I actually quite like all the waterfront and CityPlace condos,) or that suburbs are. But mid-density should be the norm.
 
Neighbourhoods in the 3-6 storey range are very intimate and in my opinion are the most pleasing to walk around. There are many examples in New York (Lower East Side, Greenwich Village), Montreal (Plateau), London (Marylebone), Boston (Beacon Hill) and many more. They make for quiet, intimate neighbourhoods with great potential for street level businesses and retail. Toronto doesn't really have this kind of medium density and I wish it did. I'm hoping the waterfront redevelopment will produce some.
 
Luckily, Freed and Streetcar Developments have pulled us out of having virtually no midrise condo construction to having at least some. One of the most wasted opportunities during the recent condo boom was when developers in urban neighbourhoods built faux-historic suburban townhouse developments instead of midrise condo blocks. Thankfully, that phenomenon is starting to die off.
 
Hipster's comment is apt. I find it depressing to see the occassional midrise development gracing an "avenue", like, for instance, 601 Kingston Road, and then find, just up the same street see a row of faux historical townhomes. In this case, the objection is more to the form than the style, though both could be improved.

Is there a case where the city actually told a developer that more density was needed and not less?
 
Here's my list of things I feel make a city more liveable and friendly and how I rate Toronto. 10 being best.

Sidewalk Cafes 4
Balconies, even Juliette balconies, on most buildings 5
Street Vendors (eyes on the street, animation) 2
Parkettes (dog walkers, children, chess playing, etc) 7
Sidewalk Benches 2
Wide Sidewalks to promote strolling 2
Open Storefronts at night (no shutters or gates) 8
Well landscaped public areas 5
Community Gardens 2
Open Air Fruit, flower and Antique Markets 2
A smattering of pedestrian malls 2
 
Archivist:

Is there a case where the city actually told a developer that more density was needed and not less?

Not sure whether it has happened before or not, but the City of Toronto didn't even have the right to establish minimium density requirements until the City of Toronto Act (2006).

AoD
 
Neighbourhoods in the 3-6 storey range are very intimate and in my opinion are the most pleasing to walk around. There are many examples in New York (Lower East Side, Greenwich Village), Montreal (Plateau), London (Marylebone), Boston (Beacon Hill) and many more. They make for quiet, intimate neighbourhoods with great potential for street level businesses and retail. Toronto doesn't really have this kind of medium density and I wish it did. I'm hoping the waterfront redevelopment will produce some.

I'm sure there's plenty of medium density in Toronto, just not in the consistently midrise form. Surely we don't just go from extremely dense downtown to low-density suburbs! Queen and King are lined with medium density neighbourhoods as you move away from downtown, and they're walkable with plenty of street level retail. There are streets lined with houses divided into units increasing density and even streets lined with midrise residential buildings like Jameson in Parkdale.
 
Beacon Hill would not be allowed to be built today. The city would say no these roads aren't wide enough for our massive fire trucks to navigate, and that would be the end of it.
 

Back
Top