[jje1000]

There are many more items than that............. but that's for another day.

Personally I'd like Toronto to be more nimble and experimental regarding urban planning/building design concepts/standards- especially if we want to work ourselves out of the dead-end creek that postwar urban planning and zoning has left us in.

 

[AlexBozikovic]

@AlexBozikovic has a new column up on Jason Thorne.

Toronto’s new chief planner Jason Thorne has a chance to radically rethink the city

Toronto needs a leader to think big, changing the decades-old pattern of growth that packs some new residents into parts of downtown and scatters others onto car-choked roads

www.theglobeandmail.com

Regrettably Alex's column also laments the angular plane.............my problem being......the policy has been abolished/radically altered.........in ways I helped to craft...........and that problem, as I see it, is in the past.

The new midrise guideline update, approved this month, still has stepbacks in it. That is purely an aesthetic decision, it’s arbitrary, and it has negative impacts on unit layout and constructibility. The explanation in the policy is entirely vibes-based.

There are many other such examples in current TO UD policy. Progress has been made but IMO nowhere near enough.

 

[Northern Light]

The new midrise guideline update, approved this month, still has stepbacks in it. That is purely an aesthetic decision, it’s arbitrary,

I had a lengthy response written here, but I'll reduce it to this.

1) Its not arbitrary.

2) We disagree on the value of at least one setback. (I'm open to requiring only one, subject to outcome tests on wind/shadow etc)

and it has negative impacts on unit layout and constructibility.

Any restriction of any kind impedes a developer in some fashion. Why bother with a building code? Why not let residential go in next to an aluminum smelter? Why require accessibility?

Because these things have a value to people.

Yes, trade-offs should be considered and costed and I'm all for reasonable flexibility. But suggesting zero setbacks to me isn't on, and isn't desirable.

The explanation in the policy is entirely vibes-based.

Again, we very much disagree on this point, for reasons outlined above.

There are many other such examples in current TO UD policy.

I'm very interested in the other examples you mention here. While we disagree, in some measure on setbacks, we may agree on some others.

 

[Een]

I had a lengthy response written here, but I'll reduce it to this.

1) Its not arbitrary.

2) We disagree on the value of at least one setback. (I'm open to requiring only one, subject to outcome tests on wind/shadow etc)




Any restriction of any kind impedes a developer in some fashion. Why bother with a building code? Why not let residential go in next to an aluminum smelter? Why require accessibility?

Because these things have a value to people.

Yes, trade-offs should be considered and costed and I'm all for reasonable flexibility. But suggesting zero setbacks to me isn't on, and isn't desirable.



Again, we very much disagree on this point, for reasons outlined above.



I'm very interested in the other examples you mention here. While we disagree, in some measure on setbacks, we may agree on some others.

 

[Northern Light]

View attachment 624311

100% better on the right.

However, still needs street trees.

 

[Een]

100% better on the right.

However, still needs street trees.

 

[DSCToronto]

100% better on the right.

However, still needs street trees.

YES!

 

[evandyk]

Some people like the one on the right better, some people like the one on the left better. Most people probably couldn't find any reason to prefer one or the other. There's not really any standard to adjudicate those preferences.

The one on the right does allow slightly more light to get to sidewalk level, but imposing it comes at a significant cost, which I don't think is generally factored in with Toronto planning thinking.

 

[Northern Light]

Some people like the one on the right better, some people like the one on the left better. Most people probably couldn't find any reason to prefer one or the other. There's not really any standard to adjudicate those preferences.

There are indeed standards, sunlight/skyview being but two. They are objective, and consistently quantifiable.

The one on the right does allow slightly more light to get to sidewalk level, but imposing it comes at a significant cost,

The cost is:

a) Not that significant

b) If that's the threshold lens for building, why have any criteria at all? Elevators cost money, lets get rid of those in 40-storey buildings, who needs more than one staircase? Why bother with fire suppression?

Oh, you mean you didn't want to walk up 12 or 43 storeys? Or that you're elderly mom couldn't visit or babysit? You mean you mean you didn't want to die in a fire?

Everything costs money if done properly.

imposing it comes at a significant cost, which I don't think is generally factored in with Toronto planning thinking.

I know for a fact that it does. It was very much a consideration in the angular plane reforms and many others as well.