[Northern Light]

Honestly, I don’t see how it’s preposterous. I think it’s…living in a city as things change around you.

I happen to think that this concept of “transitioning” is given way more weight than it should be, and…the reasons given are incredibly hand-wavy.

We're talking about the Jersey City example here, just for clarity.

In that particular case, I can't agree.

Popular opinion is what it is.

People tend not to like being next to this; if they did, there would be no Nimby'ism.
Its not a matter of whether that's right or wrong in some objective sense.

Its a matter of preference. you may like liver and onions w/boiled brussel sprouts, and your not wrong, if you like it.
But you are wrong if you presume others like it and should enjoy eating it.

I'm in favour of intensification, including in yellowbelt areas, never mind main streets.
I don't see this absolute; I simply understand why others feel the way they do.

I also love to cook and can make almost anyone love Brussel Spouts (if you get the baby ones, and oven-roast them with good balsamic vinegar and thinly sliced pancetta, you have a winner).......
But I can't make liver taste good to most people. LOL

 

[smably]

Planning justifications for stepbacks/transitions/angular planes are usually oriented around shadows, sky views, and privacy, so I think it's safe to assume that those issues would be the at the root of any objections from adjacent homeowners.

Those are all fair things to consider, but they need to be weighed against the costs. I know that a lot of avenue sites in Toronto are practically undevelopable because of angular plane requirements. Even when developers have been able to work within the constraints, the angular plane adds costs and reduces density. I think there was a front-page article on UT recently where a developer was talking about how the stepbacks complicate structural engineering and mean more custom layouts = more costs = more expensive housing. That's a real problem given the affordability crisis.

So I think it's totally fair to take a step back, no pun intended. Maybe the solution to minimizing shadowing is taller, more slender towers. Maybe we just need to accept that if you are lucky enough to own a single-family home within walking distance of the subway, the tradeoff is that you might have a tower as your neighbour.

I'm saying all this as an owner of a single-family home literally 200 metres from a subway station. Speaking selfishly, sure, it's nice being surrounded by low-rise housing, and sure, I appreciate that my yard gets lots of sun. But again, what are the costs of the status quo? If a tall building were proposed next door, it might not be good for me, personally, but it would definitely be a net benefit for the city at large. I wish that planning policy better balanced the needs of all the future residents against the needs of the ones already fortunate enough to already own property.

 

[ookpik]

A reasonable suggestion would be what percentage of home owners (or renters) having bought into an area where neighbouring buildings were similar heights and overlooks minimized would object to that changing? I'm not sure if there's been a formal poll on that, but I tend to think the percentage would be high.

This is not a planning argument

It is a political argument

And just to make my personal opinion clear: I could not care less what neighbours think. It doesn’t matter. If you’re a stone’s throw from the subway and an incredible depth and breadth of other services and amenities, you do not have the right to dictate built form on OTHER PEOPLE’S PRIVATE PROPERTY!!!

 

[Northern Light]

This is not a planning argument

It is a political argument

And just to make my personal opinion clear: I could not care less what neighbours think. It doesn’t matter. If you’re a stone’s throw from the subway and an incredible depth and breadth of other services and amenities, you do not have the right to dictate built form on OTHER PEOPLE’S PRIVATE PROPERTY!!!

That argument would allow a steel mill with a coal-powered blast furnace next to your home.

If you feel that way, that's fine, for your house. Others may beg to differ.

PS, the all-caps doesn't add any quality to your post.

 

[ookpik]

That argument would allow a steel mill with a coal-powered blast furnace next to your home.

If you feel that way, that's fine, for your house. Others may beg to differ.

PS, the all-caps doesn't add any quality to your post.

You seem to see yourself as the writing style police in this forum. Always chirping how other people express themselves. It is annoying and condescending. Can you please stop doing this?

Also, there is a PLANNING argument for not putting a steel mill next to a house. There are genuine compatibility issues in terms of health and safety, externalities, etc. That is a completely legitimate thing to regulate.

One cannot identify an analogous basis for not allowing towers near houses. In fact the reasonable PLANNING argument is that near massive public transit investment like subway stations, housing density and compact forms of development should be prioritized. In fact the Provincial Policy Statement and Growth Plan both require municipalities to permit and encourage this kind of development near transit.

As another poster put it, the arguments against towers near houses are all quite hand-wavey. They are rooted in feelings, political and personal, preferences, and self-interest. These are not legitimate planning arguments because they are not rooted in fact or equity, nor in reasonableness or purpose.

You may find yourself wondering what a planning argument is. Well, that’s a complex question with no clear answer because it’s a nebulous profession in some ways. But I write this post as a registered professional planner and I would humbly ask you to consider the possibility that trained, experienced, regulated professionals know more than the average joe, just like engineers and accountants and social workers and so on do within their professions.

 

[allengeorge]

People tend not to like being next to this; if they did, there would be no Nimby'ism.
Its not a matter of whether that's right or wrong in some objective sense.

Its a matter of preference. you may like liver and onions w/boiled brussel sprouts, and your not wrong, if you like it.
But you are wrong if you presume others like it and should enjoy eating it.

I believe you’re proving my point here: the objection boils down to preference and feelings, which are inherently hand-wavey. There’s also the implicit assumption that because many people have the same preference that it’s ‘right’, or ‘legitimate’ (history is littered with examples where this is simply not true). Finally, it raises questions about how to weigh preferences against each other, and what to do when they clash with societal objectives.

My position is that we’re in the mess we’re in in Toronto because we weigh preferences way, way too highly and it’s time to devalue/delegitimize it.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

I believe you’re proving my point here: the objection boils down to preference and feelings, which are inherently hand-wavey. There’s also the implicit assumption that because many people have the same preference that it’s ‘right’, or ‘legitimate’ (history is littered with examples where this is simply not true). Finally, it raises questions about how to weigh preferences against each other, and what to do when they clash with societal objectives.

My position is that we’re in the mess we’re in in Toronto because we weigh preferences way, way too highly and it’s time to devalue/delegitimize it.

Agreed. 100 percent.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

Those are all fair things to consider, but they need to be weighed against the costs. I know that a lot of avenue sites in Toronto are practically undevelopable because of angular plane requirements. Even when developers have been able to work within the constraints, the angular plane adds costs and reduces density. I think there was a front-page article on UT recently where a developer was talking about how the stepbacks complicate structural engineering and mean more custom layouts = more costs = more expensive housing. That's a real problem given the affordability crisis.

I'm not an engineer/architect (and inviting the floor to those with the topical expertise) but my understanding is that this built form is also incredibly environmentally inefficient. Many corners and exposed surfaces means many potential points of failures and heat escape.

It is a policy that exists mainly to accommodate contemporary planning wisdom and not affordability, simplicity of design and construction economics, structural sustainability, or environmental sustainability.

 

[ProjectEnd]

That argument would allow a steel mill with a coal-powered blast furnace next to your home.

If you feel that way, that's fine, for your house. Others may beg to differ.

PS, the all-caps doesn't add any quality to your post.

I'm fine with permitting that. It would never happen in 2021 because the value of the land is far too high for that use, but should we allow it? Sure, why not? Heck, a ton of Hamilton is exactly that:

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.com

 

[Northern Light]

I'm fine with permitting that. It would never happen in 2021 because the value of the land is far too high for that use, but should we allow it? Sure, why not? Heck, a ton of Hamilton is exactly that:

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.com

Scientific evidence indicates far higher rates of cancer and respiratory illness for those living close proximity to heavy industry.

Respiratory illness and air pollution from the steel industry: the case of Piquiá de Baixo, Brazil (Preliminary report) - Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine

Background This report is based on an independent study carried out by medical professionals of the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori (National Cancer Institute) in Milan, Italy, and aimed to assess the incidence of respiratory diseases in a Brazilian community (Piquiá de Baixo, in...

mrmjournal.biomedcentral.com

Lung Cancer Risk and Past Exposure to Emissions from a Large Steel Plant

We studied the spatial distribution of cancer incidence rates around a large steel plant and its association with historical exposure. The study population was close to 600,000. The incidence data was collected for 1995–2006. From historical emission data the air pollution concentrations for...

www.hindawi.com

I could link several more.

I think zoning does in fact have a place.

 

[ProjectEnd]

My point is that there are other things preventing a steel plant from opening in a residential area. In fact, in almost every historic case, the steel plant (or whatever heavy industrial operation you want to name) opened first, then workers housing assembled around it.

And with the Hamilton example, are you now going to demo all that existing housing?

Zoning is horseshit.

 

[innsertnamehere]

The Hamilton Blast furnaces are quite far from any residential - the buildings closer to residential are the storage facilities for steel that has been produced from my understanding, or other lighter uses like the pickling facilities and steel rolling. The actual blast furnaces are north of Burlington Street well away from residential.

The north end residential areas in Hamilton are also by far the most affordable residential houses in the GTHA for a reason.

 

[ProjectEnd]

Yep, no disagreement, but it's still all either M5 or M6 zoning. There's plenty of M5 (the heavier one) south of Beach Road too.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

Neighbour #1: So you plan to put that coal-powered blast furnace next to your garden shed?

Neighbour #2: Yep, then I'll plant a real pretty flower bed around it!

 

[concrete_and_light]

"Almost every Canadian" is still wrong if 3 or 4 in 10 households are renters, and usually only two per household, (sometimes only one person is the owner), while dependents aren't counted either way, and the younger you are, the less likely you are to be able to stake your claim in the ownership class now. The point is that it's becoming harder and harder to be a homeowner, 47% don't own in Toronto and that number will just go up, and when people throw around "Almost every Canadian" it marginalizes the needs of anyone not in that group, in this case a group that extends to many millions of people. Renters should not be marginalized.

42

Really appreciate this post. The way our society straight-up treats renters and their needs and situations as secondary and in many ways less Canadian or deserving of representation and a quality life is disgraceful. And as you say the renting class is only going to increase as many are permanently locked out of the property-buying game and we ever-increasingly create a structurally landed class that perpetuates itself and grows its wealth while everyone else struggles to keep their heads above water.