Benito
Senior Member
Yesterday.
- Thread starter Marcanadian
- Start date
daniel_kryz
Active Member
Sorry for the late reply. I've had a very busy summer, and haven't been on UrbanToronto for a while.
Many more reasons - too many to explain.
2. I agree that generally subway station areas should not have low-rise density, save for a few exceptions. I take a balanced approach to this issue. I don't think we should stack as much density as possible on each site, and I have explained above.
3. Believe it or not, our built environment impacts us as people. That is what I mean by social impacts. Think about the tower-in-the-park typology (housing projects). One big reason for their failure is due to how austere the buildings & public realm were designed. They are often disconnected from the city either by location or due to excessive setbacks from streets, do not create the right conditions for activation of public spaces... rendering them desolate and just about right for criminals, and the design aesthetic is one that most people (except for a few crazy architects) could not possibly care about. The quality of our built environment directly influences whether or not we actually care about these places (great explanation here).
4. Believe it or not, aesthetics matter. Of course, I could talk about how tall buildings (when poorly designed in shape) create huge shadows, deteriorate the vibrancy of the public realm, and can really look like monoliths or ugly eyesores when poorly located or massed. I would like to mention the fact that many people still do care about aesthetics, and most developments in Toronto are a) poorly executed in the quality of materials b) have lazy and/or repeated designs c) have no regard for context, do not preserve the context's identity, and do not create identity and d) are regarded as ugly or "nothing special" or "I've seen the same building in literally every city in the world" by most people. The fact that people think of beauty as "purely subjective" is very sad, and has contributed to our society's apathy for architecture (in the sense that we don't demand it anymore).
Because it's simply bad urban design. Putting tall buildings directly next to 2 to 3 storey homes would feel like standing next to a giant. That's why it's reasonable to increase density gradually (ex. 4 storey next to the small homes, then 6, then 12, etc). Also, almost every Canadian is a homeowner and lives in a home. It's wrong to generalize homeowners as "rich people".
(see above)
Many more reasons - too many to explain.
Yes, every place in the world was once covered in nature. So what? That alone does not prove your point. This stretch of Yonge is successful at being a vibrant retail main street, and has had much history in making this a unique community. The fact that it used to be a forest does not prove your point of there "being no constant".
Allowing tall buildings to be built anywhere would solve the unaffordability of condos/apartments, but would not do anything for people that need more space or just generally don't want to live in a tall building. Also, Line 1 (Yonge section) is already very overcrowded and that is why adding huge amounts of density along the entire street would be reckless. In my opinion, it is better to shift density around other transit lines (and sections of Line 1) that have room for ridership growth. Even with the Ontario Line, the Yonge subway will still be near capacity. While I agree that supply matters, planning policy should not be solely based on statistics & economics. There is much more to consider when building a city, such as livability, transportation, how people experience it, adequate habitats for people, and much much more. Every time that planners made decisions & policies simply based on statistics, it created many unintended consequences. Planning is about shaping the city, and doing so by considering as many perspectives as possible for what the people want their city to be.
Of course! Allowing sensitive & contextual development in Neighbourhoods is a much better solution than pushing for max heights in every development that is located in Centres, Downtown, or along the Avenues... sadly many continue to push for max heights as if it's the only solution. My preferred approach is, in my opinion, a thoughtful evolution of the city that fixes our problems without wrecking what makes people love this city in the first place. We've seen how destructive the wrecking ball approach of the 20th century was to our cities. Many small communities were demolished in favour of huge towers, and we now know that it didn't only destroy identity... it also destroyed the tiny details that made the city work in the first place.
1. Sorry, you are advocating for very significant heights around subway stations. Except... don't forget, we still have our Avenues that are well-served by transit - some even with streetcars. We can transform them by speeding up transit via space allocation & good service planning (plus speeds), and most importantly make developing sites along Avenues easier by giving developers automatic planning permission. This would mean that developers wouldn't need to go through long Official Plan Amendment or Zoning By-law Amendment processes (often adds years to the approval process), and would only require them to submit a Site Plan Application (which only reviews design + technical details). This would give developers certainty of how much profit they could make from these sites (trust me, they care much less about being forced to add bike parking or decorative pavers), thereby shifting more development outside of the overgrown parts of our city, while providing a housing typology that is more attractive for consumers along with a pretty good foundation for infrastructure & amenities. Of course, we could also change our Mid-Rise Building Performance Standards which make for excessive restrictions (on stepbacks, floor width, etc) fueled by NIMBYism, but that's a whole other topic.
2. I agree that generally subway station areas should not have low-rise density, save for a few exceptions. I take a balanced approach to this issue. I don't think we should stack as much density as possible on each site, and I have explained above.
3. Believe it or not, our built environment impacts us as people. That is what I mean by social impacts. Think about the tower-in-the-park typology (housing projects). One big reason for their failure is due to how austere the buildings & public realm were designed. They are often disconnected from the city either by location or due to excessive setbacks from streets, do not create the right conditions for activation of public spaces... rendering them desolate and just about right for criminals, and the design aesthetic is one that most people (except for a few crazy architects) could not possibly care about. The quality of our built environment directly influences whether or not we actually care about these places (great explanation here).
4. Believe it or not, aesthetics matter. Of course, I could talk about how tall buildings (when poorly designed in shape) create huge shadows, deteriorate the vibrancy of the public realm, and can really look like monoliths or ugly eyesores when poorly located or massed. I would like to mention the fact that many people still do care about aesthetics, and most developments in Toronto are a) poorly executed in the quality of materials b) have lazy and/or repeated designs c) have no regard for context, do not preserve the context's identity, and do not create identity and d) are regarded as ugly or "nothing special" or "I've seen the same building in literally every city in the world" by most people. The fact that people think of beauty as "purely subjective" is very sad, and has contributed to our society's apathy for architecture (in the sense that we don't demand it anymore).
That's not how the world works. We don't live in a dictatorship and, at the end of the day, all planning policies are approved by City Councillors who want to get re-elected. If we are to solve Toronto's problems, we have to think of how to convince people that our ideas are great... and most importantly, we have to learn from people on how to make our ideas better. Many NIMBYs aren't opposed to new housing, they're just opposed to how housing is getting built. And very often, it all comes down to the tiny details. Many people are very happy to accept developments that make their communities better, and surprisingly... those that are attractive. People hate their quaint neighbourhood turning into an uncoordinated overbuild of glass boxes. They're just not sophisticated enough to see how, with some tweeks, development can be a nice thing. That's why we need to hear their concerns... because we can learn from them while still solving our city's challenges.
Last edited:
DavidCapizzano
Senior Member
Hard disagree - especially when it comes to this site. The cheapest homes nearby are all like 1.5 million at the least... Homeowners, especially in Toronto have seen their property values rise so much in the last decade, many of whom have cashed out and received the biggest paycheques of their lives. You can't just own a multi-million dollar asset like a toronto home and say you're not rich. A home is an asset and it literally translates to one's wealth.
xy3
Active Member
Great point.
I'd be lying if I said I don't envy homeowners in prime locations.
If you cashed out and put $1,500,000 put into a conservative mutual funds, ETFs, and/or dividend paying stocks you'd, on average, be able to expect to generate a 5 % annual return on the low end. That would equate to around $75,000 a year in investment income before tax.
That's a comfortable downtown bachelor condo rental lifestyle for a single minimalist without a family. And you wouldnt even need to go to work!
Last edited:
Yup, the "almost every Canadian is a homeowner and lives in a home" line is bunkum, especially in this city where 47% of households are renting. @daniel_kryz, careful about presenting opinions as facts, which you do a bit above. Just stating something doesn't make it a fact, and if it's not explained (opinion or fact), it remains unhelpful.
42
42
salsa
Senior Member
So I guess no one plans to put the homeowner comment aside for a moment and actually address the main arguments in that post?
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Jersey City out here giving the middle finger to the ‘missing middle’ capitulation:
More of this!
More of this!
Undead
Senior Member
The figure for Canada overall is 60-70%, no? So not that bunk.
"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
ADRM
Senior Member
I mean, this post is in a way a good starting point to dig into the substantive issues with the notion that "this proposal does not represent an appropriate transition in scale between taller building and low-density neighbourhood." This is a subjective statement, and presenting it as some sort of objective truth does not pass muster. Suggesting even that there should be any transition between taller and shorter elements is itself a subjective statement. So, statements like "it's simply bad urban design. Putting tall buildings directly next to 2 to 3 storey homes would feel like standing next to a giant" that are seemingly presented as given facts, are of course going to be open to ridicule (and rightly so). Doubling down and defending them by saying, literally, "because reasons"? Yeah, you're going to have a rough ride around here.
Now, does the City have a tendency to bend over backwards to "protect" low density neighbourhoods from development pressures? Of course. Is that tendency in fact enshrined in policy? Yes, and it is of course one element on which many advocates of housing and land use reform focus intensely (again, rightly so).
The rest of the post that launched this mini-discussion isn't really worth engaging with because it's so laced with exaggeration and hyperbole.
Northern Light
Superstar
I happen to like the proposal at this site; (1140 Yonge); but I cannot and would not endorse the above, which I think looks preposterous; and I wouldn't want to have owned that house and then experienced that building going in next door.
****
@daniel_kryz overstated his case and his arguments could use some finessing..........(no offense Daniel); at the same time........ I think the reaction is a bit much.
Northern Light
Superstar
To further the above, let me state I like the proposal, have no problems with its height on Yonge, and will not cry a river for the folks who live next door.
That said, I think there is sound planning argument for transitioning down to SFH heights in some measure.
Which it should be said this building does, but the neighbours (at least the loud ones) object to both the starting point (tallest point) and the height of the transition point as well.
I happen to firmly disagree (with the objections) on the total height; but am open to the argument on how it transitions down.
Of course any suggestion that 'transitioning' is good is subjective; but so is every other 'like' or 'dislike'. 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. Which does not mean that said residents should always be accommodated; but it also means it should be possible empathize (not sympathize) and imagine that if you were that owner, you might not like the idea either.
It goes without saying that such a position is selfish, and fails to weight the interests of the broader community against those of a small number of residents.
Which is exactly why we should have a planning department to do just that; and a method of appeal in case Planning arguably has it wrong (which we have, in the form of OLT)
The exact extent of what transition may be appropriate, will always remain a matter of preference, not an absolute truth.
I happen to think this is a nice enough proposal, in an appropriate enough place, that things should bend in favour of this development.
But I don't think we need to bury people who may hold a different view.
That said, I think there is sound planning argument for transitioning down to SFH heights in some measure.
Which it should be said this building does, but the neighbours (at least the loud ones) object to both the starting point (tallest point) and the height of the transition point as well.
I happen to firmly disagree (with the objections) on the total height; but am open to the argument on how it transitions down.
Of course any suggestion that 'transitioning' is good is subjective; but so is every other 'like' or 'dislike'. 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. Which does not mean that said residents should always be accommodated; but it also means it should be possible empathize (not sympathize) and imagine that if you were that owner, you might not like the idea either.
It goes without saying that such a position is selfish, and fails to weight the interests of the broader community against those of a small number of residents.
Which is exactly why we should have a planning department to do just that; and a method of appeal in case Planning arguably has it wrong (which we have, in the form of OLT)
The exact extent of what transition may be appropriate, will always remain a matter of preference, not an absolute truth.
I happen to think this is a nice enough proposal, in an appropriate enough place, that things should bend in favour of this development.
But I don't think we need to bury people who may hold a different view.
Last edited:
evandyk
Senior Member
My inlaws have a place on Granby/McGill. When they bought it, Church and Carlton had pretty much nothing. Now they're basically surrounded by 40+ storey towers, and I can confirm that it does not in fact feel like standing next to a giant. It feels like living in a big city, in a single family home, walking distance from a subway station.
allengeorge
Senior Member
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.