HousingNowTO

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 16, 2020
Messages
789
Reaction score
2,011
City:
Toronto
Let’s not. Let the sunshine in.
The 45-degree angular-plane on the SOUTH side (Memory Lane) has nothing to do with Shadow or Light... it just dumb policy about overlook on Single-Family Homes to the South, and "transition" - blah, blah, blah..
1648750803683.png


1648752056635.png
 

LUVIT!

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
1,112
Reaction score
853
City:
Toronto
If I lived in one of those houses I would not think the city policy was 'dumb' as you put it It is a good and considerate policy that creates a buffer between single family or otherwise less tall homes that border on a much taller structure. In fact TO is not a north south city but is angular on almost a 45 degree so the sun may in fact shadow some parts of homes that appear to be directly 'south' of taller properties etc. It is a solid plan based upon these facts.
 

HousingNowTO

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 16, 2020
Messages
789
Reaction score
2,011
City:
Toronto
If I lived in one of those houses I would not think the city policy was 'dumb' as you put it It is a good and considerate policy that creates a buffer between single family or otherwise less tall homes that border on a much taller structure. In fact TO is not a north south city but is angular on almost a 45 degree so the sun may in fact shadow some parts of homes that appear to be directly 'south' of taller properties etc. It is a solid plan based upon these facts.
Why should we create a buffer between a 8-storey building and - "single family or otherwise less tall homes" in 2022 in a housing crisis..?

Those aren't FACTS - they're just aesthetic preferences that have been codified by City Hall.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
20,296
Reaction score
48,238
Why should we create a buffer between a 8-storey building and - "single family or otherwise less tall homes" in 2022 in a housing crisis..?

Those aren't FACTS - they're just aesthetic preferences that have been codified by City Hall.

Because people want it that way; and they're going to get it that way; and all the effort wasted on changing it will mean more people homeless or poorly housed.

These rules are not unique to Toronto, nor are people here the only humans who have these types of preferences.

This is a forum as friendly to your cause as you will ever find. People here are broadly pro-development, pro-density, acutely aware of the housing crisis, and very open to and actively supportive of
government programs (ie Housing Now, Long Term Care, Student Housing, Rapid Housing etc.).

Yet, we broadly (not universally) like trees, sunlight, a modicum of privacy and see that housing not only needs to exist, it needs to be humane; a place people want to live, not just an alternative to the streets.

If you get push-back here, an idea is going nowhere fast in the broader community.

Lets get working on things that can gain support and happen, rather than induce blowback and opposition.

The goal is getting people housed, in good housing, in developments that serve the new residents well, and the communities they inhabit well.
 

HousingNowTO

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 16, 2020
Messages
789
Reaction score
2,011
City:
Toronto
If you get push-back here, an idea is going nowhere fast in the broader community.

Lets get working on things that can gain support and happen, rather than induce blowback and opposition.
We disagree that these ideas are "going nowhere fast in the broader community".

Many of these Urban Design Guidelines are less than a decade old, and plenty of people within the Public Sector and the Not-for-Profit community are now having to deal with the negative-impacts of the City's Design Guidelines on the financial and environmental viability of these kinds of design choices.

3-years ago, we were told that it was going to be "impossible" to change other dumb yet beloved City policy like PARKING MINIMUMS... today, that policy has been removed by Council.

Given yesterday’s timid policy choices around Housing by Queen’s Park, it looks like our volunteers are back to our usual strategy of picking-away at bad planning policy ideas and outcomes one-at-a-time.


1648756694320.png
 

condovo

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 2, 2007
Messages
3,619
Reaction score
6,240
Because people want it that way; and they're going to get it that way; and all the effort wasted on changing it will mean more people homeless or poorly housed.

These rules are not unique to Toronto, nor are people here the only humans who have these types of preferences.

This is a forum as friendly to your cause as you will ever find. People here are broadly pro-development, pro-density, acutely aware of the housing crisis, and very open to and actively supportive of
government programs (ie Housing Now, Long Term Care, Student Housing, Rapid Housing etc.).

Yet, we broadly (not universally) like trees, sunlight, a modicum of privacy and see that housing not only needs to exist, it needs to be humane; a place people want to live, not just an alternative to the streets.

If you get push-back here, an idea is going nowhere fast in the broader community.

Lets get working on things that can gain support and happen, rather than induce blowback and opposition.

The goal is getting people housed, in good housing, in developments that serve the new residents well, and the communities they inhabit well.
And the built form we choose "in 2022 in a housing crisis" will still be in place in 2122. Like you, I too want it to be humane.
 

Nastapoka

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 2, 2015
Messages
113
Reaction score
136
Because people want it that way; and they're going to get it that way; and all the effort wasted on changing it will mean more people homeless or poorly housed.

These rules are not unique to Toronto, nor are people here the only humans who have these types of preferences.

This is a forum as friendly to your cause as you will ever find. People here are broadly pro-development, pro-density, acutely aware of the housing crisis, and very open to and actively supportive of
government programs (ie Housing Now, Long Term Care, Student Housing, Rapid Housing etc.).

Yet, we broadly (not universally) like trees, sunlight, a modicum of privacy and see that housing not only needs to exist, it needs to be humane; a place people want to live, not just an alternative to the streets.

If you get push-back here, an idea is going nowhere fast in the broader community.

Lets get working on things that can gain support and happen, rather than induce blowback and opposition.

The goal is getting people housed, in good housing, in developments that serve the new residents well, and the communities they inhabit well.

"People want it that way" - not sure why we are deferring to a landowning minority. There is a much larger majority who want and need housing. We just happen to listen to the loudest and wealthiest voices in the room. "They're going to get it that way" - not sure how we can say that with any confidence. The playing field has been made and re-made countless times. Angular planes were imposed, they can also be abolished. They are not effective tools to achieve quality housing.

There is no reason to continue to trot out tired tropes about "humane housing". There is nothing inhumane about 8 storey housing in a city, full stop, not matter what happens to exist on a property next door. No more inhumane than single family residences and exclusionary zoning that restrict the city's capacity to house its population. This is an often self-serving lie that some Torontonians have told themselves and it has been incredibly damaging. There is no reason 8-storey housing without angular planes is antithetical to all the qualities of good housing (privacy, daylight, tree canopies, etc) people deserve and desire.
 

torontologist

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 9, 2013
Messages
564
Reaction score
508
"People want it that way" - not sure why we are deferring to a landowning minority. There is a much larger majority who want and need housing. We just happen to listen to the loudest and wealthiest voices in the room. "They're going to get it that way" - not sure how we can say that with any confidence. The playing field has been made and re-made countless times. Angular planes were imposed, they can also be abolished. They are not effective tools to achieve quality housing.

There is no reason to continue to trot out tired tropes about "humane housing". There is nothing inhumane about 8 storey housing in a city, full stop, not matter what happens to exist on a property next door. No more inhumane than single family residences and exclusionary zoning that restrict the city's capacity to house its population. This is an often self-serving lie that some Torontonians have told themselves and it has been incredibly damaging. There is no reason 8-storey housing without angular planes is antithetical to all the qualities of good housing (privacy, daylight, tree canopies, etc) people deserve and desire.

Amen. It should be noted that the protection of sunlight is not afforded evenly across the city. For some reason City Hall has determined that the wealthiest Torontonians are in dire need of sunlight, lest they become pale and wither away. Funny how in working class areas there seem to be less angular planes. Wonder why?

Also I find it a bit amusing to encounter voices on this forum who are otherwise pro-development using phrasing like "in MY neighbourhood". Sounds pretty NIMBY to me.

There is no right to sunlight in one's back yard, and for the city to use this excuse to deny housing to people in need is... unethical? classist? anti-newcomer? reactionary? all of the above?
 

Top