[allengeorge]

Can we try this another way. Name me all the super high-density areas in Toronto that have a wonderful human-scaled streetscape/public realm.

Would that be City Place? St. Jamestown? Crescent Town? The corner of Yonge + Eg?
Might I suggest, that for the most part, such spaces end up undesirable. They are places people by
and large end up not wanting to live; and when they do; they tend to have sterile street life.

What are some low/medium-density areas built in the last 60 years in Toronto that have a wonderful human-scaled public realm?

It’s possible that you’re equating great public realm with low/midrise by looking at neighbourhoods built in a very different time, under very different development pressures.

 

[allengeorge]

Dog poop everywhere, noise, overflowing garbage and recycling bins. Allow me to use a bit of hyperbole, and Google "living in ICE condominiums", this type of density does not breed desirable living conditions.

This is not purely a function of density. This is at least partially a result of Toronto’s low-tax culture and poor execution on the part of its departments.

Many people laud Montreal’s public realm. The property taxes you pay on a similar (or cheaper) home in Montreal are greater than the Toronto equivalent.

 

[Northern Light]

What are some low/medium-density areas built in the last 60 years in Toronto that have a wonderful human-scaled public realm?

It’s possible that you’re equating great public realm with low/midrise by looking at neighbourhoods built in a very different time, under very different development pressures.

The St. Lawrence neighbourhood is certainly the gold standard in many ways; though one could fairly note, it was reliant for retail on adaptively re-used heritage on Front Street to a great degree; though Market Square also worked out pretty well.

The City proper has been mostly built-out for decades, and the SFH subdivisions in the outer reaches of Scarborough (the last large-scale completions) are their own problem.

Few would advocate replicating those.

If you did look for post-1990 areas, at any scale, for low-mid-rise, the former racetrack on Queen would come to mind. Its imperfect, to say the least; but in terms of basic
concept and feel it doesn't work too badly (midrise on Queen, compact SFH interior). We could perhaps all agree that a bit more midrise, say on Woodbine might have worked well;
That the Green-P grade parking is unfortunate, and that there are some design issues w/the midrises.....but I digress.

But, for all the shortcomings in the area noted above, I would take it 1,000 times over what we ended up with at Humber Bay Shores.

*****

Certainly, there are general design issues that we all discuss ad nauseum; from handle retail better to better materiality and glazing, to the need for greater granularity.

All of the above have been mucked up at a mid-rise level too; but they tend to be more impactful at a hirise scale, and harder to fix later too.

 

[evandyk]

The St. Lawrence neighbourhood is certainly the gold standard in many ways; though one could fairly note, it was reliant for retail on adaptively re-used heritage on Front Street to a great degree; though Market Square also worked out pretty well.

I have a very close friend who had a kid almost exactly the same time as me, about 3 years ago. She lives at King and Bathurst, I live at King and Sherbourne. We have some really nice stuff in this neighbourhood obviously - St. Lawrence Market, St. James Park, Sherbourne Common/Sugar Beach, etc. But the commercial amenities on King West are way more extensive - grocery stores, restaurants, small retail, bars, etc. - and if I started again, I would probably move there instead.

 

[evandyk]

The density on King West is working.

 

[allengeorge]

If you did look for post-1990 areas, at any scale, for low-mid-rise, the former racetrack on Queen would come to mind. Its imperfect, to say the least; but in terms of basic
concept and feel it doesn't work too badly (midrise on Queen, compact SFH interior). We could perhaps all agree that a bit more midrise, say on Woodbine might have worked well;
That the Green-P grade parking is unfortunate, and that there are some design issues w/the midrises.....but I digress.

I’m not sure I’d call the public realm in that stretch particularly well-executed, and I think the midrise could do with a few more floors, but it is a fair example.

What do you think are the major high-rise specific issues? (As opposed to issues simply amplified because the buildings are taller)

PS. I totally agree with you that Toronto can get a lot more density simply by reducing street ROWs. This is a wasted opportunity in the WDL.

 

[evandyk]

They definitely have to get rid of the wide roads. Those are the worst.

 

[Northern Light]

I have a very close friend who had a kid almost exactly the same time as me, about 3 years ago. She lives at King and Bathurst, I live at King and Sherbourne. We have some really nice stuff in this neighbourhood obviously - St. Lawrence Market, St. James Park, Sherbourne Common/Sugar Beach, etc. But the commercial amenities on King West are way more extensive - grocery stores, restaurants, small retail, bars, etc. - and if I started again, I would probably move there instead.

What part of King West?

Most of King West is midrise in character, not hirise, let alone skyscraper.

The principle exception would be in the Simcoe to Spadina section; there there are some outliers.

 

[evandyk]

What part of King West?

Most of King West is midrise in character, not hirise, let alone skyscraper.

The principle exception would be in the Simcoe to Spadina section; there there are some outliers.

My friend lives near Bathurst, which is a spot that I like. But all of King W, from the financial district to Liberty Village, seems to be working a whole lot better than St. Lawrence.

 

[TossYourJacket]

Much like with public transit where we treat every project as if it's the only thing we will ever build (which i get we build transit slowly but that can be changed), I think there is a penchant to look at a plan for mid-rises and be like "well this is our only chance to build housing, so therefore this is a failure" and yet in the case of both of these things, neither is true. We can build more transit, and we can build housing in more than one neighbourhood. Saying every new neighbourhood has to be nothing but massive towers only further entrenches the pointless protection of the yellow belt.

 

[jxmyth_]

tired of the density argument with all these people thinking we can solve affordability in the city if we just make every neighbourhood an impenetrable canyon of glass towers. So I say screw it- no homes on Villiers. Business, culture, retail- fine, but nobody gets to live there. Turn more over to nature, we could use more green space.

Besides, first year after folks move in theres bound to be the inevitable petition to get rid of 1. Rebel Nightclub 2. Film Studios 3. Shipping industry - because knowingly moving between these things gives residents the ability to demand they leave.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

tired of the density argument with all these people thinking we can solve affordability in the city if we just make every neighbourhood an impenetrable canyon of glass towers. So I say screw it- no homes on Villiers. Business, culture, retail- fine, but nobody gets to live there. Turn more over to nature, we could use more green space.

Besides, first year after folks move in theres bound to be the inevitable petition to get rid of 1. Rebel Nightclub 2. Film Studios 3. Shipping industry - because knowingly moving between these things gives residents the ability to demand they leave.

...er, so an industrial park, big box stores and a Cineplex instead? It's kinda what you get if you design a large given space without residential components. And I am not sure many would want that. Particularly not here.

 

[DSC]

...er, so an industrial park, big box stores and a Cineplex instead? It's kinda what you get if you design a large given space without residential components. And I am not sure many would want that. Particularly not here.

don't forget the Ferris Wheel!

 

[EnviroTO]

The most important thing to me for Villiers Island is the pedestrian experience. I don't think the height of the buildings is going to affect that much. There are considerations with more people... If there are more people then maybe the sidewalk needs to be wider. With more people the ground level has more people to service so rather than closed off spaces like ground floor units or private amenities, the space can be geared to the public such as retail and restaurants. I think greater density has the potential of a greater pedestrian experience.

I think they should critique Cityplace, West Don Lands, and other places that have been built in the past 20 years and collect what works and doesn't work. Cityplace isn't great but tall buildings isn't usually the complaint... most of the complaints I have heard are about building quality, sound conveyance, pets, and sidewalks. Most of the complaints could occur in a lower density neighborhood.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Personally I am not against higher density than what's been proposed - but it's the how that matters. I am not sure if the predominant way of delivering density in this city "cuts it".

AoD