Mr.Tang

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 27, 2007
Messages
254
Reaction score
80
Of course there will be high-rise buildings in a city the size of Toronto! And as per my handle (Spanish for skyscrapers), I obviously don't mind that there are so many of them here (quality is a different issue). It's all the NIMBYs that are bemoaning the 'Manhattanization' of Toronto while at the same time opposing proposals such as the 4-storey Dale Avenue condo in Rosedale. The alternatives would be to build subdivisions on the greenbelt and more highways to connect them to the city (I suspect they will not like that either) or perhaps let's discuss the elephant in the room, ie. limiting population growth, including immigration.
Supply and Demand. Why is demand the problem (our city and country growing)? Maybe we need to build more 3 and 4 bedroom housing that can accommodate a family. Maybe we can build that in our cities (instead of just towers) maybe our greenbelt is a brake on sprawl (and not a wall to be jumped over).
 

junctionist

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
9,049
Reaction score
2,904
Of course there will be high-rise buildings in a city the size of Toronto! And as per my handle (Spanish for skyscrapers), I obviously don't mind that there are so many of them here (quality is a different issue). It's all the NIMBYs that are bemoaning the 'Manhattanization' of Toronto while at the same time opposing proposals such as the 4-storey Dale Avenue condo in Rosedale. The alternatives would be to build subdivisions on the greenbelt and more highways to connect them to the city (I suspect they will not like that either) or perhaps let's discuss the elephant in the room, ie. limiting population growth, including immigration.

Paris has relatively few high-rise buildings and a high population density. Its population is 2.2 million in the city itself, with 21,000 people living per square kilometre.

To get that kind of density without high-rise buildings in Toronto, you’d have demolish large swaths of the city with old houses and replace them with midrises. It’s feasible, but I’m not sure it’s desirable. However, we need to be more flexible in terms of what can be built in neighbourhoods and with minimum parking requirements.
 
Last edited:

DirectionNorth

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 11, 2020
Messages
673
Reaction score
1,257
Paris has relatively few high-rise buildings and a high population density. Its population is 2.2 million in the city itself, with 21,000 people living per square kilometre.

To get that kind of density without high-rise buildings in Toronto, you’d have demolish large swaths of the city with old houses and replace them with midrises. It’s feasible, but I’m not sure it’s desirable. However, we need to be more flexible in terms of what can be built in neighbourhoods and with minimum parking requirements.
Nobody is advocating for a 5x increase in density. What people are advocating for is the reduction/elimination in regulations that prevent such mid-rise development.
 

Rascacielo

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
2,518
Reaction score
16,453
Paris has relatively few high-rise buildings and a high population density. Its population is 2.2 million in the city itself, with 21,000 people living per square kilometre.

To get that kind of density without high-rise buildings in Toronto, you’d have demolish large swaths of the city with old houses and replace them with midrises. It’s feasible, but I’m not sure it’s desirable. However, we need to be more flexible in terms of what can be built in neighbourhoods and with minimum parking requirements.
I realize that. Since we already have tons of high rises compared to cities like Paris or Rome, we don’t need a Haussmann-style redevelopment where every building along the subway lines is replaced with mid rises. But start by making it easier for developers to replace some of the less significant ones with more density.
 

AlvinofDiaspar

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
31,688
Reaction score
24,909
City:
Toronto
To get that kind of density without high-rise buildings in Toronto, you’d have demolish large swaths of the city with old houses and replace them with midrises. It’s feasible, but I’m not sure it’s desirable. However, we need to be more flexible in terms of what can be built in neighbourhoods and with minimum parking requirements.

It might not be such a bad thing considering how much the retention of SFH has warped development in the city. Certainly healthier than creating an artificial shortfall of developable land and cramming density where one could.

AoD
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
18,900
Reaction score
43,464
Paris has relatively few high-rise buildings and a high population density. Its population is 2.2 million in the city itself, with 21,000 people living per square kilometre.

To get that kind of density without high-rise buildings in Toronto, you’d have demolish large swaths of the city with old houses and replace them with midrises. It’s feasible, but I’m not sure it’s desirable. However, we need to be more flexible in terms of what can be built in neighbourhoods and with minimum parking requirements.

I have emphasized one bit there.........because I think it merits a bit of shaping...

Putting aside the scale, cost, environmental and political implications...........I would argue it is actually not feasible, in most respects.

Let me elaborate.

The built form in much of Paris comes with either no elevator, or only 1, this would not be acceptable today.

In many case the units are organized in such a way as to preclude elevators, (units all face an internal stair case); reorganizing within the built form (midrise) is certainly possible, but you can't get the same density into the same height.

There are further complications, many/most of these buildings lack parking; Paris has considerably less parkland than Toronto; and that factors into a density calculation. Where Paris is partially built within the floodplain of the Seine River, we don't allow that here.

There are a host of other issues in terms of current building/fire code, accessibility, etc; that even if we were willing and able to completely reimagine the road grid (changing block shapes and sizes to maximize density) we simply couldn't match that Paris number.

So yes, it's theoretically possible to re-do the City; but under contemporary laws/regulations and standards we cannot duplicate the same density in the same built-form; you would have to pick one.

***

As a side note, I happen to quite like Paris; but I find the built form a tad monotonous; it's cohesive mind you, but it's a lot of the same; it's also very, very grey.

***

Perhaps this tangent should move elsewhere though, as we are wandering a wee bit from Mirvish.
 
Last edited:

AlbertC

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
18,037
Reaction score
42,102
City:
Toronto
Jan 8, 2022


20220108_150800.jpg
20220108_150805.jpg
20220108_152429.jpg
 

mandy_CN

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 27, 2021
Messages
23
Reaction score
68
City:
New York
Of course there will be high-rise buildings in a city the size of Toronto! And as per my handle (Spanish for skyscrapers), I obviously don't mind that there are so many of them here (quality is a different issue). It's all the NIMBYs that are bemoaning the 'Manhattanization' of Toronto while at the same time opposing proposals such as the 4-storey Dale Avenue condo in Rosedale. The alternatives would be to build subdivisions on the greenbelt and more highways to connect them to the city (I suspect they will not like that either) or perhaps let's discuss the elephant in the room, ie. limiting population growth, including immigration.
The problem with population stress on Toronto is not due to immigration or increase in birth rates. It has more to do with the fact that Toronto has become the apex city in Canada for internal migration. With Vancouver being far away from Canada's Economic Corridor; Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Saskatoon etc being resource extraction economies and Political problems hindering Quebec and the Maritimes; THE GOLDEN HORSESHOE (especially Toronto) has emerged as the centre of the majority of Business, Entertainment, IT, Medical, Education and Engineering sectors of our country. This problem is same as what UK is facing with its overdependence on London.

USA for example has divided various industries among various cities in order to reduce over-dependence on a single one. Similarly, Australia is also overdependent on 2 cities- Sydney and Melbourne. Though they have 2 equal cities whereas we just have Toronto. Montreal is fast becoming a shadow of its former self (no offence). We mainly need to have 2 different cities that handle the 2 main sectors of the modern economy - Business and IT !

We need to reduce this dependence on Toronto to have a healthier future. Smaller cities in Southern Ontario need to grow and separate themselves from Toronto's overarching influence. Waterloo-Kitchener has done this to a good effect. Also Calgary, Edmonton, Montreal and Vancouver need to take up some slack in my humble opinion.

Till then, Toronto would have to face an increasingly larger internal migration which would present it with incredible growth and development opportunities to stand with the big boys. But this growth may happen at the expense of smaller Canadian cities.
 

Lyphe

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 18, 2013
Messages
331
Reaction score
313
The problem with population stress on Toronto is not due to immigration or increase in birth rates. It has more to do with the fact that Toronto has become the apex city in Canada for internal migration. With Vancouver being far away from Canada's Economic Corridor; Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Saskatoon etc being resource extraction economies and Political problems hindering Quebec and the Maritimes; THE GOLDEN HORSESHOE (especially Toronto) has emerged as the centre of the majority of Business, Entertainment, IT, Medical, Education and Engineering sectors of our country. This problem is same as what UK is facing with its overdependence on London.

USA for example has divided various industries among various cities in order to reduce over-dependence on a single one. Similarly, Australia is also overdependent on 2 cities- Sydney and Melbourne. Though they have 2 equal cities whereas we just have Toronto. Montreal is fast becoming a shadow of its former self (no offence). We mainly need to have 2 different cities that handle the 2 main sectors of the modern economy - Business and IT !

We need to reduce this dependence on Toronto to have a healthier future. Smaller cities in Southern Ontario need to grow and separate themselves from Toronto's overarching influence. Waterloo-Kitchener has done this to a good effect. Also Calgary, Edmonton, Montreal and Vancouver need to take up some slack in my humble opinion.

Till then, Toronto would have to face an increasingly larger internal migration which would present it with incredible growth and development opportunities to stand with the big boys. But this growth may happen at the expense of smaller Canadian cities.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a net outflow of people from Toronto when limiting the numbers to Canada-only?
 

Undead

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 3, 2020
Messages
2,183
Reaction score
5,226
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a net outflow of people from Toronto when limiting the numbers to Canada-only
Source is one of the Toronto area commentariat, but I can't recall who at the moment. But let's get back on topic.
IMG-20211214-WA0010.jpg
 

isaidso

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
1,939
Reaction score
1,969
Nobody is advocating for a 5x increase in density. What people are advocating for is the reduction/elimination in regulations that prevent such mid-rise development.

People vastly under-estimate how much opportunity there is for intensification beyond our low rise residential neighbourhoods. Greater Toronto - Hamilton could accommodate millions more people focusing solely on our arterial roads, 17 nodes (downtown, MCC, VMC, etc.), and brown fields. If we exhaust opportunities to intensify then look at low rise neighbourhoods but we could keep growing as we have for 50+ years before reaching that point.

The idea that all parts of the city need intensification doesn't add up nor is it desirable. I'd hate for Toronto to end up like Paris with fairly uniform density from one end to the other. Diversity is our strength/trump card and that extends to having super high density areas, mid density, and yes, low density too. Low density and parkland offer an oasis and visual break. People are too quick to destroy things without considering that these places have some benefit. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.

1 of those 17 nodes (downtown Toronto) could conceivable fit another 200,000 all by itself and its only 17 sq km. There are LOADS of places in Greater Toronto - Hamilton that could accommodate 50,000 to 100,000 people with similar density. We don't need to touch neighbourhoods like the Annex, Cabbagetown, Danforth, Leaside, etc. if we're smart about growth. Besides, it's not like these places don't have arterial roads going through them where one can build a wall of mid-rises (6-12 floors).
 
Last edited:

Top