[allengeorge]

@Northern Light I agree with you that we need not see 20s/40s along Danforth. I really would have liked to see a little higher without setbacks. That said…

The image above would leave the impression that new density is entirely limited to Danforth, but in fact the transition zone, which varies, is generally envisioned to run up to 100M north from Danforth (2-3 lot width beyond the parks/Green P lots.

Where do you see that? My understanding is that the transition zones are only the highlighted areas - which is why I was upset. That seems like a massive miss. If it’s 100m all along the Danforth that’s a lot better.

 

[Northern Light]

@Northern Light I agree with you that we need not see 20s/40s along Danforth. I really would have liked to see a little higher without setbacks. That said…

Where do you see that? My understanding is that the transition zones are only the highlighted areas - which is why I was upset. That seems like a massive miss. If it’s 100m all along the Danforth that’s a lot better.

The 100M is where the Green P lots exists, and the shading is blue. They are not universally along the Danforth; and primarily on the north side.

If you measure Danforth, to 2 lots north of the Green P lots, you get ~100M

 

[AlexBozikovic]

The Danforth study covers three kilometres with eight subway stations. By the city’s own calculations, the new zoning would allow a max of ~10,000 new residents, ever. That would still leave the neighbourhood with fewer people than it had in 1972.

Why, @Northern Light, is highrise not appropriate here? 10 minutes on the subway from Yonge/Bloor, and partly in walking distance to East Harbour?

Developers are going to ask this question of the tribunal. My guess is that the city’s going to spend the next 10 years losing the argument, battling to preserve a “midrise” approach that will evolve into slabby, visually imposing 10-storey buildings. These will require assembling long sites (destroying everything that is good about the strip), without adding very much density.

 

[Northern Light]

The Danforth study covers three kilometres with eight subway stations. By the city’s own calculations, the new zoning would allow a max of ~10,000 new residents, ever. That would still leave the neighbourhood with fewer people than it had in 1972.

The Danforth study does not factor in the as-of-right legalization of 4-plexes likely to occur; nor does it factor in the 2 MTSAs that are coming (which will almost certainly allow hirise); as noted, I also support an MTSA designation around Coxwell and Danforth as well.

You're also discounting future changes on the N-S arterials, which are coming as well.

When the MTSAs are factored in, you will get growth of at least 16,000, conservatively (Broadiew and Pape), if you add Coxwell, 20,000; if you factor in the other changes (4-plex rule, and N-S arterials) add several thousand more.

Why, @Northern Light, is highrise not appropriate here? 10 minutes on the subway from Yonge/Bloor,

MTSA's include hirise. At no point did I argue against hirise. Though I'm uncertain of why you are obsessed with a building form that is less ecologically sound than midrise, and less cost-efficient. You also note yourself (and the City knows), w/e it approves will likely go up some.

and partly in walking distance to East Harbour?

What? Its walking distance to me, in a leisurely way; but most forumers here, very urban types, who like walking/biking would not make that walk. That's more than 2.5km directly south from Broadview, or a 40m walk, in the downhill direction, for a typical, young adult.

The defined area of an MTSA is an 800M distance or 10 minute walk.

Not a real argument here.

Developers are going to ask this question of the tribunal. My guess is that the city’s going to spend the next 10 years losing the argument, battling to preserve a “midrise” approach that will evolve into slabby, visually imposing 10-storey buildings. These will require assembling long sites (destroying everything that is good about the strip), without adding very much density.

I specifically noted in my comments that I expect some sites will go higher than what is proposed; and that the City is well aware of, and accepts this. You're making a very odd argument above.

Part 1 of your argument: The City imposing an unreasonably low density (while omitting the MTSAs and other zoning changes to neighbourhoods)
Part 2 of your argument: The City can't impose it, the OLT won't allow it

Which is it? This is as-of-right zoning that will make it much easier and less costly to do midrise; it will not stop all hirise. Zoning, in particular as it relates to height, has not been a limiting factor in most parts of the City, Danforth is no different. This is about making certain types of development easier and less costly (incentivizing)

Though many Danforth sites aren't particularly conducive to hirise simply because they aren't that deep; and are constricted by both laneways, and by City-owned parking lots {over a subway tunnel) to the north.

Of course, those things can be overcome with a large enough assembly, but the market economics are not yet there to support that along the bulk of the strip.

There are a couple of tower form sites that should happen and almost certainly will happen; but I imagine the City doesn't want to give the density away for free (s.37/CBAs are an important revenue source); plus why pick that fight w/the neighbours pre-maturely.

 

[allengeorge]

The 100M is where the Green P lots exists, and the shading is blue. They are not universally along the Danforth; and primarily on the north side.

I reiterate then, that this part seems like a miss. Why aren’t there transition zones universally along the Danforth as opposed to pockets? (And at the Green P lot areas?)

Also, a lot is resting on the hope that the city will reduce the hurdles necessary to build *plexes - something that’s far from assured.

 

[Northern Light]

I reiterate then, that this part seems like a miss. Why aren’t there transition zones universally along the Danforth as opposed to pockets? (And at the Green P lot areas?)

Also, a lot is resting on the hope that the city will reduce the hurdles necessary to build *plexes - something that’s far from assured.

For better or worse, that is answered by looking at what staff anticipate on Danforth itself.

Where the City has deemed parcels not suited to intensification at the same degree (either at all, or shorter), it has not included a transition zone.

Where the City has assumed 8 storeys is viable, it has generally included a transition zone.

You can see a few other assumptions in the diagrams. Land between the parking lots and Danforth will be upzoned.

Where there are no parking lots, that automatic assumption has been removed.

In general the upzoning is not occurring in the neighbourhoods/residential zone, if the existing property is conforming to said zoning, and not already in a form suited to intensification.

I understand the choice. I might do bits of its more aggressively.........but I see a desire to avoid having this tied up in appeals for the next decade, assuming it got past Council in the first place.

Remember, this has to get through Cllr. Fletcher first, then Council, then any appeals from offended property owners/locals.

 

[allengeorge]

I think then, that this is the core of the difference in how you/I/Alex perceive this plan.

All of us support adding more people to this neighborhood via increased density.

Both Alex and I are disappointed that this _singular plan_ isn’t aggressive enough, though, to different degrees. At least on my front, I’m skeptical of leaning too much on future plans because I don’t see a sea change in attitudes towards density/regulation in either Toronto Planning/Council.

On the other hand, you are generally ok with the current plan because you believe that additional planning changes coming will make up for the lack of ambition here.

I think that’s a fair assessment of the situation. At either rate, my complaining here won’t make a lick of difference in the city debate

 

[AlexBozikovic]

This is a bad plan, which will be overruled in a slow, piecemeal fashion, producing lots of political controversy and unfriendly, inefficient built form. (Midrise is less efficient, in terms of cost and carbon, then highrise.)

In my view the neighbourhoods should be opened up, at least to a degree. This isn’t happening, and the new multiplex zoning will be largely irrelevant. Intensification here should be happening 300 units at a time, not three units at a time.

 

[Northern Light]

This is a bad plan, which will be overruled in a slow, piecemeal fashion, producing lots of political controversy and unfriendly, inefficient built form. (Midrise is less efficient, in terms of cost and carbon, then highrise.)

This is incorrect according to every study I've ever examined on the subject; which is many.

Studies vary on the degree at which various inputs vary in cost/carbon, as such there is some wobble in estimates/comparisons; but when one considers the totality of inputs, hirise here is higher in cost per ft2, and in carbon input.

Aside from building construction cost, you have to consider what infrastruture investment is required to make this possible (replaced sewers, watermains, associated road reconstructions, transit station expansion, school expansion etc.)

One must also factor in certain operational matters, typically at this location in the City, natural water pressures in the mains will reach the 11th storey of most buildings w/o pumps.

Go higher, and you require pumps and the electricity that operates them. (just one example)

In my view the neighbourhoods should be opened up, at least to a degree.

On this we agree.

This isn’t happening

On this we disagree; I would say that some of it is occurring more slowly than I would like, and some of it will happen through other plans, MTSAs and rezoning exercises on the N-S arterials.

, and the new multiplex zoning will be largely irrelevant. Intensification here should be happening 300 units at a time, not three units at a time.

There are no parcels on Danforth likely to see this degree of intensification in the short to medium term, nor any means by which Planning would get that kind of as-of-right zoning approved.

That latter bit is important. Good planning is ambitious, but also understands the art of the do-able. The lets zone Danforth for 20 stories across the board plan never even gets out committee. So its a waste of time.

 

[Northern Light]

I think then, that this is the core of the difference in how you/I/Alex perceive this plan.

All of us support adding more people to this neighborhood via increased density.

*nods*

Both Alex and I are disappointed that this _singular plan_ isn’t aggressive enough, though, to different degrees. At least on my front, I’m skeptical of leaning too much on future plans because I don’t see a sea change in attitudes towards density/regulation in either Toronto Planning/Council.

On the other hand, you are generally ok with the current plan because you believe that additional planning changes coming will make up for the lack of ambition here.

Somewhat true; I would add, I consider politics in everything. By which I mean, how much bolder can you make the plan and still get it passed? That's key. Its an empty exercise if its voted down at Council.

I think that’s a fair assessment of the situation. At either rate, my complaining here won’t make a lick of difference in the city debate

Don't under estimate your ability to influence this process. I intend to work on getting an MTSA for the Coxwell Stn area; and to expand the Broadview one somewhat.

I think both of those are entirely politically do-able.

There are parcels on the Danforth where bigger things will happen btw............. But they aren't top priorities for the owners, so it will be a few years.

 

[wopchop]

This is a bad plan, which will be overruled in a slow, piecemeal fashion, producing lots of political controversy and unfriendly, inefficient built form. (Midrise is less efficient, in terms of cost and carbon, then highrise.)

everything I have ever read suggests the exact opposite.
I read an interesting study on it recently actually - https://www.nature.com/articles/s42949-021-00034-w

There is a growing belief that building taller and denser is better. However, urban environmental design often neglects life cycle GHG emissions. Here we offer a method that decouples density and tallness in urban environments and allows each to be analysed individually. We test this method on case studies of real neighbourhoods and show that taller urban environments significantly increase life cycle GHG emissions (+154%) and low-density urban environments significantly increase land use (+142%). However, increasing urban density without increasing urban height reduces life cycle GHG emissions while maximising the population capacity. These results contend the claim that building taller is the most efficient way to meet growing demand for urban space and instead show that denser urban environments do not significantly increase life cycle GHG emissions and require less land.

 

[AlexBozikovic]

everything I have ever read suggests the exact opposite.
I read an interesting study on it recently actually - https://www.nature.com/articles/s42949-021-00034-w

The study refers to building in wood in a European context. Toronto midrise is concrete and, for technical reasons, tends to be exceptionally concrete-intensive.

 

[wopchop]

The study refers to building in wood in a European context. Toronto midrise is concrete and, for technical reasons, tends to be exceptionally concrete-intensive.

And?
Toronto high rise is also concrete and is going to be even more exceptionally intensive on GHG emissions than mid-rise, even if mid-rise is concrete. That is simple logic. Concrete is one of the most intensive GHG emitting processes on the planet (https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/feb/25/concrete-the-most-destructive-material-on-earth)

Taking in all stages of production, concrete is said to be responsible for 4-8% of the world’s CO2. Among materials, only coal, oil and gas are a greater source of greenhouse gases. Half of concrete’s CO2 emissions are created during the manufacture of clinker, the most-energy intensive part of the cement-making process.

Toronto is dominated by concrete because it is economical in this market. A lot of this is because there is plenty of local contractor and trade experience with it. Some of it is due to typical construction industry hesitancy to change. Believe me, we are perhaps the most stubborn and backwards thinking industry in Earth. The other main factor that drives it is that developers all want to go high-rise to maximize profit, and at that point it becomes steel vs concrete, with the latter being cheaper in this market generally.
I have worked in plenty of other areas (NYC, Seattle) that are dominated or have a bigger market share of steel for similar reasons.
There are plenty of opportunity for mid-rise wood in this market, as it would be economical if the non-construction costs and development process can be sorted to make it attractive. As long as Developers believe they can sell the units, and the application will be approved, they will push high rise on a site. This is also driven by artificial scarcity, because vast swathes of land are undevelopable (i.e yellow belt), so of course this encourages high rises. But this is entirely a choice we have made with our regulatory regime.

If we can build stacked towns out of wood, there are no technical reasons that cannot be solved to allow us to build 6s Mid-rises, which will be cheaper out of wood versus concrete every day of the week.
Just think about how much time your typical podium takes to form, set bar, pour and strip. That's part of why mid-rise concrete buildings are not all over the place. Developers are not making big money on that. They want to go for bigger profits of high rise.
For a shorter structure, a panelized wood structure or mass timber structure will always beat that on labour and material costs.

 

[allengeorge]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1455167452145504262

I was especially cheesed by Toronto Planning comments of the form: "Absent a local area study or active development application(s) to increase density the in-effect policies generate densities below the province's targets". I mean, yeah - the entire point of MTSAs and the Province's request to update the OP is to get them in line. I doubt it'll happen, but I'd like Minister Clark to just declare TO Planning's override requests as null and void.

Exchanges were referenced in this article:

Adam Zivo: Toronto goes to war with the province to keep housing prices high

Toronto’s city planners appear to be undermining the province, preferring to protect rich homeowners at the expense of new buyers

nationalpost.com

 

[dusk]

Random question for everyone here. Why do we even have "transition zones"? Is there a specific reason we don't allow the aforementioned 7-8 story minimum as of right on all streets, including those off of the main street? Why do we keep limiting ourselves to a sliver of land on arterial roads?