News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.7K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.5K     0 

I think an interesting question to ask (were I a policy maker) is: “How can we make larger portions of Etobicoke, Scarborough, North York, etc” more amenity-rich.

I suspect a lot of this is zoning, density, and built-form related. Many of the blank spots are low-density suburbs, many RD zoned. As a result, you can’t put amenities there, and as a business - why would you? Your addressable market is low.
 
allengeorge said:
I think an interesting question to ask (were I a policy maker) is: “How can we make larger portions of Etobicoke, Scarborough, North York, etc” more amenity-rich.

I suspect a lot of this is zoning, density, and built-form related. Many of the blank spots are low-density suburbs, many RD zoned. As a result, you can’t put amenities there, and as a business - why would you? Your addressable market is low.
Click to expand...

Of note, a couple of those weak spots are being or are set to be addressed shortly.

Etobicoke City Centre; ie. Six points, will have a new Recreation facility, a new Library, likely a childcare centre, public space, employment etc.

Throw in walkable grocery and you're well on your way.

***

One of those big holes in North York is the area around Downsview Park/Airport.

The redevelopment of said lands should allow for the missing amenities and a new road grid for easier, faster access to public transit and said amenities.

A couple of other pockets also have promise, the north Scarborough gap that's most noticeable is in/around Sheppard/Midland-Brimley.

With GO RER coming to the Stouffville land and considerable intensification proposed on the Kennedy side of the corridor, I would expect to see this spread along.

Not as conspicuous, but there's a bit of an issue in the Victoria Park/Finch area; which has the TCHC community of Chester Le nearby, and is slated for revitalization (redevelopment in TCHC-speak).

So there is potential there too.

Some areas could be helped along by more permissive/as-of-right zoning; others by better transit; while a few require larger-scale investments including new roads; or possibly City-led assemblies to address subdivisions that turn their backs on major roads.

****

Something not addressed in this piece that is important is whether the 15-minute connection is remotely pleasant.

Its one thing to say there's a bus stop or a supermarket within a 15 minute walk; its another to admit that walk is along a tree-less, narrow sidewalk, in the sweltering heat of July ; or sans wind-break in a blustering January.

This is a second key area the City must address, insuring that making that walk is vaguely appealing, or at least not downright unpleasant.
 
Last edited:
As an example of that last point.

Lets take a look at St. Clair Avenue east, in Scarborough.

From the intersection below, its an 840M walk (or the average person, ~15 minutes to the No Frills at Victoria Park and St. Clair. But man....that could be a long 15 minutes.

1606157074380.png


From the other direction, almost as far as O'Connor, we're outside the 15 minute limit with a distance of 1.4km to that same supermarket; along this stretch:

1606157314659.png


Hey, neither is six-lanes; it certainly could be worse.

But not exactly the most appealing of walks either.
 
I wonder how much of that are 'employment lands', with large industrial employers requiring big sites. It's not really something a modern city could do without in terms of built form (though some countries have done great work in making them more transit, walk and cycle-friendly).
 
Northern Light said:
As an example of that last point.

Lets take a look at St. Clair Avenue east, in Scarborough.

From the intersection below, its an 840M walk (or the average person, ~15 minutes to the No Frills at Victoria Park and St. Clair. But man....that could be a long 15 minutes.

View attachment 284631

From the other direction, almost as far as O'Connor, we're outside the 15 minute limit with a distance of 1.4km to that same supermarket; along this stretch:

View attachment 284632

Hey, neither is six-lanes; it certainly could be worse.

But not exactly the most appealing of walks either.
Click to expand...
Great opportunity for some mid-rise residential that can support more of those amenities. Set it back more from the road to leave room for wider sidewalks and sidewalk trees.
 
Is it population weighted or area? Doing it by population should help.
 
Whenever a suburban plaza is redeveloped for high density, all of the yellowbelt within a 10 minute walk should be densified like the Houston example up thread. This would make the suburban density peaks feel a little less isolated amid the low density subdivisions.
 
https://twitter.com/x/status/1335673942149881856

The Sun (!) article references Toronto councilors’ resistance to intensification, as well as the recent addition of 1000 buildings to the heritage register. (FWIW, I cynically believe that addition was done as a counter to the government’s MTSA density targets.) Nothing was proposed, although I did like this tweet in response:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1335766041771847681

Which would be the one thing he could do, that would change the calculus in the city. Of course, won’t happen; he’s too busy destroying conservation authorities (yes - I’m bitter about that.)
 
The city is in the middle of the Danforth planning study. There’s a webex meeting tonight if you’re interested, and a survey that’s open until the 22nd. More details here:

www.toronto.ca

Danforth Avenue Complete Street and Planning Study

The City of Toronto is undertaking a Complete Street and Planning Study of Danforth Avenue, one of the most recognizable and major avenues in the City. The full study area will span a six kilometre stretch of Danforth Avenue between Broadview Avenue and Victoria Park Avenue. Within that stretch...
www.toronto.ca www.toronto.ca

Unsure what’s going to come of this. Most of the Danforth is covered by the Province’s MTSA densification regulations, but I think TO Planning are going to apply for restrictions. It’s also unclear if TO Planning will seriously consider densifying the lots deep behind the Danforth (this would be a huge and welcome shift!)
 
Last edited:
One welcome (and exciting, for Toronto!) addition in the presentation materials from the first meeting is the mention of a “transition zone” just behind the avenue lots. TO Planning should be commended for this. The idea was knocked out by Councillors (don’t know which ones) from the original Mid-Rise Guidelines doc.

Let's hope it stays...
 
Last edited:
It's a good idea. I like the idea as an option for additional active transportation space. I know in Toronto we are mostly stuck making cycle throughways on main car streets, but best practice is actually to separate these modes into dedicated networks, so that bicycles (and pedestrians) have priority paths that are designed around safety and convenience for those modes. Trying to make car arterials do everything is a recipe for frustration and disappointment.

So that transition zone might be an opportunity for a dedicated bike/pedestrian ROW, that has crossing priority over the side streets (speed tables with yield to pedestrian/cyclist).
 
Report to next week's Planning and Housing Ctte meeting recommends studying parking minimums with a clear focus on reducing them generally, eliminating them possibly and simplifying them regardless.

Its a start, I suppose.

If approved, emerging recommendations would be reported back in Q4 of this year.

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2021/ph/bgrd/backgroundfile-159784.pdf
 
In the same vein as above the City has a report coming to next week's Planning and Housing Ctte which recommends moving ahead with demonstration projects of 'missing middle' housing as a pilot project in the Beaches-East York area.

Report here:


However well intended, this report gives me a headache.

We don't need 'demonstration' projects.

Developers and non-profits alike understand the 'missing middle'.

The problem is simply that its either impossible/illegal to build in some areas or cost-prohibitive in others.

There is nothing challenging about this; it does not require an RFP process FFS.

It requires as-of-right zoning for what you want built; and waiving parking minimums.

There you go.

I'm a defender of government much of the time; but there are moments when my patience is taxed by a desire to take the long way around.

Worth noting here; this is happening in Beaches-East York, because the local councillor (Bradford) is a former professional planner with the City, and a champion of affordable housing.

Using that opportunity, for this, is disappointing.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top