rdaner
Senior Member
Yes! When Papa or Mama pass away the eldest takes over the house and the parent goes into a nice apartment close by often with people they know. Good system!
|
|
|
- Thread starter A Torontonian Now
- Start date
evandyk
Senior Member
Oh no! Four storey towers!
chrisw
Active Member
Even fourplexes are too scary for Ford.
---
So today was announcing some housing measures. Also announced how they're tying public transportation funding.
I wonder if they'll be moving up the start date for the $3B a year public transit stream from 2026/27. Especially with the election coming up, and there'll be more impact on getting these housing policies implemented.
Towered
Superstar
That evil fourplex is actually shorter than the detached house next to it...
Northern Light
Superstar
I have to be honest, I don't think this take is helpful here.
1) The building shown is closer 3.5 floors as the lowest level is partially below grade.
2) The house next to it is roughly the same height, because its 'first floor' is also elevated, and it has high ceilings on its main level, followed by another 2 levels.
3) There is a significant separation between the two buildings, large enough to support a row of trees.
****
I'm fine w/ 4-storeys in this context, and in many others, but its deceptive to suggest that those who express concern about 4-storey are doing so in the above context. They're talking about 4-storeys next to a one-storey bungalow or even a typical height 2-storey building, where the difference stands out more, particularly if the two are close together.
One can disagree with that viewpoint, and hold a different one, that's fine, but its disingenuous to show an example that doesn't reflect most people's view who express concern.
By all means lets call out classist nonsense (we don't want renters in the hood); or unreasonable requirements on parking, or the idea than anything over one floor is the apocalypse
But, lets also accurately express that most people are concerned about relative scale, and the feeling of overlook/intrusion.
* I say feeling, because most people have less privacy than they imagine, but they have the illusion of privacy, and that matters to many.
evandyk
Senior Member
This is a sample of a four storey building in a neighbourhood of single family houses. I think it's very helpful in a discussion of whether you should prohibit four storey buildings in neighbourhoods made up mostly of SFH. Which wasn't even the discussion, until Doug Ford took it there.
evandyk
Senior Member
It's much more than a four plex! I've only ever seen it from the outside, but it's probably something like 20 units or more?
Northern Light
Superstar
I dislike the Premier as much as anyone here; and I was the first to call out his conflation of height with density, almost certainly for political reasons.
That said, the Premier did not advocate 'banning' 4-storey buildings in neighbourhoods, he advocating now imposing the allowance of 4-storey, 6-storey and 8-storey buildings (all of which has very little to do w/4-plexes) on municipalities.
His government already imposed triplexes, and Toronto already allows 4 plexes just for clarity.
Height is not density, and unlike density, the issue of height is relative.
It makes for a more nuanced discussion.
One in which we don't belittle people's views in a reactionary way, instead we discuss policy in a detailed, reasoned manner.
evandyk
Senior Member
I don't think posting photos of actual four storey buildings that exist in house neighbourhoods is reactionary at all. People opposing them should know what they look like.
Though I suppose the fact that these are old buildings (because building them hasn't been allowed for many decades) makes proposing them somewhat reactionary.
Though I suppose the fact that these are old buildings (because building them hasn't been allowed for many decades) makes proposing them somewhat reactionary.
evandyk
Senior Member
Another four storey tower in a house neighbourhood!
Northern Light
Superstar
Sigh.
That's not what I said; which is exactly what's wrong with your entire line of posting.
evandyk
Senior Member
Nope. We've mostly won the battle on multiple units (fourplexes allowed across Ontario is pretty much inevitable at this point), so the next battleground is small apartment buildings like the ones I've been posting. And people should know what those look like in the places where we have them already in house neighbourhoods.
We need more of those, because they are great for people who need housing, for the neighbourhoods they'll be built in, and for our climate and density targets. And small towns/cities need them even more because of the needs of their aging populations.
We need more of those, because they are great for people who need housing, for the neighbourhoods they'll be built in, and for our climate and density targets. And small towns/cities need them even more because of the needs of their aging populations.
Northern Light
Superstar
I pride myself on being reasonable and fair, and as such cannot abide the unending condescension, sarcasm and substantive error in the above posting run. This poster is now on ignore for the next while. Engaging is only constructive with people who read and respond thoughtfully.
Undead
Senior Member
The only niggle I'd have here is that there's massive three storey monster homes with 10 foot ceilings on every floor next to post war bungalows. Which comes off approximately as a 3.5-4 storey building next to the bungalow.
Yes, height is not density, but maybe there should be less of an issue with 4 storey heights given this is already allowed in practice when bungalows are redeveloped into monster homes.
Edit to add: stuff like this. Can't find a three storey off the top of my head, but I know they're out there next to bungalows.
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
I would argue against the McMansions, as many have before.
I'm in favour of more permissive zoning as everyone here knows; but I also understand the idea of compatibility. These things are never determined by a single factor. For instance, height is less of an issue the greater the separation distance to an abutting property, or if there is suitable elevation change, and/or a border of established trees, etc etc.
Its very difficult, frankly, to writing a single piece of Planning Law that captures all the nuance.
There is nothing inherently wrong w/4 storey buildings in neighbourhoods, there is nothing wrong w/rental at all.
There may be something wrong with a 16M/52ft building next to one that's barely 10ft, particularly if they are in close proximity (separation distance under 3M)
***
My issue isn't with apartments or 4-storey buildings, my issue is with understanding nuance, context and inter-related factors like separation distance, roof style/height, and something as simple as whether the property is directly south of another residence.
Details matter, generalizations offend.