HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Jan 8, 2021, 6:05 PM
MonkeyRonin's Avatar
MonkeyRonin MonkeyRonin is online now
¥ ¥ ¥
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by biguc View Post
^ It's an empty lot between two houses.

Looks like the centre unit of a 3-unit rowhouse.

Which is also why it looks weird - the proportions are off when the neighbouring properties are considered. A bit...phallic, almost. But once more of the surrounding properties are developed to a similar scale (or if it were a corner unit) that won't be the case. As an individual piece of architecture it'd otherwise be good. Has some nice brickwork & detailing as well:







https://archello.com/project/hi-lo
__________________
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2021, 7:20 PM
memph memph is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin View Post
This is on an arterial, which is why it's even possible in the first place. A 5-storey multi-family dwelling on a back street would be flatly rejected by City Staff.

But to get to your point - intensifying those lower-density residential streets is important if we ever want to get serious about affordability or equitable urbanization.

As it stands, the vast majority of the city's land - all of the yellow area in the following image - is zoned exclusively for single family housing (including semis and rows) and duplex apartments. That's a lot of land that we're not making use of - land that has actually seen a decrease in population despite the city's booming population overall (due to declining household sizes & gentrification causing duplex/triplexes to be converted to SFH):




Secondly, this style of gentle intensification is useful because it is low cost and relatively easy to build. This creates an opportunity for small developers and entrepreneurial homeowners to develop their own properties, freeing the housing supply from being controlled exclusively by a small cartel of major condo developers, and thus creates more competition in the market. It also adds a new ground-oriented multi-family housing typology somewhere between the current extremes of large single family house or small high-rise condo unit - the "missing middle" that is essential for families who can't afford a SFH, but need more space than what the typical condo provides.

Thirdly, by expanding the amount of developable land, it reduces the pressure on the relatively small amount of land that is currently zoned for high density. This brings land prices down, and in particular enables the kinds of interesting, low-rise commercial strips that give our city character, a chance at survival. As it stands, we're losing so many small businesses because the land that they sit on has been so artificially inflated that they can no longer afford it.

By limiting development to the red, orange, and brown zones only, we run the risk of become a sort of two-tier city, whereby the majority of the population - poor people, young people, immigrants, etc. - are relegated to small apartments in overdeveloped slivers of land; while the wealthy minority occupy a vast, unchanging expanse of suburbia in the city. Building apartments in the "yellow belt" is the only way around this.
I agree, but I think a lot could be done by re-zoning low-rise residential zoned arterials to midrise mixed use as well. That map shows several major arterials as low-rise residential zoned, such as Bathurst, Dufferin, Coxwell and Jane, and minor arterials like Rogers, Cosburn, Christie, Davenport... and that's just the inner city arterials, you also have all the suburban arterials. Upzone all of those and you could pretty much double the amount of land zoned to allow midrises and denser.

Right now, it's only sections of arterials that are already dominated by commercial ground floor uses that allow midrise+ redevelopment.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2021, 8:45 PM
memph memph is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin View Post
Looks like the centre unit of a 3-unit rowhouse.

Which is also why it looks weird - the proportions are off when the neighbouring properties are considered. A bit...phallic, almost. But once more of the surrounding properties are developed to a similar scale (or if it were a corner unit) that won't be the case. As an individual piece of architecture it'd otherwise be good. Has some nice brickwork & detailing as well:







https://archello.com/project/hi-lo
I think there needs to be more recognition for the fact that proportions have as much to do with whether a building stands out as height. The new building is about 5x as tall as it is wide, while all the neighbouring buildings have a very uniform size and proportion that is 2.5-3x taller than they are wide. And the old neighbouring rowhouses don't even feel as narrow as that because each floor is broken up into distinct sections (dormer, regular floor, porch).

I think this infill building would stick out a lot less if it was twice as wide, since that way it would have approximately the same proportions (in terms of width to height).

A wider lot would also provide more space to work with for including interior courtyards which are important for efficient midrise infill. The increase in density often involves making use of the full depth of the lot, which in Toronto, are fairly deep (at least if you compare to Philadelphia, Japan or Medieval Europe). Without a courtyard, and without windows on the side of the building (due to being built to the side lot lines), it's difficult to bring light into the rooms near the middle of the building floorplate, which I guess is why the apartments tend to have open concept floor plans and floor to ceiling windows. In Europe, a lot of the old midrise districts make use of courtyards of various sizes. In Germany it's a lower density layout with courtyards taking up the whole center of the city block. In Budapest, they're usually about 20x40 ft with a 60x100 ft building wrapped around it. In a lot of Medieval Europe, you have buildings on narrower lots that are more comparable to what combining two Toronto rowhouse lots would be like (ie 30-40ft), with courtyards ranging from about 20x20ft to 5x5 ft air shafts.

It would also stick out less if it was on a corner lot, since the built form on corner lots is only reinforced by the neighbouring building on one side, rather than both sides. So I think Toronto and other cities should allow densities on corner lots to exceed the neighbouring densities by a larger margin than mid-block lot redevelopments. Once the corner lot development has established a "new normal" the adjacent lots can be redeveloped to that new standard.

You can also definitely build 5 storey buildings while maintaining a "rowhouse aesthetic". Ex
London:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.49508...7i16384!8i8192
New York (Brooklyn):
https://www.google.ca/maps/@40.69656...7i16384!8i8192
Boston:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@42.35885...7i16384!8i8192
Philadelphia:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@39.94788...7i16384!8i8192
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2021, 11:11 PM
biguc's Avatar
biguc biguc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: pinkoland
Posts: 11,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin View Post
Looks like the centre unit of a 3-unit rowhouse.

Which is also why it looks weird - the proportions are off when the neighbouring properties are considered. A bit...phallic, almost. But once more of the surrounding properties are developed to a similar scale (or if it were a corner unit) that won't be the case. As an individual piece of architecture it'd otherwise be good. Has some nice brickwork & detailing as well:







https://archello.com/project/hi-lo

Yeah, I love the brick details. In and of itself, it's a great looking building. I definitely see the phallic quality though. Or: the testicular quality of the houses adjacent.
__________________
no
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2021, 6:32 PM
C. C. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 3,014
I was trying to find a picture of a better way to do infill development, but I found this humors pic instead.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2021, 6:52 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
Made worse by the parking podium as usual.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2021, 6:54 PM
badrunner badrunner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 2,698
What this picture really says is that homeowners have zero political clout in this jurisdiction.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2021, 6:56 PM
MonkeyRonin's Avatar
MonkeyRonin MonkeyRonin is online now
¥ ¥ ¥
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by badrunner View Post
What this picture really says is that homeowners have zero political clout in this jurisdiction.

Or it says is that neighbours have zero political clout to dictate how homeowners should be able to develop their own property.
__________________
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2021, 7:21 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Are Toronto upper class homeowners less NIMBY then their urban American brethren?

An idea like this would be a howler in U.S. planning meetings. In places like NY and SF, you have regulations and approvals processes for window replacements, exterior paint and the like. Neighbors sue over the wrong window shutters. My block had a multi-year debate over whether a stoop could be gated.

Maybe Canadians are just nicer, and more community oriented? Or maybe they aren't; they just have less input to tie up projects?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2021, 7:55 PM
Northern Light Northern Light is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Are Toronto upper class homeowners less NIMBY then their urban American brethren?

An idea like this would be a howler in U.S. planning meetings. In places like NY and SF, you have regulations and approvals processes for window replacements, exterior paint and the like. Neighbors sue over the wrong window shutters. My block had a multi-year debate over whether a stoop could be gated.

Maybe Canadians are just nicer, and more community oriented? Or maybe they aren't; they just have less input to tie up projects?
Planning rules in Toronto control for use (residential/commercial etc.); for height and density; and may dictate set-backs from the street; as well as separation distances between buildings. (among other things).

What they do not control is aesthetics.

Nothing can be opposed by either Planning or a resident purely on aesthetic grounds.

You can't stifle a development because of the colour, or the roof-treatment etc.

*** exceptions may apply in a Heritage Conservation District

But you could certainly oppose a change to housing that increased density or height beyond as-of-right zoning.

Edit to add: Toronto certainly does have its share of Nimbys.

Most commonly the objection to new development is height; but complaints, as anywhere, come in all flavours.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2021, 8:46 PM
badrunner badrunner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 2,698
Live look at Toronto planning commission meeting:

Video Link
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2021, 11:19 PM
WhipperSnapper's Avatar
WhipperSnapper WhipperSnapper is offline
I am the law!
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Toronto+
Posts: 21,909
This is beyond stupid. The housing crisis isn't one of square footage. It's one of affordability. Taking a million plus dollar single family house and spending another a half a million to turn it into multi-family is well above the threshold of the people living in our parks turned tent cities.

The much wealthier federal government taking over the costs of refugees (including Trump refugees) from cities would open up municipal funds to build more spaces. The federal government is also in a better position to incentivize refugees to freely locate to cities with surplus housing opening up existing housing to homeless, local residents. That's more of a solution to get a roof over the heads of Torontonians. It's a difficult discussion most want to forget and my fear that it will eventually lead to a Trump level isolationist shift from the current, bleeding heart libtard. We are taking much better care of visitors seeking refuge than we are of our own. Everyone under duress should receive the same high standard regardless of their nationality (providing they are from a country in strife and not escaping ICE south of the border)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2021, 1:37 AM
Northern Light Northern Light is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,227
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper View Post
This is beyond stupid. The housing crisis isn't one of square footage. It's one of affordability. Taking a million plus dollar single family house and spending another a half a million to turn it into multi-family is well above the threshold of the people living in our parks turned tent cities.

The much wealthier federal government taking over the costs of refugees (including Trump refugees) from cities would open up municipal funds to build more spaces. The federal government is also in a better position to incentivize refugees to freely locate to cities with surplus housing opening up existing housing to homeless, local residents. That's more of a solution to get a roof over the heads of Torontonians. It's a difficult discussion most want to forget and my fear that it will eventually lead to a Trump level isolationist shift from the current, bleeding heart libtard. We are taking much better care of visitors seeking refuge than we are of our own. Everyone under duress should receive the same high standard regardless of their nationality (providing they are from a country in strife and not escaping ICE south of the border)
Disparaging the politics of the majority of Canadians who are obviously to your political left does you no favours and persuades no one of anything you have to say.

Try to being polite.

Lose the hyperbole; then perhaps an intelligent discussion of issues can be had.

Clearly the proposal above, whether one likes or dislikes it in general, is not a solution in terms of housing the homeless/deeply impoverished.

But you do realize there is a large group in Toronto that are housed.....but expend over 45% of their income on housing, because the market is out of balance.

This is true of both rental and ownership tenure.

The above, at scale, is arguably one solution that may help take the edge off Toronto's prices.

Many other, and perhaps better solutions will also need to be employed.

Shaving $100 per month or even $250 per month off rent or mortgage costs will certainly not house those whom those costs are a factor of 5 too high.

But they will nonetheless ease the burden on some in the middle class; and there may be some knock-on effects to lower-rent apartments should vacancy rates rise to greater than 2%.

An entry-level apartment at $1200 per month instead of $1400 per month would help many.

Its not enough, just one option.

PS, for what its worth..............I'm not terribly keen the design of this proposal.

I just think your critique is more than a bit problematic.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:25 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.