HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2021, 1:25 AM
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
Nouvellecosse Nouvellecosse is online now
Volatile Pacivist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 9,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doady View Post
Toronto city proper is mostly post-war suburbia: Etobicoke, North York and Scarborough, and northeast Scarborough of course includes farmland and Rouge Park. How much farmland is in Brooklyn? The City of Toronto is denser than Staten Island, at least.
Yes... THAT'S THE POINT. Most of the city is post-war suburbia despite containing the inner less than 1/2 of the metro area population. That's not a reasonable way to use your land if you want to both grow quickly and not sprawl outward.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doady View Post
[B]See? I can cherrypick examples too. If you want to do a proper comparison, then just look at the old city of Toronto, the density is probably not 1/3 of Brooklyn. Look at the density of the Toronto urban area compared to the New York City urban area. Compare the amount of high-rises per capita of the cities and the metropolitan areas of Toronto and New York.
I'm not cherry picking; you just don't like the implications and are desperate to make up any nonsense excuse to discount them. I was very careful to use appropriate examples, if anything erring on the side of being overly generous to Toronto by bypassing Manhattan while including the old city of Toronto in with the current Toronto proper. If we were to do a truly accurate comparison it would be to NYC proper vs Toronto city proper, both of which contain just under half their metro area's population, or the old City of Toronto compared to Manhattan, the centre of each city. But my intention isn't to compare it to NYC in particular but rather to simply illustrate the density potential. And I didn't use Manhattan since the density doesn't need to be anywhere near that high. It just needs to be not low on a global scale.

Either way, the number of highrises isn't the relevant metric. What's important is the number of people the city is able to house relative to its available land. The fact that Toronto has dense areas and a higher highrise proportion is irrelevant to the point which is that the city and metro area aren't dense enough to reasonably house the number of people it's being asked to house.

[QUOTE=Doady;9401978]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doady View Post
Lack of density and high-rise construction is not the real issue here. Solving this won't be about Toronto becoming the Brooklyn of the North. This is a multi-faceted problem, and it is not about one city or one neighbourhood either. To reduce this debate to too many single-family houses in the City of Toronto proper is not going to fix the problem, and it might even make it worse. The NIMBYs and the development lobby, both are equally to blame, both have too much control of the narrative and the policies. We need to stop reducing such big and complex issues to one variable, to one municipality, because that's part of the problem to begin with.
No one is reducing it to one issue as i acknowledged that it's a multi-faceted problem on my initial post.

I called you out because you're claiming that other people are denying the role of important factors in order to overly focus on one, when in reality you want to deny the role of that one important factor and focus only on others. YOU'RE the one not willing to consider all facets of the problem.
__________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
Don't ask people not to debate a topic. Just stop making debatable assertions. Problem solved.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2021, 2:58 AM
Doady's Avatar
Doady Doady is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse View Post
Yes... THAT'S THE POINT. Most of the city is post-war suburbia despite containing the inner less than 1/2 of the metro area population. That's not a reasonable way to use your land if you want to both grow quickly and not sprawl outward.
Post-war suburbia is always going to be post-war suburbia. Not a reasonable way to use land? What are you suggesting, that they demolish all of Scarborough? These are suburbs, some on the edge of the urban area next to farmland, how can they be expected to be as dense as Brooklyn? Is anyone here now convinced that Toronto doesn't support enough construction of multi-family housing because the density of its post-war suburbs are lower than that of Brooklyn?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse View Post
I'm not cherry picking; you just don't like the implications and are desperate to make up any nonsense excuse to discount them. I was very careful to use appropriate examples, if anything erring on the side of being overly generous to Toronto by bypassing Manhattan while including the old city of Toronto in with the current Toronto proper. If we were to do a truly accurate comparison it would be to NYC proper vs Toronto city proper, both of which contain just under half their metro area's population, or the old City of Toronto compared to Manhattan, the centre of each city. But my intention isn't to compare it to NYC in particular but rather to simply illustrate the density potential. And I didn't use Manhattan since the density doesn't need to be anywhere near that high. It just needs to be not low on a global scale.
You are cherrypicking, comparing 50% of the Toronto urban area plus farmland to 10% of the NYC urban area to make Toronto seem more oriented to low density and single-family housing, even though density and high-rise living in the Toronto urban area is no less than the NYC urban area. Multi-family dwellings, not SFHs, are what dominate the housing supply of Toronto and its suburbs.

Quote:
Either way, the number of highrises isn't the relevant metric. What's important is the number of people the city is able to house relative to its available land. The fact that Toronto has dense areas and a higher highrise proportion is irrelevant to the point which is that the city and metro area aren't dense enough to reasonably house the number of people it's being asked to house.
If too many SFHs and a reluctance to build multi-family housing is an issue, then the amount of high rise construction is certainly relevant.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse View Post
INo one is reducing it to one issue as i acknowledged that it's a multi-faceted problem on my initial post.

I called you out because you're claiming that other people are denying the role of important factors in order to overly focus on one, when in reality you want to deny the role of that one important factor and focus only on others. YOU'RE the one not willing to consider all facets of the problem.
I just suggested Toronto use its thousands of post-war suburban towers-in-a-park as opportunities for intensification, but somehow I'm denying the need for intensification. Right.

Density might not be the main factor affecting housing prices, and SFHs vs. multi-family might not be the main factor affecting density. To reduce both the problem of high housing costs to a problem of low density, and the problem of low density to a problem of too many SFHs, and thus the problem of high housing costs to a problem too many SFHs, is just a good example what's wrong with policy-making and political debate these days. It's always simple problems and simple solutions.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2021, 10:14 AM
Nite's Avatar
Nite Nite is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,986
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doady View Post
Wow, for someone from Toronto to be able to identify the location so quickly would already be unsettling, but for someone from Texas to be able to do it is even more surprising. Maybe I should try to make my photos less obvious.

I hope SSPers outside Toronto don't start to believe that there is major aversion to high-rise living and construction projects in Toronto. Look at the stats in the SSP database, look at that picture, you can see that the people of Toronto are not against high-rises, they are very much a major part of Toronto's culture and landscape. Toronto has been called "The North American Moscow", and I have shown you guys my childhood and the neighbourhoods where I grew up, including that pictured above, so you probably already know that obsession with SFHs is not the problem in Toronto.

"The North American Moscow" not only more properly describes Toronto, it also hints at opportunities, like retrofitting all those thousands of suburban towers-in-a-park in the Toronto area for additional housing and retail and more. If we just think of this as a simple problem with a simple solution, just a matter of demolishing all single-family houses to build multi-family housing, we will miss much bigger opportunities like that. Opportunities to build around and build upon what we already have, true organic growth, instead of just destroying what we have and replacing it with something else.


This map shows that 60% of the City of Toronto is covered in Yellow.
In those places you can ONLY build a single family detached house.
This is why the city is anti midrise and highrises even though most of the population lives in multi family housing.
This is the cause of our housing unaffordability.
You can only build mid and highrises in the red, brown and orange bits and because of that Toronto is now force to tear down 20 storey apartments buildings to fit in more density because the yellow belt can't be touched.

Last edited by Nite; Sep 21, 2021 at 10:25 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2021, 10:33 AM
Nite's Avatar
Nite Nite is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,986
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doady View Post
Post-war suburbia is always going to be post-war suburbia. Not a reasonable way to use land? What are you suggesting, that they demolish all of Scarborough? These are suburbs, some on the edge of the urban area next to farmland, how can they be expected to be as dense as Brooklyn? Is anyone here now convinced that Toronto doesn't support enough construction of multi-family housing because the density of its post-war suburbs are lower than that of Brooklyn?




You are cherrypicking, comparing 50% of the Toronto urban area plus farmland to 10% of the NYC urban area to make Toronto seem more oriented to low density and single-family housing, even though density and high-rise living in the Toronto urban area is no less than the NYC urban area. Multi-family dwellings, not SFHs, are what dominate the housing supply of Toronto and its suburbs.



If too many SFHs and a reluctance to build multi-family housing is an issue, then the amount of high rise construction is certainly relevant.




I just suggested Toronto use its thousands of post-war suburban towers-in-a-park as opportunities for intensification, but somehow I'm denying the need for intensification. Right.

Density might not be the main factor affecting housing prices, and SFHs vs. multi-family might not be the main factor affecting density. To reduce both the problem of high housing costs to a problem of low density, and the problem of low density to a problem of too many SFHs, and thus the problem of high housing costs to a problem too many SFHs, is just a good example what's wrong with policy-making and political debate these days. It's always simple problems and simple solutions.
We should allow developer to redevelop the post war suburbs by not banning midrises and highrises in them with zoning restrictions. if the City of Toronto got ride of the yellow belt, you would massive redevelopment of these single family homes instead of redeveloping 20 storey builds are we are now.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2021, 1:20 PM
MonkeyRonin's Avatar
MonkeyRonin MonkeyRonin is offline
¥ ¥ ¥
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nite View Post


This map shows that 60% of the City of Toronto is covered in Yellow.
In those places you can ONLY build a single family detached house.

That's not entirely true. Yellow just means residential zone, the specifics of which vary by area (many of them allow smaller multi-family buildings). It also doesn't account for more recent updates to the Official Plan which may contract the zoning map. This is the map of the so-called "yellow belt" - where single-family only (+ secondary suite) is permitted:




Attached dwellings & small apartments are also permitted in the blue areas here:


http://www.mapto.ca/maps/2017/3/4/the-yellow-belt


But you're absolutely correct in pointing that out as still being a massive waste of space and major hindrance to desirable intensification of the city. And even in the non-yellow areas, zoning still tends to be too restrictive - even if small apartment buildings are technically permitted, the actual process of getting them approved is arduous and often not worth the cost.
__________________

Last edited by MonkeyRonin; Sep 21, 2021 at 1:30 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2021, 1:36 PM
MonkeyRonin's Avatar
MonkeyRonin MonkeyRonin is offline
¥ ¥ ¥
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,872
Another way of looking at it - here's the Official Plan: red, brown, and orange areas are targeted for intensification. The yellow areas are to remain "stable" (ie. minimal intensification). Purple is industrial.

So there's still a lot of land that's not being put to it's full use, while all of the development pressure is then concentrated in smaller geographies - which also tend to include those areas with the greatest character and historic value, thereby putting them at risk at the expense of preserving single-family neighbourhoods:


__________________
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2021, 1:42 PM
Innsertnamehere's Avatar
Innsertnamehere Innsertnamehere is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 11,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin View Post
That's not entirely true. Yellow just means residential zone, the specifics of which vary by area (many of them allow smaller multi-family buildings). It also doesn't account for more recent updates to the Official Plan which may contract the zoning map. This is the map of the so-called "yellow belt" - where single-family only (+ secondary suite) is permitted:




Attached dwellings & small apartments are also permitted in the blue areas here:


http://www.mapto.ca/maps/2017/3/4/the-yellow-belt


But you're absolutely correct in pointing that out as still being a massive waste of space and major hindrance to desirable intensification of the city. And even in the non-yellow areas, zoning still tends to be too restrictive - even if small apartment buildings are technically permitted, the actual process of getting them approved is arduous and often not worth the cost.
While a lot of zones do permit multiple dwellings in residential areas as it stands today, the detailed zoning regulations make it challenging to actually implement. The permitted building envelopes are designed for detached homes and make multiple unit dwellings very difficult.

While the OP policies permit 4 storey apartment blocks in residential areas, they also require development to respect the "prevailing character" of the neighbourhood both in existing built form and use. So if a neighbourhood is primarily single detached, even if an apartment is permitted, any variances from the by-law will likely be denied as they won't meet the OP test of "prevailing character". So you have to build that apartment block as close to possible to the existing zoning, which doesn't really allow for an apartment form building to be built (parking requirements, height, setbacks, minimum rear yards, minimum landscaped areas, etc. make it challenging).

It's the kind of thing that the city can point to the permitted use and say "we already allow it!", while in reality the functional restrictions make it so challenging that few people even bother trying.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2021, 2:32 PM
MonkeyRonin's Avatar
MonkeyRonin MonkeyRonin is offline
¥ ¥ ¥
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere View Post
While a lot of zones do permit multiple dwellings in residential areas as it stands today, the detailed zoning regulations make it challenging to actually implement. The permitted building envelopes are designed for detached homes and make multiple unit dwellings very difficult.

While the OP policies permit 4 storey apartment blocks in residential areas, they also require development to respect the "prevailing character" of the neighbourhood both in existing built form and use. So if a neighbourhood is primarily single detached, even if an apartment is permitted, any variances from the by-law will likely be denied as they won't meet the OP test of "prevailing character". So you have to build that apartment block as close to possible to the existing zoning, which doesn't really allow for an apartment form building to be built (parking requirements, height, setbacks, minimum rear yards, minimum landscaped areas, etc. make it challenging).

It's the kind of thing that the city can point to the permitted use and say "we already allow it!", while in reality the functional restrictions make it so challenging that few people even bother trying.

100%. There's also the problem that zoning by-laws are so out-of-whack that as-of-right zoning just doesn't really exist in Toronto. Even a simple addition to a SFH usually necessitates going through a 6-month-long minor variance process with the Committee of Adjustment, with approval ultimately dependant on the subjective decision-making of the panel (which often just boils down to how many neighbours show up to oppose the project).

Zoning in general needs a major overhaul to simplify the process and provide clarity on what is and isn't actually allowed. But technically, small apartments are at least possible in some areas (and they do get built, to a limited extent). Now we just need to make it easier to actually build them.
__________________
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2021, 4:00 PM
photoLith's Avatar
photoLith photoLith is offline
Ex Houstonian
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Pittsburgh n’ at
Posts: 15,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFBruin View Post
Kind of agree.

I feel like we preserve too much in this country, though of course it's difficult to know where to draw the line.
We don't preserve enough.
__________________
There’s no greater abomination to mankind and nature than Ryan Home developments.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2021, 8:31 PM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 21,146
There is so much absolute garbage suburbia in the US that it is very difficult to make an argument for razing anything even vaguely historic or aesthetically pleasing before redeveloping basically anything built between the 1940s and 1990s.
__________________
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Isaac Asimov
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2021, 4:42 PM
mrnyc mrnyc is offline
cle/west village/shaolin
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
There is so much absolute garbage suburbia in the US that it is very difficult to make an argument for razing anything even vaguely historic or aesthetically pleasing before redeveloping basically anything built between the 1940s and 1990s.

except no as there are always unexpected, but obvious exceptions. like rush creek village in columbus for example. its was developed in the 50s by frank lloyd wright acolytes.



https://www.columbusnavigator.com/ru...e-worthington/


there is also plenty of other beloved architecture like googie early 60s era on suburban high streets, brutalist, post modern, walkable, etc. structures and areas in most burbs.
in other words its a mix just like cities, so its certainly not all fey wave of a hand teardown worthy out there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2021, 5:31 PM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 21,146
There are certainly plenty of examples of good modernist architecture, where these fit into existing urban fabric. There are no good “modernist neighborhoods”. The entire urban planning ethos of the time was garbage.

Just look at Le Corbusier’s vision for Paris, which would have been the greatest man-made tragedy in human history.
__________________
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Isaac Asimov
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2021, 10:55 PM
mrnyc mrnyc is offline
cle/west village/shaolin
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
There are certainly plenty of examples of good modernist architecture, where these fit into existing urban fabric. There are no good “modernist neighborhoods”. The entire urban planning ethos of the time was garbage.

Just look at Le Corbusier’s vision for Paris, which would have been the greatest man-made tragedy in human history.

the rush creek village example above literally is a neighborhood. another example is the 1970 loring park greenway in minneapolis, which is lined with apts and etc. today. so again while most of the 50s-90s eras is garbage, still there are plenty of nice neighborhood examples from the more modern era.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2021, 11:14 PM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 21,146
^ I do not think the photo posted above looks nice. It looks like part of a newer college campus.

I see a pedestrian path with buildings that present a concrete wall. No retail, no reason for people to use the “street” except as a means to get from A to B. There are few pedestrians but the route isn’t shared with other traffic modalities. Presumably this means there must be roads for vehicles nearby, which are probably car-oriented and not pedestrian-friendly. Separating roads for vehicles and roads for pedestrians was popular but is generally poor urban design in anything but the densest cities, where pedestrian traffic alone can sustain activity.

Looking at Google maps confirms that this is a sort of “towers in a park” development and it sucks.
__________________
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Isaac Asimov
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2021, 11:41 PM
benp's Avatar
benp benp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 627
A speculator is way worse than a preservationist. These are the folks that endlessly hold properties vacant until "the market" improves to the point where they will sell or improve the property. That point may be years or decades away, or whatever the whim of the owner suggests. But in the meantime buildings may become "teardown by neglect," or existing functional buildings may be torn down to produce "shovel ready" sites that sit unused for years or decades, or street walls may become nothing but another parking lot.

The late Matty Maroun of Ambassador Bridge fame held hundreds of properties in NY and Detroit hostage for potential future bridge construction, even though US and Canadian governments have said no. In Houston hundreds of apartments along Allen Parkway were torn down in the early 00's for developments that didn't even begin until 15 years later. Every city has building that sit vacant for no apparent reason, and lots that go unbuilt while surrounded by city on all sides.

Vacant hotel for 20+ Years in Downtown Houston
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2021, 11:54 PM
mrnyc mrnyc is offline
cle/west village/shaolin
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
^ I do not think the photo posted above looks nice. It looks like part of a newer college campus.

I see a pedestrian path with buildings that present a concrete wall. No retail, no reason for people to use the “street” except as a means to get from A to B. There are few pedestrians but the route isn’t shared with other traffic modalities. Presumably this means there must be roads for vehicles nearby, which are probably car-oriented and not pedestrian-friendly. Separating roads for vehicles and roads for pedestrians was popular but is generally poor urban design in anything but the densest cities, where pedestrian traffic alone can sustain activity.

Looking at Google maps confirms that this is a sort of “towers in a park” development and it sucks.

quite the opposite, it immediately boomed in popularity, spurred some of the densest development in the city and leads to a park. so it was and remains 100% a success. even today its quite lowkey celebrated, beloved and great.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2021, 4:13 AM
C. C. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 3,014
Why is single family homes more protected than any other use? At some point all the Millennials and Zoomers will riot because they're destined to be renters for the rest of their lives while Boomers and Gen Xers bought all the homes when they were reasonably price. The zoning restricts supply and just further enriches the boomers while the Millennials just slave away paying rent to them.

Show up at council meeting and become a political force demanding. Until then, it's going to be a return to the feudal system.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2021, 4:14 AM
SFBruin SFBruin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,189
I feel like it depends on where you live.

If you're forcing a transit-accessible neighborhood to be low density because of the luck-of-the-draw that you got there first, then yeah, you're being inconsiderate and should likely change your views.
__________________
Pretend Seattleite.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2021, 4:27 AM
SFBruin SFBruin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by C. View Post
The zoning restricts supply
Out of curiosity, are the hockey-watchers up North any better at this than we are?
__________________
Pretend Seattleite.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2021, 7:21 AM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 21,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrnyc View Post
quite the opposite, it immediately boomed in popularity, spurred some of the densest development in the city and leads to a park. so it was and remains 100% a success. even today its quite lowkey celebrated, beloved and great.
I don’t care if it’s popular. McDonald’s is the world’s most popular restaurant. Americans love McMansions, subdivisions and suburban shopping malls. Popularity is no indicator of quality. Maybe it’s popular because it is essentially suburban, but it is certainly not a good urban neighborhood.
__________________
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Isaac Asimov
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
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 10:55 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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