Does Ontario have the most aggressive TOD/TJD program in North America?

[C.]

I was reading up on Ontario's plan to development Transit Oriented Communities at newly construction subway stations. From what I can tell, it's a similar concept to Transit Oriented Development (TOD) and the related Transit Joint Development (TJD), in which the transit agency partners with developers to while building the transit infrastructure.

What stands out to me is that Ontario is planning two of these transit communities with plans to total over 40,000 housing units and offices in dozens of towers rising up to 80 floors.

Bridge Transit Oriented Community: http://engagebridge.ca/

Current Site: https://goo.gl/maps/me9CjgzTZDdBzgup7


High Tech Transit Oriented Community: https://www.engagehightech.ca/

Current Site: https://goo.gl/maps/k4zcXNJRHd32PLuq7

The boldness of this proposal is unlike anything I've ever seen in North America. I'm not even sure how realistic the plans are, but Toronto has the street cred when it comes to high rise residential development.

I'm surprised there has been no discussion on it here given the scale of the proposals, so figured I would start one.

[ue]

Probably, but to be fair this is mostly confined to Toronto (the GTA). There aren't outrageous TOD proposals in London or Windsor. The only other metro region that has big-scale TOD developments is Ottawa, and the more dramatic proposals (Claridge, etc) are quite recent overall.

After Ontario, BC is probably where the next most aggressive TOD planning is, again mostly centred on Metro Vancouver.

In the US the best area for TOD development is probably Washington or New York. Miami gets a lot of attention but the stuff there isn't quite as good for walkable carless urbanism as it is in Vancouver or DC.

[biguc]

Did these suburban municipalities always plan for this kind of development? It's weird that Vaughan has greenfield to build this that's already been leapfrogged by 10km of sprawl.

[WhipperSnapper]

It's a Ford government initiative. There is no local planning process here. Richmond Hill is undoubtedly pissed over these plans.

[mrnyc]

i dk, but dc is seems very aggressive with tod too.

[C.]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

It's a Ford government initiative. There is no local planning process here. Richmond Hill is undoubtedly pissed over these plans.

What would the alternative be exactly? In a story that's all too common, NIMBYs hijack the local planning process to protect their self interests, so infill development has a nearly impossible time of being permitted and developments are forced to the hinterlands where it's easier to build because there are no groups to complain. There is a happy medium of course, but for a government mandating a minimum amount of densities around a multi-billion dollar transit line sounds reasonable to me.

One of the major complaints coming out of Canada these days in the excessive amounts of the yellow belt that are off limits to anything other than single-family homes. Maybe it's time to rethink the planning process of the past 50-years as we see the follies of the results.

[C.]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

i dk, but dc is seems very aggressive with tod too.

DC comes to mind too. This is the best resource I can find with DC's numbers.

https://www.wmata.com/business/real-...evelopment.cfm

I would need to use Excel to tally up each development from 2002, but it looks no where near as many units as the 21,000 units plus commercial space planned for just one of these stations. The total development is just on a whole other scale in comparison.

Can any of the DC SSPers confirm?

[Northern Light]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

It's a Ford government initiative. There is no local planning process here. Richmond Hill is undoubtedly pissed over these plans.

That isn't quite accurate.

Langstaff Gateway has been in the works for a decade or more, as high density.

It almost certainly started out a bit shorter, but as average heights for new builds in Toronto have risen, 30s becomes 42s in the blink of an eye.

The Bridge area is within the zone Richmond Hill allocated for a downtown-type intensification zone, again, this is some years back.

They almost certainly didn't contemplate this type of height when first looking at this area; but a program for intensification was already coming.

****

All of that said, yes, this particular version of the planning exercise is being provincially-led.

[MolsonExport]

no renders at this point?

[Northern Light]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

no renders at this point?

Here you go (Langstaff)

[MolsonExport]

those don't look like 80 storey towers.

[Northern Light]

For the High Tech Community:

[lrt's friend]

Nobody wants to build something that is dense but human scaled. I can just imagine the swirling winds with all those towers.

[C.]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

those don't look like 80 storey towers.

I’ve learned to put little attention to the shinny promotional material and read the small print.

In the planning documents for this master plan, their actively calling out sites where 80 floors is appropriate. There is dozen of them between both stations. As far as mega developments, this would be up there with Hudson Yards.

[C.]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Nobody wants to build something that is dense but human scaled. I can just imagine the swirling winds with all those towers.

It’s not that nobody wants to build it, but the zoning and economics of the situation is what is promoting all these high rises. DC has very strict height limits but also promotes high density. As a result, they’ve building incredibly dense and attractive mid rise buildings that efficiently use space.

[ue]

^ Sure, but it's not as simply as slapping on a height limit in Vaughan or wherever.

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by Northern Light

That isn't quite accurate.

Langstaff Gateway has been in the works for a decade or more, as high density.

It almost certainly started out a bit shorter, but as average heights for new builds in Toronto have risen, 30s becomes 42s in the blink of an eye.

The Bridge area is within the zone Richmond Hill allocated for a downtown-type intensification zone, again, this is some years back.

They almost certainly didn't contemplate this type of height when first looking at this area; but a program for intensification was already coming.

****

All of that said, yes, this particular version of the planning exercise is being provincially-led.

A bit more info: the Richmond Hill side and the Markham side are currently planned for around 28,000 units and 31,000 jobs combined. The province is looking to increase the density and make the community more residential.

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

those don't look like 80 storey towers.

Originally Posted by C.

I’ve learned to put little attention to the shinny promotional material and read the small print.

In the planning documents for this master plan, their actively calling out sites where 80 floors is appropriate. There is dozen of them between both stations. As far as mega developments, this would be up there with Hudson Yards.

Those two developments predate the province's involvement and were submitted under the existing policies. Both are 50 storeys or less.

[C.]

Saw this and I'm very intrigued

https://apxap.com/ahead-of-june-elec...ousing-crisis/

Ontario plans to change zoning rules to address housing crisis

The Ontario government is considering a series of new policies to address soaring housing costs ahead of the June election, including calls for the elimination of current zoning rules that largely prohibit the construction of anything but single-family homes in large swathes of cities across the province.

Speaking on Wednesday after a virtual housing summit with city leaders, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing Steve Clark said zoning changes would be among concepts being considered by a housing crisis task force whom he named in December – although he did not approve of the idea.

The zoning changes are supported by a wide range of groups, including environmental and housing activists, the Building Association of Ontario and the Toronto Region Chamber of Commerce. Broadly, the idea is to allow duplexes, triplexes or small apartment buildings – which developers call “soft density” – in areas where they are currently prohibited. Some observers warn, however, that it will encounter resistance from associations of residents of the affected neighborhoods.

Housing prices are an acute problem in much of Ontario, with some polls suggesting the affordability crisis could be a key issue in this year’s provincial vote. According to the Canadian Real Estate Association, housing prices in Ontario rose 30% in December 2021, compared to the same month a year earlier, with price growth in the Greater Toronto Area again leading the way. after falling behind other regions during the pandemic.

Craig Ruttan, director of housing policy for the Toronto Region Board of Trade, said the idea of ​​zoning reform appears to be gaining momentum in Ontario, with a handful of municipalities and a wide range of groups who are now studying the concept.

“It’s a pretty handy arrow in the quiver that the province has the ability to use,” Ruttan said.

Phil Pothen, director of Ontario’s environmental program for Environmental Defence, said single-family zoning reform could increase density in built-up areas while reducing demand for new sprawls on farmland in outer suburbs.