A future midrise Toronto/urban renewal in the future?

Ok, this is sort of a controversial topic, but let me dare to ask it: how long do you think inner city Toronto can continue to be a landscape of low-rise semi-detached homes?

We've managed to fit about 200,000 new people into our inner city by squeezing condos into what remains of old industrial land and a dwindling number of parking lots, but one day that resource will be exhausted and we'll begin to turn our sights to established, lowrise neighbourhoods. Up until now, this has been largely resisted because older people with means value these homes, but what about once the price of these homes is out of reach of even the upper middle class, and the baby boomers who mostly live in them lose power (both physically and politically/figuratively) because they're too old?

Will there be a new era of blockbusting and urban renewal? Don't forget: anyone who remembers what this term originally meant will be dead by then.

I'm of two minds to this: I hate to see heritage lost, but if heritage isn't working for a lot of the people in a city, why have heritage? If having beautiful bay and gables means that 350,000 people get to live in an environment of splendid character but 1 million people get shut out of the housing market, how much of a case can we make for preservation? Then again, if you destroy it, you may destroy the character that lures people to those environments in the first place. What are we to do?

Finally, if we could guarantee that a new mid and high-rise landscape could have the vibrancy and big city frisson of the historic neighborhoods that they replaced, would people care all that much? This would be sort of like an Asian outcome, where cities lack history but they make up for it in spades with vibrancy.

Discuss.

One answer is that we are already starting to see this... Projects like Leslieville Lofts, for instance.

The other answer would be new non-highrise units clearly haven't matched demand, which is why we see such sharp drops in affordability in that category.

I imagine if we changed zoning and planning rules to allow for it, we would see more infill development which wouldn't necessarily require large scale or total changes of neighbourhood form. If we allowed any lot in downtown Toronto to build zero-lot and up to 4-5 storeys as of right, and dropped parking requirements, I'd imagine we'd start to see more midrise buildings pop up without needing any impractical land acquisition plans.

Look at what's been happening all over the 416 where post-war bungalows are slowly being hunted to extinction by lot-busting McMansions. That was the process of rational land owners responding to their properties being worth far more than the dingy bungalow that sat on it. If we allowed greater densities downtown, we would someone want to keep a two storey semi?

Ditto for laneway housing.

What was once two semi-detached houses could be profitably redeveloped into four units and laneway housing... The units would be as wide as the previous semi, but 2-3 storeys of extra height could squeeze an extra apartment or two.

I don't think a Haussmann-ian project of demolishing entire neighbourhoods to build European style apartment blocks is doable, or even really desirable.

Let's face it: Architecturally, most middle-class Toronto housing doesn't have many charms. Vast areas are covered with the same-old same old styles of houses. The Leaside box, as I call it. The post-war bungalow. And, of course, the ubiquitous early 20th century semi which may or may not be 2 or 3 storeys. I'm happy to see the infills and additions and drastic overhauls because they break up the streetscapes which can be very monotonous.

However what Toronto does have is neighbourhoods, and those must be preserved. They shape and define the city and, to my mind, give it character and vibrancy.

There are many places in and around those neighbourhoods just begging for midrise development. Bayview and Mount Pleasant, I am looking at you. Don Mills, Danforth, Leslie and Laird too. (I am on the east side so those are my best references.) But all of it must include walkable retail and decent transit. No windy barren intersections or huge distances between strip malls and supermarkets.

I am not familiar with Toronto's inner suburbs but, in recent weeks, I had occasion to drive all over Lawrence Heights, way out East along Eglinton, north from Lawrence along Bathurst, and north from the Gardiner along Keele to the 401. I saw vast expanses of wasted opportunity, crappy little retail strips, hideous big box stores and sterile neighbourhoods where poor people live in subsidized housing with little access to transit and less access to services.

I don't see any point in demolishing unless we are talking about Regent Park-style renewals.

diminutive said:

One answer is that we are already starting to see this... Projects like Leslieville Lofts, for instance.

The other answer would be new non-highrise units clearly haven't matched demand, which is why we see such sharp drops in affordability in that category.

I imagine if we changed zoning and planning rules to allow for it, we would see more infill development which wouldn't necessarily require large scale or total changes of neighbourhood form. If we allowed any lot in downtown Toronto to build zero-lot and up to 4-5 storeys as of right, and dropped parking requirements, I'd imagine we'd start to see more midrise buildings pop up without needing any impractical land acquisition plans.

Look at what's been happening all over the 416 where post-war bungalows are slowly being hunted to extinction by lot-busting McMansions. That was the process of rational land owners responding to their properties being worth far more than the dingy bungalow that sat on it. If we allowed greater densities downtown, we would someone want to keep a two storey semi?

Ditto for laneway housing.

What was once two semi-detached houses could be profitably redeveloped into four units and laneway housing... The units would be as wide as the previous semi, but 2-3 storeys of extra height could squeeze an extra apartment or two.

I don't think a Haussmann-ian project of demolishing entire neighbourhoods to build European style apartment blocks is doable, or even really desirable.

Click to expand...

Yep,

Building housing like this would increase the built density by about 1.7x-5x and could be built on just 1-2 typical Old Toronto residential lots and not be out of scale.
http://goo.gl/maps/HpzdZ
http://goo.gl/maps/Oqj3n
http://goo.gl/maps/Nu7Cf
http://goo.gl/maps/5oDph (Greenpoint/Williamsburg seem to be getting a lot of incremental intensification like this)
http://goo.gl/maps/HxEo0

335 College is an example of development in Toronto of similar scale and the original rendering shows a small courtyard which is a common way developers in other cities have dealt for bringing light into buildings built to the edge of the lot with only a modest decrease in built density.

I think with relaxed setback rules, parking requirements and basic design guidelines/rules and a height limit of 4-6 storeys, the inner city neighbourhoods would grow quite significantly and still have good character. If you have too great height limits though (ex 10 storeys) you'd probably see more block-busting since it would be more feasible to buy out multiple home owners to build a wider building and still make a profit. With lower height limits, you can't afford to do that and would be probably be constrained to 1-2 lots.

Much of inner Toronto's neighbourhoods don't have all that special architecture, so as long as new construction is of an appropriate scale, I don't think there would be any negative effects on vibrancy.

Much of inner Toronto isn't highly ornate victorians (many of these are even very close to current and potential future subways/rapid transit hubs)
http://goo.gl/maps/PC4jH
http://goo.gl/maps/av3eE
http://goo.gl/maps/YS5GC
http://goo.gl/maps/84wfX
http://goo.gl/maps/pN2gV
http://goo.gl/maps/W7nYa
http://goo.gl/maps/iRqB3
http://goo.gl/maps/Bt4GY
http://goo.gl/maps/OhwwX
http://goo.gl/maps/qtG6q
http://goo.gl/maps/8p3Ya

The Annex, Cabbagetown and a few other neighbourhoods could keep a lower density zoning since they have a lot of unique and ornate housing, but most of Toronto's neighbourhoods' architecture isn't that special. The few truly unique homes could be given historical status I guess. Even then though, I think developers would go for the more modest homes first, especially if again, density is still limitted to about 4-6 stories.

I think intensification of these sorts of neighbourhoods is much more desirable than building condos in Agincourt of Mississauga, since the small lots and city blocks will encourage fine grained development with more character. At least as important is the fact that these are already functioning urban neighbourhoods, usually with good transit, walkability and community ammenities. People moving into new buildings aren't going to need 1 car per adult while they wait 20+ years for the neighbourhood to be walkable (as with Richmond Hill Centre) and these neighbourhoods don't require 10 km subway/light rail extensions to become desirable for urban development.

We're already seeing this happen in MidTown Toronto arguably. What with the new constructions on Duplex and pretty much the entire extent of Roehampton ave.

In fact they just tore down some homes with (imo) lovely frontyard gardens east of Mt. Pleasant and Eglinton (around 2 minutes away from where I used to live) and started digging a massive hole. I snapped some pictures of it yesterday:

http://i.imgur.com/OPaIi7k.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/lfubpLd.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/YWYBGT1.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/huT6Gat.jpg

Formely: http://goo.gl/maps/RpkiE

Thinking of starting a thread but I'm not sure at all the what the protocol is on this forum for new building threads.

Most neighbourhoods in the old city of Toronto have ornate Victorian housing that should be preserved. The Bay and Gable is a critical part of the city's visual identity. However, it's true that as a metropolitan city, we need higher-density infill on side streets like low-rise and mid-rise apartment buildings (which could be condos). When I see those photos of high-density low-rise and mid-rise neighbourhoods in Montreal, Chicago, NYC and many European cities, I know that that's what we need as well with our population growth and in keeping with our city's metropolitan identity. I'd like to see detached houses and semis demolished for townhouses, low-rise and mid-rise development. There are many places where it's possible without demolishing heritage housing.

It should be careful infill instead of wholesale demolition of entire neighbourhoods. However, the city doesn't even encourage careful infill. It has the "stable neighbourhood" principle engrained in planning, which suggests that stable neighbourhoods shouldn't see significant changes to their built form. The 1950s Regent Park projects and St. James Town are prominent examples of the postwar urban renewal wave that few people endorse or like, and the planning regulations are now designed to discourage such projects. However, we've gone so far in the opposite direction that we don't see much higher-density development in stable neighbourhoods in any form besides on the main streets.

I believe there's plenty of unremarkable neighbourhoods that can be turned into family-friendly and lush mid-rise enclaves such as this one:



There's plenty of space in the Portlands, still!

In terms of adding density to areas like the Grange, for example, I'm a big advocate of solutions such as the concept below. Building over the backyards + a small portion of existing buildings would allow us to keep most homes and their heritage relatively intact and increase x 4 the density of households, all with minimal visual impact from the streets below. In the example below, what were dwellings for 2 families can now accomodate 8, with some space left in the back for a few cars, cargo, and lots of bicycles.



The additions should embrace contemporary architecture rather than mimic the homes in front, of course. I believe something like this would allow Torontonians to keep the neighbourhoods and housing-style that they love and cherish, while allowing hundreds of thousands of people to live in intimate apartments with most of the advantages of both houses and apartments.

Similar to RC8's sketchup model above, the idea of backyard cottages could also be used in cases where demolishing the existing structure would be impossible (e.g. heritage).

Seattle and Portland allow backyard cottages with quite a few restrictions. Apparently the policy has been modestly successful in promoting affordable housing options.

Combined with laneway housing, they could significantly increase residential density without altering a neighbourhoods prior character at all.

I don't think cottages would work well downtown given narrow lots dimesnsions, unless there was an alley. In the suburbs though it could provide a quick-n-dirty way of densifying without eliciting some of the usual complaints of turning bucolic neighbourhoods into Hong Kong. Plus, since most of these 416 suburbs are heavily populated by immigrant communities which place greater emphasis on extended family relations, back yard cottages could fit in well with that. Grandma or in-laws or a new couple could move into the family's back yard house. Informal multi-family housing is apparently not unprecedented anyways, so clearly there would be demand for this.

That's a good idea, RC8. We already have some precedent of doing this in areas like Yorkville, although with commercial rather than residential. Generally speaking, the historic buildings are still intact afterward.

I guess my own prediction is that I don't think Toronto will ever be a uniform city of 6 storey midrises like Barcelona, Paris or Rome. Not without serious blockbusting, which is insanely difficult and expensive. However, I do expect there to be land assembly and some blockbusting in areas close to rapid transit stations, both present and future. I think that the stuff that WislaHD showed will become much more commonplace in some lowrise semi-detached neighbourhoods, especially around Yonge and Eglinton (where it's already beginning to happen) and some of the closer-in DRL stops that are already surrounded by high density condos to begin with, like Strachan or Queen/Broadview. Elsewhere I would hope that gentle infill would lead the way.

I like a proposal such as RC8 puts forth where maintaining the streetscape is favoured. The only negative impact would be neighbours getting walled in, in their back yards. In my opinion a cost of living in the city.

Outside of the dense urban core, I'm in favour of, if not the wholesale doubling of residential density throughout the city, a process whereby property owners could apply for construction of an additional unit with payment of a density tax. We have already passed bylaws allowing accessory suites but where the lot size permits it, many units could be created on the same streets we see the monster homes being built. A streamlined processes for lot severance, easy applications for back yard cottages or where the it is deep enough, severing off the rear lots for a fully separate residence and adding stories to existing homes for extra units should be encouraged.

short and to the point

Slate: Preserving Single Family Homes Makes Neighborhoods Less Affordable
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox...als_affordability_or_single_family_homes.html

I think the Victorian, Edwardian, and Annex style homes will always remain. But there will forever be the opportunity for increases in density with additions, the City being more open to laneway houses, and greater profits in creating duplexes and triplexes out of single-family homes. That being said, there is still East York ripe for being torn down. There's very little heritage, and it's enormous. I don't think there'd be too much opposition to entire blocks being bought-up for conversion to townhomes and medium rise. With a DRL running through there, I think we'd see some major transformation.

One of the areas of TO that IMO has a perfect blend of low-density mixed with mid-rise is along Cosburn between Broadview and Donlands. The leafy streets, bike lanes, and higher density along the transit corridor seems to be e fine example of a functional urban residential neighbourhood.

And I like that Sketchup by RC8. It's reminiscent of the ideas I toy around with when I play with that program.

Lot serverence might be a good way to add accessory housing, but it could be detrimental if the goal is to increase density even further. An alternate way might be lot consolidation, which could offer more flexibility in additional developments of even greater intensity while preserving most of the extant structures.

AoD

Densification will occur but on a project by project basis, one lot consolidation at a time.

There is still a fair amount of development to go before we are at a point where the tight availability of land accelerates the process of conversion from low to mid-rise. If anything residential neighbourhoods in the central city are going the opposite way at the moment Hipster Duck. These neighbourhoods are de-populating and re-converting into large single-family homes. It is really a process of un-slumming, it's just that the slums are middle-class slums.

I would describe the current environment in much of the central city outside the downtown core (where you would expect to find mid-rise districts) as transitional. Land valuations at present make current usages unsustainable, while costs and the regulatory environment make densification difficult to work physically and financially.

You could do a lot of damage to Toronto's density by adding 2 or 3 or even 4 floors to the existing arterial roads (think Bloor, or Quenn, Rincesvalles and Danforth). Most of these buildings are only 2 floor right now (1 floor for retail and 1 floor residental). Adding another couple of residential floors would drastically increase Toronto's density while maintaning the fabric that exists in most of Toronto's old neighbourhoods.