Toronto - Streetscape Manual

[DSC]

It may be of interest to UTers that the City has just published their online Streetscape Manual. It is at: http://www.toronto.ca/planning/urbdesign/streetscape/index.htm

The Press Release says:

"Today, the City of Toronto released the Urban Design Streetscape Manual in a new online format. Available at www.toronto.ca/streetscapemanual, the manual focuses on design quality in the public right-of-way, with an emphasis on coherence, beauty, durability, accessibility, pedestrian amenity and tree canopy in the sidewalk zone.

Developed by an interdivisional team of City staff, the manual is an important reference tool used by city planners, designers, engineers, and others to guide the design, construction and maintenance of streetscape improvements in Toronto.

“The new online format streamlines the planning process by making this comprehensive source of information immediately accessible to everyone involved in streetscape design and review,†said Chief Planner Gary Wright.

The Streetscape Manual assists with the implementation of Official Plan policies and Air Quality targets of the Toronto Green Standard on all arterial roads and a selection of important collector and local roads in Toronto. The manual emphasizes design quality and consistency through the use of placement guidelines and a large inventory of design details for decorative paving, street trees, medians, lighting and street furniture.

The streetscape recommendations found in the manual are implemented incrementally through construction activity in the public right-of-way carried out by the City or external stakeholders (for example, business improvement areas and private developers). The manual provides urban design direction for specific streets across Toronto and should be referenced during the preparation of development applications and all street or sidewalk construction projects."

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Thanks - it's a start, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

AoD

 

[allabootmatt]

Indeed. And I think facts on the ground are, alas, way ahead of this noble effort. Toronto Hydro is busily erecting new, ghastly wooden poles--whose cost needs to be amortized over a period of many decades of use, as far as the utility is concerned--on stretches that the Manual earmarks for far more modern treatment. Not clear to me how Toronto will ever get a grip on beauty and coherent design without addressing the elephant that's not just in the room but running rampant throughout the city.

 

[Tewder]

I'm curious to what degree these wooden poles are somewhat unique to Toronto, relatively speaking for a city of Toronto's size and stature for example? If so, how does Hydro Toronto get away with it? Why do private condo developments have to contribute to streetscape/community improvements while a massive entity like Hydro doesn't? Or does it? Why is it not mandated that new lines have to be buried? Why is this not happening even when there are perfect opportunities to do so (Roncesvalles)? Who is dropping the ball on this and how are they getting away with it? I just don't understand. Help me understand!

 

[allabootmatt]

As something of a hydro pole obsessive, I can tell you the following. San Francisco has extensive wooden poles, even in touristy areas like North Beach (some streets). A program to bury them citywide ran out of cash a year or two ago. Sydney has lots of wooden poles outside the downtown. Montreal similarly has plenty on residential side streets once you leave the greater centre. Los Angeles retains wooden poles on certain main streets (eg in West Hollywood). In New York they are common outside Manhattan, which is entirely wire-free, as is downtown DC. In Europe, wooden poles do exist in small villages and on the outskirts of major cities (eg the Paris suburbs).

Burying wires is expensive and disruptive, and the number of places thatndo it near-entirely is small. That said, what Toronto is missing is even a normative commitment to minimising the impact of overhead hydro. The City has never given me the impression that it sees it as a problem at all, and TH is obviously uninterested. I would like to at least get a sense that the City and TH will do what they can, and won't let the problem get even worse. That doesn't seem to be happening.

 

[W. K. Lis]

As something of a hydro pole obsessive, I can tell you the following. San Francisco has extensive wooden poles, even in touristy areas like North Beach (some streets). A program to bury them citywide ran out of cash a year or two ago. Sydney has lots of wooden poles outside the downtown. Montreal similarly has plenty on residential side streets once you leave the greater centre. Los Angeles retains wooden poles on certain main streets (eg in West Hollywood). In New York they are common outside Manhattan, which is entirely wire-free, as is downtown DC. In Europe, wooden poles do exist in small villages and on the outskirts of major cities (eg the Paris suburbs).

Burying wires is expensive and disruptive, and the number of places thatndo it near-entirely is small. That said, what Toronto is missing is even a normative commitment to minimising the impact of overhead hydro. The City has never given me the impression that it sees it as a problem at all, and TH is obviously uninterested. I would like to at least get a sense that the City and TH will do what they can, and won't let the problem get even worse. That doesn't seem to be happening.

Burying the wires will get an uproar from the NIMBY's along the street where they are burying them. A good (or bad) example of that uproar is what happened on St. Clair Avenue West. The burying of the electrical and communication wires (along with replacement of gas and water pipes) is what extended the construction along that road. It may look nice after, but during the burying phase you'll get an earful.

 

[pman]

It's true that Montreal has wooden poles supporting overhead wires - but not on any major streets and mostly in back alleys. They not only bury the wires on all their main streets, they also increasingly provide for street lights that are at worst inoffensive and at best a pleasure to look at. Toronto Hydro, on the other hand, follows a policy of building the cheapest and ugliest system humanly possible on all streets. The NIMBY argument is a red herring - people who make that argument assume the City will never be able to build infrastructure efficiently. St. Clair and Bloor Street notwithstanding, somehow most other cities in North America, Europe and Australia do manage to put the wires underground on main streets, so I have to believe that even the City of Toronto could get the hydro infrastructure right if anybody at City Hall cared about our streetscapes.

 

[allabootmatt]

Toronto Hydro has set up a site devoted to PowerUp, its current project to blight our city with even more ghastly overhead wires. I urge you all to use the 'feedback' function as I have to let them know someone notices: Poweruptoronto.ca

 

[MisterF]

You'll get an uproar from NIMBYs no matter what you do. Anyone who cares about this make sure to get in touch with all the mayoral candidates and let them know you care about aesthetics and streetscaping, and that it will influence your vote.

 

[DSC]

Not quite sure if this fits here but the City are experimenting with LED streetlights (King from Yonge to University):

AMA Adopts Community Guidance to Reduce the Harmful Human and Environmental Effects of High Intensity Street Lighting
For immediate release:
June 14, 2016

CHICAGO - Strong arguments exist for overhauling the lighting systems on U.S. roadways with light emitting diodes (LED), but conversions to improper LED technology can have adverse consequences. In response, physicians at the Annual Meeting of the American Medical Association (AMA) today adopted guidance for communities on selecting among LED lighting options to minimize potential harmful human and environmental effects.

Converting conventional street light to energy efficient LED lighting leads to cost and energy savings, and a lower reliance on fossil-based fuels. Approximately 10 percent of existing U.S. street lighting has been converted to solid state LED technology, with efforts underway to accelerate this conversion.

"Despite the energy efficiency benefits, some LED lights are harmful when used as street lighting," AMA Board Member Maya A. Babu, M.D., M.B.A. "The new AMA guidance encourages proper attention to optimal design and engineering features when converting to LED lighting that minimize detrimental health and environmental effects."

High-intensity LED lighting designs emit a large amount of blue light that appears white to the naked eye and create worse nighttime glare than conventional lighting. Discomfort and disability from intense, blue-rich LED lighting can decrease visual acuity and safety, resulting in concerns and creating a road hazard.

In addition to its impact on drivers, blue-rich LED streetlights operate at a wavelength that most adversely suppresses melatonin during night. It is estimated that white LED lamps have five times greater impact on circadian sleep rhythms than conventional street lamps. Recent large surveys found that brighter residential nighttime lighting is associated with reduced sleep times, dissatisfaction with sleep quality, excessive sleepiness, impaired daytime functioning and obesity.

The detrimental effects of high-intensity LED lighting are not limited to humans. Excessive outdoor lighting disrupts many species that need a dark environment. For instance, poorly designed LED lighting disorients some bird, insect, turtle and fish species, and U.S. national parks have adopted optimal lighting designs and practices that minimize the effects of light pollution on the environment.

Recognizing the detrimental effects of poorly-designed, high-intensity LED lighting, the AMA encourages communities to minimize and control blue-rich environmental lighting by using the lowest emission of blue light possible to reduce glare. The AMA recommends an intensity threshold for optimal LED lighting that minimizes blue-rich light. The AMA also recommends all LED lighting should be properly shielded to minimize glare and detrimental human health and environmental effects, and consideration should be given to utilize the ability of LED lighting to be dimmed for off-peak time periods.

The guidance adopted today by grassroots physicians who comprise the AMA's policy-making body strengthens the AMA's policy stand against light pollution and public awareness of the adverse health and environmental effects of pervasive nighttime lighting.

 

[ADRM]

Some high-intensity LED lighting also gives some people (such as myself) migraines.