Planning decisions made in the 2000s are now one full generation ago. Young people born in 2005 have now reached adulthood. The St Lawrence Market project is almost as close in time to the First World War as it is to the present year.
I said yesteryear which means in the past, not specifically one generation ago; and in point of fact, the statement, I think, obviously implies a set of policies different to those currently in effect. Most planning policies in effect today date from post-2000, so self evidently a comparison to a different set of planning regulations means one from prior to that date.
If there are no restrictions based on aesthetics, why does the City often recommend against approval because a proposal doesn't fit the existing neighbourhood context?
Neighbourhood context typically refers to massing, and relative size, (though may also speak to usage etc.); those are not 'aesthetic considerations' they are not about colour, material type, or building style broadly speaking, they are about building scale, which is a functional and objectively measurable characteristic, where preferred colour is not.
That's an aesthetic choice.
I am also going to disagree that the angular plane is not an arbitrary aesthetic preference.
You are wrong. Please, lets deal in facts. Yes, there are other ways to protect privacy and access to light. However, the angular plane is one means of achieving these. The angular plane is not to make a building pretty, which is what aesthetics refers to. Its a means of addressing 'performance standards'. Again, there are other ways to do this.
Many places in the world do not have angular planes, yet their cities adequately support green spaces as well as human health and happiness.
Most cities in the world do in fact have zoning and planning restrictions; and I have no idea where you get the notion they do not. Zoning in Paris is very rigid and prescriptive, indeed moreso than Toronto, and this is true of many other places.
When you look at those cities you'll generally find much lower height requirements, go try building anything in Paris taller than 8s outside of Le Defense and inside the Peripherique, good luck to you!
You'll also find other restrictions such as required court yards, and buildings where units have windows on to the courtyard and the street.
Note, however, this means many, if not most of those units are inaccessible (no elevators, 4-6s walk-up. There are challenges adopting that built form.
Planning concepts like neighbourhood context, transitions to low-rise neighbourhoods, adequate pedestrian scale, and massing are also aesthetic preferences and not supported by any scientific objectivity.
They are preferences, they are not aesthetic and no matter how often you misuse that word, its meaning will not change. Also, there is research supporting pedestrian-scaling, not only based on nearly global preferences, but based on things like wind conditions.
I am very concerned with the cumulative effect of the City negotiating down the size of proposals through all these various tactics--neighbourhood context, angular planes, transitions to neighbourhoods, etc. Over 200 potential units were lost in Mirvish Village alone before it was approved. Over the last two decades the City must have been directly responsible for thousands of units less that could have been built at the margin, enabling more affordable, deeply affordable, supportive, and family-sized housing.
This City is among the densest on the planet, and already the second most dense in the U.S. and Canada; its undergoing the largest building boom in its history and is building at heights that are unprecedented, what gets approved here would not get approved almost anywhere else.
As you say, there are broader structural factors at work, but I just don't see why when something is coming up for a zoning or official plan bylaw amendment, city staff aren't pushing for more height, more units, more density, rather than negotiating everything downwards.
Are you privy to private discussions between Planners and developers? I am, from both sides. While I will say, it is unusual for Planning to specifically suggest greater density than a proponent is asking for, it has actually happened, multiple times.
Almost always at the pre-application stage.
But again, when proposals are extremely dense by both Toronto and global standards, its illogical to assume planning would press for more.
Which, by the way, wouldn't lower the price of any unit in this city by so much as $1, because demand continues to out pace supply, and its demand that must be curtailed, because the industry is physically incapable of building significantly more in any given year, nor would they, even if they could, if it resulted in lower returns on investment.
That's something I'd like to see candidates express support for, and with the new mayoral powers to appoint senior staff, it's also an organizational change that could happen as an outcome of the election.
No thanks.
