Dense City? adding 2 million people!

[lordmandeep]

The greatest challenge will be that for many new immigrants to Canada the single-family home with big yard is the ultimate goal, but ironically, that is the last thing we need more of here. Already I can see signs of an outer ring of suburbs populated by mostly newer immigrants surrounding a "donut-hole" of Canadian-raised people living a higher-density urban lifestyle.

and outside of that all you have Canadian-raised people living on huge exurban lots.


Well the only places seeing increasing population are North York centre and downtown Toronto all along Yonge Street to Steeles.

 

[Whoaccio]

Not much gain? You can tear down 8 houses and replace them with 30 townhouses. You can also do so for far less money and in less time compared to condo towers; additional North York Centres will be more dependent on development boom/bust cycles. Build the townhouses right and you'll get families in them...1000 condo apartment units may only have 1200 people living in them. Giving people the opportunity to live in a house with a backyard in good areas for less than a million dollars could also stem the tide of subdivisions sprawlling out over the greenbelt.

In a way, Toronto zoning regulations work completely against this goal. If 90 odd percent of the city is off limits to any kind of redevelopment under the official plan, either through industrial protection areas, parks and 'stable areas', it leaves only the 'avenues' open for midrise development and centers for high rise. If you want a recipe to scare away families. that is as good as it gets. We are basically zoned against most things that aren't condos. Just look at the 'OMB Folly" incident, where townhouses were proposed at NYCC. Considering that property was walking distance to a so called "intensification area" it was puzzling that the city would oppose, ta da, intensification. We shouldn't distinguish between town homes and detached homes when it comes to zoning documents. Basicly just let people build whatever in 'stable areas' that doesn't have an elevator and passes safety specs. If you are trying to densify a city, putting in regulations that prohibit 90 odd percent of the city from seeing any increase in population whatsoever is not a good way to go.

I am pretty sure these zoning regs also promote the McMansion effect. Observing my local neighborhood, the inevitable victims of the effect are usually humble bungalows. 'Nice' houses, for lack of a better term, where the house itself accounts for a significant portion of the value, are rarely demolished to make way for the inevitable columns and plaster turrets. What I would extract from this is that when land values rise, and zoning regulations prohibit a proportional intensification, owners have a natural incentive to build the largest possibly allowed single family homes to maximize their value. If people were allowed to build at an increased density (most likely town homes) it would at least give people an option as opposed to McMansions.

 

[jaycola]

Infill Townhomes, multiplexes and basement apartments

I think the idea of infill townhomes may be the best option for the suburbs as well.

In the attached photos there is an example of a typical 1950's suburban bungalow, a triplex of a somewhat later vintage and a recent townhome development in the same area.

This 3 bedroom bungalow sits on a 7500 sqft lot. The Triplex on a 3500 sq foot lot. A unit in the attached townhouse sits on a lot of less than 1000 sq feet.

Allowing for walkways and common grounds I think it would be reasonable to replace this single home with 4-6 townhomes. These new units will have greater appeal to growing familes than highrise condos and are much more likely to be accepted by neighbours trying to preserve the neighbourhood.

Adding a 2nd story to the Bungalow and retrofitting the basement, creating a triplex, could also have a a positive intensifying effect, allowing people to stay in their homes longer while providing extra income for retirement.

The government could also get involved in the "triplexing scheme" allowing low interest loans to homeowners who maintain a unit in their residence, in exchange for providing much needed housing for less fortunate families. The government could guarentee rent payment. On site owners could better ensure that properties are properly maintained.

I do think it is time for the government to act on increasing densities throughout the city. For how much longer can it be acceptable to allow entire neighbourhoods with huge 70-100 foot wide lots to be zoned single family?

 

[scarberiankhatru]

For suburban change townhouses are much better than subdividing suburban houses but, in the meantime, how do we increase density in situations where a developer hasn't stepped forward and managed to buy up a bunch of adjacent houses? I don't think it's either-or -- if basement apartments are viable let the market gravitate towards them while the townhouses gradually come in. In the meantime it can only help.

Similarly, where families can add a third storey without needing a zoning approval, in some situations maybe they are enticed to spend money that way instead of moving to a bigger house, promoting a bit more density on their street -- or a saner subdivision of the house, even?

So I agree completely with you on the above, but am trying to think of easy zoning changes that can unleash densification bit by bit. I suggested a zoning override for basement units and third-floor adds because that seems to me to win some potential for near-term density without really losing anything. It gives homeowners the tools to do something on their own properties.

Well, that's just it with micro-redevelopments...you can do it one house at a time. As jaycola says, take a 40 foot wide property and build 20 foot wide semis on it. One house becomes two, each with their own front door and garage and backyard and no noisy neighbours above stomping around. Yards makes up a plurality of the land use in the suburbs and simply building 'more house' on all that grass is the easiest way to intensify.

And it's not like I suggested a townhouse-only approach, I just suggested townhouses could bear the brunt of housing Toronto's new residents...of course stuff like encouraging basement apartments would be a good interim measure. One problem with relying on basement apartments and subdivided suburban houses to bear the brunt of the density boost, though, is that the city has little to no control over where this density boost occurs, unless they go street by street with the by-laws (yet we'd need to permit the subdivision of all suburban subdivisions to make a significant dent). They can house lots of people, in the short and long term, yes, but why should we not take the opportunity of needing to accommodate millions of new residents and use it to physically change the city? Making the suburbs more urban should be a goal, not just making them more populated...most of Toronto's suburbs are already relatively dense.

What is this, SimCity? You can't just change low-density into mid and high density. It's a lot more organic, and money and power have a lot to do with it. Whatever increase in zoning density we'll see will happen in $ areas. The $$ and $$$ cannot be changed into mid and high density.

In a way, Toronto zoning regulations work completely against this goal. I am pretty sure these zoning regs also promote the McMansion effect.

Uh, yeah, guys, zoning and by-laws and all that jazz would have to be changed for townhouses to sprout in stable neighbourhoods. Changing them need not be a big deal. This thread is about what could or should happen, not what will happen.

/obvious

As for McMansions, they're a sneaky way to increase density. Many bungalows near the OMB Folly used to house half a dozen or more people, but you just won't find any families that large living in them today. Not enough house. McMansions that are 3-4K sq.ft may be obscene/conspicuous consumption but they'll be much, much easier to subdivide in the future. Realistically, you can't subdivide a bungalow 1/3 the size...at least, I hope Toronto doesn't fall so far that families are willing to live in those kind of tenements.

 

[afransen]

My concern with large-scale replacement of bungalows with townhouses is that the road network especially but other local services would not be up to the increased load. I imagine they may have to punch additional roads into the grid to be able to handle the increase in car-oriented population, as well as to give you roads to run buses on.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

My concern with large-scale replacement of bungalows with townhouses is that the road network especially but other local services would not be up to the increased load. I imagine they may have to punch additional roads into the grid to be able to handle the increase in car-oriented population, as well as to give you roads to run buses on.

Your concern is not at all limited to townhouses: we'd need to improve local services no matter how or where the city is intensified.

Most suburban roads can handle lots more cars...it's the megarterials every 2km that can't.

There's some suburban blocks that have houses with 300 foot deep lots - in such places, punching a road through the backyards would be great (see Townsgate Drive in Vaughan or Frontier/Clinton in Richmond Hill for examples).

Most suburban areas dating from the 60s-80s saw wildly overbuilt school construction, so townhouses there would help keep them viable...they're usually horizontal or pastoral enough, too, that the areas have plenty of parkland.

As for bus routes, it's not like every crescent and cul-de-sac is going to get service - many of the "hundred" routes I spoke of already exist but must be heavily subsidized to scrape by with rush hour or 20+ minute service and often see virtually empty buses...lots of such routes, or even just branch loops around those long loopy subdivision collector streets, would become financially viable and suburban buses wouldn't be such black holes of transit funding.

 

[jaycola]

Sample Block...what would you do?

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v...1&where1=yonge and steeles toronto&encType=1#

Here is a sample site. If someone can capture the image and post it, I would appreciate it. I can't figure it out.

The site is located just east of Yonge St just north of Steeles. Soon to be a major transportation hub. The site takes up the 7 detached bungalows seen in the image. The building to the south appears to about 85 units and a similar sized lot. On the extreme left of the image is the car wash Drive through at the Esso at Yonge and Steeles.

Look at the site and let us know what you would do with it?

 

[junctionist]

I'm not familiar with the area and precisely where the station will go, but it would seem logical to put up townhouses for condominiums there.

Generally, I'd like to see the master planned low-rise or mid-rise streetscapes along suburban arterials. The buildings would be condos, apartments, and offices depending on the demand, with some retail at the bottom. These might only represent a small bit of the overall suburban intensification plan if "townhousing" the suburbs was decided upon as the best option, since those would be built along the residential sideroads. But if certain condos were larger, there's nothing to say that the units wouldn't be popular with families.

 

[adma]

Look at the site and let us know what you would do with it?

Something like this?

 

[Dilla]

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v...1&where1=yonge and steeles toronto&encType=1#

Here is a sample site. If someone can capture the image and post it, I would appreciate it. I can't figure it out.

The site is located just east of Yonge St just north of Steeles. Soon to be a major transportation hub. The site takes up the 7 detached bungalows seen in the image. The building to the south appears to about 85 units and a similar sized lot. On the extreme left of the image is the car wash Drive through at the Esso at Yonge and Steeles.

Look at the site and let us know what you would do with it?

 

[Edward]

Considering that site is going to be half a block from the subway it should be highrise.

 

[BobBob]

Perhaps this is too much to hope for...

 

[TrickyRicky]

Conversations of this nature fascinate me and yet I am increasingly becoming a sceptic on the subject so this post will be very unsatisfying to some. What is the solution to densifying the area by 2 million people? The answer I am sorry to say is likely that there is no solution, no one can have a solution and it is futile to attempt to derrive a solution. It is something that will either happen or it will not, one project, one initiative, one human life at a time. If it happens the reason will seem clear and obvious and yet it will have coalesced from an incalculable and most improbable set of circumstances.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Conversations of this nature fascinate me and yet I am increasingly becoming a sceptic on the subject so this post will be very unsatisfying to some. What is the solution to densifying the area by 2 million people? The answer I am sorry to say is likely that there is no solution, no one can have a solution and it is futile to attempt to derrive a solution. It is something that will either happen or it will not, one project, one initiative, one human life at a time. If it happens the reason will seem clear and obvious and yet it will have coalesced from an incalculable and most improbable set of circumstances.

A solution (a major part of it, anyway) can be as simple as permitting denser dwellings in so-called "stable" neighbourhoods. It can be done one house at a time over a period of decades, as population pressures dictate. There need not be anything incalculable or improbable about it.

 

[Whoaccio]

It is something that will either happen or it will not, one project, one initiative, one human life at a time. If it happens the reason will seem clear and obvious and yet it will have coalesced from an incalculable and most improbable set of circumstances.

Right, but among the multitude of reasons and causes, there are policies that the government is responsible for that have clear effects. It isn't Sim City, but its not like we are powerless either. For instance, were we to loosen up zoning regs people would have to option to build townhouses in a random cul de sac. People could weigh this option against others. If we just flatly ban development in most of the city, then people don't even have the option to consider their circumstances and go from there. It won't automatically turn Toronto into Hong Kong, but it will give people more choices to do what they want.