Dense City? adding 2 million people!

[BobBob]

It's not like Toronto is somehow an organic result of natural, chaotic growth. It is the direct result of strict policies which drove its development in one precise direction. Changing those policies is the only way to produce a change on the ground.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

It's not like Toronto is somehow an organic result of natural, chaotic growth. It is the direct result of strict policies which drove its development in one precise direction. Changing those policies is the only way to produce a change on the ground.

True. These policies are easily changed and even seemingly vague, uncontrollable things like "demand" are easily manipulated. Nothing is chaotic...at worst, they're just predictable. North York Centres do not coalesce via nebulous, unpredictable forces.

 

[Whoaccio]

Something like this?

That's one place I would have liked to have seen. I sort of wish somebody, anybody, tried to build a walled city redux as a sort of experiment just to see how high we can crank the population density of a given area. Apparently at the enclaves density was nearing in on 2m/km2. Could be relevant for some of the gigacities growing in the third world (Lagos, Dhaka, Mumbai ect...) as a more efficient way of housing people than the mainly horizontal slums.

 

[wyliepoon]

^There's still at least one place like that in the world... such as Sana'a, Yemen.

 

[TrickyRicky]

I was not suggesting that nothing you do can have an outcome, just that it is likely that an outcome is not merely produced by something you can do. Government regulation can hinder density or favour density but it cannot produce density. So you may ask how can we act to favour density? If we generate and act on the best policies and strategies available to us we still cannot produce an increase of 2 million people in the region. It will occur if it does because millions of people decided to act or had an incentive to behave in a manner that served their self-interest. So take an example of one factor that has a significant influence on population densities and the built form, land value. So if the policies enacted to help increase densities increase land values what net impact will this have on the population? To be honest I think that it is inconclusive because it will both serve to increase densities and decrease densities at the same time.

 

[Edward]

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.

All my New York (Queens) relatives live in two story homes. One floor is their home and one floor is for tenants. Most of their neighbours are like this as well. Double the density of a typical Toronto suburb. And an easier way to afford a home.

 

[CityPlaceN1]

^Exactly. And rather than allowing 4,000 sq foot McMansions in Willowdale why not 4,000 sq foot buildings that contain two homes?

 

[Glen]

In the latter part of the now past 'boom' period, despite Toronto's condo boom, population did not increase all that much. Add to that, the issue of jobs is also very relevant for any city wishing to add residents. Seeing that Toronto is over 1/4 million jobs behind its own estimates it is hard to believe that the its potential for growth is good.

 

[Disparishun]

In the latter part of the now past 'boom' period, despite Toronto's condo boom, population did not increase all that much. Add to that, the issue of jobs is also very relevant for any city wishing to add residents. Seeing that Toronto is over 1/4 million jobs behind its own estimates it is hard to believe that the its potential for growth is good.

Careful. The initial quote was not talking about adding 2 million to Toronto's 2.5 million people.

It was talking about adding 2 million to the GTA, a far larger zone with a far larger population.

 

[Urban Shocker]

Numerous traditional low-rise neighbourhoods, in older parts of the city, have a substantial stock of large single-family homes that were built during the past hundred years or so that could be subdivided into condominiums to increase population density without changing the existing built character of these neighbourhoods. Some of these same houses may have gone through a similar process - subdivided as rooming houses in the 1950s, '60s and '70s - before being turned into single family homes again in recent years as part of the gentrification cycle. The economics of turning such houses into condos made sense when property prices were rising, but wealth can still be generated this way for the owners - even as property prices decline.

 

[adma]

All my New York (Queens) relatives live in two story homes. One floor is their home and one floor is for tenants. Most of their neighbours are like this as well. Double the density of a typical Toronto suburb. And an easier way to afford a home.

Though in an ad hoc way, that's been happening in BramptonMissississauga--basement apartments (of dubious legality) aplenty within all that suburban sprawl--and despite municipal backlash, don't be surprised if in the present economy, there's a lot more like it to come.

Of course, even at that, Queens'd be double the density, simply because in NYC, raw building at double the density comes natural...

 

[jks]

Something like this?

call me crazy, but that looks AWESOME!!

 

[TrickyRicky]

US, Our existing low-rise housing stock is an interesting case study in densities, incentive and adaptability. Over time an individual home could have morphed from a large single family home, to an immigrant rooming house, to a legal triplex and back to a single family home. Homes that now contain one single old lady could have once housed 15 or more people. The population of the property changed because the conditions that made sense for the owner and occupants, acting in their own self-interests, changed over time.

Still at present as we move into 2009 conditions favour the creation of single family homes made for small families and the destruction of rental accommodations in our housing stock. This is because single family home prices are high but rent is cheap. Infact rents on market value units have been stagnant for over a decade and the return on investment has actually been dropping year over year. This is not surprising because income for most people has also been stagnant. So what does this have to do with densities? Everything. If the conditions change people acting in their own self-interest will double or half the population density of the city without the creation of a single new unit. Discussions of "density nodes" or infill options are of trivial consequence by comparison.

 

[Urban Shocker]

Yes, and we're getting office buildings converted to condos, and former factories and warehouses too, so there's no telling where all this creative adaptation and reuse will end.

 

[BobBob]

Allowing/stimulating laneway housing is another great thing we could be doing: all those back-lane garages could become nice modern houses (with parking still at grade, if desired).