Dense City? adding 2 million people!

[jaycola]

"...But it adds that Ontario's population is expected to increase to about 15 million by 2021 – with half of the 2 million growth in the Toronto region – and more needs to be done."

When we read reports that predict Toronto and the GTA will grow in population by around 2 million citizens over the next decade and a half, we have to ask ourselves what is the best way to add such a huge number of people within the development zone and the recently created Greenbelt?

All NIMBYism aside, should we focus on increasing density within the already emerging density nodes around the GTA? Should we be looking at increased densities in suburban areas (ie duplexing and triplexing larger homes in subdivisions)? Should the focus be on the main streets already serviced with subways and Street cars? Or can the brownfields and greyfields provide the answer?

I'd like to see the suburbs get a lot denser. Replacing a couple of older detached bungalows with a row of townhomes or a lowrise multiplex. Maybe breaking up some of the monster homes in North Toronto into a few units would be a good idea?

Thoughts?

 

[The Condo Observer]

Take a look at what happened in the Yonge and Sheppard area.

Post war suburban tract home neighborhoods were replaced by highrises.
In theory, these new households were integrated into an already established and well serviced area.

This can happen repeatedly. But we need to preserve some neighbourhoods, and target redevelopment where appropriate.

 

[W. K. Lis]

We could replace all the parking lots with infill mixed-use low-rise buildings, which could have residences in the upper floors.

 

[adma]

You want a dense city? Close down all the schools. Then the future generations will be dense in no time

 

[scarberiankhatru]

If household size keeps dropping, it'll be an endless uphill battle to actually increase population, even if 10 more North York Centres sprouted in the suburbs.

Really, the density path of least resistance might be to replace all the single detached housing stock from the 50s-70s with townhouses, house by house if need be.

 

[Dan416]

If household size keeps dropping, it'll be an endless uphill battle to actually increase population, even if 10 more North York Centres sprouted in the suburbs.

Really, the density path of least resistance might be to replace all the single detached housing stock from the 50s-70s with townhouses, house by house if need be.

That sounds like a lot of work for not much gain, I think the North York idea is better.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

That sounds like a lot of work for not much gain, I think the North York idea is better.

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.

 

[The Condo Observer]

Well, a MIX of more dense housing types would be preferred over just townhouses: Townhouses, Low rise apartment/lofts, Mid rise and highrise.

 

[doady]

I think the recent popularity of condos is because of reduced household sizes.

 

[Disparishun]

What if the Ontario government required GTA munis to allow basement apartments and third-storey additions as a zoning override? I remember the NDP government doing the former when they were in office. I don't remember the outcome.

EDIT: Similarly there will probably have to be some initiative undertaken at some point to grid-ify some of the suburban style planning, even by expropriating and bulldozing houses at key locations to let streets through. It is hard to believe the current road system in denser suburban style areas will be able to handle much more without doing this. The gridlocked traffic north of the 401 is a good example of this -- like Yonge and Bathurst both ways north of Steeles. Public transit is a big part of the solution, but so is a saner road system.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Well, a MIX of more dense housing types would be preferred over just townhouses: Townhouses, Low rise apartment/lofts, Mid rise and highrise.

Apartment-over-store buildings on main streets, like the ones lining Danforth or Yonge, are one thing, but this isn't Paris...low/mid-rise buildings don't really make much sense in most of the city. Going from three storey townhouses that can attract families to five or six storey low-rise condos that attract mostly singles or childless couples is, really, a negligible increase in density. If a building needs an elevator, we might as well make it 30 storeys and create concentrations of people that actually have real postitive consequences.

It all depends on which parts of the city we want to change by increasing density, unless we want density just for the sake of protecting farmland. We can transform a dozen small sites by creating a dozen more North York Centres, but we can also transform the entire GTA by building, over time, smaller, tighter detached houses and townhouses. North York Centre's condos have changed everything within a block or two of Yonge but everything around Senlac or Willowdale is still exactly the same. If we change the post-war suburban housing, a hundred new retail strips and a hundred suburban bus routes would suddenly become viable. A dozen North York Centres would be great if the people move to these new urban areas for their convenience and urbanity but slowly replacing suburban houses, lot by lot, could bring a bit of urban to everyone and might have a higher net benefit for the whole city.

edit - density'd really get a boost if all the suburban houses are subdivided, but I don't think too many people these days would really go for that. If home ownership rates drop and people stop wanting a big house on a "safe" street with a big front yard, maybe they'd be lured into subdivided houses, but I think it'd be easier to get them into townhouses. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'd prefer it if Toronto stayed healthy enough that a majority of its residents had both means and aims above basement apartments...but not so healthy that real estate prices force people into basement apartments, kind of like how New Yorkers and Londoners and Tokyoites are 'forced' into less than amazing shoeboxes - it's a fine balance.

 

[Hipster Duck]

As scarberian said, adding infill density to the inner suburbs (by redeveloping cul de sac subdivions, industrial brownfields and decaying strip malls) with simple to construct townhouses and lowrise multi-unit dwellings would be the most feasible way to densify the city. This would escape our attention, but would be the most effective way to add desirable housing units to the city.

My personal preference would be for a gain of 1.5 million residents through the above means across the outer-416 and inner 905, and by hyper-densifying the downtown core to 500,000 residents. That means taking the area loosely bounded by the Don River, Bathurst, the lake and Davenport and jamming half a million people in there. It is possible, even if it will meet stiff resistance and result in the loss of some heritage buidlings, or even entire blocks. Over time, we will win out with a much more vibrant core.

The best cities in the world tend to be those that have a high central city population, regardless of the size of the metropolitan area. Consider cities like Berlin and Vienna, which have maybe 1 to 2 million people living in their downtown cores - but hardly another million or so living in all the areas beyond that - and how cosmopolitan and worldly they feel. By contrast, cities like Phoenix and Sacramento, known for being boring and faceless, have about the same metro populations as Berlin and Vienna, respectively - maybe even the same population within a 30 mile radius of their centres - but completely lack a downtown or an inner city population worth a rat's ass.

 

[Disparishun]

A dozen North York Centres would be great if the people move to these new urban areas for their convenience and urbanity but slowly replacing suburban houses, lot by lot, could bring a bit of urban to everyone and might have a higher net benefit for the whole city.

edit - density'd really get a boost if all the suburban houses are subdivided, but I don't think too many people these days would really go for that. If home ownership rates drop and people stop wanting a big house on a "safe" street with a big front yard, maybe they'd be lured into subdivided houses, but I think it'd be easier to get them into townhouses.

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.

 

[ssk]

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.

 

[PukeGreen]

The much-derided condo boom is a big part of this. Look at the downtown east; miles of former warehouses and factories are being replaced with condo towers. Like it or not, this trend is key to handling density.

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.