Greater Toronto's Sprawl

[doady]

Though I think too much of this discussion oversimplifies/overgenericizes/over-common-templates the 'burbs. Like, when we're talking about certain parts of Etobicoke, we're tallking about suburbia of some affluence and stability where to impose intensification would be heavy-handedly dogmatic...

Affluence and stability is also imposed upon the area. Leave it to the free market a lot of those houses along those suburban artierials like Islington would be redeveloped or converted at least to retail or office. Check out Hurontario south of the QEW: affluent neighbourhood, but most of those houses are used as offices now. In cases like this, it is the resistance to intensification that is "heavy-handedly dogmatic".

 

[freshcutgrass]

The planner is proposing developing the space between these homes and the street with separate buildings- not purchasing them and expanding them to the curb or allowing the present owners to do so.

Well, I didn't say it was the identical scenario...only that it was an adaptation of the basic principal.

If the current owners wanted to live in an urban wasteland they wouldn't have purchased the nice homes they are in now, they would have bought on Bathurst...College...you name it.

Well, first of all, by the time this would happen, these original residents will no longer be involved, and the zoning changes will be motivated by the fact that it is a "solution" to a perceived "problem". Unsustainable, suburban housing will remain in its present form until there is a tipping point in its unsustainability, and will start adapting as all areas adapt to the changing reality.

 

[spider]

Simply don't expect the world you live in to remain the same just for you. The world evolves beyond your control- 50 years ago, the modern concept of the suburb was still in its infancy. Who knows what our world will look like 50 years from now?

The neighbourhood in which I bought my brand new starter home was built in the 1958 - 1962 time frame. 50 years later I am delighted to say the only visible differences are lots of trees, better amentities and new cars in most driveways. The area is more desirable than ever, a house down the street that was purchased for less than $15,000 new just sold for $400,000.
My suburban world is evolving very nicely thank you.

I don't live downtown either but I absolutely disagree that suburbia is a life choice as equally benign as living downtown or more specifically living a more balanced life where every moment need not revolve around a car. Suburbia s much more than a place - it is a mind set - a very selfish and condescending one at that. It is this that turns the stomachs of those who by riding bicycles and buying local produce think they are doing something good. I can absolutely sympathize with these ones, just like I can sympathize with the homeless who I pass daily with my suit on (though it doesn't mean I want to be one of course). Let's face it. Suburbia is only as attractive as the second and third digit on the gas station price board. If one day you pull up and either can't afford or simply can't obtain a full tank, that lifestyle withers away instantly and you become the pinko you so now denigrate not out of conscience but out of necessity.

Thank you for your smug self-rightous reply. Your's is precisely the divisive attitude nobody needs or wants to hear over and over again ad nauseum.

 

[lead82]

The suburbs are not going anywhere. It will take a huge spike in gas costs (ie >$2/L) to make a significant impact on the suburban lifestyle. The main issue with this court region is the sheer lack of foresight and proper planning to accommodates both urban and suburban expansion. Houses get plopped up onto new areas. Condos are popping up on every corner. The problem ita that without new infrastructure to support the new growth we are ruining our quality of life. There is severe traffic causing limited mobility. There are less open spaces, and the existing ones are more crowded as ever. Public transit is a joke - the TTC can't manage to keep it's 2 subway lines running without delays every day.

How soon til we reach a breaking point when the city managers wake up and start to take some action to resolve these major issues.

 

[jje1000]

I realize The Star is an increasingly irrelevant rag, but I would have thought even it could have found a more relevant pinko than Christopher (George Costanza and I went to the same Architectural School) Hume to prattle on about the insensate evil of single family detached housing. I guess times really are tough for the comrades at 1 Yonge.

Ugh. Note the number of typical conservative keywords you use (words like these always appear on any newspaper comment boards). By resorting to these attacks, you do nothing but to degrade any future arguments you're going to make.

What is it about the article don't you like? The world deserves a better answer than a generic conservative attack!

 

[jje1000]

How so? If you keep on churning out post after post of nothing but unsubstantiated one-point attacks on forumers and anything else that you dislike, why would people then start to take you seriously?

Again, what is it that you don't like about the article?

 

[jn_12]

Are you even remotely serious? This forum is one huge mess of predictable knee-jerk liberalism with the usual attendant hypocrisy. Frankly, I could not care less whether you or anyone else "takes me seriously"; I neither need nor want validation from a group of odious pc puritans who pride themselves on open-mindedness and tolerance, but in fact "tolerate" only those with whom they walk in lock step. The article itself is indicative of The Star at its "best" in that it offers the view of a hack like Christopher Hume who has not had a new idea in about 20 years. Hume occupies the territory long vacated by the late Colin Vaughan, both in content and style. If the majority of UT contributors want to genuflect before their messiah, so be it.

So essentially you have a problem with Hume. Ok, how about we replace his name with "John Doe". What's your problem with the content of the article?

Further to this, if you feel Hume is a hack, how about you tell us who in the local mainstream media we should be paying more attention to with regards to urban issues?

 

[jaycola]

I believe there is an opportunity to increase density in the inner burbs and suburbs but I think the idea of creating new streetscapes in the inbetween spaces is unworkable.
While in the apartment nodes throughout the city, there may be opportunity to add towers between existing buildings, not everyone wants their neighbourhood converted to a mixed streetscape.

Better, in my opinion, as stated numerous times above, simply rezone existing streets and lots to foster gradual change.

First I would increase residential density across the city based on lot frontage. 20 foot lots to allow 2 legal residential units, 30 foot lots, 3 units and so on. Thus an old bungalow on a 50 foot lot could be torn down and replaced with 5 (maybe even 6) residential units in a residential setting. The past zoning has allowed only monster homes to replace the little cottage but has done nothing to create more rental stock or greater density or urban environments. The old monters homes need not be torn down either but could be allowed to divide into a number of residential units.

Next I would rezone all major cross intersections to allow construction of large residential towers over commercial at grade. By allowing this, you could create a walkable shopping district accessable from many more homes.
A small cluster of towers at the corners would do little to change the residential zones but would help make the area more accessible.
I would not change the nature of the area but would help make better use of existing public and commercial services.
I can imagine point towers on corners throughout the city creating a desitnation for the residents closest.

A next could allow more work from home zoning. Allowing people to operate business from home (where there is little effect on the surrounding properties) would go some way towards fewer and shorter car trips for workers and clients alike.

This would be a gradual shift into greater density without the need for destroying what people already own and have come to enjoy.

 

[jn_12]

Well the proposal in the newspaper wouldn't just spring up over night. You're talking maybe 75-100+ years of development. That's fairly gradual, and I think it's safe to say that future generations will adapt to the point where they won't know any better.

 

[spider]

The past zoning has allowed only monster homes to replace the little cottage but has done nothing to create more rental stock or greater density or urban environments. The old monters homes need not be torn down either but could be allowed to divide into a number of residential units.

Would you force the same densification on owners of Apartments and Condos for the same reason?

Simply rezoning a street lined with single family homes to allow someone to tear down a 1200 SQ home and build a 4 Plex in it's place would destroy the neighbourhood. I doubt if the utilities were built to allow such a greater load.

If it is acceptable for a successful citizen to live in a 3000 SQ condo why the objection to a 3000 SQ SF home?

 

[lafard]

Why would tearing down a house and building a lowrise 4-plex in its place "destroy the neighbourhood" ? It's not a tower, it's not shadowing anything, and the people that live there would probably be the exact same sort of middle class types that had lived in the house before. It does not affect you in any way, shape, or form.

This sort of small scale redevelopment is very common in Vancouver, and even in my own hood in midtown Toronto some of this sort of thing is ongoing deep in residential neighbourhoods.

It sounds like somebody just has a case of the NIMBYs.

 

[jaycola]

^^What he said^^

This below image is from Admiral Street. One of the finest residential streets in Bloor Yorkville area.
The detached homes on this street are well into the millions and yet they were built on the same street as multi residential properties. I have friends on this street and I have never heard them complain about the "renters" on the street.

The one in the photo is likely an 8 plex. If there are rules in place with respect to design and quality, I can assure you, you will have quality renters living in well kept homes on nice residential streets.

 

[canarob]

As someone who lives in the suburbs on a pretty big lot, rezoning so that a lowrise 4-plex (or similar) could be built would do wonders for the vaue of my property. I would rather sell my house to a developer at a premium and buy a townhouse or condo with the same square footage than oppose something like that.

 

[spider]

The Admiral Road 8 plex on a lot in my subdivision.

 

[TOareaFan]

The Admiral Road 8 plex on a lot in my subdivision.

Surely, you see the improvement?

Is that really an 8-plex though? Just two units on each floor?