Gta 2050

[Memph]

I've been thinking about what the transformation of the GTA could look like over the next 40 years. I'm choosing that timeline because after that, the GTA's growth might be significantly reduced, since it's around 2050 that global population growth is expected to stop. And besides, it doesn't make much sense to try to predict what will happen further into the future.

Currently (2011), I would estimate the GTA's population to be around 6.0 million. This includes Toronto and the regions of Halton, York, Durham and Peel. Currently, this area is growing by about 100,000 people every year, which means it would have a population of 10.0 million in 2050 if it continues to grow at the same rate. Since many (or most) posters here oppose sprawl and outwards growth, how do you think this growth should be distributed and managed (ex transportation) with minimal expansion of the urbanized land area?

Here are my estimates for the populations and densities of the different parts of the GTA today (ie not 2006). For the inner and outer 905, I’m including only the urbanized parts of the listed municipalities.

Former City of Toronto (pre-amalgamation)
-Population: 800,000
-Density: 8100/km2

Inner 416 suburbs (York and East York)
-Population: 260,000
-Density: 6100/km2

Outer 416 suburbs (Scarborough, North York, Etobicoke)
-Population: 1,600,000
-Density: 3300/km2

Inner 905 (Burlington, Oakville, Mississauga, Brampton, Vaughan, Richmond Hill, Markham, Pickering, Ajax)
-Population: 2,500,000
-Density: 2300/km2

Outer 905 (Milton, Halton Hills, Caledon, Newmarket, Aurora, King, Whitchurch-Stouffville, Georgina, East Gwilimbury, Uxbridge, Brock, Scugog, Clarington, Oshawa, Whitby)
-Population: 700,000
-Density: 1200/km2 (this is basically just a guess)

Rural 905
-Population: 150,000
-Density: low

Let me know if you think my estimates are significantly inaccurate.

 

[Memph]

Much of the new subdivisions in the 905 are quite dense, almost always above 4,000/km2, in fact, there is one census tract in SE Markham that is basically entirely single family homes that has a density of 8,000/km2, although the homes there are quite a bit more modest looking than elsewhere in the 905. Anyways, typically, the density of the new subdivisions are around 4000-6000/km2, so considering how similar that is in density to the neighbourhoods much closer to Downtown Toronto, I don't think significant density increases are needed there. What can happen though, is as these neighbourhoods grow older and there are more empty nesters, 905 municipalities should allow home owners to take on boarders, since most of those homes are very big for only 2 people.

I also don't think it's reasonable for most of this growth to go into Old Toronto, since it's not possible without destroying a big portion of the Victorian rowhouse neighbourhoods. However, with the redevelopment of the Eastern Waterfront and Portlands, other brownfield redevelopments, more condo towers downtown, midrises along Avenues, infill projects, laneway housing and extensions to existing buildings, the densities could increase a fair bit. I think there could be some serious intensification around the future DRL in Old Toronto too, especially since it would go through the newer parts of Old Toronto where the architecture isn't as special. I think the density of Old Toronto could feasibly increase to around 20,000km/2 in this way.

However, that still leaves around 2,800,000 new residents to go elsewhere, that is, in the 416 and 905 suburbs. I think the older parts of the 416 suburbs, basically the neighbourhoods of early postwar bungalows could intensify a fair bit. Many of them have a gridded street network, and the bungalows could be replaced by small multi-unit buildings, gain additions, or get replaced by some townhouses More midrises could be built along major roads, especially those with higher order transit.

A lot of the employment areas in place like the Golden Mile and Mimico have a lot of under-used land, and the used land is no longer just light manufacturing or warehouses, but often retail and offices, which really don't need to be low density. We could take a proactive approach here and build subway lines to bring about a redevelopment of these areas into high density, mixed use neighbourhoods.

With all this intensification, and an increase in residential property taxes more in tune with the rest of the GTA, I think it won't make sense for North Toronto/Midtown to be dominated by single family homes as much as it is today. New York’s East Side used to be made up of mansions, and it was transformed into a neighbourhood of luxury highrises. The transformation wouldn’t have to be as radical, but existing nodes of density could expand a few blocks, new nodes could arise, along with some high density corridors along transit routes. The more historical homes could be turned into luxury condos, the less historical ones could be turned into 3-5 storey multi-unit buildings. In some cases, new buildings could be built in backyards. This sort of small scale intensification should preserve the character of these neighbourhoods as wealthy, leafy enclaves, but still bring about significant population increases more in tune with this scenario for Toronto’s future.

In the rest of the suburbs, I don't think intensification could be as fine grained. Taking the streetcar or bus to Downtown Toronto is no longer feasible; it’s just too far away. Even BRT or LRT would not be especially feasible for getting downtown at these distances, and the road network is pretty saturated so you can’t really have an increase in drivers. In fact, lanes of traffic would likely be lost to transit, bicycles or even pedestrians, especially in Toronto’s core area. I think much of the growth will be around subway and GO train stations, with more small scale intensification along feeder lines.

I think Toronto will also become more polycentric, the Urban Growth Centres are the start of this trend. This will allow residents of the suburbs to have shorter commutes. The transit network would also have to be more polycentric, because to me, transit hub and downtown go hand in hand. An extended subway on Sheppard, Hurontario LRT, Highway 7 BRT/LRT and eventual Finch BRT/LRT will help make this happen. There could be more fine grained intensification along lower order transit lines heading into these secondary downtowns.

 

[Palma]

What's this fascination with condos? I see no reason why single-family homes need to be replaced by condos. There is plenty of room for condos on Avenues etc. But single family houses in the suburbs, I do agree that those 50' lots will in the future probably going 2 - 25' houses which would still be wider than some house in Toronto. This I have no problem with, plus why not even go further and even build 3 storey houses like Victorian houses or 2 1/2 storey houses that exist in Toronto but no where in the suburbs, All you see are bungalows or monstrous 2 storey houses. A house 25 foot wide (with no garage) is wide enough. The backyards just need to be smaller and the house itself could also perhaps by longer. Though lots sizes are typical 100 – 140' in the inner suburbs most of that are backyards. I say reduce the backyard so there is more house but only make it 25' wide and 2 ½ storey or 3 storey

 

[Memph]

What's this fascination with condos? I see no reason why single-family homes need to be replaced by condos. There is plenty of room for condos on Avenues etc.

If you're referring what I said about North Toronto/Midtown's homes being turned into condos, I meant retain the original structure, but have 2 or 3 units (depending on the size of the house) instead of one. It could be apartments too, but considering the neighbourhood, condos seem more likely.

Condo (or apartment) towers downtown make sense, because it’s the only way of bringing downtown’s residential population even remotely close to its working population. This is important because it will allow more of the downtown workers to walk, bike, or take a short transit trip to work, which won’t overburden the transportation system.

Condos in the suburbs make sense around subway and GO train stations, because they don’t have to drive to stations this way, nor take the bus to the stations which could significantly add to their commute length.

But single family houses in the suburbs, I do agree that those 50' lots will in the future probably going 2 - 25' houses which would still be wider than some house in Toronto. This I have no problem with, plus why not even go further and even build 3 storey houses like Victorian houses or 2 1/2 storey houses that exist in Toronto but no where in the suburbs, All you see are bungalows or monstrous 2 storey houses. A house 25 foot wide (with no garage) is wide enough. The backyards just need to be smaller and the house itself could also perhaps by longer. Though lots sizes are typical 100 - 140' in the inner suburbs most of that are backyards. I say reduce the backyard so there is more house but only make it 25' wide and 2 ½ storey or 3 storey

I wouldn’t say they’re all bungalows or huge 2 storeys. Malvern has some very small 2 storey houses with lots as narrow as 20 feet. Neighbourhoods like this one in Agincourt have 2 storey houses that are not especially big. It’s not just the newer 416 neighbourhoods, this one in East York has some 2 storey houses too. But yes, small bungalows are most common in older suburbs, and 2 storey houses are most common in newer ones. However, there are actually some 2 ½ storey houses in Markham and Vaughan, and even a little in Mississauga. 25-40ft wide lots are not uncommon in new subdivisions either, nor are duplexes and townhouses with 20-30ft wide lots.

But really, there are two things about your proposal.

First, I don’t think it makes that much sense to increase density in the more far flung inner suburbs’ bungalow neighbourhoods. Bringing buses or even streetcars to these areas doesn’t make trips to downtown short enough, they’re too far away. Therefore, they need to get downtown, or to other parts of the suburbs by subway, GO train or maybe LRT/BRT (maybe). These are pretty expensive to build, so only a limited number of lines could realistically be built, which means most of the far flung inner suburbs won’t be within close distance of these rapid transit lines. This means bringing more people there would likely just generate more cars on the road. That’s why I think density should be more concentrated around rapid transit, unless there are suburban downtowns that become very large. Right now, they’re still much smaller than downtown Toronto, I think there are something like 20-30,000 jobs in NYCC, while downtown Toronto’s urban growth centre has around 400,000.

Second, if most of this intensification would occur in bungalow neighbourhoods closer to downtown Toronto, places like York, East York or even South Etobicoke, that won’t amount to an especially large increase in population. First, I think these have a total population of around 350,000. Second, they have a fair bit of high-rises and apartments (Mimico Beach/Humber Bay, Crescent Town, Flemingdon Park). Third, it’s not all bungalows, there are a good number of 2 storey houses, and even some duplexes. Third, the bungalows here are closer together than in the more far flung inner suburbs, with frontages typically more around 30ft, sometimes even less (looks like 15ft). I think in these areas, small apartment buildings of 3-5 storeys would be appropriate, and would also provide a mix of incomes/housing types.

By the way, does anyone know what Union Station’s capacity for GO trains is (or will be when renovations are complete)? Depending on how growth would be distributed, its usage could soar.

 

[Memph]

This guy has some interesting ideas. Most of the urban planning crowd in North America when looking at Europe seem to be looking to emulate the big square, great boulevards and large midrises of cities like Paris. However, this guy, who spent a few years in Tokyo believes in a much more fine-grained approach. He thinks the best model is one of narrow streets with no sidewalks and no on-street parking, and with buildings that are mostly detached homes or townhouses with the occasional small apartment, but with little to no setback from the street. The buildings could have moderately wide frontages (25-50ft) and 1 car wide garages. It's an interesting idea that's based of the intimate alleys of European and Asian cities and villages.

It's a little difficult to think of ways it could be implemented in Toronto's existing residential neighbourhoods, but maybe removing frontyard setback bylaws and even selling off parts of the ROWs of sidestreets could be a start, as well as allowing alley housing. For newer neighbourhoods with no alleys though, the lots are too deep... Maybe if it was permitted to build houses in backyards (with access driveways), combined with the selling of parts of ROWs, this could give a built form similar to what Nathan Lewis proposes?

Anyways, he views new urbanist developments like Cornell as new suburbanist... so basically no better than the old suburbs, and most of the North American downtowns as essentially just a higher density variation of the auto-centric design of the suburbs. It's an interesting read.

 

[TrickyRicky]

I think population growth projections for Toronto are way off. I think the region will grow by far less then anticipated.

I also think that that is not a bad thing. We are presently in a period where population growth is being accompanied by a decrease in the average standard of living in this city region. This is not a good thing. While I am in favour of population growth here, I would rather see the population stagnate or decline if we could at the same time increase standard of living measures. Obviously, the ideal scenerio would be both population growth and an increase in the standard of living.