Land use implications of Transit City

[timeo]

So, being a provider of public transportation, the TTC probably doesn't naturally spend an inordinate amount of time pondering the impacts that service upgrades have on the nearby built environment, but I was wondering if there have been any studies or reports done on the impacts that Transit City will have on land use and the built environment.

I know that in some of the Transit City documents, there's mention of existing land uses (for example the Don Mills LRT factors the number of businesses, the number of people etc in whether the LRT should travel along Broadview, Bayview or Pape), but aside from this and a mention of the Finch LRT and why it doesn't go on the hydro corridor instead vs on Finch Ave., there doesn't seem to be much in the way of land use implications of the entire project.

Have I just not been searching hard enough or have there been no studies on this? Given the emphasis on transit-oriented development these days, I would've thought that the city or the TTC would have looked into this already. If anybody can point me out in the right direction, or start a discussion on this, that'd be fabulous! Thanks.

 

[kettal]

I think that is outside the scope of the Environmental Assessment process, and the TTC itself.

You can read a lot more about the Avenues scheme in the City of Toronto Official Plan document:

http://www.toronto.ca/planning/official_plan/pdf_chapter1-5/chapters1_5_aug2007.pdf

Read Section 2.2.3 - Avenues: Reurbanizing Arterial Corridors

 

[timeo]

Thanks kettal, I looked into the Avenues section briefly before, but it seemed for all intents and purposes, just a statement of goals and visions (it is the Official Plan after all I suppose), encouraging things like Transit City but didn't talk specifically about how those things would impact the city. So I take it that there aren't really any hard numbers eh?

 

[kettal]

Hmm, there was a Conference a few weeks ago which was about exactly this. It was called "Designing Transit Cities". I didn't attend myself unfortunately, but perhaps someone who did attend can give you more info.

Here is the thread about the conference: http://urbantoronto.ca/showthread.php?t=10428

 

[RedRocket191]

I think we can say the land around stations will increase in value, and existing landowners will be tempted to sell to developers. In order to recoup the higher purchase price, they will have to build higher density to developments to sell a greater number of units. Some owners will not sell and will develop themselves, hoping to use the LRT as an attraction to sell a greater number of units. Either way, densities will go up - though how quickly is anybody's guess.

The one question that I'm interested in seeing is:

Whereas the city has set forth height and density limits along the avenues to keep the developments "pedestrian scale", will developers be able to build profitable buildings within those restrictions?

 

[scarberiankhatru]

For better or for worse, the city is rewriting the official plan to accommodate Transit City's new Avenues. In some places, Avenues developments will result in lower densities than what might have happened otherwise because of all the highrise clusters that will be expanded/infilled with 3-8 storey buildings rather than 30 storeys. This is because some people literally believe we can recreate Paris and create thriving streets filled with cafes and galleries just by limiting building heights to a specific range.

Also, if land values do go up, dwellings with large household sizes could be affected, with large families replaced by singles, retirees, and/or yuppies and their minimal offspring. This could also lower densities even if many new residential units are added.

If Avenues are forged through industrial areas, like, for instance, Sheppard between Agincourt and Malvern, it could result in residential uses being proposed/approved on employment lands followed by OMB battles galore. The city creates unique Avenues plans for each Avenue, so it's not like there's some cookie cutter template being followed. There's 'stable' areas and parks and schools and strip malls and municipal lands and industrial parks and it's impossible to say what will become of every property even if the whole street is 'Avenueized' or even if development will be 3 storey townhouses or 8 storey condos with retail/offices. 'Avenues' does refer to land use, but in a general residential-plus-assorted-commercial way, not to anything specific or all that useful. Developers like Tridel will end up with the lion's share of real control over how Avenues are implemented.

Mind you, transit improvements alone do not always have any actual impact on development...light rail does not have any kind of unique relation to development.

It'll be interesting to see if the city tries to push development on new Transit City Avenues or if it lets nature take its course, as they've done with currently emerging Avenues like Sheppard West and Finch West west of Yonge.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Here's a sampling of what the powers-that-be wish to happen with the Spadina HRT subway extension into Vaughan. While HRT expects high density development, and LRT expects medium density, they are both similar in wishing more denser development to follow.

This is what they expect on opening day:

And what they expect after transit oriented development happens:

Currently, it is automobile oriented with all those parking lots. No pedestrians.

 

[waterloowarrior]

For Transit City/Avenues, the plan seems to be to rezone the properties along the mainstreet/avenue for higher density (height depends on the ROW of the street and if its at a main corner). A key issue for the older areas is the fractured land ownership, as you can see by the size of the parcels. It appears as though the rest of the area that's not facing the mainstreet will remain as stable neighbourhoods (singles and semis)

 

[wyliepoon]

A possible model for Avenues-type development along Sheppard East could be those two rental buildings being built for Emerald City across from Fairview Mall. I can see owners of strip malls and "towers in parks" all along Sheppard East trying to emulate it to cash in on the LRT.

 

[drum118]

I have never been a supporter of stand alone buildings and buildings set more than 7m from the street edge.

By having continue base covering the whole block or most of it, you create a more pedestrian feel as you have something to look at as you walk along the street.

I do not support the 1:1 ratio for height base on the street width, but do support a height that requires building to do a set back as it goes higher. In various location you can have that shear wall.

At the same time, you cannot have retail at the base of these building as there not enough business to support it in the first place. Look at St Clair, Dundas, Queen or King and you will see high turn over of business as well store empty. This was before the recession.

There needs to be tall buildings like 500-530 St Clair along Avenues.

Density is needed more than before as you need the space to put people without creating more sprawl and to support transit in the first place.

You need green space also.

As much as the City sets the Official plan, sometimes those plans are not a good plan in the first place.

We need to start changing how people live and travel as we have destroy this world in 100 years with the car, than all the years man has been around.

Type of transit and land use go hand in hand. Buses are at the low end where heavy rail is at the top end.

Was talking to a women on St Clair today while waiting for the bus and she said she would never live on any transit line other than a subway. Same goes shopping or work.

By rights, we need 500pop/ha to support buses if you have a low model split.

How to change that model split is not going to be easy, but within the next few years, the cost of oil is going to do that. We already had a taste, but $2+ a liter is going to be the start point.

As a point to land use, take a look at the Danforth going east of Greenwood and see how it goes downhill from there. It has had a subway there since the 60's. It does not have much going for it now compare to North York Centre that was worse off than this area was before the subway came, let along not having a station at the time. NYC sees 25,000+ riders a day and that more than most the station combine along Danforth.

 

[kettal]

Whereas the city has set forth height and density limits along the avenues to keep the developments "pedestrian scale", will developers be able to build profitable buildings within those restrictions?

Well, no developer will pay skyscraper prices to buy land with a height restriction. And if they do, they deserve to lose money.

 

[Tdot_one]

The thing I don't understand is that these avenue development seem geared to high income markets. That segment are still likely to drive cars, despite being close to PT, while low and very low income Torontonians (who make up the majority of city pop) are more reliable users.

In addition, car dependent life styles are very costly for that segment as well. That's especially the case for young mothers who should be closer to PT.

 

[kettal]

The thing I don't understand is that these avenue development seem geared to high income markets.

Should it be designed more slum-like instead?

 

[toraerach]

The thing I don't understand is that these avenue development seem geared to high income markets. That segment are still likely to drive cars, despite being close to PT, while low and very low income Torontonians (who make up the majority of city pop) are more reliable users.

In addition, car dependent life styles are very costly for that segment as well. That's especially the case for young mothers who should be closer to PT.

Developers are in it to make money, not make sure the people who rely on transit live close to it. There's very little the city can do to change this except continue to expand the transit network - if it's no longer a luxury to live close to rapid transit, prices won't be so high.

That said, not all redevelopment will happen at once and will probably take decades. In that time, neighbourhoods and housing prices can change dramatically. Some of the areas developed earlier on will become less expensive, others more. This depends on a wide variety of things the city has little control over (the area's reputation, for example).

Some areas probably won't change that much at all for a very very long time - the parts of the TC network furthest from the subway, for example.

 

[Tdot_one]

Should it be designed more slum-like instead?

I never knew Amsterdam neighborhood were slums, considering how much of the housing stock is government subsidized. That laid back feeling is the result of that not yuppies or their other high income kins.

Point is, this is just going to isolate much of the lower income clusters who are better served by being connected to subway services. People usually wouldn't take a bus to head to an LRT line. Trams were part of vibrant lower income areas, however, selective development is going to spike up prices. I wonder if the zoning involving the Tower Renewal Project would be significant.