Let cities reach for the sky - Density Issues - Toronto compared

[Parkdalian]

The complaints about too much preservation (as if such a thing were a problem in Toronto!) and shadow and wind bylaws are ridiculous. These bylaws exist to shape development so that the buildings in an urban environment contribute to the city's built form and work together. They also ensure that existing property owners' property values aren't arbitrarily destroyed. Jane Jacobs was also *not* against tall buildings - she lived in New York! She was against planning that deliberately ignored human behaviour in favour of monumentality, which is what some posters on this site seem to want. Cities are places to live in, not postcard views to jizz over.

 

[UrbanAffair]

the complaints about too much preservation (as if such a thing were a problem in toronto!) and shadow and wind bylaws are ridiculous. These bylaws exist to shape development so that the buildings in an urban environment contribute to the city's built form and work together. They also ensure that existing property owners' property values aren't arbitrarily destroyed. Jane jacobs was also *not* against tall buildings - she lived in new york! She was against planning that deliberately ignored human behaviour in favour of monumentality, which is what some posters on this site seem to want. Cities are places to live in, not postcard views to jizz over.

^big +1

 

[NIL OMNI]

They also ensure that existing property owners' property values aren't arbitrarily destroyed.
Cities are places to live in, not postcard views to jizz over.

Sentence 1 - Legitimate issue to be considered. Hmmm... Sentence 2 - Bordering on vulgar, but point taken.

 

[spaced]

The complaints about too much preservation (as if such a thing were a problem in Toronto!) and shadow and wind bylaws are ridiculous. These bylaws exist to shape development so that the buildings in an urban environment contribute to the city's built form and work together. They also ensure that existing property owners' property values aren't arbitrarily destroyed. Jane Jacobs was also *not* against tall buildings - she lived in New York! She was against planning that deliberately ignored human behaviour in favour of monumentality, which is what some posters on this site seem to want. Cities are places to live in, not postcard views to jizz over.

Dead on.
I'd like to add that Jacobs was even for increased density in specific locations such as against 'border vacuums'. And as a community idealist her density recommendations are correct. You can't tell me that people are going act like they are in a neighborhood at Bay and Adelaide (I'm not arguing against it, just trying to make a point for Jacobs). And Parkdalian, your last statement verbalizes something I feel so often on this forum. Thank you.

 

[junctionist]

Jane Jacobs wasn't against high-rise buildings, either, but she is famous for criticizing the towers-in-the-park style of construction. She wasn't some preservation extremist either, but she was against the urban renewal schemes that destroyed traditional urban blocks with many kinds of businesses and housing or entire neighbourhoods and replaced them with poorly functioning and crime-prone housing projects. She rightfully pointed out that older buildings tend to have lower rents than new buildings, allowing for greater diversity of uses. This, in turn, means more people in an area at different times of the day, potentially discouraging crime.

You really have to read her work carefully. I keep hearing that Jane Jacobs made some good points, but 'let's face it, fifty years later a lot of what she said no longer applies'. Actually, most of her writing is still quite relevant. She made timeless observations about how traditional walkable cities function and what threatens them.

 

[condovo]

Lots of Jane Jacobs Kool-Aid drinkers here.

 

[junctionist]

Lots of Jane Jacobs Kool-Aid drinkers here.

I take it you don't have a real response. You shouldn't be surprised; you're living in Jane Jacobs City. I am prepared to defend her greatest work with vigour. I hope you didn't just skim it.

 

[spaced]

Lots of Jane Jacobs Kool-Aid drinkers here.

I find it sits a little easier than the supersized cup of Robert Moses crude.

 

[jetsbackincanada]

I find it sits a little easier than the supersized cup of Robert Moses crude.

Well said, that's hilarious. I'm a little surprised how frequently those names( Jacobs and Moses) get thrown around here, are they more famous in Canada than here??? Most people here don' t know them, yet on UT they're mentioned quite often. Anyone see the Ken Burns documentary on New York. Awesome stuff, with plenty on both of them.

 

[gweed123]

The complaints about too much preservation (as if such a thing were a problem in Toronto!) and shadow and wind bylaws are ridiculous. These bylaws exist to shape development so that the buildings in an urban environment contribute to the city's built form and work together. They also ensure that existing property owners' property values aren't arbitrarily destroyed. Jane Jacobs was also *not* against tall buildings - she lived in New York! She was against planning that deliberately ignored human behaviour in favour of monumentality, which is what some posters on this site seem to want. Cities are places to live in, not postcard views to jizz over.

Exactly. I don't see Jane Jacobs so much as an "we need to limit height, maintain old neighbourhoods exactly as they are" etc etc etc, I see her more as the counter-balance to the 50s and 60s ideas in planning of "We know better than you do. Wipe the slate clean. Out with the old, in with the new". That era saw countless vibrant neighbourhoods literally bulldozed to the ground in favour of "modern planning". 50 years later, those same neighbourhoods are up for redevelopment into something less sterile, while the neighbourhoods that survived that purge are flourishing.

The way I see it, Jane's main goal was to preserve street life. It didn't really matter how tall the building was, as long as it gave a presence and a life to the street it was fronting onto. The thing with "monuments" is that they are usually un-inviting and sterile. THAT'S where her issue came in. Same thing with the "towers in the park" concept. They added nothing to the streetlife, and in fact were very detrimental to streetlife.

In short, Jane wasn't about the buildings, she was about the street.

PS: I think it would be a fitting tribute to Jane, if Toronto ever built an urban pedestrian mall, if it was named after her. For someone who valued pedestrians and street life as much as her, I would think that would be fitting.

 

[E.B.]

I haven't read Glaeser's book, but if that is one of his arguments, he's done some sloppy scholarship. Jane Jacobs was writing in 1961, when the overwhelming majority of residential highrise buildings that were being built in North America were tower-in-the-park developments that obliterated fully functioning city blocks and replaced the environment with some nondescript towers surrounded by grass. It's ludicrous to compare the state of residential highrises in 2011 to what they were 50 years ago.

I don't think he was sloppy. He states in the article the following:

Prof. Glaeser notes that when early-20th-century real estate developers were trying to build on New York’s Fifth Avenue, then a street of stately mansions, opponents wanted a height cap of 125 feet. Without it, they said, the street would become a soulless canyon and property values would crash. Today it is one of the liveliest and most valuable avenues in the world.

I think he has some credibility on the subject as he has published at a rate of almost five articles per year since 1992 in leading peer-reviewed academic economics journals, in addition to many other books, articles, blogs, and op-eds. He's made substantial contributions to the empirical study of urban economics. In particular, his work examining the historical evolution of economic hubs like Boston and New York City has had major influence on both economics and urban geography.

 

[johnwood]

Trump today:

i kind of like this pic, most pics of toronto make the city look like winnipeg and i cant wait to see CP3 in this pic.

 

[Bogtrotter]

Nice pan. Aura should help bridge the gap. What's the distance between the FD and Bloor anyway- about 2K is it?

Most pics make TO look like Winnipeg...?

 

[Automation Gallery]

Come on, Winnipeg is a dump with a 1/2 dozen out dated hi-rises.

 

[johnwood]

Come on, Winnipeg is a dump with a 1/2 dozen out dated hi-rises.

what do you think of winnipeg now compared to toronto, some similarities at the least.