Toronto 41-45 Spadina Road | 55.5m | 15s | ProWinko | a—A

[Northern Light]

It’s not just that it “hasn’t grown” - it has shrunk dramatically and continues to shrink.

Except for that fact that the above is not accurate.

If we review the census data for 'The Annex' in respect of population, we would find the following:

Source: City of Toronto Neighbourhood profiles: "The Annex"

2006: 27, 482
2011: 29, 177
2016: 30, 526

Alternatively, if you take a tighter area as Wikipedia does:

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Annex

You see a population higher than in 2006 and otherwise roughly treading water.

The population density, according to the above is 9,684 per km2, which is double the City average and double the average density of Berlin, Germany.

The idea that this is some empty place with giant tumbleweeds rolling down the streets is way too much, and the area is clearly not in a state of population collapse.

The houses will rollover as the old generation moves into LTCs and passes on ........and young families will take their place, as happens in every area.

Will it again arrive at peak-density within single family homes? Probably not, because the relative value of SFH here is greater in that form, that divided up into rooming houses.
Though some may yet see apartments in basements or on second floors to help pay for mortgages when ownership rolls over.

But I see no reason for panic or lament, that average household size is smaller or that rooming houses are less common.

I'm always fascinated to see people who have never lived in rooming houses and never would, lament them; its a perfectly livable space they say, except, of course, for them or their family.

 

[AlexBozikovic]

This is weirdo semantics. The pattern is clear: the only blocks in this general area that have population growth post-1972 are the ones where new apartment buildings were added. So if you include Yorkville, which is an odd definition, you get an opposite result.

The house areas have shrunk by a lot.

As for current population growth, Wikipedia’s data collation appears to be wrong. censusmapper.ca, which is reliable, shows decline 2011-2016 across the area west of Avenue Road.

None of this is to say that the 45 Spadina project is necessarily great. But “the Annex is plenty dense already, so leave it alone” is a poor argument.

The places in the Annex *that have apartment buildings* are dense.

As @AlvinofDiaspar said, the transition from triplex to single-family has been going on for a generation now, and the only way to counter it is to build bigger buildings.

 

[Northern Light]

This is weirdo semantics. The pattern is clear: the only blocks in this general area that have population growth post-1972 are the ones where new apartment buildings were added. So if you include Yorkville, which is an odd definition, you get an opposite result.

The house areas have shrunk by a lot.

There is nothing semantic about it.

The area has added apartment buildings, so it has added people.

The notion that because it hasn't added people on every single street/block there is a problem is a bit bizarre.

People in apartments count too; I say that as someone who lives in one.

As for current population growth, Wikipedia’s data collation appears to be wrong. censusmapper.ca, which is reliable, shows decline 2011-2016 across the area west of Avenue Road.

The link your provided links to a comparison of 2016-2021. When I examine the link for 2011-2016, I show 2 of the 3 tracts as positive growth.

Population Change 2011 - 2016

This map shows the relative population change between the 2011 and 2016 censuses in each area. Compare this to the map of absolute population change. The population grew in all provinces except in Ne

censusmapper.ca

Suffice to say, we'll agree the overall area is not high growth, but neither is it spiraling downward.

None of this is to say that the 45 Spadina project is necessarily great. But “the Annex is plenty dense already, so leave it alone” is a poor argument.

I certainly did not make that argument.

I simply stated the area is dense (which it is) and is not in a state of population collapse.

I do not oppose additional density in The Annex, I simply want to debate the merits of any given proposal without hyperbole (on either side) and let the facts stands as they are without
and finessing.

The places in the Annex *that have apartment buildings* are dense.

The Annex is one neighbourhood. Your position is extreme, that any area of less crowded Kowloon City density is somehow insufficiently dense. I argue for nuance.

 

[dgto]

The notion that because it hasn't added people on every single street/block there is a problem is a bit bizarre.

You can spin the population figures for the Annex and somehow try to show them in a more positive light. At the end of the day, the lack of growth in the Annex is entirely a policy decision made by planners and elected leaders. There is no reasonable argument in the year 2024 for the City to prevent the redevelopment of low-rise streets in one of the neighbourhoods in the country with the best access to public transit, cycling infrastructure, community services, and local amenities. Every housing unit not built in the Annex is one more housing unit built beside a highway or in a sprawling GTA exurb.