yyzer
Senior Member
at a certain basic level, all single family housing is anti-urban - even old Victorians.....
/just sayin....
/just sayin....
Toronto Chelsea Green (was 33 Gerrard) | 297.25m | 90s | Great Eagle | a—A
- Thread starter markel
- Start date
Skeezix
Senior Member
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2007
- Messages
- 4,343
- Reaction score
- 2,688
- Location
- East of this, west of that
I wouldn't agree with that. Walkable neighbourhoods built before the car are anti-urban? Nonsense.
ksun
Senior Member
I agree we probably should preserve some Victorian houses of the best quality in some areas, but in reality, there are simply too many of them in Toronto occupying too much valuable land very close to downtown. For example, I always have huge problems with the layout and build form of Rosedale - why is it untouchable? How stupid is that? Its layout and function are extremely suburban in nature -namely winding streets with many dead-ends, pure residential, low density etc, yet within easy walking/biking distance to the core!
The Danforth? Leslieville? Moore Park? Casa Loma? It is ridiculous how large they are considering the severe rental shortage mentioned above. I am fine with small pockets of such build form such as the Annex or a few streets in Cabbagetown, but it is ridiculous to assume old Victorian neighbourhoods should be untouchable when tens of thousands don't have affordable housing or have to commute 4 hours every day because there is no land for develop near the core.
We talk about "mixed-income" all the time. But why does it only apply to condos? We keep arguing the city should provide affordable units in luxury new condos, but when it comes to Victorian houses, most of us seems to be completely fine with them being utterly high income neighbourhoods. If one doesn't inherit a fortune, who the hell would ever be able to own a house in Rosedale or Forest Hill?
ChesterCopperpot
Senior Member
just knock the whole thing down and start over, eh?
ksun
Senior Member
Walkable?
Let's see. Are neighbourhoods such as Rosedale walkable? In theory yes, because it is so damn close to Yonge/Bloor, but how many of those residents live walkable lives and don't depend on cars? Does the layout of the streets with all the cul-de-sac encourage public transport? They do look picturesque but that doesn't hide the fact that they are anti-urban and the worst use of land.
ksun
Senior Member
or keep letting only the wealthy 1% monopolize them just because we love how those old houses look.
Something needs to be done to increase housing supply and bring non-rich people in.
Lenser
Senior Member
Ksun, advocating for the non-rich. Somebody pinch me.
yyzer
Senior Member
A lot of UTers are quick to point to places like Paris and Barcelona as examples of exceptional urbanity... but let me ask you, how many single-family homes exist in the cores of cities like that? Answer - almost none... the truth is, it's the density from multi-family dwellings that is one of the underpinnings that has helped to create the urban experience that we all love in European cities (among many other factors)..
Just because a street is walkable, doesn't mean it has reached its maximum urbanity...
Having said that, we have more in common with Manhattan or Chicago, than we do with Paris or Barcelona.
Skeezix
Senior Member
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2007
- Messages
- 4,343
- Reaction score
- 2,688
- Location
- East of this, west of that
So? How is any of that relevant to your point above, which I questioned? The fact that there are different kinds of urbanity does not support your theory that "all single family housing is anti-urban - even old Victorians".
Of course these neighbourhoods are urban. In fact, these neighbourhoods represent a very successful form of urban development. That doesn't cease to be the case because someone can reasonably theorize that another form of urban development might be more desirable.
What's "maximum urbanity"? Toronto's quintessential walkable urban neighbourhoods aren't urban because they haven't reached "maximum urbanity"? Is "maximum urbanity" a minimum or a ceiling? How is it calculated? Do we need to bulldoze large swaths of Paris or Barcelona because they still have a ways to go to hit the "maximum urbanity" of, say, Hong Kong? An environment isn't urban unless it's reached this threshold of "maximum urbanity"?
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
What concerns me is beyond just built form - but the fact that high-value housing will lock in the land use patterns for all intents and purposes eternity in the current climate - and this will have implications as to where and how we build/densify as time moves on.
No, but low density neighbourhoods are inefficient to service (think transit), and it does restrict the natural growth outward from the core. Right now we had benefitted from vacant/transitional land to increase the overall density - but that will not be around once used up, and I am not sure if the Avenues scheme alone is sufficient.
AoD
Last edited:
yyzer
Senior Member
I am not sure I want to get into a debate with you, Skeezix... I think it's intuitively obvious that a street with 10 houses on it, where 10 families live, is less urban than the same street with denser built form, where 100 families live...
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Well no, but maybe it is time to release at least some development pressure on single and semi-detached housing stock.
As to the label "urban" - I think it is unconstructive to frame it as urban vs. not urban (because both are) - but frame it as the acceptance that 2s housing in a mature neighbourhood isn't the only way to be it, not should it necessarily be the endpoint by default.
To some extent, we force development in the immediate downtown area precisely because it is the path of least resistance. Just look at the OP landuse map for the Core/Shoulder area.
AoD
Last edited:
ksun
Senior Member
I am not rich and never talk for the rich. I just don't support the poor every time as if they are always the victim of some sort of social injustice. that's all.
In reality, despite the seemingly omnipresent highrises which often rise to 40-70s tall in the more dense old city of Toronto (let's put the inner suburbs aside), we have a density less than half of Barcelona and one third of Paris, which have no towers. "maximum urbanity" may not be an ideal term, but it is rather obvious to me (and maybe others) that the existence of so many low rise houses in central Toronto hurts its urbanity and vibrancy greatly. Again, look at Bathurst and Jarvis as well as any street outside downtown that is not Yonge or Bloor/Danforth. In Barcelona and Paris (which happen to be my two favourite cities), most streets are lined with small retail because the density is sufficient to support that. These two cities function as if the entire city of Toronto are like the St Lawrence Market area., which I think is a much superior way of urban life.
Lenser
Senior Member
It's bound to develop differently in Toronto. The way I see it, the truly wealthy will continue to buy into their Rosedale/Forest Hill/Bridal Path etc. enclaves because those neighbourhoods are, more than ever, conspicuous signs of privilege and status. Meanwhile, the rest of us have already begun to embrace cozier living circumstances.... not just cozier but ever more vertical and densely-packed. With real estate values being what they are - not to mention the relative stagnation of our public transit situation - it's inevitable. That said, I think there's room in this city for both old, well established, beautifully groomed low-rise neighbourhoods and the more modern response to contemporary urban realities - namely, beefy mid-rises and ever more condo towers, with a plethora of retail options at ground level.
Yes, there are increased pressures to build up parts of the city that have been long-neglected and are overdue for some aggressive redevelopment. But urgent clamouring for the city to raze all low-rise in the core - really? Sounds like throwing the baby out with the bathwater to me. It should be pretty obvious by now that even the wealthy low-rise enclaves are seeing mid-rise and higher developments occurring at their edges, slowly but surely hemming them in and delineating how "different" they are. That said, I certainly don't expect to see them disappear in my lifetime. And I'm fine with that.... the built form of Toronto is varied in both scale and appearance - and that's not an unpleasant thing.
Yes, there are increased pressures to build up parts of the city that have been long-neglected and are overdue for some aggressive redevelopment. But urgent clamouring for the city to raze all low-rise in the core - really? Sounds like throwing the baby out with the bathwater to me. It should be pretty obvious by now that even the wealthy low-rise enclaves are seeing mid-rise and higher developments occurring at their edges, slowly but surely hemming them in and delineating how "different" they are. That said, I certainly don't expect to see them disappear in my lifetime. And I'm fine with that.... the built form of Toronto is varied in both scale and appearance - and that's not an unpleasant thing.
67Cup
Active Member
The older inner residential areas of Toronto give the city some of its loveliest neighborhoods. They also give the city a character which is not the same as Paris or Barcelona but which is distinctive and valuable in many senses of the word. There is lots of room for increased density without demolishing those areas. Rebuild Eglinton East before ruining Rosedale, for example.