Toronto Forma | 308m | 84s | Great Gulf | Gehry Partners

[diminutive]

You couldn't be more wrong. China is overbuilding to a degree matched by no one. Tens of millions of apartments sit empty and entire cities are ghost towns except for the cranes on the horizons. It can be considered a make work project to keep citizens employed and the economy turning.

The 'Chinese ghost city' meme is pretty much a phenomenon of the internet. Outside of Ordos I haven't seen any big evidence of 'ghost cities', and nothing anywhere along the populated coastal regions. (Ordos is in Mongolia).

Again, 300m people are expected to move to Chinese cities, most of which are already overpopulated by our standards. Proportionately, looking at Ordos and arguing that China is plagued by 'ghost towns' would akin to saying Toronto is overbuilding because a subdivision in Sudbury is empty. There's urbanization here on a scale which is soo far beyond anything experienced in North America or Europe. Even an authoritarian system like China, which tries very much to limit or slow this migration, has to go to drastic steps to ensure a huge expansion of the housing supply.

From our perspective it looks like an authoritarian government stepping on local property rights to go ahead with massively out of proportion housing developments, Le Corbusier on roids. And it is. But it would totally impossible to tell these 300million peasants that they can't move to cities and get rich(er) because of some kind of Jane Jacobsian view of what a city should be like.

The same thing happened in other East Asian cities when they went through their rural-urban shift. Grantham launched Hong Kong's massive housing developments in response to the Shek Kip Mei fire, but underlying that was massive overpopulation and a resulting sociopolitical instability which could only be fixed through a kind of Corbusier-scaled public housing drive. Same for Singapore, where home ownership is (correctly) seen by the government as necessary to maintain sociopolitical stability and is achieved through Corbusier-scale development.

North America for its part opted for a huge expansion of suburban subdivision. And while the dominant, post Jacobs, view of that is largely negative for many good reasons, it seems implausible that our own rural-urban migration and baby boom could have been accommodated within a Jacobsian urban context. Not everyone was going to fit into the Annex or Greenwhich Village without destroying them.

P.S. Just to be very clear, I'm sure the Chinese planning process is utter crap and much corruption exists. Make work projects and other kinds of clientelistic patterns. Nonetheless, the argument I was responding too (that urban development in China proceeds recklessly and to the detriment of urban fabric) has a huge amount of unknowing first-world-privilege built into it; any Chinese regime which wanted to avoid shantytowns and keep up with migration will be forced to build on an unprecedented scale. And yes, it is pure Western privilege that lets someone think luxuries promoted by Vaughan and such should be prioritized in China over a massive housing expansion.

 

[RC8]

From our perspective it looks like an authoritarian government stepping on local property rights to go ahead with massively out of proportion housing developments, Le Corbusier on roids. And it is. But it would totally impossible to tell these 300million peasants that they can't move to cities and get rich(er) because of some kind of Jane Jacobsian view of what a city should be like.

The same thing happened in other East Asian cities when they went through their rural-urban shift. Grantham launched Hong Kong's massive housing developments in response to the Shek Kip Mei fire, but underlying that was massive overpopulation and a resulting sociopolitical instability which could only be fixed through a kind of Corbusier-scaled public housing drive. Same for Singapore, where home ownership is (correctly) seen by the government as necessary to maintain sociopolitical stability and is achieved through Corbusier-scale development.

North America for its part opted for a huge expansion of suburban subdivision. And while the dominant, post Jacobs, view of that is largely negative for many good reasons, it seems implausible that our own rural-urban migration and baby boom could have been accommodated within a Jacobsian urban context. Not everyone was going to fit into the Annex or Greenwhich Village without destroying them.

North America could have very well opted to build mid-rise neighbourhoods served by both car-infrastructure and public transit where present suburbs lie.

In fact, most of those who feel unsure about this project here at Urban Toronto would happily see densification along Toronto's arterials in the form of mid-rise buildings.

I'll go one step further and suggest that this project wouldn't have any opposition here in Urban Toronto if it didn't involve destroying several examples of functional mid-rise buildings with historical significance.

 

[adma]

Y'know, a lot of this sprawl-vs-intensification discussion is verging upon the wildly off-topic. And if I may drag back my past gendered-urbanism arguments within this very thread, it also seems very, uh, "penis-sy". Ed Glaeser as the Tom Of Finland of urban gurus, IOW...

 

[diminutive]

North America could have very well opted to build mid-rise neighbourhoods served by both car-infrastructure and public transit where present suburbs lie.

That's debatable given the various economic problems with midrise construction, but it misses my fundamental point which was that the population boom require huge amounts of new housing units. Whether through East Asian style high rises or North American suburbia, or even a kind of mid-rise solution, this surge of housing would necessarily be hugely insensitive to whatever previously occupied the land (farms, existing urban areas...) The footprint of those impacted areas would be proportional to the density of the new housing stock.

Certainly, most suburban designs here were very poor.

In fact, most of those who feel unsure about this project here at Urban Toronto would happily see densification along Toronto's arterials in the form of mid-rise buildings.

Again, in Toronto's regulatory climate, midrise development is more difficult than high-rise. You've got essentially all of the fixed costs of highrise construction, but spread over fewer units. From what I understand, the sweet spot seems to be around 30-40 stories.

Nonetheless, it's also true that this 'midrise' development/densification in other parts of the City is way more prone to attract criticism. Look at projects along Ossington or in the Beaches. Very controversial. And those opponents use exactly the same argument as you do. "[X project] is destroying several examples of functional mid-rise buildings" simply becomes "[Y project] is destroying several examples of functional low-rise buildings." As the city runs out of parking lots, almost every single new building will inherently involve destroying a functional building with historical significance, or pushing further into greenspace with its own function and historical significance.

I do agree though, and have said so elsewhere, that the current situation encourages over-development in the core in the relative, though not absolute, sense. Well over 75% of the City, probably more, is either off limits to development or strongly protected, resulting in almost all new units being located in this core area. And, looking at housing prices, condos haven't appreciated anywhere near as fast as single family homes for this reason. Insofar as Vaughan et al complain about the need to attract families to urban living, there is an under focus on increasing the supply of 'homes' in the city, which is where you see the real affordability issues.

It's not like families are being priced out of Clubland or Cityplace, where almost none of them want to live anyways, they are being priced out of the Annex and the Beaches and Riverdale.

 

[RC8]

Regulatory issues are just that. If we wanted (and if North America had wanted back in the day) to build mid-rise neighbourhoods instead of low or high rise structures, we would have adapted our regulations for it and moved ahead.

Low-rise buildings are rarely functional. Mid-rise buildings are usually much more efficient than high rise and low rise buildings.

Low-rise buildings lose much of their heat to their surroundings and require lots of transportation infrastructure to be viable (since they inevitable lead to low densities requiring vast expanses of land). High-rise buildings require sophisticated pumps, large hallways that need be lit at all times, fancy fire-alarm systems, and lots of elevators.

One way or another, density is a good thing, but it would be great if as well as re-building our downtown every so many years we could also build beautiful family-friendly mid-rise neighbourhoods south of Eglinton.

 

[diminutive]

Regulatory issues are just that. If we wanted (and if North America had wanted back in the day) to build mid-rise neighbourhoods instead of low or high rise structures, we would have adapted our regulations for it and moved ahead. Low-rise buildings are rarely functional. Mid-rise buildings are usually much more efficient than high rise and low rise buildings. Low-rise buildings lose much of their heat to their surroundings and require lots of transportation infrastructure to be viable (since they inevitable lead to low densities requiring vast expanses of land). High-rise buildings require sophisticated pumps, large hallways that need be lit at all times, fancy fire-alarm systems, and lots of elevators.

I'm a bit confused by what you mean as 'midrise buildings.' I conventionally assume 4-8 levels, and without a 'tower' shape. I forget the exact regulations, but all midrise buildings built nowadays have most of the same requirements as highrises (elevators, hallways, fire alarm and sprinkler systems, expensive construction), just spread over fewer units. You can brush them off as just silly regulations, and to some extent they are, but the days of the four storey walkups are gone.

This is totally tangential to the topic at hand, though. It's not like there is some obvious choice between 'midrise' development and this Gehry proposal. As a City, we've decided both that we want to keep growing AND we wan't >75% of the City not to change very much. The only way to accommodate that is for the other 25% of the City to change.

One way or another, density is a good thing, but it would be great if as well as re-building our downtown every so many years we could also build beautiful family-friendly mid-rise neighbourhoods south of Eglinton.

I actually agree totally. I think it's really weird that we build 50 storey condo buildings at Y/Eg only to have low-density houses a block over.

But the condo follows from the decision not to touch those houses.

 

[brockm]

Y'know, a lot of this sprawl-vs-intensification discussion is verging upon the wildly off-topic. And if I may drag back my past gendered-urbanism arguments within this very thread, it also seems very, uh, "penis-sy". Ed Glaeser as the Tom Of Finland of urban gurus, IOW...

Given these are proposed buildings and there is active controversy around whether or not they should be approved by the city, this seems like a perfectly on-topic discussion.

 

[E.B.]

This is an interesting debate, and probably the right one to be having. I want these towers built as planned because I think it's a huge opportunity for this city and we don't know when an opportunity like this will come along again. I believe they will be magnificent as finished products.

That said, it seems that this debate isn't really about these towers, it's about highrise development in general. These towers have just become very high profile symbols of the condo boom. I agree that we need to look closely at infrastructure, but let's not throw out this opportunity while we figure everything out. We're not yet that close to saturation that we need to panic. There's still room for growth.

Infrastructure will get built when the need is so great that we have no other choice, and likely not before then. Toronto's agonizing history of public transit false starts is all the proof we need that planning ahead for big capital projects simply doesn't work with the political structure we have. I wish it did, but it doesn't. So, while downtown congestion might get worse before it gets better, eventually we'll have no choice but to address it. The more development, the closer we get to that tipping point. I say bring it on. Cities around the world would kill for the chance to experience this kind of renaissance. We should embrace this.

How did NYC & Chicago start their intensification? Was infrastructure built first? and how are they dealing with it?

 

[Oliver Tweed]

How did NYC & Chicago start their intensification? Was infrastructure built first? and how are they dealing with it?

Wish I knew, but my understanding of both cities is that they had much larger populations (particularly New York) far earlier than Toronto, and density was much higher as well. New York built its first subway in 1904.

 

[Grump]

A little OT, but does anyone know anything about this building? I saw it mentioned in an article about Toronto skyscrapers.


http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/news/headline_news/2012/11/05/4744.html

 

[freshcutgrass]

How did NYC & Chicago start their intensification? Was infrastructure built first? and how are they dealing with it

?

It isn't a chicken or egg situation....it's who's job is who's.

There's the job of the private sector, and there's the job of the city. The job of the city is to make sure the infrastructure it is responsible for is kept up to meet the demands of the built form provided by the private sector.

It may be part of the city's job to determine or shape what the built form may be, but it is bad policy to curtail development because you lack the courage to build the necessary infrastructure.

And that's what we have in this city. Infrastructure requires tax dollars to build, and politicians in this city are too afraid to raise tax dollars. That's why we pretend that if we stifle development, they will not have to do it. This is of course stupid on several levels. But Toronto has been especially delusional lately....we actually think we can have it all and freeze taxes at the same time. We believe in magic.

NYC & Chicago are poor examples, as they are highly corrupt and essentially bankrupt municipalities. The NYC transit system runs on a budget the size of the entire City of Toronto budget (that includes the TTC), and has debt far beyond what Toronto has. In fact, NYC's municipal government isn't even responsible for transit.

But Toronto is financially very healthy, comparatively speaking, and can indeed afford to invest in infrastructure. In fact, we can't afford to waste any more time avoiding it.

 

[balenciaga]

I actually agree totally. I think it's really weird that we build 50 storey condo buildings at Y/Eg only to have low-density houses a block over.

But the condo follows from the decision not to touch those houses.

Can't agree more.
While you have 50+ story towers at Yonge/Eglinton, all you see on Soudan Ave, Duplex Ave etc steps away from the intersections are 2 story houses making the area looking like a pure suburb in Collingwood. Toronto south of Eglinton ave between high park and say the beaches is incredible sparsely populated, even after all the towers under construction and being proposed are finished and filled with people. The more sustainable way is to increase the density of this area, let midrise buildings (6-12) replace those fre**** bangalows and two stories with backyards. We can't afford having so many low rises in downtown and midtown.

Victorian houses are NOT precious and untouchable. The whole city, the whole country is full of them. The city should acquire them block by black and replace them with mid rise apartment buildings to build a sustainable city. Right now, we have a downtown and the gigantic suburbs north of Bloor and people are forced to live 20km away from work because land is used up and those low rise houses cost a leg and arm.

 

[balenciaga]

One way or another, density is a good thing, but it would be great if as well as re-building our downtown every so many years we could also build beautiful family-friendly mid-rise neighbourhoods south of Eglinton.

it is a good idea, but how to convince suburban minded Torontonians to give up their idyllic expection for a single family house, not sharing a wall not to say ceiling and floors with neighbours, with a backyard, a garden and a two car garage? Before that expectation is completely crushed, nothing can be achieved.

 

[Hanlansboy]

A little OT, but does anyone know anything about this building? I saw it mentioned in an article about Toronto skyscrapers.


http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/news/headline_news/2012/11/05/4744.html

It's not an actual project, it's a concept for urban farming, each floor being its own green house, the idea being able to feed our ever increasing population as farm land is being sold and turned into urban sprawl. It's a terrific idea, and I believe, a necessary one soon then later. They wanted to build it on top of the Ontario Food Terminal off the Queensway, would be surprised if we see something like it being built with in the next decade.

 

[TrickyRicky]

balenciaga, perhaps this is not the thread to discuss such matters but the kind of solution you propose is exactly the opposite of what Toronto is all about. I'm not talking about built form, but the idea or process of expropriation and forcing people to conform against their will. People are not bad for wanting to live in their own low-rise single-family home. They are just standard people doing what gives standard people a higher standard of living based on what they believe to be their best interests. Higher density living only makes sense as a trade-off for the additional benefits a city provides. In an ideal world everyone would live in their own low-rise house, it's just that once a community reaches a certain size the cost-benefit equation of this choice becomes more complex.

Let's show people that denser living options are viable and attractive by setting an example and improving the environment of our denser city areas. Let's not tell people what they should or should not do.