HousingNowTO
Senior Member
Selected PDF slides from last week's virtual meeting with Infrastructure Ontario -
Toronto Lawrence East Transit-Oriented Community | 132m | 36s | Infrastructure ON | Weston Williamson
- Thread starter artyboy123
- Start date
Northern Light
Superstar
Thanks for the above @HousingNowTO.
I've mentioned this before, but the ToC here is a very incomplete thought.
The density here underwhelms (in the node in general), and there is simply too much SFH left too close to the intersection and the existing ToC proposal.
Poster/readers will know I have concerns w/plopping down 20s buildings in the midst of a sea of SFH (interior); not just for reasons of politics, but because its further from transit, and main street retail etc.
But were, we're leaving SFH both on the main streets (Lawrence and McCowan), but also immediately adjacent such that intensification on those main streets is adversely impacted.
I'm not sold on that. I realize there's extra planning involved, but to me this (and the ToC) merit complete thoughts. One might reasonably ask exactly how far the greater density should be pushed out, and could debate that. Surely, though, we could agree on at least 300M from the station, along the main arterials, excepting parks or heritage buildings etc.
It also doesn't make sense to then drop from 35s towers to single-storey or 2-storey SFH with a hard drop. There should be a transition zone, this not only creates additional density within the buffer but allows greater density on the arterials themselves.
What I'd like to see is the province pushed to designate where it would like to see greater density and to lay out any requisite changes to the grid, it needn't be the owner/developer of all of it, but should probably take on more to recover the costs of evolving the infrastructure to support the development.
This is what I have in mind:
Red is additional high density; Lime green is transitional/buffer/medium density, the blue/purple is new grid--based roads, the dark green would feature a central tableland park and replace the existing community recreation centre; it might also include a relocated library from just to the south. I unintentionally omitted the remaining commercial on Lawrence in the south-west block that should also be high density.
Quick back of the envelope, add, 3,500 units in high density, plus additional retail.
Add, 500 new units in buffer zone (conservative, and takes into account housing removed for the roads and park)
Total gain ~4,000 units, so far, but my model also adds 150 units to the existing proposal now buffered by more high and medium density.
So 4,150 units net new.
* above, I assumed transitional housing ranges from 5-storeys directly opposite SFH to 12s opposite high density.
I've mentioned this before, but the ToC here is a very incomplete thought.
The density here underwhelms (in the node in general), and there is simply too much SFH left too close to the intersection and the existing ToC proposal.
Poster/readers will know I have concerns w/plopping down 20s buildings in the midst of a sea of SFH (interior); not just for reasons of politics, but because its further from transit, and main street retail etc.
But were, we're leaving SFH both on the main streets (Lawrence and McCowan), but also immediately adjacent such that intensification on those main streets is adversely impacted.
I'm not sold on that. I realize there's extra planning involved, but to me this (and the ToC) merit complete thoughts. One might reasonably ask exactly how far the greater density should be pushed out, and could debate that. Surely, though, we could agree on at least 300M from the station, along the main arterials, excepting parks or heritage buildings etc.
It also doesn't make sense to then drop from 35s towers to single-storey or 2-storey SFH with a hard drop. There should be a transition zone, this not only creates additional density within the buffer but allows greater density on the arterials themselves.
What I'd like to see is the province pushed to designate where it would like to see greater density and to lay out any requisite changes to the grid, it needn't be the owner/developer of all of it, but should probably take on more to recover the costs of evolving the infrastructure to support the development.
This is what I have in mind:
Red is additional high density; Lime green is transitional/buffer/medium density, the blue/purple is new grid--based roads, the dark green would feature a central tableland park and replace the existing community recreation centre; it might also include a relocated library from just to the south. I unintentionally omitted the remaining commercial on Lawrence in the south-west block that should also be high density.
Quick back of the envelope, add, 3,500 units in high density, plus additional retail.
Add, 500 new units in buffer zone (conservative, and takes into account housing removed for the roads and park)
Total gain ~4,000 units, so far, but my model also adds 150 units to the existing proposal now buffered by more high and medium density.
So 4,150 units net new.
* above, I assumed transitional housing ranges from 5-storeys directly opposite SFH to 12s opposite high density.
Last edited:
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
These are legit points but the TOC is only supposed to be IO's project on the limited lands needed for the subway. It's up to Toronto to determine what to do with rezoning the rest of the MTSA. IO's mandate is pretty limited in that respect and how aggressive the Province should be in upzoning around stations they're building is a bit of a separate discussion.
As it stands, the city hasn't ' done any planning for this MTSA which has a hugely suburban context and the province has been sitting on the ones they did do for... 2 years? Perhaps the province will clarify their intentions soon or their next housing bill will address some of your concerns on a policy level but either way, you can't fault the TOC for the houses still being there.
As it stands, the city hasn't ' done any planning for this MTSA which has a hugely suburban context and the province has been sitting on the ones they did do for... 2 years? Perhaps the province will clarify their intentions soon or their next housing bill will address some of your concerns on a policy level but either way, you can't fault the TOC for the houses still being there.
Northern Light
Superstar
Well, I hear you, but the mandate in this case, to IO, is a political decision of the provincial government.
The choice not to remove single homes that are immediately adjacent to this proposal does impact on its height and massing, so you get a sub-optimal use of land, because you're not willing to buy one, or two or 10 properties more.
To me that's a very odd way of thinking.
If you're going to bother, do it right!
Additionally, a larger IO take, if upzoned in the way I envision, could represent a significant profit for the province. While some can and should go back into affordable housing here, the province could also offset some costs of the SSE.
Finally, if one wants to trigger a broad-based upzoning in the area, one must make adjustments to the road grid and supporting infrastructure and that really ought to be mapped out before the development starts, rather than after.
If only because it will be cheaper to do pre-upzoning rather than post-upzoning.
NIV
New Member
The province needs to better define the TOC 500 metre radius around these new stations. With OMB challenges barred within this 500 metre radius, existing neighbourhoods will be helpless to shape these new communities. Sounds like a lot of high rise development is going to get a quick rubber stamp. I’m not against the intensification and new development, I just think we need a plan before we start building new communities based on individual developers proposals.
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
As a matter of principle, I agree. But I think we have to consider the mechanisms of how this works.
Expropration law allows Metrolinx to take the land for the subway project and then IO is given the job of coming up with a development plan for it.
What you are asking for would entail expropriation of private residences for....a better neighbourhood. That goes beyond what IO's mandate is, into the entire nature of when the government has the right to expropriate. Now, you could argue Metrolinx can fudge things and adjust the project to justify them taking a bit more land to get a better development site but that's still skirting the main issue. That's not how the Expropriation Act or the Building Transit Faster Act are written.
So then we come to, given the housing crisis and such, whether the government should have the right to grab land that has nothing to do with the transit project, per se, to provide more housing, more sustainable, transit-oriented development etc. It sounds nice and maybe we need that kind of amibition but it's a tricky or slippery slope, IMHO.
Northern Light
Superstar
The site of Regent Park was expropriated for public housing.
So was Moss Park and countless other housing projects.
This is no slippery slope its a return to past practice.
The expropriation act already allows this; its merely that the aim needs to be stated as housing/community development, as opposed to transit.
One of the more fiscally conservative governments in the developed world, over the years was British Hong Kong.........what I'm suggesting looks a lot like the MTR's real estate development division that subsidizes public transit.
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
Again, I do take your point. But regent park isn't a perfect parallel. It was redeveloping what was already publicly owned housing. Redeveloping public housing is still different from taking freehold houses.
I'm not saying it's not a model we should consider but it's not something we've done before, really. Also, I suspect neither of us trusts this particular government to try something so bold on the housing file. I shiver to think who they'd put in charge of it.
It's too early to judge the TOC program as it current exists. Whether it could or should have been something far more ambitious... It's interesting to consider.
I'm not saying it's not a model we should consider but it's not something we've done before, really. Also, I suspect neither of us trusts this particular government to try something so bold on the housing file. I shiver to think who they'd put in charge of it.
It's too early to judge the TOC program as it current exists. Whether it could or should have been something far more ambitious... It's interesting to consider.
Northern Light
Superstar
I didn't mean the contemporary redevelopment of Regent Park.
I mean the original development of Regent Park after World War II.
It had been a privately owned area of housing that was generally considered slum.
Some houses would have been better than others, but many lacked indoor plumbing even in the '40s.
All the private housing was razed to build Regent Park.
Background: Toronto’s Regent Park | Globalnews.ca
Duelling images of gang violence and a community attempting revitalization has once again thrust one of Toronto’s most notorious neighbourhoods back into the spotlight.
globalnews.ca
A picture..........Regent Park before Regent Park:
Source: https://spacing.ca/toronto/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2020/09/regentpark-oakstreetNFB.jpg
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
Ah. Yes. But now we're talking about the widely derided era of slum clearance. I'm not sure we want to try that again?
The Ward was also expropriated, to give us City Hall and one could throw in Lincoln Centre in NY or Dodger Stadium in LA as examples of low income people being moved out for "the greater good."
I'm sure we've learned some lessons but I still see too many ways out can go wrong.
And just as a counter example, I would look at Yonge and Steeles, a very different market from here, of course. No TOC there but massive redevelopment going on, including of low ride housing to 50 storey condos. I guess my take is to have a good policy framework and use TOC to prime the market, where you can. I'm not sure we should be doing more than that. But something to ponder.
The Ward was also expropriated, to give us City Hall and one could throw in Lincoln Centre in NY or Dodger Stadium in LA as examples of low income people being moved out for "the greater good."
I'm sure we've learned some lessons but I still see too many ways out can go wrong.
And just as a counter example, I would look at Yonge and Steeles, a very different market from here, of course. No TOC there but massive redevelopment going on, including of low ride housing to 50 storey condos. I guess my take is to have a good policy framework and use TOC to prime the market, where you can. I'm not sure we should be doing more than that. But something to ponder.
NIV
New Member
Private developers will be the ones who develop the non metrolinx properties. IO with the TOC program will get the ball rolling with there proposed deveoplment on this metrolinx staging site. Most of the community intensification will be provided by private developers once the city puts forward there 500 meter plan for new development. This area will most likely then be built up like the areas on the Sheppard line where the commercial properties are developed first followed by the redevelopment of existing neighborhoods close to the subway.
The province also needs to clarify its intention with regards the hospital. The existing community was built around this hospital, no use building a new community based on the hospital if it’s not going to be there in 20 years.
The province also needs to clarify its intention with regards the hospital. The existing community was built around this hospital, no use building a new community based on the hospital if it’s not going to be there in 20 years.
Northern Light
Superstar
I get that.
My point is that the development they are building on the land they already own is impacted by the remaining, immediately adjacent properties. That doesn't really make sense if you understand that those properties will not or should not be in their current form within 10 years of this TOC rising.
Also, the area needs to be planned out properly for redevelopment. This site, and many others, being treated in isolation, with no reference to what shape the road grid will need to be, or where the new/expanded park will be located, and that could result in these proposals impairing future potential.
Which is not an argument against them per se; but an argument that you have to think bigger first.
Which is to say, poorly.
Sheppard is too wide, the architecture along it (the newer stuff) is not cohesive.
No new crossings of 401 have been built from Yonge to the 404; no new grid (collector) streets parallel to Sheppard have been built.
The density there is entirely appropriate, but the supporting infrastructure is not entirely in place and what's being built is more jumble than community.
On this we entirely agree.
Last edited:
NIV
New Member
I agree the more planning we do now the better the community will be once it’s built. The question is how is this done with all the existing single family homes, I don’t see the city or province buying up all these properties. Unfortunately setting new zoning and allowing developers to come in and buy up the properties has been the standard in the past and the easiest way for these areas to be redeveloped.
IO and the city seem to be focussed on their TOC projects and not the rest of this new community. Setting new building height guidelines that start 36 stories high and then incrementally decrease to say 8 stories at 500 meters (guessing) and then letting developers take over isn’t a great plan.
Northern Light
Superstar
You can issue an MZO, ideally with the City's support, for roads, parks, other needed infra, and for any immediately abutting properties to those you own. The homeowners should be thrilled; the province upzones for them, their properties rocket in value at no cost to them. No need to buy them, now that they're upzoned for high density and up to 12, 20 or 30 floors, you can build your own site higher.
You don't need to acquire all the properties (though I think there would be merit to doing so, it would (or should) be financially lucrative.
The only things you need to outright buy are those needed to support the initial development.
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
This is a good point but I think it's a failing of the Provincial policy, not the TOC program.
The Province passed MTSA policies and has left municipalities in the lurch ever since, effectively. They don't even need to do an MZO, just put in the Growth Plan (and/or PPS, depending what they're doing with all that) that all properties within a designated MTSA are automatically upzoned. Or remove some of the discretion municipalities have to delineate MTSAs, many of which are now kind of gerrymandered to leave single-family homes in place within proximity to transit stations.
I'm just saying, there are various tools that can be used to achieve what you're talking about - which should certainly be the goal - without involving IO (whose job is managing provincial real estate, not upzoning adjacent properties) and likely without involving heavy-handed tools like MZOs or expropriation.