Rascacielo
Senior Member
What's the rush? It's not like we have a shortage of affordable rental units in this city 
Toronto The G2 | 155.2m | 46s | Greenwin | Sweeny &Co
- Thread starter AlbertC
- Start date
HousingNowTO
Senior Member
This project is featured in the story "CHASING SHADOWS" on the front-page of today's Globe and Mail...
www.theglobeandmail.com
Cities are leery of tall buildings casting too much shade. In a warming climate, does that still make sense?
For decades, urban planning policy in Toronto, Vancouver and other big cities has prioritized sunlight in public spaces. Extreme heat gives us reasons to rethink that
www.theglobeandmail.com
egotrippin
Senior Member
Even in a warming climate, Toronto will remain relatively cold throughout much of the year. The article cites an increase of up to 36 uncomfortably hot days a year; there are another 329 days. Not only that we'll still have our depressingly short days with limited sunlight for a good 4 months of the year. Most people like sunlight, many like it even when the weather is hot. I think it's bizarre that we'd be ok with plunging public spaces into perpetual shadow.
Perhaps instead we build spaces that provide shaded areas for those hotter days, but are still nicely sunlit for the rest of the year. Seems to me planting more trees might be a better idea than subjecting public spaces to the dark windswept environments created by highrise canyons. And on the topic of trees, they also benefit from sunlight...
Perhaps instead we build spaces that provide shaded areas for those hotter days, but are still nicely sunlit for the rest of the year. Seems to me planting more trees might be a better idea than subjecting public spaces to the dark windswept environments created by highrise canyons. And on the topic of trees, they also benefit from sunlight...
HousingNowTO
Senior Member
Nobody is talking about "plunging public spaces into perpetual shadow" -- if you read back in this thread the specific "net new shadow" from the original taller G2 Building proposal was a very minor shadow impact - which still cost dozens of Affordable Rental units next to a subway station in the core of our City.
It's always interesting that the suggestion that almost any "specific planning policy might be too restrictive" often seems to trigger a dystopian counterpoint about - "dark windswept environments created by highrise canyons", etc.
All we are saying is maybe we have over-planned this -- and maybe that policy is too restrictive if you actually want to create new Affordable Housing units in the City of Toronto at the speed and scale that Council has voted to set as their target.
Something has got to give.
Either, Reduce the planning restrictions & process -OR- Reduce the Affordable Housing unit-delivery targets... but you only get to Pick ONE of those options in 2024.
Northern Light
Superstar
Shadow is shadow, dark is dark, windy is windy, they are all measurable, objective phenomenon with a scientific basis.
Wind at 'x' speed makes pedestrians extremely uncomfortable
Trees need 'x' hours of sun or they die.
The idea that these are exaggerated, at the level of already having permitted 46 storeys here, is frankly preposterous.
This is already set to be among the tallest buildings around in most of the world.
More height is not the solution to everything.
Lets start with reducing demand, then outlawing short-term rentals, then outlawing investor-owned units (domestic or foreign); then increasing wages, particularly at the low end of the economic spectrum, then increasing social benefits.
Disagree. This is provincial land; reset the price of the land to zero, and have the province deliver the damn building without Greenwin. It's not complicated; and the existing model doesn't work because it's predicated on giving away precious public land and dollars to for-profit developers who squander most of it building short-term rentals for tourists via investor boxes and/or luxury market spaces.
The target is not the problem, the planning rules are not the problem; the demand is the problem, the wages/benefits are the problem and the model for housing delivery that relies on the private sector is the problem.
HousingNowTO
Senior Member
Our HNTO volunteers limit our Affordable Housing advice to the things where there is actually some tangible political appetite for change.
Typing this from Ottawa tonight. We speak with all of the major political parties, and there is honestly ZERO real interest in increasing wages/benefits $25,000+ per Toronto Household in 2024, or for any model for housing delivery that does not depend heavily upon the private sector for creating the majority of new apartment units in Toronto.
The specific "No Net New Shadow" policy that this site encountered is a lot like Parking-Minimums a quasi-scientific field / standard that needs to be reassessed in the current context - and likely relaxed.
Northern Light
Superstar
I'm aware of that; and it's a clear reason that political change is in order; and I don't mean just one party either.
I would be fine with substituting minimum sunlight in hours; that data would need to be gathered; but I'm not sure you'd find it any less restrictive, in already tall areas, it would, however be less restrictive in low/midrise areas though.
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
...and at all levels, I will add.
isaidso
Senior Member
Challenging the status quo always faces push back, often aggressive push back. A few points that need addressing:
1. If people seek shade that doesn't mean they don't like sunlight. It means they prefer indirect sunlight.
2. Indirect light doesn't equate to darkness as opponents of shade like to insinuate.
3. The language proponents of direct sunlight use is problematic. They always use the word 'shadow' instead of 'shade'.
4. People who seek full sun assume everyone else does too but that's just not true.
5. The vast majority of Toronto's built form over 630 km2 provides direct sunlight. Are a few sections that offer shade too much to ask?
Shade provides protection from the sun, coolness on a summer day, and you never have to squint. Even if they're out numbered by those who want direct sunlight, loads of people opt for the shady side of the street. Shouldn't cities be built for all its citizens, not just to suit the preferences of the largest group? That we only cater to the latter has always struck me as inequitable. The stance seems to be 'we like direct sun and the preferences of every one else don't matter'.
Given a choice, I always cross to the other side if the buildings are tall enough on that side to provide shade. I do it in summer, I do it in winter, and I've done it as long as I can remember. That doesn't mean I dislike sunlight or I'm seeking darkness. It means it's a more pleasant experience for me than full sun. Out of curiosity, I've asked others over the years and was surprised how many people do the exact same thing for the exact same reasons.
I'm not suggesting we need to build tall everywhere but that shade needs to be part of the discussion. Presently, the position seems to be that if a building creates a shadow that is something to be avoided at all costs. That's not always the case.
Last edited:
egotrippin
Senior Member
I will admit that I was reacting more broadly to the idea of shading public spaces with tall buildings, rather than specifically targeting the G2 height reduction.
That said I don't really think it's all that dystopian to use the phrase about dark, windswept environments- as Northern Light has pointed out these things can be measured objectively. And I've spent enough time living in and visiting the city, and others, to come to the conclusion that large concentrations of highrises aren't necessarily the most pleasant place to be- especially in a city that has cold winters and low sunlight hours for many months.
egotrippin
Senior Member
I wouldn't really say it's an either/or proposition, in catering to people who like shade vs. those who don't- these guidelines seek to restrict shadowing on certain spaces, not eliminate them entirely. If that were the case we wouldn't build anything over a few stories tall. Also my understanding is that shadow impacts are only factored during months with lower sunlight, i.e. when people would be less likely to seek shade. It's less of a concern during the summer months when the sun is directly overhead.
I'd also make a distinction between shade/indirect sunlight, vs. the hard shadow cast by a solid building. Indirect sunlight is more akin to the dappled light you might get through a tree canopy, and as I touched on I believe the city should focus greatly on improving its downtown tree canopy- something that also struggles with too little light.
And ultimately I'm not arguing against tall buildings, we're getting and will continue to get plenty of them. Just that I feel it's positive city building to take shadow impacts into account, especially when it comes to parks and public spaces.
Northern Light
Superstar
Shade is fine, and can be provided by trees.
Trees, however, require an objective amount of direct sunlight in order to photosynthesize enough nutrients to live and grow.
People's preferences don't affect the above at all.
Trees also clean the air, reduce the risk of floods, and also provide habitat to birds and animals.
The idea is not that all shadow or shade is evil. No one has ever said so.
The idea is that there is a minimum amount of sunlight required in order to sustain life.
By the way, direct exposure to the sun is necessary for human life as well, not merely for mood, but for acquisition of vitamin D.
No one is saying some shadow is terrible; people are saying there are limits to how much shadow is reasonable.
And if someone opposes that which gives life and wants to deny it to others.............I view them the same as I would those who would endanger clean drinking water or the food supply.
Which put charitably would be to say................unfavourably.
Northern Light
Superstar
Shadow studies look at March, June, Sept, and December.
In general, planning will focus on the March and September results.
The assumption is that light is very limited in December (lowest light levels of the year) and most vegetation is in dormancy and can get by on energy reserves entirely (evergreens are an exception).
Those reserves, however, are accumulated during the brighter months.
June is also discounted, because of the very high levels of sunlight (highest of the year).
So March and September are generally the focus.
Sunlight protected spaces, in the Official Plan, however, do get extra attention. (this is not all parks or streets, this is specifically designated spots, such as Allan Gardens)
maestro
Senior Member
I'm totally confused that tall building planning rationale should include the shade they provide. . Shade can be created with anything held in hand or worn on head if shade is your preference. You cannot create sunlight that is blocked by a tall building.
I think it's often overlooked that people actually live in these skyscrapers and the clusters that create skylines. There's little admirable about development in this city right now other than impressive height. Developers are building to the maximum and providing the bare minimums. That's not good for Toronto long term and I haven't brought up the high prices and comparably low wages, Some actual city building considerations is nice to see in this era of housing, housing housing.
I think it's often overlooked that people actually live in these skyscrapers and the clusters that create skylines. There's little admirable about development in this city right now other than impressive height. Developers are building to the maximum and providing the bare minimums. That's not good for Toronto long term and I haven't brought up the high prices and comparably low wages, Some actual city building considerations is nice to see in this era of housing, housing housing.
Last edited:
rdaner
Senior Member
I am very lazy and didn't go through all of the threads but is this going ahead?