Toronto Urban Sprawl Compared to Other Cities

[diminutive]

I suspect that if zoning allowed it, you'd see similar types of development in the Bridle Path. In Forest Hill and Bedford Park, you might get $0.5-1.5 million apartments outcompeting the $2-7million new mansions. In more average and less exclusive neighbourhoods, you might get $200-$500,000 apartments and townhouses outcompeting $0.5-1.0million 2 storey homes that are replacing bungalows. But right now, I'm pretty sure all that's allowed is bigger houses on the same size lot (outside of certain arterials/nodes), so that's how they're responding to rising land values. I don't think allowing denser slightly less expensive housing would really bring down the desirability of the neighbourhood either, at least it doesn't seem to be happening in SE Oakville and other similar neighbourhoods (ex Richvale in Richmond Hill). You can still have your estate style mansion, and in some cases that has happened in SE Oakville, but it will cost more since you have to compete with higher density development.

It's just anecdotal, but I've heard of people who inherit Bridle Path homes trying to get the lots subdivided (2 acre lots into 3-4 smaller lots) but basically finding out it would be next to impossible. Interestingly, in the case I know of, it wasn't entirely a profit maximizing thing, though presumably that would also happen, but a liquidity issue. When you start looking at the five, ten, twenty million dollar houses you've cut out 99.9999% of the Canadian market and they can be surprisingly difficult to sell.

Since it's impossible to get severances, foreign buyers or developers will tend to buy the lots with older houses and demolish them to build biggest mansion zoning will allow (>20,000sf) in the hopes of selling it on to a richer foreign buyer.

It's kind of a ponzi scheme...

 

[freshcutgrass]

Although I'm not sure if it's best to have it zoned the way it is. If you look at SE Oakville for instance, in many cases you can redevelop multi-acre estates into smaller lot mansions

My point is that it isn't about maximizing profits for developers. I don't want to lose these enclaves to higher density development. It's about good urban planning that accommodates the most diverse set of demographics....which includes the super rich that want 2+ acre city proper estates for their 20,000-40,000 sqft palaces. This is small, but very important demographic to make sure you include in the diverse mixed-income population of a healthy city.

 

[Memph]

My point is that it isn't about maximizing profits for developers. I don't want to lose these enclaves to higher density development. It's about good urban planning that accommodates the most diverse set of demographics....which includes the super rich that want 2+ acre city proper estates for their 20,000-40,000 sqft palaces. This is small, but very important demographic to make sure you include in the diverse mixed-income population of a healthy city.

I don't think the lack of 2 acre zoning in Manhattan is keeping out the super rich from there, so why is 2 acre zoning needed in Toronto? I wouldn't worry about the super rich, if they have business to do in Toronto, this is not going to stop them.

 

[W. K. Lis]

I don't think the lack of 2 acre zoning in Manhattan is keeping out the super rich from there, so why is 2 acre zoning needed in Toronto? I wouldn't worry about the super rich, if they have business to do in Toronto, this is not going to stop them.

Toronto created 100-acre "Park Lots" located between Lot Street (today's Queen Street) and the second concession road (Bloor Street). See link for more information.

When they subdivided their properties, many Park Lot owners held a portion of their lot in reserve, usually to the north. These sizeable acreages, were then available for public buildings when the city expanded. For example the north halves of Park Lots 9 and 10, controlled by the Elmsley family, became home to St. Basil’s Roman Catholic Church, St. Joseph’s Convent, and St. Michael’s College. Most notably, the north halves of Park Lots 11, 12 and 13, were set aside as “Queen’s Park” and today are the sites of the Legislature of Ontario and much of the University of Toronto.

 

[freshcutgrass]

I don't think the lack of 2 acre zoning in Manhattan is keeping out the super rich from there, so why is 2 acre zoning needed in Toronto?

This is a poor argument. Housing diversity is rather lacking in Manhattan. There's good reasons Toronto always ranks much higher than NYC on any QOL surveys.

 

[Memph]

This is a poor argument. Housing diversity is rather lacking in Manhattan. There's good reasons Toronto always ranks much higher than NYC on any QOL surveys.

Has availability of large lot 10,000 sf homes for the super-elite ever been cited as one of those reasons?

I don't see how it's a bad argument. If Manhattan can attract the super rich so well despite having only brownstones and apartments, doesn't that prove that 2 acre estates are not needed to attract them? The downsides of New York don't necessarily apply to Manhattan (ex crime in the Bronx or Brooklyn), nor to the rich (ex cost of housing - the super rich aren't the ones being priced out).

Anyways, my main point is that low-rise forms of infill are being limitted to tearing down a house to build a bigger house across large swaths of the city. I think Toronto should create more opportunities context sensitive lowrise infill, especially in desirable neighbourhoods, because household sizes are decreasing or at least flatlining, so it doesn't make much sense to only allow infill in the form of bigger and bigger housing units. And by the way, this would create neighbourhoods with a mix of incomes and housing types. It's not as if I'm proposing to turn all of Toronto into City Place, and there's no demand for anywhere near that much housing anyways.

 

[freshcutgrass]

I don't see how it's a bad argument.

Manhattan is a poor model to follow. Toronto is not Manhattan. The point is not do you "need" it, but is it better to have it. And the answer is yes.

my main point is that low-rise forms of infill are being limitted to tearing down a house to build a bigger house across large swaths of the city. I think Toronto should create more opportunities context sensitive lowrise infill, especially in desirable neighbourhoods, because household sizes are decreasing or at least flatlining, so it doesn't make much sense to only allow infill in the form of bigger and bigger housing units.

This all sounds so incredibly naive and not thought out at all...almost not worth replying to.

I think it has already been made fairly clear that we are generally going to protect the context of existing residential neighbourhoods, and add the extra densities through brownfield redevelopment and the Avenues. There's really no need to tear down Cabbagetown or the Kingsway and replace it with mid density mixed-income housing. In some isolated cases such as Regent Park, we are replacing a poorly designed neighbourhhood.

 

[Memph]

Manhattan is a poor model to follow. Toronto is not Manhattan. The point is not do you "need" it, but is it better to have it. And the answer is yes.

There's wealthy people living in Pacific Heights, Lincoln Park and Beacon Hill too though. Anyways, why is it better to have it? Just because it's a different housing type? Should we be creating incentives for the construction of mobile homes too then? And again, you'd still have some left, just maybe not as much.

This all sounds so incredibly naive and not thought out at all...almost not worth replying to.

I think it has already been made fairly clear that we are generally going to protect the context of existing residential neighbourhoods, and add the extra densities through brownfield redevelopment and the Avenues. There's really no need to tear down Cabbagetown or the Kingsway and replace it with mid density mixed-income housing. In some isolated cases such as Regent Park, we are replacing a poorly designed neighbourhhood.

So although redeveloping a building on a commercial street that makes up the heart and most vibrant part of the neighbourhood is fine, redeveloping a building on an adjacent residential street is a horrible neighbourhood destroying travesty. You're right, what was I thinking!

 

[sixrings]

First of all this thread basically because of one member freshcutgrass has derailed this thread into a 905 vs 416 argument with freshcutgrass basically insulting every suburban person because of their stereotypical lifestyle choices (cars, big box stores, etc). Now somehow freshcutgrass is arguing for the protection of massive pieces of land for the super rich. WTF is going on in here.

 

[howl]

First of all this thread basically because of one member freshcutgrass has derailed this thread into a 905 vs 416 argument with freshcutgrass basically insulting every suburban person because of their stereotypical lifestyle choices (cars, big box stores, etc). Now somehow freshcutgrass is arguing for the protection of massive pieces of land for the super rich. WTF is going on in here.

From what I'm reading the point he is trying to make is that planning isn't about using cookie-cutter ideas everywhere. That's the lazy approach to city building. Urban Planning needs to be context sensitive. Each area needs to be looked at as a unique area and have it's positive characteristics retained as the area evolves.

 

[howl]

sprawl truthfully doesn't truly occur in the GTA. car based development, on the other hand, dominates. People often struggle to delineate the two I find.

This is sprawl:

This isn't.

They are both car based and car dominated, but there is a very key difference. One is planned. Planned around cars sure, but it is high density and planned with thoughts given to shopping proximity (in terms of car travel), schools, community centres, etc. Both are taken at the same zoom level BTW.

Notice how one leaves large sections of forest untouched, how absolutely 0 of the streets connect. there is no public parkland, only a few baseball diamonds as those cannot realistically be privately owned due to their team based nature.

Notice the lack of a grid in the first photo, the complete lack of retail facilities. The lower densities, just entire randomness of it.

That is sprawl. The stuff in Vaughan that is in the second image is simply car based development.

That is one major gripe I have with the places to grow act. It kills Sprawl, but not car oriented development. all it does is mandate certain density levels, not that new development should be oriented to the pedestrian instead of the car.

I'm going to disagree with this assessment. Sprawl is anything that makes the area a city covers bigger. All greenfield development on the edge of a city is sprawl.

What you're comparing is two different types of sprawl - good sprawl and bad sprawl. Cities have to grow. Sometimes they grow up (vertically) and sometimes they grow out (horizontally). Over the past 70 years there has been a bias towards horizontal growth over vertical growth in North America. That's not to say there hasn't been vertical growth, but not as much as there could have been. The result is cities are eating up more valuable farmland than they need to and unnecessarily increasing transportation costs. The anti-sprawl movement ISN'T about urban design at the street level. It's about higher-level planning that encourages more vertical urban re-development and infill development, and discourages horizontal greenfield development. It's also about maximizing the use of land where sprawl is deemed to be acceptable by using that land more wisely.

 

[Tewder]

This is a poor argument. Housing diversity is rather lacking in Manhattan. There's good reasons Toronto always ranks much higher than NYC on any QOL surveys.

It's funny that you think a 'Quality of Life' survey is a good argument.

 

[freshcutgrass]

Anyways, why is it better to have it? Just because it's a different housing type?

There are a few reasons, not the least of which is that these places represent a community, and the people of that community wish to maintain the integrity of that community. That's why the Bridle Path community has a bylaw in place maintaining a 2 acre minimum lot size.

I'm not saying this is something to applied across the board. I just don't think allowing for random infill anywhere a developer decides to replace a single dwelling with a multiple dwelling constitutes good urban planning.

Should we be creating incentives for the construction of mobile homes too then?

Is that a trick question?

I'm pretty sure the entire point of a mobile home is that it is pre-constructed (hence the mobile part). Pretty sure we already have one in Rouge Park. But that is for "camping" purposes....not permanent housing.

But I'm pretty sure you are talking more about "trailer park" type housing as we know it. Trailer parks don't exist in the city because they are not economically viable. In theory, I am not against the concept of a "trailer park", any more than I am against floating "houseboat communities". A city that has a lot of these diverse and interesting communities is what makes a city more livable. They are an asset to the city. I don't need to live there either...I make a point to walk/bike around some of these communities....Toronto Islands Communities, Cabbagetown, Rosedale, etc.

So although redeveloping a building on a commercial street that makes up the heart and most vibrant part of the neighbourhood is fine, redeveloping a building on an adjacent residential street is a horrible neighbourhood destroying travesty. You're right, what was I thinking!

I don't think hyperbole and sarcasm is the answer. If you disagree with the "Avenues" plan, then say so and be specific about why. Stop looking at "other" cities. Toronto doesn't need to mimic anything in Manhattan or Bangkok. Not just because they are models of poor urban planning...but because they don't translate well to existing Toronto. The Avenues plan works, because it just improves on an existing good urban planning model already in place...our grid system.

I'm not saying there aren't instances where replacing existing residential built forms with higher density ones don't exist...we have done it in the past, and will continue to do it (although land prices make this harder to do than in the past). Our TOD style "nodal developments" is very much a Toronto idea and a goos example of this.

I'm going to disagree with this assessment. Sprawl is anything that makes the area a city covers bigger. All greenfield development on the edge of a city is sprawl.

Being a bit pedantic now...in this discussion, we have to differentiate between "growth" and "sprawl". In this context, there is no such thing as good sprawl (it's a derogatory term). As someone has already pointed out, 905 growth has been a product of specific urban planning within the confines of relatively small municipal boundaries. It's very much "controlled" growth, and therefore technically not "sprawl". It's not all that good either, and in a lot of cases, you end up with the same problems associated with sprawl.

It's funny that you think a 'Quality of Life' survey is a good argument.

First of all, I never used it as a "good argument". The idea that we should do or not do something because it is either done or not done in Manhattan is a poor argument for more than one reason. Manhattan attracts the wealthy in spite of some things...not because of them. But "quality of life" does have at least something to do with how a municipality is run.

 

[sixrings]

There are a few reasons, not the least of which is that these places represent a community, and the people of that community wish to maintain the integrity of that community. That's why the Bridle Path community has a bylaw in place maintaining a 2 acre minimum lot size.

I'm not saying this is something to applied across the board. I just don't think allowing for random infill anywhere a developer decides to replace a single dwelling with a multiple dwelling constitutes good urban planning.

I don't think hyperbole and sarcasm is the answer. If you disagree with the "Avenues" plan, then say so and be specific about why. Stop looking at "other" cities. Toronto doesn't need to mimic anything in Manhattan or Bangkok. Not just because they are models of poor urban planning...but because they don't translate well to existing Toronto. The Avenues plan works, because it just improves on an existing good urban planning model already in place...our grid system.

FYI the Bridal Path, the place we NEED to keep so the rich can have their right to sprawl which you condemn suburban people for wanting, royally screws up our good urban model already in place... Our grid system!!!!!!

 

[freshcutgrass]

FYI the Bridal Path, the place we NEED to keep so the rich can have their right to sprawl which you condemn suburban people for wanting, royally screws up our good urban model already in place... Our grid system!!!!!!

Again...people don't think these things out.

First of all, there is no one-size-fits-all policy. Secondly, the Bridle Path community is not "sprawl" (does anyone ever pay attention?????????).

No..we don't "need" the Bridle Path, but we are better off having it than not having it. In and of itself, it does not cause a problem because it is a planned community designed for a very specific purpose. It doesn't screw up the grid system, because this enclave is not trying to achieve what the grid system is there to achieve. For instance, there is no present or future demand for public transit access. You would never design a whole city this way obviously.

It's also in a part of the city (North York) that isn't all that fabulously planned in the first place. These kind of enclaves tend to flourish around and enhance Toronto-specific geographical locations....our ravine system.

Just like we have to accommodate affordable/tax assisted housing for a certain demographic of the city, we also need to accommodate the rest of the spectrum. Permitting small pockets of the city for low density housing for the wealthy is not harming the overall design of the city, while providing needs specific to that unique community. They also happen to pay lots of taxes for doing so, and we need their taxes to do good work elsewhere.