[jje1000]

There are many more items than that............. but that's for another day.

Personally I'd like Toronto to be more nimble and experimental regarding urban planning/building design concepts/standards- especially if we want to work ourselves out of the dead-end creek that postwar urban planning and zoning has left us in.

 

[AlexBozikovic]

@AlexBozikovic has a new column up on Jason Thorne.

Toronto’s new chief planner Jason Thorne has a chance to radically rethink the city

Toronto needs a leader to think big, changing the decades-old pattern of growth that packs some new residents into parts of downtown and scatters others onto car-choked roads

www.theglobeandmail.com

Regrettably Alex's column also laments the angular plane.............my problem being......the policy has been abolished/radically altered.........in ways I helped to craft...........and that problem, as I see it, is in the past.

The new midrise guideline update, approved this month, still has stepbacks in it. That is purely an aesthetic decision, it’s arbitrary, and it has negative impacts on unit layout and constructibility. The explanation in the policy is entirely vibes-based.

There are many other such examples in current TO UD policy. Progress has been made but IMO nowhere near enough.

 

[Northern Light]

The new midrise guideline update, approved this month, still has stepbacks in it. That is purely an aesthetic decision, it’s arbitrary,

I had a lengthy response written here, but I'll reduce it to this.

1) Its not arbitrary.

2) We disagree on the value of at least one setback. (I'm open to requiring only one, subject to outcome tests on wind/shadow etc)

and it has negative impacts on unit layout and constructibility.

Any restriction of any kind impedes a developer in some fashion. Why bother with a building code? Why not let residential go in next to an aluminum smelter? Why require accessibility?

Because these things have a value to people.

Yes, trade-offs should be considered and costed and I'm all for reasonable flexibility. But suggesting zero setbacks to me isn't on, and isn't desirable.

The explanation in the policy is entirely vibes-based.

Again, we very much disagree on this point, for reasons outlined above.

There are many other such examples in current TO UD policy.

I'm very interested in the other examples you mention here. While we disagree, in some measure on setbacks, we may agree on some others.

 

[Dark Tower]

I had a lengthy response written here, but I'll reduce it to this.

1) Its not arbitrary.

2) We disagree on the value of at least one setback. (I'm open to requiring only one, subject to outcome tests on wind/shadow etc)




Any restriction of any kind impedes a developer in some fashion. Why bother with a building code? Why not let residential go in next to an aluminum smelter? Why require accessibility?

Because these things have a value to people.

Yes, trade-offs should be considered and costed and I'm all for reasonable flexibility. But suggesting zero setbacks to me isn't on, and isn't desirable.



Again, we very much disagree on this point, for reasons outlined above.



I'm very interested in the other examples you mention here. While we disagree, in some measure on setbacks, we may agree on some others.

 

[Northern Light]

View attachment 624311

100% better on the right.

However, still needs street trees.

 

[Dark Tower]

100% better on the right.

However, still needs street trees.

 

[DSCToronto]

100% better on the right.

However, still needs street trees.

YES!

 

[evandyk]

Some people like the one on the right better, some people like the one on the left better. Most people probably couldn't find any reason to prefer one or the other. There's not really any standard to adjudicate those preferences.

The one on the right does allow slightly more light to get to sidewalk level, but imposing it comes at a significant cost, which I don't think is generally factored in with Toronto planning thinking.

 

[Northern Light]

Some people like the one on the right better, some people like the one on the left better. Most people probably couldn't find any reason to prefer one or the other. There's not really any standard to adjudicate those preferences.

There are indeed standards, sunlight/skyview being but two. They are objective, and consistently quantifiable.

The one on the right does allow slightly more light to get to sidewalk level, but imposing it comes at a significant cost,

The cost is:

a) Not that significant

b) If that's the threshold lens for building, why have any criteria at all? Elevators cost money, lets get rid of those in 40-storey buildings, who needs more than one staircase? Why bother with fire suppression?

Oh, you mean you didn't want to walk up 12 or 43 storeys? Or that you're elderly mom couldn't visit or babysit? You mean you mean you didn't want to die in a fire?

Everything costs money if done properly.

imposing it comes at a significant cost, which I don't think is generally factored in with Toronto planning thinking.

I know for a fact that it does. It was very much a consideration in the angular plane reforms and many others as well.

 

[christiesplits]

New interview with the new Chief Planner.

Toronto’s new chief planner wants to shake up the city and make it joyful again. Here’s how

Toronto’s new chief planner has a goal for the city. He also has a lot of problems to contend with. Can he deliver?

www.thestar.com

A few excerpts:

On transit, there’s been an uptick of investments recently, he says, but Toronto is still scrambling to catch up after decades of underbuilding. For example, while he lauds the creation of a 40-hectare island for a new neighbourhood on the eastern waterfront, it’s among areas waiting for long-discussed transit plans to actually happen — with the Waterfront East Light Rail Transit project still waiting for funding. It’s far from a downtown problem, with residents in suburbs like Scarborough also waiting for transit to replace a closed rail line.

As the city grows, Thorne is especially enthused by the idea of more midrise housing, seeing it as a gentler way to densify than more clustered highrises. It’s one of the hardest things to get built in Toronto, he says — and making it easier means not only adjusting zoning and policy rules, but smoothing out the process of connecting to hydro and utilities, for example.
“We’re going to have locations where there (are) towers, and that’s great, but I think midrise is going to do a lot of the heavy lifting in terms of housing need,” he says.
Any new housing, in his view, should not only prioritize utility, but beauty in design. “We can’t lose sight of that in this drive to deliver as much housing as we can, and to streamline approvals, and do things as quickly as we can.”

When it comes to heritage in neighbourhoods, he believes in leaning into intangible features, pointing as an example to a study of Kensington Market coming to city council in early February. It not only looks at its design and building elements, but the area’s purpose in people’s lives. That report notes “its sense of anarchy, inclusivity, and a history of experimentation.”
Kensington Market will undoubtedly change and grow, Thorne says, but he sees it as a key element of heritage protection to ensure small retailers can still thrive and that the neighbourhood retains its “kind of organic messiness.”

 

[evandyk]

Interesting that he picked one of Toronto's recent planning failures to talk about and have his glamour shot taken in front of.

 

[Northern Light]

Interesting that he picked one of Toronto's recent planning failures to talk about and have his glamour shot taken in front of.

I think calling the Front St. Promenade a failure is a bit much.

While we've discussed some of its weaker points, in reality, the linear park is increasingly busy in better weather, and the road is not unpleasant to walk along. Its not the way I would have designed it, but its not only not a horror show, its better than many roads in Toronto.

Ultimately, public enthusiasm (use) of a thing is pretty good barometer for how planners/builders did..........and in that regard, its shaping up well.

Yes, the ROW could have been narrower, and the street walls shorter..... but.... failure is too strong a word.

 

[evandyk]

They did succeed in keeping the number of cars and driving speeds down, so you get a nice quiet and safe walking experience, that's true. But that strip is totally lifeless. I say this as someone who's played with my kid in that splash pad, and visited every restaurant and coffee shop on the strip. He says this, but it's totally not true. He has clearly never spent time there.

It’s a place you can feel people’s joy, he says

Even on a summer weekend, you will hardly see any people there, never mind feel their joy.

But I still hope that as the trees grow up and the surrounding buildings get finished and filled up, maybe it'll become a great place.

 

[Tuscani01]

I think the real issue is the retail mix, which is a result of the developer being overly selective and trying to keep retailers aligned with a theme of healthy and active lifestyles. It’s also why units remain vacant for so long.

The new grocery store has gone a long way towards animating the area though. Lots more people heading to and from it these days.

 

[evandyk]

Yeah, I moved out of the area just as it was opening and didn't make it back this summer. Maybe it's much better now!