Skeezix said:
We might not necessarily disagree here. We both think the city needs to allow more midrise (or even high-rise) development on the Avenues (even beyond the Avenues, since the designation of some arterials as Avenues, and others not, often has more to do with politics than planning), even where the adjacent neighbourhood is unhappy.

It's when you talk about some neighbourhoods deserving protection, others not, that you completely lose me.
Click to expand...

Yorkville today would look like the Annex if the rules back in the 60's had been similar to those of today. I guess the question is why can't the area surrounding Bathurst Station (as an example) be allowed to grow into another Yorkville? Why are these areas not allowed to develop?
 
Last edited:
Edward Skira said:
We can certainly put quite a few here:

View attachment 89580

The Avenues can also hold a significant number of people.
Click to expand...

The Portlands is perhaps the worse geographical location and whatever development does need to be conscious of that. 55 to 60% of office space is outside the core. There's nearly a billion square feet of industrial outside the core. It's not the worst place for people that want a semi urban lifestyle and work downtown but what about all those that work far outside the core and also want to live on vibrant dense street of boutiques and restaurant with functional transit? We need to provide for them.
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Cabbagetown level of static preservation should be the exception, not the norm - and have to stand on its own merit. Can we sincerely believe that all the neighbourhoods proximate to the core demands/deserve that level of protection? When even adding a 4s low-rise raises a planning stink?

Let's pull out some numbers - just what percentage of growth has been accommodate by mid-rise developments in designated avenues in the city?

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2014/pg/bgrd/backgroundfile-69376.pdf

It's pretty safe to say that's not the predominant mode of intensification.

AoD
Click to expand...

Midrise development along the avenues seems to be booming in communities with sounder zoning policies that simply do not allow a developer to plop down a building several times larger than anything in the surroundings. At concern is the higher cost of these midrise developments.
 
Edward Skira said:
Yorkville today would look like the Annex if the rules back in the 60's had been similar to those of today. I guess the question is why can the area surrounding Bathurst Station (as an example) be allowed to grow into another Yorkville? Why are these areas not allowed to develop?
Click to expand...

Other places manage growth as well or even better than Toronto with ten times the number of heritage districts. I just don't feel every neighbourhood needs to contribute to growth or even find it desirable.
 
maestro said:
Midrise development along the avenues seems to be booming in communities with sounder zoning policies that simply do not allow a developer to plop down a building time times larger than anything in the surroundings. At concern is the higher cost of these midrise developments.
Click to expand...

Is it just sounder zoning - but also ease of site assembly, presence or lack of political opposition, etc?

AoD
 
I am not sure what's meant by sounder zoning. I think context (including nearby precedents, or lack thereof) has more to do with developers opting for midrise over highrise, than zoning provisions. Also, as AoD suggested, site assembly, neighbourhood opposition.

I'm not entirely convinced that midrise is "booming" anywhere in the city. But I suppose the term is relative, and there seems to be greater success in getting midrise approved these days on, say, the Danforth for example, without the hysterical reactions developers encountered in the past few years on Ossington or the Beaches.
 
Skeezix said:
I am not sure what's meant by sounder zoning. I think context (including nearby precedents, or lack thereof) has more to do with developers opting for midrise over highrise, than zoning provisions. Also, as AoD suggested, site assembly, neighbourhood opposition.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it can mean realistic zoning policies? Instead of grossly out of date ones that you have here in the city that opens the door to a-la carte "planning" and proposals - and the horse-trading that inevitably results from it?

AoD
 
Edward Skira said:
Yorkville today would look like the Annex if the rules back in the 60's had been similar to those of today. I guess the question is why can't the area surrounding Bathurst Station (as an example) be allowed to grow into another Yorkville? Why are these areas not allowed to develop?
Click to expand...

I certainly would never say that any area, and certainly the area around Bathurst station, should "not be allowed to develop". The term seems to suggest interim control by-law-type controls. No. The area around Bathurst station is prime for intensification. Infuriatingly, the City recently completed a planning exercise along much of the length of Bathurst (which, IIRC correctly, extended north of Bloor to London or so), the primary purpose of which seemed to be to unnecessarily constrain redevelopment. Bathurst, including Bathurst north of Bloor, is a prime example of an arterial calling out for midrise development, and even highrise at key locations. For most of its length, it doesn't even have charming turn-of-the-last-century two-storey commercial buildings worth preserving. The other three corners of Bathurst and Bloor should be intensified like the SW corner.

There are dozens of sites in that area that can be intensified. And the City should allow it. I just don't think we need to bulldoze homes on Albany to achieve intensification.

What precisely do you mean by the rules in the 1960s applicable to the Annex and Yorkville. Specifically to what are you referring?
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Realistic zoning policies? Instead of grossly out of date ones that you have here in the city that opens the door to a-la carte "planning" and proposals?

AoD
Click to expand...

If that's what was intended by the term, then that really doesn't exist anywhere in this city, except perhaps on a site-specific basis where an application was recently approved. So it can't currently be the reason why midrise seems to succeed better in some areas than others.

One of the objectives of Keesmaat's push for development permit regimes in key areas was to do just what you describe. Do one overall planning exercise for an area, exhaust the appeals, and then not allow site-specific applications (at least not those completely out of whack with what was approved) for a certain timeframe. But that push seems to have gone by the wayside. At least for now.

The problem with the "realistic" zoning is that the City can't help itself. As on Bathurst (as I mentioned above), or recently on Eglinton, the City passes new planning instruments which are far too timid, have a lot more to do with good politics than good planning, and aren't particularly realistic. No surprise that the policies don't hold up to scrutiny and developers eventually drive trucks through them. To the extent that you are frustrated with a City that seems hell bent on preserving the status quo where it should not be doing so, then I would agree with you there.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
It's not even shifting growth to the suburbs - it is looking at whether it makes sense to insulate neighbourhoods from a higher level of intensification than is currently practiced at all costs while cramming development into elsewhere. That's not balanced.

Let's ask ourselves the question - just where can we currently add density in any significant way right now in the city? The core, brownfields, narrow avenues. That's it. Does it make sense?

AoD
Click to expand...

Well, even downtown is not that developed. Look at Bathurst and Jarvis st, my favourite two examples.

In the shoulder area, just look at the area near Dupont station, Castle Frank and western part of the Danforth (broadview, Chester and Pape). They have the subways yet still look like the suburbs where it is rare to find a building more than 3 stories high. I think there should be law that explicitly ban buildings under 5 stories within 500meters of any subway stop.

This densification thing is still pretty much a joke in Toronto. Actually, I am so sick of hearing another 70s proposal on Yonge st and its vicinity, as if the rest of the entire city is fine the way it is. Again, what about Rosedale, the suburb within walking distance to downtown? I would just rework on all the streets and have a grid system to relace the current nonsense. It sounds crazy but it just find it super stupid to keep the neighhourhoods with the best transit the way they are (aka: two story homes and little else) and then try to add density in area where there is not even bus service (Portland etc) as if that is the progressive thing to do.
 
Last edited:
Lenser said:
Ksun's impatience for density and disregard for history is well known. A plan to bulldoze Rosedale in favour of some immaculate grid with huge towers dotting it sounds like a fascist's wet dream. No thanks.
Click to expand...

where did I mention "huge towers"? It is your own straw-man argument I am afraid.

But of course I was being dramatic and saying something unrealistic. However, it remains true that the current "planning" of adding 70s towers along Yonge and creating brand new neighbourhood on the waterfront (I don't think it will succeed by the way just by looking at the pathetic transit options there. We will be lucky to have a QQ east LRT by 2040) is stupid considering the overall density as well as transit pattern of the city. I also don't think it is a good idea to design those "high density nodes" such as this and that centre (Yonge/Eglington for example) when 300 m away you have nothing but single family homes and their backyards.

Speaking of bulldozing web dreams, millions of people wouldn't flock to see Paris if those old houses and streets hadn't be razed. And speaking of history, apparently the history of rich neighbourhoods such as Cabbagetown or Rosedale are always far more important than regular ones such as Moss Park or Grange Park, which can be "redeveloped" on a whim (not that I oppose those projects). So is it "history" or just political convenience?

We want midrise neighbourhoods with great transit? Start with low density areas within walking distance of subway stops within the old City. Seriously what are these? Is it some sort of joke? We spend 2 million dollars on the station, just so 12 people in the city can walk to them?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top