News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 10K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 42K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.9K     0 

The Province is out w/their latest 'we can make development happen faster' presser.

Ontario Newsroom

news.ontario.ca news.ontario.ca

Most of it is the usual.........standardize/lower development charges and other pablum which won't move the needle much, it at all.

There's also more MZOs coming, particularly for Transit-Oriented Communities.

But this one......this has my attention:

1747063481532.png

I am told this is a direct shot at Toronto's Green Development Standards and would seek to abolish them, and remove the City's right to set its own building standards.

I feel mixed about this. I believe in the goals of Toronto Green Standards, but I've always felt the City was the wrong level of government to impose these, that this belonged at the provincial or national building code level.

Either way, this would be a big change.

It wouldn't necessarily result in much lower environmental performance; but it would reduce the paperwork burden.
 
I am wondering if outside stairs may be a way around eliminating the need for two separate enclosed ones that are a barrier to building more mid-rise structures? Hopefully this will be resolved to the satisfaction of most parties this coming legislative session.
 
rdaner said:
I am wondering if outside stairs may be a way around eliminating the need for two separate enclosed ones that are a barrier to building more mid-rise structures? Hopefully this will be resolved to the satisfaction of most parties this coming legislative session.
Click to expand...

Not really. I mean, there are ways to do that...........but there are multiple challenges.

The overt issues though are security; you can't have people who don't live in the building gaining access via un-secured stairs. That requires a locked door and fenced/glazed surround of some description.

The code also requires that any stair case be effectively protected from smoke and fire elsewhere in the building, so it can be an effective exit. This is done by glazing/walls and fire doors.

You would likely need to address that, at that moment, likely looking at fully gazing in the stairs. Though perhaps the risk could be minimized satisfactorily in some other way.

But, once you add enough structure, for safety, fire proofing etc.; and lighting, and slip-resistant surfaces. I'm not sure you're saving any money, and its likely that that would be added to any GFA calculation by the City too.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
Not really. I mean, there are ways to do that...........but there are multiple challenges.

The overt issues though are security; you can't have people who don't live in the building gaining access via un-secured stairs. That requires a locked door and fenced/glazed surround of some description.

The code also requires that any stair case be effectively protected from smoke and fire elsewhere in the building, so it can be an effective exit. This is done by glazing/walls and fire doors.

You would likely need to address that, at that moment, likely looking at fully gazing in the stairs. Though perhaps the risk could be minimized satisfactorily in some other way.

But, once you add enough structure, for safety, fire proofing etc.; and lighting, and slip-resistant surfaces. I'm not sure you're saving any money, and its likely that that would be added to any GFA calculation by the City too.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that’s kind of the paradox. The idea of outside stairs feels simpler at first glance, but once you layer in all the real-world requirements like fire rating, smoke protection, security, weatherproofing, and slip resistance, it starts to snowball. At that point, you're basically building another enclosed structure, just with more exposure and maintenance issues. I get the appeal in theory, especially for mid-rise projects trying to squeeze into tight envelopes. But I wonder if any jurisdictions have actually made this work in a cost-effective way. Would love to see examples if they exist.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
DavidCapizzano said:
Montreal does exterior stairs, sometimes on highrises. It's also very common to see external fire escapes added to historic buildings and most new low rise buildings have steel fire escapes at the rear which double as balconies. The building I live in has a fire escape that is accessed via a large window that swings open like a door and closes with a latch

https://maps.app.goo.gl/U6dHBPxy4AjkXPjQ9

https://maps.app.goo.gl/szJyHp4GyVZCmMAp6

https://maps.app.goo.gl/WBJQGwYVnFjcr22WA



View attachment 652993

View attachment 652994
View attachment 652995
Click to expand...
Montreal's average annual snowfall is around 209.5 cm (over 59 days). In comparison, Toronto's average annual snowfall is 121.5 cm (over 41 days).

Yet Montreal has the outdoor stairs.
 
Montreal does indeed feature the above.

Its certainly a trade-off in terms of accessibility. We're not just talking wheelchairs here........those cute, but tight, steep, circular stairs are tough on anyone with less than ideal mobility or who has to move bulky items up/down.....even in good weather. In rainy/snowy/icy conditions they often pose serious issues.

I don't argue we should rip all the heritage ones out.......or not show an open mind on code changes.............merely that people who are argue single means of egress generate huge savings, are generally wrong; and there is no evidence to support this......there are trade-offs and some do carry potentially serious consequences.

Everyone remember the horrible public housing tower fire in London, UK (Grenfell) that killed 70 residents?

Guess what it had? A single point of egress.

The proximal issue w/the spread/severity of the fire (insulation under the cladding that provided highly flammable........) was not tied to the single egress; but the casualties were.

Single egress designs in Europe are typically predicated on a stay-in-place fire fighting strategy, rather than evacuation. That strategy which held off attempts to evacuate the building were a contributing factor to the many casualties.

1747854482063.png


Source: https://secondegress.ca/A-Wicked-Problem

If people would stop treating every idea (single point egress, mass timber, more height , less parking, lower development charges) as the answer to affordability we could have frank and thoughtful
conversations on appropriate flexibility in building codes and a suite of changes which likely wouldn't significantly alter affordability but might yield slightly better unit quality and variety, albeit with some trade offs.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
Montreal does indeed feature the above.

Its certainly a trade-off in terms of accessibility. We're not just talking wheelchairs here........those cute, but tight, steep, circular stairs are tough on anyone with less than ideal mobility or who has to move bulky items up/down.....even in good weather. In rainy/snowy/icy conditions they often pose serious issues.

I don't argue we should rip all the heritage ones out.......or not show an open mind on code changes.............merely that people who are argue single means of egress generate huge savings, are generally wrong; and there is no evidence to support this......there are trade-offs and some do carry potentially serious consequences.

Everyone remember the horrible public housing tower fire in London, UK (Grenfell) that killed 70 residents?

Guess what it had? A single point of egress.

The proximal issue w/the spread/severity fire (insulation under the cladding that provided highly flammable........) was not tied to the single egress; but the casualties were.

Single egress designs in Europe are typically predicated on a stay-in-place fire fighting strategy, rather than evacuation. That strategy which held off attempts to evacuate the building were a contributing factor to the many casualties.

View attachment 653011

Source: https://secondegress.ca/A-Wicked-Problem

If people would stop treating every idea (single point egress, mass timber, more height , less parking, lower development charges) as the answer to affordability we could have frank and thoughtful
conversations on appropriate flexibility in building codes and a suite of changes which likely wouldn't significantly alter affordability but might yield slightly better unit quality and variety, albeit with some trade offs.
Click to expand...
They could enclose the fire escape or second egress.
Maybe include a single person elevator.

1747856735657.png
1747856972721.png
 
DavidCapizzano said:
I do think it speaks to the deeply entrenched culture of "Whataboutism" in TO vs trying to make something work and making as many safe options easy and feasible to build as possible.
Click to expand...

I don't.

I think that's a dangerous statement that speaks to low information about how things are done in other places and the consequences and benefits thereof.

I also think it ignores how remarkably permissive Toronto is vs many other jurisdictions.........

***

Can we do better, sure.......

And I know I personally have spent a great deal of time making that happen.

Time for which I am not paid..............

Unquestionably there is always more work to be done......... but to have all that's been achieved reduced to "Toronto sucks, and we don't do anything" is more than insulting, its wildly inaccurate.
 
I have to challenge the notion that we need to cater to every single possibility and safety issue in a perfect manner - the incremental human cost of lack of housing due to cost is arguably more dangerous to human health than the possibility of egress issues for a sub-segment of the population in the event of a fire (or whatever). We obsess over code, wring our hands over it and washes our hands off the greater tragedy that is the want of housing. It's a really convenient excuse to do nothing.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
I have to challenge the notion that we need to cater to every single possibility and safety issue in a perfect manner - the incremental human cost of lack of housing due to cost is arguably more dangerous to human health than the possibility of egress issues for a sub-segment of the population in the event of a fire (or whatever).
Click to expand...

Sure...........except I don't think that's the case here.

I provided a real-world example of a real fire that really killed 70 people with many more serious injuries in which a public inquiry found that a single point of egress was a material factor in those casualties.

Its not just theory.

AlvinofDiaspar said:
We obsess over code, wring our hands over it and washes our hands off the greater tragedy that is the want of housing. It's a really convenient excuse to do nothing.

AoD
Click to expand...

Except that Toronto has seen more housing built and even more more approved than any other city in North America and all but a handful in the world. Which did not abate the issue of supply shortage as we were goosing demand even more
aggressively.

Nowhere in the world that has allowed single point of egress has shown a resulting increase in affordability of housing, from Seattle to London, UK.

Its simply a myth that it makes a difference.

***

I will note again that Toronto has not done 'nothing' in terms of relaxing restrictions.

- Parking Minimums gone
- Angular Plane gone
- 4 storeys as-of-right, in yellowbelt
- Rental tenure/multi-family as-of-right, all residential zones
- 4 plex as-of-right
- 6 storeys on main streets as-of-right
- Type G Loading space no longer required on developments up to 60 units
- Garden and Laneway suite permissions
- Legal Rooming houses
- ADUs (ie. basement apartments) as-of-right for 30 years+

etc etc.

All with some of tallest buildings anywhere allowed all over the City.

****

May I also note that I was among the first to point out the demand side problem........and its only since the curtailment of Foreign Study permits and a modest ride in interest rates that we've actually seen prices and rents fall.

If the government implemented my further recommendations to cut the number of foreign temporary residents to below 4% of the population, eliminating the low-wage TFW stream (excepting agriculture), and banned short-term rental entirely; prices and rents would fall another 20-30% from today's levels which wouldn't eliminate housing an issue, but would materially abate the crisis far more than a single point of egress ever would, by orders of magnitude.
 
Northern Light said:
Sure...........except I don't think that's the case here.

I provided a real-world example of a real fire that really killed 70 people with many more serious injuries in which a public inquiry found that a single point of egress was a material factor in those casualties.

Its not just theory.



Except that Toronto has seen more housing built and even more more approved than any other city in North America and all but a handful in the world. Which did not abate the issue of supply shortage as we were goosing demand even more
aggressively.

Nowhere in the world that has allowed single point of egress has shown a resulting increase in affordability of housing, from Seattle to London, UK.

Its simply a myth that it makes a difference.

***

I will note again that Toronto has not done 'nothing' in terms of relaxing restrictions.

- Parking Minimums gone
- Angular Plane gone
- 4 storeys as-of-right, in yellowbelt
- Rental tenure/multi-family as-of-right, all residential zones
- 4 plex as-of-right
- 6 storeys on main streets as-of-right
- Type G Loading space no longer required on developments up to 60 units
- Garden and Laneway suite permissions
- Legal Rooming houses
- ADUs (ie. basement apartments) as-of-right for 30 years+

etc etc.

All with some of tallest buildings anywhere allowed all over the City.

****

May I also note that I was among the first to point out the demand side problem........and its only since the curtailment of Foreign Study permits and a modest ride in interest rates that we've actually seen prices and rents fall.

If the government implemented my further recommendations to cut the number of foreign temporary residents to below 4% of the population, eliminating the low-wage TFW stream (excepting agriculture), and banned short-term rental entirely; prices and rents would fall another 20-30% from today's levels which wouldn't eliminate housing an issue, but would materially abate the crisis far more than a single point of egress ever would, by orders of magnitude.
Click to expand...

You have selected a typology that is particularly vulnerable to access issues (apartment tower) along with a clear deficiency in material selection that lead to the conflagration. A second egress wouldn't have changed a thing. Not everything should be cut from the same cloth.

AoD
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top