Spooderman
New Member
I’m also
307 Sherbourne and Hoem sherbourne are also really nice projects can’t wait for them to be complete
307 Sherbourne and Hoem sherbourne are also really nice projects can’t wait for them to be complete
|
|
|
- Thread starter A Torontonian Now
- Start date
IsaacKhouzam
New Member
I’d just like to chime in to say that the three storey cut-off is not self-evidently the right one, and many—myself included—think we should allow four, five, and maybe even six storey buildings without elevators. Not to be facetious, but the way I see it a four story walk-up is just a three storey walk-up with an extra floor (and therefore with space for more and/or bigger units). If you imagine it as a four storey building that would otherwise have been built with an elevator, then sure, it’s making housing less accessible; but viewed as a building that otherwise would have been built with three floors, or not built at all, I think it makes a better case for itself.
Last edited:
Towered
Superstar
Where are those examples?
Northern Light
Superstar
We can agree, as with anything, increments are the enemy of rationality.
Why should the drinking age be 19? Why not 18? Of course, if you keep asking the question.....what's one more year? You get to infants.....
Same goes for the age of consent....why 16? After all, in the real world, is often lower, and in many other countries it IS lower.....what's one more year.....until....what?
What percentage of units should be off limits to those using mobility aids, even to visit?
1%, 10% What's another 1%? Until you get to 100%.......always easy when its someone else's rights and freedoms you're infringing.
Sorry, I'll have to take a pass.
Monarch Butterfly
Superstar
If there is a height limit for only stairs, maybe we should put in elevators in Toronto parks that have steps going up or down hills.
A staircase that runs between the south side of Eglinton Avenue, where it intersects with Leslie Street, and a parking lot in E.T. Seton Park
A staircase that runs between the south side of Eglinton Avenue, where it intersects with Leslie Street, and a parking lot in E.T. Seton Park
Last edited:
Towered
Superstar
I agree, we need to keep buildings as accessible as possible. I remember visiting my grandparents frequently in the 80's in Austria...they lived on the 4th floor of an apartment building built in the 30's. It obviously had no elevators, and even for me as a kid it was annoying to have to go up those flights of stairs after a day out and about, but credit to them, they did it without complaint, as there simply was no alternative. My grandfather was in his 80's at the time, overweight and using a cane, but still. My grandmother also continued like this well into her 80's. I did notice on my last visit there in 2018 that those buildings had been retrofitted with exterior elevators, which was a nice touch.
EDIT: By the way, they also had to schlep all the way into the basement of the building to get coal with a bucket from the HUGE PILE OF COAL that was just sitting in the middle of a room, to haul upstairs to toss in the furnace during icy cold winters because the building had no central heating. I know, sounds so primitive now to all of us eh???
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
I'm just emotionally exhausted by people who don't care about others. Their only real concern is themselves. Then only in the short term. An injury or medical situation they haven't yet experienced or that that a loved one has not..
is of no concern to them. Of course, when it happens..............they'll cry about the affront to dignity and forcing someone to move. But not one day before.......until then..its only about them and how they are today.
Unchecked selfishness is so very offensive.
IsaacKhouzam
New Member
Sure, if the logic was simply that one more storey is always better, there would be no end. Thankfully, we don’t have to be so reductive. Questioning whether three storeys is the magic number does not imply that there is no reasonable limit. I happen to think that things would sort themselves out with respect to the elevator question, but I’d be happy just to see the limit raised by a floor or two. An apartment on the fourth floor is only slightly less accessible than one on the third floor, but a building with four floors has up to 33% more floor area than one with three. That’s probably worth it. A five storey building adds yet another 25% more floor area at the cost of being yet slightly more of a pain to get up to; a six storey building is a long way to climb for just another 20%, etc., etc. Every floor you add gets you less for more—nobody’s climbing up 25 flights of stairs to save on rent, and I really don’t think developers are chomping at the bit to build tall buildings without elevators.
Towered
Superstar
I'm with you - I'd love to see yellowbelt Toronto terraformed with walkable midrises, 15-minute neighbourhoods and all that, but not at all costs. We need to do better than before, and not repeat mistakes of the past. And we have an aging population. That's important to consider.
north-of-anything
Active Member
Four storeys without elevators could work well if all the units on the third floor were two levels, where all the stairs are internal. Would result in more family-sized suites, too.
Edit: See, I live on the third floor of a building right now, and when my hands are full of groceries I always take the elevator, so I can't see people willing to carry much up to the fourth floor. That is why I wouldn't have the kitchens and main living areas being upstairs in those bi-level apartments.
Edit: See, I live on the third floor of a building right now, and when my hands are full of groceries I always take the elevator, so I can't see people willing to carry much up to the fourth floor. That is why I wouldn't have the kitchens and main living areas being upstairs in those bi-level apartments.
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
I think that statement is fine..............
As far as it goes..........
But I'd flip it just the same.............
What's wrong w/the idea that every home should be accessible?
Why stop at 4 floors? Why not cut it to three or two?
I'm not an absolutist, I'm pragmatic. I particularly get room to exempt heritage buildings from rules we apply to new builds..........and I also have time for the idea that an SFH doesn't need to have an elevator if it has 2 floors.
But I'm not sure I understand the argument why someone who is not fully able-bodied...........should have their rights sacrificed......... to, in theory, enable lower rents/purchase prices....... which would in fact, never materialize.
Before you ask why I'm so certain on the latter..........have you checked out the prices on said walk-ups in New York City or Paris, France? Right.......still not affordable.
IsaacKhouzam
New Member
The idea that every home should be accessible is a great one if you ignore the trade-offs: the trade-off being, in this case, making it more difficult to build the housing we desperately need.
I don’t think your point about prices in New York or Paris is the gotcha you think it is. These are expensive cities. Everything in them is expensive, for reasons related and unrelated to housing construction/availability. Nobody is arguing that four storey walk-ups are a panacea—but it seems completely obvious to me that if New York and Paris didn’t have these kinds of buildings they would be even more expensive. Even putting that aside, New York probably houses four times as many people as Toronto in a similar land area. Park Slope, where I live, isn’t even particularly dense by New York standards, and yet it blows most Toronto neighbourhoods out of the water with a density of ~17,000 people per square kilometre. Maybe New York’s built form is not up to the task of housing a city of its size affordably, but it still provides housing to millions of people, and I see no reason to suggest it wouldn’t be effective at doing just that in Toronto.
If Toronto ever needs to house a population the size of New York’s within our current boundaries, four storey apartment buildings won’t save us from high prices. Our current crisis, however, could sure benefit from some increased permissiveness.
All this to say that any city, no matter the size, that experiences demand far in excess of its ability to increase its housing supply will be expensive. This has little bearing on our discussion of the suitability of slightly taller walk-ups, except to say: in Toronto such buildings may be able to have a significant impact on the buildable density of our inner neighbourhoods; whereas in New York they are not sufficient to accommodate demand in theirs.
Last edited:
Spooderman
New Member
Totally agree, and this is exactly what I’m getting at. For NYC, they’re focused on building taller buildings because the demand calls for it, but also because their density is so much higher than ours! They don't have single-family homes; instead, it’s all walk-ups. Of course, there should be accessible buildings in Toronto, and there always will be, given the SFHs and buildings w elevators we have here. But that shouldn’t mean we don’t increase the variety of homes available. The benefits of these types of housing outweigh the negatives—it’s just too good an opportunity to pass up (hopefully ppl realize this). And for Toronto, correct me if I’m wrong, requires a buidling six floors and above to have an elevator, so it’s well within code
Last edited:
Monarch Butterfly
Superstar
Don't forget that adding more stairs or elevators will add to the cost of any building. Increasing the final price of the place. Want to reduce the price of housing, you'll have to do without the "extras" that have become "standard". Why have indoor plumbing, when you can have a pump and outhouse at a much cheaper price?
We're now "demanding" air-conditioning in each housing unit. That will increase the price of housing.
We're now "demanding" air-conditioning in each housing unit. That will increase the price of housing.
Northern Light
Superstar
You're incorrect. 4 floors requires an elevator.