christiesplits
Senior Member
Meanwhile, in B.C.
Public backlash to 'gigantic' multiplex homes in Burnaby, B.C., has council scaling back
Public backlash to 'gigantic' multiplex homes in Burnaby, B.C., has council scaling back
|
|
|
- Thread starter A Torontonian Now
- Start date
Northern Light
Superstar
I think this is understandable, if you look at the story, you see a giant 4 storey box next to a 1 storey bungalow.
Its predictable that people would find the new build out-sized, non-contextual and dislike it.
I can't fault them.
This is why I emphasize with reform to incorporate transitions.
You can go from one storey to two, maybe 3, but one to four is a big jump.
To be clear, where the one storey is out of context itself, or where an entire block is being re-done, its different.
But in the interior of an established area........I get the objection.
Burnaby, it should be noted has not rescinded multiplex permissions, what it has done is roll back the as-of-right height to 3 storeys, and the as-of-right area of the builds by ~1/3.
The mistake, here as elsewhere, in my mind, is that the attempt is to write one by-law for everywhere, even though the context and built form varies widely.
What should be as-of-right everywhere is rental tenure, multi-units within a given built form where size permits, and 2 or 3 storeys.
Then you add-on additional permissions where the context permits. You can do this prescriptively, but you can also do it by empowering your planners and carefully defining the principles, with public guidelines.
For instance, as-of-right to go to 4s, wherever an adjacent property is at least 3s.
A smart builder then catches on that if you buy lot one and build 3s, you just got permission to do 4s on the lot next door. You've done that by altering the context.
Whenever one approves comparatively extreme change, there is a risk of an intense counter reaction. Sometimes, that can be fine; but it shouldn't be habit because it results in whipsaw policy changes as unhappy voters turf politicians they don't like.
Last edited:
IsaacKhouzam
New Member
A planning regime that requires a three storey building to be present on a street first in order to justify a four storey building seems fundamentally broken or misguided to me. There should be nowhere in a medium or large city where four storeys is "out-sized and non-contextual." We're talking about small buildings here, which only seem large because of the historical anomaly of single-use single -family residential zoning. It may be predictable that people won't like change, but it isn't reasonable.
Northern Light
Superstar
Disagree firmly.
Look at the picture in the story. If you would be ok w/that, fine; but very few people would be; its predictable. We live in a democracy, and people get to vote for what they want, including development patterns.
I'm dislike suburban forms; I love walking and support cycling, and am a regular transit user.
But I'm a grown up who gets that what I prefer is not what everyone else prefers. And if you impose your preferences willy nilly you will lose and it will be expensive and delay progress by decades.
IsaacKhouzam
New Member
This sounds reasonable but doesn't reflect the reality of the situation. It is precisely those people who take such issue with living next to four-storey buildings who are imposing their preferences (for smaller buildings) on others (adjacent property owners). I am advocating for exactly the opposite. If it is safe, let them build it. Perhaps the grownups who live next door can then learn to understand that their preferences aren't universal either.
Northern Light
Superstar
If you put it to a vote, you will lose.
The pressure on politicians speaks for itself.
IsaacKhouzam
New Member
Without a doubt; which is why I believe it's the role of everyone in planning, architecture, and building to work to convince people that urbanism doesn't have to be scary. Over time, I hope, public opinion can change. I don't think our milquetoast approach to urban change will ever accomplish that.
Northern Light
Superstar
I really have to object here to describing the pace of change of urban form as milque toast.
Lets review using Toronto:
In the last ~5 years.
Toronto has abolished parking minimums.
Permitted 4 plexes as-of-right, and rental tenure as-of-right, almost everywhere.
Permitted 6 plexes as-of-right in roughly 40% of the City
Permitted 4 storeys as-of-right in most areas.
Permitted 6 storeys as-of-right on all main streets (without lowering any permissions that were higher)
Passed slew of MTSAs allows high density as-of-right around several dozen subway/commuter train stations.
Abolished the angular plane
Moderated setback requirements
To name a but a few of the changes while approving more new density and height than any City in North America (US/Canada) and more in total than any City except NYC.
How is the milquetoast?
C'mon now.
Likewise parking minimums have fallen by the wayside in most major Canadian cities, density permissions have been increased, rental tenures generally permitted in all residential zones and each has approved dozens of midrise and hirise proposals.
There is nothing slow about the pace of change, indeed its been breaking records.
There is a need to dial back the hyperbole in these discussions in order to maintain them as constructive.
IsaacKhouzam
New Member
And yet despite all of that, we are still debating whether it is reasonable to object to the construction of four storey buildings in major cities. I'm enthusiastic about the changes you quoted, but it feels to me like we're still starting from the assumption that urbanism, density, etc. are evils to be avoided where possible and tolerated where necessary. Just imagine if the opposite were true: if to build a one storey bungalow I had to show that it wouldn't be out of context with surrounding three storey houses. It's absurd. We view "large" buildings (by which we seem to mean anything larger than a house) as scary, and we over-legislate their construction in a way that I think is ultimately harmful. The pushback against "gigantic" multiplexes in the story linked above is an example of exactly that.
Northern Light
Superstar
But that's not the case. The changes described were passed.
Even where passed, in Toronto, we've seen very few applications of this type in the truly suburban areas. So its not like these changes instantly result in redevelopment of this type, they generally do not.
What we're talking about is massaging some of the changes in a way that allows them to go through, stay adopted, and evolve further, as opposed to eliciting maximum blow back.
Nothing in the world is about strict merit. Merit itself being debatable (what was the priority or goal again?.)
Its about understanding all the real world trade offs.
The objective is not four storeys. If it is, I think you've got the objective wrong.
The objective is not single-egress, nor walk-ups, nor the abolition of angular plane etc etc.
The objective is housing that over a period of years is somewhat more affordable for ownership and rental, in more tenures and formats, in more places with that contributing to reduced poverty and a higher standard of living.
There are multiple levers that can be pushed and pulled (clamping down on in investors, curtailing population growth, prohibiting ownership of more than 1 or 2 homes in a major metro (except for redevelopment purposes), lowering costs of construction, lowering costs of financing, altered/reformed rent controls, direct construction subsidies, direct housing subsidies to tenants etc etc.
The objective its to mix and match those most likely to produce the desired result in the shortest window of time, and to see that improvement last.
Where four storeys helps this, great; but if it harms it by getting pushback that halts many of those other items that may actually be more integral to the solution........move on.
No one should be stuck on 4 storeys anymore than on 1. Its politics, its the art of the do-able.
i don' think this accurately describes Canadian Cities at all in terms of the average person, or the professional planner.
Its not a matter of scary, when someone proposes something immediately next to your home (including if that that home is in a 20 storey building) you will understandably ask..........
"How does this help me, if at all?"; "How will this effect the value of my property if I'm an owner?", "How will this affect my enjoyment of my back yard, my pool, my balcony?" "What if this causes gridlock on my street?" What if my kids can't play street hockey here anymore? "What about the neighbourhood block party?" These are things normal people ask themselves all the time.
They aren't unreasonable questions. The questions should not be used to obstruct reasonable change and evolution in a neighbourhood. But neither should they be dismissed. And those who do, will find reforms halted or rolled back.
I've been very pro planning reform, and I've helped get many of these passed. I don't want my work undone by over zealousness that will sweep into power people who will un-do it all with the stroke of a pen.
Compromise is not a dirty word, is a necessity in a civil society.
We completely disagree.
Last edited:
IsaacKhouzam
New Member
Compromise is not a dirty word, but neither is all compromise necessarily positive. I don't think you and I will agree on where the line should be drawn. For me, the changes to Burnaby's multiplex allowances as described in that article are a clear example of an obstruction against reasonable change.
evandyk
Senior Member
Proponents of these ideas should be aggressively getting out there with examples of four story apartment buildings that fit beautifully within out existing single family neighbourhoods. There are tons of examples!
Last edited:
T-Bor
Active Member
Agreed, especially in parts of the city with deep lots. There are a few in the Beaches that are set well back from the street and blend in pretty seamlessly
Northern Light
Superstar
The Palmerston one is particularly lovely; but note, that it doesn't stick out like a sore thumb, because it both matches the architectural styling of the area homes, and its a short 4s next to homes that are 2.5s or 3s, and often have some extra height as well.
Its very supportable, but its also a perfect example of 'blending' and 'transition'
txlseries4
Active Member
While south of Bloor St, Palmerston Blvd has those beautiful old 4-storeys, it appears Councillor Saxe believes Palmerston Avenue north of Bloor St. -- where there are only 2 storey homes -- should be protected and heights limited on it and surrounding streets, with her letter/motion that went to community council this week requesting staff look into designating it a Heritage Conservation District. Disappointing to see more alignment with and appeasing nimbys in a transit rich neighbourhood.
From here: https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2025.TE26.58
From here: https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2025.TE26.58