Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In the case of Toronto, perhaps they just can't afford these neigbourhoods vs a Condo. I also find it somewhat insaulting to these individuals buying condo's that they are buying them because they don't know any differently... Did you ever consider they enjoy living where they live? Perhaps they aren't like you, have a different lifestyle and don't want to live where you live and how you live.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnathanc
I'm sure many people buying condos them probably haven't experienced living in an urban neighborhood in Toronto, NY, SF, London, Chicago, Montreal, DC etc. and hence don't place value on it.
I'm not in favour of any move that counters the demand of the consumer! Additionally I'm not convinced that these mid-rise communities will address the density requirements and demands that Condo's represent. Toronto isn't really built on swaths of mid density development.. it is mainly low density with high density and mid throughout. As I mentioned before, imo you would have to raze a great deal of existing low rise development to make way for mid rise while at the same time not meeting the growth demands of the city... I think Developer's are going to respond to market demand in the location that demands it. Politicians will not get in the way as long as Developers are building to code and meeting this demand.
.
I gotta disagree with you re: the mid-rise / high-rise debate. I'm certainly not advocating razing any existing neighbourhoods, but rather building mid-rise neighbourhoods in undeveloped areas like the strip of land west of Spadina and north of the Gardiner, the West Donlands, and other undeveloped / underdeveloped areas, etc. I think I've already been over the fact that many of the densest cities in the world are mid-rise. We don't need to look like Shanghai to accommodate Toronto's new residents. Just take a look at Boston's Back Bay neighbourhood, how dense (and attractive) it is and whether that wouldn't be preferable to block after block after block of high rises (many of Toronto's ugliest areas are dominated by high-rises built in the 50's and 60's). Also take a look at Hell's Kitchen in New York, large swathes of Barcelona or Paris. All these cities are among the densest in the world and they've achieved their density without becoming a city of high-rise condos. I agree there is a place for high rises in Toronto, but I don't think it should be outside the downtown core or parts of the city (especially the boroughs) where the street layout and topography make them a good fit (really, these boroughs would be much more livable areas if they were developed more like Brooklyn and less like they are: mid-density suburbs with clusters of high rise apartments and townhouse complexes).
The reason I am generally against condos outside of the downtown core and a few other areas is because mid-rise neighbourhoods are more people-friendly; their human scale draws people into the streets which helps foster local businesses and healthy, bustling communities. Furthermore, if built properly they can accommodate nearly as many people as high-rise condo neighbourhoods, but are more people-friendly and more likely to become great urban neighbourhoods. Can you think of any neighbourhood dominated by condos that is a great neighbourhood, or is better than a comparable neighbourhood built mostly with tightly spaced mid-rise buildings on a tight street grid? Toronto's best neighbourhoods are pretty much all low-rise with some mid-rise developments, and in other great North American cities, pretty much all the best mixed-use urban neighbourhoods are densely built mid and low-rise. Even most of Manhattan's residential and mixed-use areas are predominately mid-rise. If it works for the centre of the second-largest city on the continent, I think it would work just fine for Toronto, which will probably never reach New York's 8 million + residents (I'm talking Toronto Proper, not the GTA, or GMA).
Also remember that there was massive protest against the razing of Shanghai and Beijing's old neighbourhoods to build the high-rise developments that now dominate the skyline, and these new developments are often lacking in character and street-level amenities. Also, Toronto is never going to be as big as Shanghai, so we don't need to build like them. I think a better model can be found in northeastern American cities and in large European cities like London, Paris, and Barcelona.
I would agree with this for the most part if we didn't have some realities we are faced with. For instance green areas (within our city in the form of abundant parks that should be protected that nobody likes to admit but that we have) and that surround us along with marshlands that are protected and thus limiting our growth options (which is why we aren't the massive contiguous urban form like Chicagloand). We also have to live with the history of our development and I think these presents us with challenges that the mid rise dense city examples you provide didn't have and don't have (without taking into account their geography) and the fact that even these places will need to start building up and are doing so. Therefore, taking our geography and history into account, i'm not so sure I would agree with you regarding development.
With all that said and if i'm wrong correct me but the limited areas of the city that you are referring to that are ripe for development, sorry but if you go mid rise in the here and now what happens in the future and quite frankly in the relatively near future given projected growth. Not to mention the fact that people are choosing to live in specific high density areas, not just DT but even in specific high density areas in the suburbs. Anyway I would see no choice but razing of existing low density developments which really through and through is the heart of T.O, we are not Sao Paulo or Caracas!
Now if in the past, we had focussed on dense mid rises probably we wouldn't be having this debate because we'd be accomodating this growth all along uniformly and pretty contiguously - as opposed to some pretty old Victorianb(which I really like but don't do much for growth!) in Cabbagetown with a big lot or some ugly looking single dwelling slab of a house built in the 70's which are all bloody over! - we'd have rowhouses or the like but we don't! Toronto is a city of contrasts - you go from dense highrise nodes to low density swaths fast and back to High density nodes with a little mid -rise form splattering here and there and this is something you don't see in Barcelona, Paris or even Boston. Heck you don't see such contrast in Montreal!
I was in Madrid in January and Old Madrid was much like you describe in terms of Dense mid rise development but once in the suburban areas I was shocked how the city started to look more and more like something akin to Moscow or even T.O commie block swath's all over... and from where I stood I much preferred our typical condo versus those massive 'things' - same with Istanbul (look what's happening there!). We can't just look to the romanticized view of things and places that we cherry pick and insert them as Toronto... Also - look at Transit or should I say lack of mass transit keeping pace with our growth - hasn't happened which also I think means that you get the demand for high density condo development closest to mass transit options. The fact that investment in infrastructure and necessary transit development has not happened and really isn't happening is a shame and it is because of ridiculous and small minded politicking on various levels.
Back to Toronto, I don't think these Developer's are willy nilly building Condo's for the heck of it! There is a demand - though it is softening - not collapsing - softening and will probably pick up again and what do we do then with all these mid rise developments that chained our growth. Even suburban condo's are getting taller and taller...so again I say to you with your model - get ready to raze! Personally, I wouldn't be obliviously to razing swaths of ugly 60's, 70's single unit suburban dwelling for some nice mid rise form.... but i'm sure the families living in those homes would be!
And for whatever reason people are buying these condo's and not just DT - as I stated earlier, I think it is somewhat insaulting to individuals that they buy condo's because they don't know any better - it is what it is and they made their choice and for whatever reasons it suits their lifestyle and budget - supply and demand.
I live Dt in a three story walkup apartment building built in 1928 with reasonable rent because I choose to invest my money in the market instead of a Condo but still get to live where I want which suits my lifestyle. I'll do this as long as I can but I know that sooner rather than later some big develop is going to be buying these up and up will go a condo - it is what it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TOkidd
I gotta disagree with you re: the mid-rise / high-rise debate. I'm certainly not advocating razing any existing neighbourhoods, but rather building mid-rise neighbourhoods in undeveloped areas like the strip of land west of Spadina and north of the Gardiner, the West Donlands, other undeveloped / underdeveloped areas, etc. I think I've already been over the fact that many of the densest cities in the world are mid-rise. We don't need to look like Shanghai to accommodate Toronto's new residents. Just take a look at the Back Bay neighbourhood, how dense (and attractive) it is and whether that wouldn't be preferable to block after block after block of condos. Also take a look at Hell's Kitchen in New York, large swathes of Barcelona or Paris. All these cities are among the densest in the world and they've achieved their density without becoming a city of high-rise condos. I agree there is a place for high rises in Toronto, but I don't think it should be outside the downtown core or parts of the boroughs where the street layout and topography make them a good fit (really, these boroughs would be much more livable areas if they were developed more like Brooklyn and less like they are: mid-density suburbs with clusters of high rise apartments and townhouse complexes).
The reason I am generally against condos outside of the downtown core and a few other areas is because mid-rise neighbourhoods are more people-friendly, their human scale draws people into the streets which helps foster local businesses and healthy, bustling communities.
Also remember that there was massive protest against the razing of Shanghai and Beijing's old neighbourhoods to build the high-rise developments that now dominate the skyline, and these new developments are often lacking in character and street-level amenities. Also, Toronto is never going to be as big as Shanghai, so we don't need to build like them. I think a better model can be found in northeastern American cities and in large European cities like London, Paris, and Barcelona.
I would agree with this for the most part if we didn't have green areas (within our city in the form of abundant parks that should be protected that nobody likes to admit but that we have) surround us and marshlands surrounding our city that are protected and thus limiting our growth options (which is why we aren't the massive contiguous urban form like Chicagloand). I think this presents us with challenges that the mid rise dense city examples you provide did not have or don't have (without taking into account their geography agreed), but taking our geography and history into account, i'm not so sure I would agree with you.
With all that said and if i'm wrong correct me but the limited areas of the city that you are referring to that are ripe for development, sorry but if you go mid rise in the here and now what happens in the future and quite frankly in the relatively near future given our growth demands and demographics? I would see no choice but razing of existing low density developments which really through and through is the heart of T.O! Now if in the past, we had focussed on dense mid rises probably we wouldn't be having this debate because we'd be accomodating this growth all along uniformly and pretty contiguously - as opposed to some pretty old Victorian in Cabbagetown with a big lot or some ugly looking single dwelling slab of a house built in the 70's which are all bloody over! - we'd have rowhouses or the like but we don't! Toronto is a city of contrasts - you go from dense highrise nodes to low density swaths fast and back to High density nodes with a little mid -rise form splattering here and there and this is something you don't see in Barcelona, Paris or even Boston. Heck you don't see such contrast in Montreal! I was in Madrid in January and Old Madrid was much like you describe in terms of Dense mid rise development but once in the suburban areas I was shocked how the city started to look more and more like something akin to Moscow or even T.O commie block swath's all over... and from where I stood I much preferred our typical condo versus those massive 'things' - same with Istanbul (look what's happening there!). We can't just look to the romanticized view of things and places that we cherry pick and insert them as Toronto...
Back to Toronto, I don't think these Developer's are willy nilly building Condo's for the heck of it! There is a demand - though it is softening - not collapsing - softening and will probably pick up again and what do we do then with all these mid rise developments that chained our growth. Even suburban condo's are getting taller and taller...so again I say to you with your model - get ready to raze! Personally, I wouldn't be obliviously to razing swaths of ugly 60's, 70's single unit suburban dwelling for some nice mid rise form.... but i'm sure the families living in those homes would be!
And for whatever reason people are buying these condo's and not just DT - as I stated earlier, I think it is somewhat insaulting to individuals that they buy condo's because they don't know any better - it is what it is and they made their choice and for whatever reasons it suits their lifestyle and budget - supply and demand.
I live Dt in a three story walkup apartment building built in 1928 with reasonable rent because I choose to invest my money in the market instead of a Condo but still get to live where I want which suits my lifestyle. I'll do this as long as I can but I know that sooner rather than later some big develop is going to be buying these up and up will go a condo - it is what it is.
I think we have to remember that Toronto isn't just the Old City, and as the Big Move takes shape and rapid transit extends out to parts of North York where coverage currently isn't very good, to North Etobicoke, and especially to Scarborough, which probably has the most potential for infill, new residents will find these areas of the city more attractive than they are now. I believe that, for the most part, Old Toronto is fully developed and only has a few areas where the kind of dense urban development we're talking about can occur without razing older neighbourhoods. I don't think that choosing condos over dense mid-rise, mixed-use neighbourhoods in the areas I mentioned would make room for that many more people in the long run. We have to accept the Old City is mostly fully developed (unless we want to do what Napolean III did to Paris and pretty much level the whole city and start from scratch, which is neither desirable nor feasible), and if another million people or so are going to be moving into Toronto over the next couple of decades, they are going to have to be accommodated in the boroughs.
So, in addition to ensuring that Metrolinx's strategies for transit development are fully realized, Toronto has to make life in the boroughs more desirable. The way to do this is through urban design and targeted development, adding more amenities, increasing density and fostering the kinds of mixed-use communities where local residents can congregate for dining, shopping, etc. without always feeling the need to go "downtown". Right now, the boroughs are primarily bedroom communities, with all the city's attractions and vital neighbourhoods being located primarily south of the 401, east of the Humber, and west of Victoria Park. This needs to change, and residential development must be planned together with commercial/retail development to make living in the boroughs more desirable and the need to take transit into Old Toronto to shop, or dine, or enjoy the crowds and ambiance of places like Kensington Market, Chinatown, the Annex, or Yonge St. less necessary.
So I get what you're saying, but I think that if we're going to be developing the city for future residents, we have to take the pressure off the Old City so that we don't feel the need to build high-rise residential exclusively and can instead build true neighbourhoods on a human scale. The way to do that is by ensuring that the Big Move proceeds as planned, and that development in the boroughs ramps up with a view to not only housing new residents, but creating vital, mixed-use communities where they have access to many of the amenities that downtown residents enjoy. We need to make Scarborough and North York and Etobicoke more like Queens and Brooklyn and the Bronx, where most of New York's population lives, where they have access to excellent transit to bring them into Manhattan when they need it, and where their communities are often comparable to those in Manhattan in terms of access to amenities and vitality. The way I see it, this is an amazing opportunity for Toronto's boroughs to undergo a renaissance - to stop being considered the ugly, less popular siblings of Toronto, and fulfill their potential as vital, desirable urban communities.
Well atleast I like the fact that you agree we can't raze large parts of the city even though we'd like to! I like your idea for our suburban areas and I think it is a great vision but and big buts....from a geographic and economics point of view, lack of faith in adequate transit development due to politics point of view, also considering that the burbs contain alot of commercial land ie factories, warehouses etc, i'm not so sure. At best realistically, it would most likely have to be a combination of mid-rise and high rise development whilst respecting the fact that we do need to house business, this imo is being smart about looooong term growth!
Having said that, given the strong cultural diversity of these places I can only imagine the culinary and cultural draw these places would have over a bunch of commie blocks or single housing sprawl with the odd mega mall that dot the landscape now - agreed it is largely hideous lol ..which is why I live downtown and close to my people - gays.
Growth projections for the GTA over the next few decades is about 3 million! We have our work cut out for us!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by TOkidd
I think we have to remember that Toronto isn't just the Old City, and as the Big Move takes shape and rapid transit extends out to parts of North York where coverage currently isn't very good, to North Etobicoke, and especially to Scarborough, which probably has the most potential for infill, new residents will find these areas of the city more attractive than they are now. I believe that, for the most part, Old Toronto is fully developed and only has a few areas where the kind of dense urban development we're talking about can occur without razing older neighbourhoods. I don't think that choosing condos over dense mid-rise, mixed-use neighbourhoods in the areas I mentioned would make room for that many more people in the long run. We have to accept the Old City is mostly fully developed (unless we want to do what Napolean III did to Paris and pretty much level the whole city and start from scratch, which is neither desirable nor feasible), and if another million people or so are going to be moving into Toronto over the next couple of decades, they are going to have to be accommodated in the boroughs.
So, in addition to ensuring that Metrolinx's strategies for transit development are fully realized, Toronto has to make life in the boroughs more desirable. The way to do this is through urban design and targeted development, adding more amenities, increasing density and fostering the kinds of mixed-use communities where local residents can congregate for dining, shopping, etc. without always feeling the need to go "downtown". Right now, the boroughs are primarily bedroom communities, with all the city's attractions and vital neighbourhoods being located primarily south of the 401, east of the Humber, and west of Victoria Park. This needs to change, and residential development must be planned together with commercial/retail development to make living in the boroughs more desirable and the need to take transit into Old Toronto to shop, or dine, or enjoy the crowds and ambiance of places like Kensington Market, Chinatown, the Annex, or Yonge St. less necessary.
So I get what you're saying, but I think that if we're going to be developing the city for future residents, we have to take the pressure off the Old City so that we don't feel the need to build high-rise residential exclusively and can instead build true neighbourhoods on a human scale. The way to do that is by ensuring that the Big Move proceeds as planned, and that development in the boroughs ramps up with a view to not only housing new residents, but creating vital, mixed-use communities where they have access to many of the amenities that downtown residents enjoy. We need to make Scarborough and North York and Etobicoke more like Queens and Brooklyn and the Bronx, where most of New York's population lives, where they have access to excellent transit to bring them into Manhattan when they need it, and where their communities are often comparable to those in Manhattan in terms of access to amenities and vitality. The way I see it, this is an amazing opportunity for Toronto's boroughs to undergo a renaissance - to stop being considered the ugly, less popular siblings of Toronto, and fulfill their potential as vital, desirable urban communities.
My first reaction to this was to laugh as I wasn't expecting that scud....
Seriously though are you ok?
Of course not and how you link the two together is beyond me. I think it is more of a statement of where your head is than mine. Plus I don't have the word 'freak' in my name.
CONDO building is rapidly coming to a grinding stop in Toronto. Someone finally figured out that there are not enough buyers available. The tradition of Canadian developers - whether it be suburban sprawl and now condos...is to lobby the government for new immigration...the kind of immigrants that will enrich greedy developers.
I have seen the best farmland in the world disappear - thousands of acres. Then we get high density subdivided sprawl that builders fill with immigrants from the Pacific rim. The culture of Toronto will be severely changed in the future...Once Condos that can not be bought by Canadian citizens are finally bought up on mass by foreigners and foreign speculators.
New Condo proposals are slowing as the market adjusts but how do you know this will be long term? Sources? Toronto has always been building especially over the last five decades and there have always been cycles so I doubt this correction will last forever and that the immigration and migration flows will stop, they won't. Anyway the correction is actually quite healthy but developmental growth will return and I predict that it will be sooner rather than later, the last spurt of growth has been long and pronounced so based on these factors things will roar again soon enough.... we've just become that kind of animal now.
GTA is at 6.3 million currently - by 2036 projections have us at 9.2 million (that is GTA - the Greater Golden Horshoe is projected to be 14 MILLION) - almost 3 million more people in 23 years just in the GTA!! they have have to live somewhere! I would like to see more of a shift towards affordable housing though...
Looks like you have an aversion to growth and immigration in our city!?
Anyway, I thought a big part of all this high rise dev was to AVOID destruction of our farmland.....otherwise the Greater Golden Horshoe would be like Chicagoland, contiguous, mid-rise to low-rise and uninterrupted forever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oleg Bach
CONDO building is rapidly coming to a grinding stop in Toronto. Someone finally figured out that there are not enough buyers available. The tradition of Canadian developers - whether it be suburban sprawl and now condos...is to lobby the government for new immigration...the kind of immigrants that will enrich greedy developers.
I have seen the best farmland in the world disappear - thousands of acres. Then we get high density subdivided sprawl that builders fill with immigrants from the Pacific rim. The culture of Toronto will be severely changed in the future...Once Condos that can not be bought by Canadian citizens are finally bought up on mass by foreigners and foreign speculators.
There are two major problems with condo construction that have nothing to do with the urban development issues we've been discussing:
1. They are meant to be owned, not rented, and there is a HUGE shortage of affordable rentals in the city. This glut of new condos has not addressed the need for affordable rental housing. When outrageous monthly maintenance fees are added to the high initial cost of a new condo, I think the number of people willing to pay so much to live in a condo in the downtown is past its peak.
2. Because there are not enough people with the money to buy condos for themselves, investment buyers have bought a large portion of the units, intending to rent them out. However, the need in Toronto is mostly for AFFORDABLE rentals, and these new condos do not make for affordable rentals. By the time the investor takes into consideration the cost of monthly maintenance fees, the cost of their mortgage payments or if they bought the place outright the cost of reimbursing themselves for their purchase, and the cost of property taxes, the cost of renting a one bedroom condo in one of the new developments is going to be more than double the cost of renting in an older building. For that price, why not just buy a place your own condo and pay a mortgage? So the need for affordable rentals is not met and the number of people who would actually spend $2000 + a month for a one bedroom apartment is pretty low.
Developers are desperate to cash in off home buyers, but what about the thousands of people out there looking for affordable rentals close to the downtown. This is a huge untapped market that the industry (and the city, short-sighted as ever) is completely ignoring. I find it outrageous that the city has allowed all these massive condos to be built, but haven't encouraged the building of any new rental buildings near the downtown where they are so desperately needed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
..which is why I live downtown and close to my people - gays.
