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.
Some of it has been lost - I look more to change as what is to be gained.
Well, a wise man once said, "Change is how we know that time is passing."
I was in Toronto recently, and saw a lot of changes. I didn't like the high-rise condos popping up all over the place, but I did appreciate that a crosstown Eglinton LRT is being built. The 401 is under construction (nothing new there), but if it deals with those all-too-frequent "must exit" lanes, or increases capacity, then it's all for the good. A disused industrial property in Leaside has been repurposed into something that serves the local neighbourhood, with specialty shops, a supermarket, and a nice pub.
Change is not necessarily a bad thing. At any rate, it is how we know that time is passing. And where is Taddle Creek today?
Well, a wise man once said, "Change is how we know that time is passing."
I was in Toronto recently, and saw a lot of changes. I didn't like the high-rise condos popping up all over the place, but I did appreciate that a crosstown Eglinton LRT is being built. The 401 is under construction (nothing new there), but if it deals with those all-too-frequent "must exit" lanes, or increases capacity, then it's all for the good. A disused industrial property in Leaside has been repurposed into something that serves the local neighbourhood, with specialty shops, a supermarket, and a nice pub.
Change is not necessarily a bad thing. At any rate, it is how we know that time is passing. And where is Taddle Creek today?
Yeah Toronto is building condo's at a blistering rate. Funny thing is, Toronto has been building a lot of highrises since the 60's when Canada started becoming an immigration nation. Strong High-rise development has been a big part of the city's development for over 50 years now. The intensity has ramped up in the 2000's though, and so has the height - especially in the DT core.
So when I said I am more excited about the change than things we've lost I meant it. Condo's for instance can revitalize a dead zone. It isn't just the building and podium but what all those people will bring to an area. This is the case as long as the condo itself doesn't actually kill the area's vibrancy, there are cases of that unfortunately, but on the whole the change has been positive for the city. The example you citied with a disused industrial proper being repurposed that serves the local hood in a good way! The new condo development in my nabe has brought a new supermarket. Now we don't have to drive as much to do groceries, we can walk.
Some of the character dies if you appreciated what was lost, but you have to look at what is gained and what people, new people bring to a nabe. The challenge for Toronto and any fast growing city around the world really, is to ensure affordable options are on the table. It is a serious issue but it isn't one that Toronto owns, all major cities including within our country are experiencing increasing income inequality and housing unaffordability.
Taddle Creek - you got me on that one Chevy. I had to google it. Interesting story my friend, and looks like there are still remnants of that creek in your old neck of the woods. If I go for a walk down philosopher's, I'll keep my eye open
Yeah the Distillery is fantastic but I think criticism of the lack of pedestrian only spaces in the core is fair criticism. Toronto has no issues finding space for limitless condo$ but god forbid more isn't done re: urban spaces. Cars are a fact of life and while I also think Toronto gets unfairly levelled about being too 'auto-centric' - particularly when we compare it to 7 plus million metros on our continent, a little more pedestrian love is certainly warranted and would be welcomed.
In fairness to T.O - the city proper itself has absolutely no peer in the U.S/Canada when it comes to city proper growth - what is it 70K per year now in just the city!? I think Pheonix is second with 25K. I dunno, maybe a bit harder balancing BK's urban space requirements vs Montreal which has maybe 1/4 the growth
Yayyy Fusion is back! Did you go on a sabbatical?
Yes I tend to compare TO to MTL because these two cities have no equivalents in the rest of Canada. If TO is indeed growing 4x faster than Montreal in terms of population (which sounds like a stretch but let's assume it is the case for the moment), then TO could and should in fact benefit more from Montreal's urban planning model which prioritizes pedestrians and mid-density housing. Building standalone condo towers is all good, but what TO really needs - as advised again and again by UofT and Ryerson's many urban planning experts - is mid-level density (or "gentle density") in the form of rowhouses, townhouses, triplexes, etc. Building luxury 60-floor condos that easily start at $500K for a matchbox studio isn't going to do much to house net new migration.
Yes I tend to compare TO to MTL because these two cities have no equivalents in the rest of Canada. If TO is indeed growing 4x faster than Montreal in terms of population (which sounds like a stretch but let's assume it is the case for the moment), then TO could and should in fact benefit more from Montreal's urban planning model which prioritizes pedestrians and mid-density housing. Building standalone condo towers is all good, but what TO really needs - as advised again and again by UofT and Ryerson's many urban planning experts - is mid-level density (or "gentle density") in the form of rowhouses, townhouses, triplexes, etc. Building luxury 60-floor condos that easily start at $500K for a matchbox studio isn't going to do much to house net new migration.
I was embellishing ofc. Toronto city is growing a little less than 2X that of Montreal for city and metro.
Montreal city - growing by 43K per year - CMA 66K
Toronto city - growing by 77K per year - CMA 125K
I think it is a bit of misnomer that Toronto is only growing via Condo's and standalone at that. Some are but there are many that are actually integrating into the communities they are being constructed quite nicely. The new retail, shopping and amenities are actually helping to revitalize areas. Tridel is building two fairly large condo's close to me. Suddenly now there is a Sobey's urban fresh in my hood and Elisha and I don't have to drive to always get groceries. Walk score in the hood goes up. So yes, in some cases you get these sort of standalone condo's in a park thing going on but not always.
As far as mid-rise gentle density stuff - are you certain Toronto isn't developing any of that? I know Montreal typically in terms of built bones actually has more row-house and mid-rise density pre WWII. I think it has 'more' to work with than Toronto in that regard. Toronto's DT core will never probably see gentle density again. I think the area is too in demand for that, but I think outside the core they are plenty of new gentle density examples. We just need more because we are growing more than anyone else so development needs to mate that. I'm also concerned about lack of affordable options for people. I honestly think the only way to deal with that is for layers of government to incentivize developers more. It isn't good if people are spending more than 40 percent of their household income on a roof - which is unfortunately way to common these days.
I typically take breaks from this place some longer than others. It can be addictive and suck up a lot of time, so if I got a lot going on in my life I typically disconnect - or if I find other obsessions more interesting LOL.
I was embellishing ofc. Toronto city is growing a little less than 2X that of Montreal for city and metro.
Montreal city - growing by 43K per year - CMA 66K
Toronto city - growing by 77K per year - CMA 125K
I think it is a bit of misnomer that Toronto is only growing via Condo's and standalone at that. Some are but there are many that are actually integrating into the communities they are being constructed quite nicely. The new retail, shopping and amenities are actually helping to revitalize areas. Tridel is building two fairly large condo's close to me. Suddenly now there is a Sobey's urban fresh in my hood and Elisha and I don't have to drive to always get groceries. Walk score in the hood goes up. So yes, in some cases you get these sort of standalone condo's in a park thing going on but not always.
As far as mid-rise gentle density stuff - are you certain Toronto isn't developing any of that? I know Montreal typically in terms of built bones actually has more row-house and mid-rise density pre WWII. I think it has 'more' to work with than Toronto in that regard. Toronto's DT core will never probably see gentle density again. I think the area is too in demand for that, but I think outside the core they are plenty of new gentle density examples. We just need more because we are growing more than anyone else so development needs to mate that. I'm also concerned about lack of affordable options for people. I honestly think the only way to deal with that is for layers of government to incentivize developers more. It isn't good if people are spending more than 40 percent of their household income on a roof - which is unfortunately way to common these days.
I typically take breaks from this place some longer than others. It can be addictive and suck up a lot of time, so if I got a lot going on in my life I typically disconnect - or if I find other obsessions more interesting LOL.
Of course, Toronto is developing mid-density housing in the form of low-rise apartments, triplexes, etc. - but it isn't nearly enough to fulfill demand. The biggest hindrance is not supply or demand, but rather public policy that's hindering growth. In the city of Toronto, currently 60% of residential zoning lands are designated only - and only - for detached housing (single family homes). To build a duplex or a multi-storey rowhouse, you'll need to get special exemptions from the city, which takes anywhere between 6 months to 1 year along with associated administrative fees. No developer in their right mind would go through this trouble just to build a couple of 3-storey townhouses. This huge, under-developed area is known as our "yellow-belt" - think Rosedale, Summerhill, Mount Pleasant, North York, York Mills - prime land literally a stones throw from Line 1 that are designed primarily for SF detached homes only. The exceptions are land along major arterials like Yonge or Eglinton where developers are allowed to build mid to high rises. The primary reason for this absurd zoning policy is city's preoccupation with the "preservation of the historical character" of certain SFH neighborhoods. I'm really having a hard time trying to see what "historical character" does North York or Eglinton have that is worth preserving...
In Montreal, zoning is a latitude more relaxed, in that the majority of the Montreal Island is designated for multi-storey duplexes, triplexes, and low-rise apartments. Hence, it is much more cost effective for developers to introduce new housing stock into a residential neighborhood and creating a steady stream of housing supply. And as you know, Montreal's housing cost - whether rental or property purchase - is more affordable in terms of housing cost vs. average disposable income ratio partly due to the above. A simple example, in a typical plot of land on Montreal Island, you can find 2-6 units stacked on top of one another forming a 3-4 storey complex, usually consisting of 2 one-bedrooms, 2 two-bedrooms, and 2 three-bedrooms with a roof terrasse. This allows that single plot to house 6 households, where as in Toronto's vast yellow belt communities in the same plot of land - it's 1 detached house for 1 household.
The Globe and Mail and Ryerson have done many extensive reports on this issue, with years of data to back up. Feel free to read up:
Of course, Toronto is developing mid-density housing in the form of low-rise apartments, triplexes, etc. - but it isn't nearly enough to fulfill demand. The biggest hindrance is not supply or demand, but rather public policy that's hindering growth. In the city of Toronto, currently 60% of residential zoning lands are designated only - and only - for detached housing (single family homes). To build a duplex or a multi-storey rowhouse, you'll need to get special exemptions from the city, which takes anywhere between 6 months to 1 year along with associated administrative fees. No developer in their right mind would go through this trouble just to build a couple of 3-storey townhouses. This huge, under-developed area is known as our "yellow-belt" - think Rosedale, Summerhill, Mount Pleasant, North York, York Mills - prime land literally a stones throw from Line 1 that are designed primarily for SF detached homes only. The exceptions are land along major arterials like Yonge or Eglinton where developers are allowed to build mid to high rises. The primary reason for this absurd zoning policy is city's preoccupation with the "preservation of the historical character" of certain SFH neighborhoods. I'm really having a hard time trying to see what "historical character" does North York or Eglinton have that is worth preserving...
I don't want to fell swoop just assume certain areas of the city don't have historical zones worth preserving. Certainly in Etobicoke where I am there are areas worth preserving from a historical perspective. That said, I would personally be more open to easing the zoning restrictions/red tap for mid-rise infil. If anything, the Places to grow act has really inhibited outward expansion, so it would stand to reason to that you would actually need to have a more open policy for more dense mid-rise infill. Perhaps the new Emperor in Ontario will change this. If anything, pulling power away from City Hall into the hands of someone better suited to make a decision in the best interest of growth is what we might need. Toronto is whether Politicians like it or not, the fastest growing city/metro in the U.S and Canada so yes, I think we should be more aggressive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bostonkid123
In Montreal, zoning is a latitude more relaxed, in that the majority of the Montreal Island is designated for multi-storey duplexes, triplexes, and low-rise apartments. Hence, it is much more cost effective for developers to introduce new housing stock into a residential neighborhood and creating a steady stream of housing supply. And as you know, Montreal's housing cost - whether rental or property purchase - is more affordable in terms of housing cost vs. average disposable income ratio partly due to the above. A simple example, in a typical plot of land on Montreal Island, you can find 2-6 units stacked on top of one another forming a 3-4 storey complex, usually consisting of 2 one-bedrooms, 2 two-bedrooms, and 2 three-bedrooms with a roof terrasse. This allows that single plot to house 6 households, where as in Toronto's vast yellow belt communities in the same plot of land - it's 1 detached house for 1 household.
That was largely my point though, The majority of Montreal is designated for higher density mid-rise infil because that was how the city was 'built' from the beginning. Ideally, this is how Toronto would have been built as it needs that more dense stock now. Without the use of studies etc - I am just going by my own obervations of new construction all around the city that there is quite a bit of mid-rise infil being developed. I think you're right though, it isn't enough given the growth rates Toronto is experiencing. As for Montreal, its also posting very strong growth in the last few years. I think the days of Montreal becoming this uber affordable slice of urbanity is coming to an end.
So to get back to Toronto's DT vibrancy now vs 5 years ago, instead of continuing a discussion about Toronto v Montreal residential zoning...
Yes definitely the street level vibrancy is on another level. DT core population is swelling and is well over 250K people in the 17sq kms that is Dt Toronto and it shows on the streets. Although I no longer live DT, I occasionally go there for events, shopping or medical appointments. What is most striking right now is happening on Yonge street. Half the street seems to be U/C. It'll be interesting to see what this does in terms of amenities and things to do. Some parts of it are really run down so i'm happy to see changes occurring.
I miss the old Yonge street when Sams the record man was still open. I miss the old Toronto from the days of "degrassi junior high". This new one looks like cyborg city.
I miss the old Yonge street when Sams the record man was still open. I miss the old Toronto from the days of "degrassi junior high". This new one looks like cyborg city.
From a distance yeah, in terms of skyline and scrapers, not as much on the ground and on the streets. Most of the New Development in the core has replaced largely stuff that wasn't noteworthy architecturally and empty parking lots. The city has changed but most of the notable architecture T.O has is still around. Its not like U of T, Union Station, Distillery, Annex etc have been levelled for condo's. The old Bones are largely still there, just a lot of new stuff built around it. Some institutions like Sam's died but that was a victim of a wireless streaming world - not a condo lol..
Most of the New Development in the core has replaced largely stuff that wasn't noteworthy architecturally and empty parking lots. The city has changed but most of the notable architecture T.O has is still around.
It's missing some wonderful things though. I recall visiting an office on Bay Street years ago (heck, had to be almost 35 years ago), south of King. The building--which was built sometime in the 1800s--had been beautifully renovated in the 1970s/1980s, and the interior was a modern office. The exterior, that wonderful stone facade that so many Toronto buildings had, with Romanesque arched windows, was preserved.
Then the whole thing was torn down so Bell could build that weird atrium thing that stretches from Bay to Yonge. I'm glad to see that the Stock Exchange facade was preserved, with a modern Stock Exchange inside, and the Bank of Nova Scotia (northeast corner of King and Bay) could preserve it's first four storeys and the classic banking hall while building on top, but I wonder why other buildings on Bay Street could not be similarly preserved.
Quote:
Its not like U of T, Union Station, Distillery, Annex etc have been levelled for condo's. The old Bones are largely still there, just a lot of new stuff built around it. Some institutions like Sam's died but that was a victim of a wireless streaming world - not a condo lol.
Toronto kinda sorta knows its history and heritage, but I sometimes wonder if it knows it enough. Oh, nobody would think of turning the U of T campus or Union Station or Massey Hall or the Annex into condos (though I'm sure that some developers are eyeing the Annex), but I keep thinking about that Bay Street building.
I've said before that "change is how we know that time is passing," but perhaps change need not happen so quickly, and without regard for history and heritage.
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.
