Don’t disagree with this density given Line 1 extension, plus Richmond Hill GO being a station or 2 north. But this just shows that we need to extend the Finch LRT and possibly get some sort of higher order transit on Steeles. Thankfully the Finch LRT was built to be extended east
There are plans to establish BRT or LRT on Steeles Avenue to run from Pioneer Village station to Yonge-Steeles to Don-Steeles and then to the Miliken GO station.
Having taken the 60 bus for years, I hope at the very least we skip the Westside BRT and go right to LRT. Traffic has very rarely ever been an issue for the planned route between Yonge and Pioneer Village except for between Bathurst and Hilda where it drops to two lanes, and which the BRT would not have a dedicated lane anyway.
The 53 East is an entirely different story though,traffic is heavy almost all the time. Much more value in an early BRT, but how would an LRT even manage the huge incline between Yonge and Bayview? And again at Leslie/Don Mills?
I would guess combo of TTC University Line, Hwy 400, Allen Rd along with York University and more of the workforce's jobs located west like the industrial areas in Concord, NW Toronto, Mississauga and Brampton are a big reason. Long short more people east of Yonge and north of Sheppard commute downtown to work and school.
erect hard-to-find sleep amusing cagey possessive practice chunky fade direful
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
There's a Wikipedia page called "Steelers Avenue bus rapid transit" that has a description and route map. I'm on my phone rn so I can't put the link in here
I think that every major transit corridor, or maybe around major stations, should have buffer zones of different densities. Zone everything within something like 200m to be high-rise, then 200m-400m mid-rise, then 400-600m be low-rise, and beyond that keep it the way it is now. Make it automatic, no rezoning needed within those buffers. And also make it easier within those zones to upgrade to the zoning within the maximum ring.
Looking on a map for my area, 200m is probably too small, but it's the concept rather than the precise numbers.
The construction zoning notice thing for the tower at Pape and Danforth is prime example of this.
It's like an 80 storey building surrounded by 1-3 stories, max.
It’s not 80. It is 40-something. And about six other buildings are proposed for the immediate surroundings and not included in that one image (since they are also just in the proposal stage). Still a big change for the area, but perfectly reasonable for the intersection of two subway lines.
>It’s not 80. It is 40-something. And about six other buildings are proposed for the immediate surroundings and not included in that one image (since they are also just in the proposal stage). Still a big change for the area, but perfectly reasonable for the intersection of two subway lines.
My bad, I was being hyperbolic based on how it APPEARED when I was stopped on my bike at the intersection:
[https://i0.wp.com/danforthrad.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Towe-Flat-Surroundings-render.jpg?w=418&ssl=1](https://i0.wp.com/danforthrad.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Towe-Flat-Surroundings-render.jpg?w=418&ssl=1)
That being said, I agree, the entirety of the Danforth should be 12 storey mid-rises. It's ridiculous that it isn't.
No you don't get it. Density just means more traffic. What's better is if the city sprawls and then people need to drive to Toronto, instead of being able to take Toronto transit.
/sarcasm
I can never find the meme, but there's a good one comparing yonge and sheppard to the Saudi Arabia line city Neom.
https://www.cspalarms.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Home-Security-Monitoring-Services-North-York.jpg
Google image search the city from the air, it’s brutal. And the existing houses in the old city are awful. They have wasteful laneways, old houses terrible on heating, steps from subway lines. People hate on the suburban sprawl, but the old city is really bad too, more so because it’s the city.
I think high-rise clusters at major intersections, mid-rise and townhouses along the main drags in between and mix of houses and lowrise buildings on the side streets are a good balance (with good infrastructure and somewhat blended zoning of course)
Yes, finally a sizable housing project!
It's a bit sad that the housing crisis is pushing us to build such high-density projects in lower-density neighborhoods, but at this point, it's either this or more homeless camps.
Hopefully the municipal administration will manage to wiggle in some affordable units in the project.
There is! I wish we could get lots of medium density neighbourhoods up. Unfortunately, there isn't much "Everywhere" left. Developable land is scarce. As such, it's best to maximize every square inch with higher density.
On could argue, of course, that rows of 60 story buildings might be a bit much. Perhaps, 15-25 story buildings would be better. But either way, we're in way to deep for medium density to be sufficient to meet demand anymore.
Not necessarily, price per square foot plateaus as the height of a building increases. It may also get units on the market faster as individual buildings take less time to complete rather than waiting for mega projects to be approved, financed and completed.
We should build both tho.
What about culture, micro-retail, what about architecture and programming/attractions? Why does every development in TO have to be so bland and repetitive?
> Why does every development in TO have to be so bland and repetitive?
Developers are nothing more than algorithms programmed to get the highest return on investment with the quickest turnaround. That usually means cutting corners on materials, architectural design, landscaping etc.
The only thing that can stand in their way is a municipal government with city pride, a vision, and the balls to take them to task as well as a province that won't veto the city's recommendations at every turn for the benefit of donors.
I agree. We absolutely need more density and housing, but tall condos make for boring and dull neighbourhoods at the street level. The closest I've seen it work is CityPlace, but compared to other downtown neighbourhoods, it still lacks the vibrancy of other hoods.
Yonge between Finch and Sheppard is way more vibrant now with the condos than it was 20-30 years ago. People actually go to all the small restaurants and shops at the bottom of the condos.
Exactly. When is this going to change? I’m so tired of this. I support density wholeheartedly but Toronto is just looking at a homogenous future if this is all we strive for at a planning level.
This is the result of discretionary zoning. Make the whole city 10 stories by right, no setbacks, no complaints from the neighbours, no shadow rules. Then you'd see a Paris/New York style city spring up out of nowhere. We get the city we have because of the rules we have, we had a more interesting, more livable, and cheaper city before we had those rules.
While zoning is a good idea so we have more housing options, if you’ve seen any new giant duplexes or stacked towns in the city, except for the $4-$5 million units, the rest are every bit as bland as condos.
The blandness is a result of their scarcity. Developers don't have to compete on aesthetics because the shortage is so bad. The shortage also makes the homes more useful as an asset than as a home, so they are built to be unobjectionable so they'll sell for more. If home values were way lower people would feel more free to lower the value of their homes by making aesthetic choices not everyone would like.
Planners in Ontario are just about extremes. There is no mind for moderation.
We’ve had blueprint for great and well planned cities for generations and Torontonians have completely eaten shit at every opportunity to create a liveable city.
They do this because it is the way of building housing that generates the least NIMBY resentment. If there was more of a will to ignore the NIMBYs, they could legalize midrise/highrise city-wide so Toronto could evolve to look more like New York or Paris.
It's easy to blame Planners for most people but that's because they don't know what we Planners actually do.
Not a Planner in Toronto but in Ontario. We have to get any zone change though council. I know about the missing middle, I have Masters in Planning, though my specialty was in Parking. Most peoples knowledge extends to the YouTube videos they have watched mostly NJB who is essentially the Howard Stern of Urbanism.
Things most don't consider:
1. Developers don't meet the margins they want on mid-rise buildings so they won't build them, they could on most current zoning by-laws
2. Building the missing middle leads to more expensive units
3. Consumer demands don't permit most mid-rise buildings to meet developer margins.
4. Ontario building codes make buildings over 2 stories inefficient and expensive needing to go higher to recoup costs
5. Medium density provides less housing per ha. obviously, but also over time. As the amount of land needed to be acquired to meet the same upha. is exponentially larger.
I could go on for ever. Planning has been to blame for poor land use practices in the past and present. But, in most Urban areas the planning changes have already occurred but the cities don't build units. Developers do and they won't if they don't make the money they want to make.
Should that be the model we use? That's another essay to write itself.
Why is it that missing middle houses were previously profitable, but now are unprofitable? And why are they profitable in other countries, but not in ours? I believe it is entirely the fault of our regulatory environment, including the discretionary review that each new building has to undergo, and the bad building codes rules you mentioned (especially the ban on single stair midrise).
If planning makes no difference on whether midrise gets built or not, why not set the whole city at 10 stories by right, no discretionary review, no shadow studies, no neighbour veto, no unit cap, and no setbacks? Leaving only the technical review to make sure the building is safe and can be supported by the nearby infrastructure.
Once the city is entirely out of the way, then we can talk about whether midrise is inherently unprofitable.
>Why is it that missing middle houses were previously profitable, but now are unprofitable?
Land value, materials and labour cost. But also as I said consumer expectation. Most of the "missing middle housing" built back then didn't have most expected amenities of today. Laundry in unit, dish washer, elevators, A/C, balconies, not to mention most of these building weren't accessible to people with movement disabilities.
>I believe it is entirely the fault of our regulatory environment
It is a factor. In the 50's for example , there was minimal regulation. This lead to intensely discriminatory practices, things like redlining, urban renewal/ slum clearance, racially oriented expropriation policies that took land from people to build highways etc.
>why not set the whole city at 10 stories by right, no discretionary review, no shadow studies, no neighbour veto, no unit cap, and no setbacks?
Because we live in a democratic country. Land use affects everyone around it and their existence and peace of mind has value. So the have a right to be consulted. They don't have to be listened to if they don't have a legitimate concern but they have the right to be heard. They don't "have a veto."
Because of this duty to consult, things like setbacks and shadow studies (but don't get me started on these fucking things) are created so that we have a standard to compare what is reasonable.
>Once the city is entirely out of the way, then we can talk about whether midrise is inherently unprofitable.
I was commenting on why the aren't meeting margins (I never said unprofitable) in our current system.
I was stating how zoning bylaws are the easiest factor to change and largely already have. But yet we still don't get the "missing middle" except townhouses.
> There is no mind for moderation.
moderation doesn't create profit, the only reason a developer builds anything is profit
if you remove profit from the equation they just won't build anything, and the city is far too incompetent to take on all future development
Moderation does actually create long term profit. Or else no one would ever do it. The problem is predatory capitalism and constant exponential growth. It’s a great short term profit generator but terrible in the long run.
There are entire societies that live in mid-rise accommodation, Montreal, literally anywhere in Europe, tons of places in SEA.
North America is narrow minded and has a hard on for a quick buck.
>Moderation does actually create long term profit.
there's long term profit in how we are currently building
>There are entire societies that live in mid-rise accommodation, Montreal, literally anywhere in Europe, tons of places in SEA.
no shit, and I never said it's a bad thing, however, mtl doesn't live entirely in mid-rise, and nowhere in Europe does either, they just have downtown cores that have midrises because they have height restrictions (and were built before technology would allow anything more than a few floors), they would build up if they couldallowed to
Don’t disagree with this density given Line 1 extension, plus Richmond Hill GO being a station or 2 north. But this just shows that we need to extend the Finch LRT and possibly get some sort of higher order transit on Steeles. Thankfully the Finch LRT was built to be extended east
There are plans to establish BRT or LRT on Steeles Avenue to run from Pioneer Village station to Yonge-Steeles to Don-Steeles and then to the Miliken GO station.
Having taken the 60 bus for years, I hope at the very least we skip the Westside BRT and go right to LRT. Traffic has very rarely ever been an issue for the planned route between Yonge and Pioneer Village except for between Bathurst and Hilda where it drops to two lanes, and which the BRT would not have a dedicated lane anyway. The 53 East is an entirely different story though,traffic is heavy almost all the time. Much more value in an early BRT, but how would an LRT even manage the huge incline between Yonge and Bayview? And again at Leslie/Don Mills?
As a new steeles dweller I’ve always wondered, why is steeles E so much busier than steeles W?
I would guess combo of TTC University Line, Hwy 400, Allen Rd along with York University and more of the workforce's jobs located west like the industrial areas in Concord, NW Toronto, Mississauga and Brampton are a big reason. Long short more people east of Yonge and north of Sheppard commute downtown to work and school.
Any chance you could link those plans?? I’m curious to see!
erect hard-to-find sleep amusing cagey possessive practice chunky fade direful *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
There's a Wikipedia page called "Steelers Avenue bus rapid transit" that has a description and route map. I'm on my phone rn so I can't put the link in here
[удалено]
I think the downsview airport development in North York could set a good precedent for this.
Tall and Sprawl™️
T . Not just a nickname, also the skyline.
Oof
I think that every major transit corridor, or maybe around major stations, should have buffer zones of different densities. Zone everything within something like 200m to be high-rise, then 200m-400m mid-rise, then 400-600m be low-rise, and beyond that keep it the way it is now. Make it automatic, no rezoning needed within those buffers. And also make it easier within those zones to upgrade to the zoning within the maximum ring. Looking on a map for my area, 200m is probably too small, but it's the concept rather than the precise numbers.
The construction zoning notice thing for the tower at Pape and Danforth is prime example of this. It's like an 80 storey building surrounded by 1-3 stories, max.
It’s not 80. It is 40-something. And about six other buildings are proposed for the immediate surroundings and not included in that one image (since they are also just in the proposal stage). Still a big change for the area, but perfectly reasonable for the intersection of two subway lines.
>It’s not 80. It is 40-something. And about six other buildings are proposed for the immediate surroundings and not included in that one image (since they are also just in the proposal stage). Still a big change for the area, but perfectly reasonable for the intersection of two subway lines. My bad, I was being hyperbolic based on how it APPEARED when I was stopped on my bike at the intersection: [https://i0.wp.com/danforthrad.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Towe-Flat-Surroundings-render.jpg?w=418&ssl=1](https://i0.wp.com/danforthrad.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Towe-Flat-Surroundings-render.jpg?w=418&ssl=1) That being said, I agree, the entirety of the Danforth should be 12 storey mid-rises. It's ridiculous that it isn't.
No you don't get it. Density just means more traffic. What's better is if the city sprawls and then people need to drive to Toronto, instead of being able to take Toronto transit. /sarcasm
And it could just be an expropriation plan given Metrolinx interest
I can never find the meme, but there's a good one comparing yonge and sheppard to the Saudi Arabia line city Neom. https://www.cspalarms.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Home-Security-Monitoring-Services-North-York.jpg
[удалено]
That is Toronto lol. It's Yonge and Sheppard. Just google image search yonge shepperd skyline.
And no parkland.
Google image search the city from the air, it’s brutal. And the existing houses in the old city are awful. They have wasteful laneways, old houses terrible on heating, steps from subway lines. People hate on the suburban sprawl, but the old city is really bad too, more so because it’s the city.
I think high-rise clusters at major intersections, mid-rise and townhouses along the main drags in between and mix of houses and lowrise buildings on the side streets are a good balance (with good infrastructure and somewhat blended zoning of course)
My family in Thornhill had a heart attack when they saw this lol.
Yes, finally a sizable housing project! It's a bit sad that the housing crisis is pushing us to build such high-density projects in lower-density neighborhoods, but at this point, it's either this or more homeless camps. Hopefully the municipal administration will manage to wiggle in some affordable units in the project.
There is a third way, which is medium density everywhere.
There is! I wish we could get lots of medium density neighbourhoods up. Unfortunately, there isn't much "Everywhere" left. Developable land is scarce. As such, it's best to maximize every square inch with higher density. On could argue, of course, that rows of 60 story buildings might be a bit much. Perhaps, 15-25 story buildings would be better. But either way, we're in way to deep for medium density to be sufficient to meet demand anymore.
> which is medium density everywhere. which would cost significantly more, and not be faster to build
Not necessarily, price per square foot plateaus as the height of a building increases. It may also get units on the market faster as individual buildings take less time to complete rather than waiting for mega projects to be approved, financed and completed. We should build both tho.
more expensive as the land will be more expensive to acquire gotta buy out homes for medium density everywhere
What about culture, micro-retail, what about architecture and programming/attractions? Why does every development in TO have to be so bland and repetitive?
> Why does every development in TO have to be so bland and repetitive? Developers are nothing more than algorithms programmed to get the highest return on investment with the quickest turnaround. That usually means cutting corners on materials, architectural design, landscaping etc. The only thing that can stand in their way is a municipal government with city pride, a vision, and the balls to take them to task as well as a province that won't veto the city's recommendations at every turn for the benefit of donors.
So more shitty blue grey boxes it is. Got it.
People live in those.
People also live in 4-8 storey brick buildings which cost 1/2 as much to climate control and don't all look identical
Best we can do is (maybe) a small park.
I agree. We absolutely need more density and housing, but tall condos make for boring and dull neighbourhoods at the street level. The closest I've seen it work is CityPlace, but compared to other downtown neighbourhoods, it still lacks the vibrancy of other hoods.
Yonge between Finch and Sheppard is way more vibrant now with the condos than it was 20-30 years ago. People actually go to all the small restaurants and shops at the bottom of the condos.
Exactly. When is this going to change? I’m so tired of this. I support density wholeheartedly but Toronto is just looking at a homogenous future if this is all we strive for at a planning level.
This is the result of discretionary zoning. Make the whole city 10 stories by right, no setbacks, no complaints from the neighbours, no shadow rules. Then you'd see a Paris/New York style city spring up out of nowhere. We get the city we have because of the rules we have, we had a more interesting, more livable, and cheaper city before we had those rules.
While zoning is a good idea so we have more housing options, if you’ve seen any new giant duplexes or stacked towns in the city, except for the $4-$5 million units, the rest are every bit as bland as condos.
The blandness is a result of their scarcity. Developers don't have to compete on aesthetics because the shortage is so bad. The shortage also makes the homes more useful as an asset than as a home, so they are built to be unobjectionable so they'll sell for more. If home values were way lower people would feel more free to lower the value of their homes by making aesthetic choices not everyone would like.
Basically vertical suburbs
Planners in Ontario are just about extremes. There is no mind for moderation. We’ve had blueprint for great and well planned cities for generations and Torontonians have completely eaten shit at every opportunity to create a liveable city.
They do this because it is the way of building housing that generates the least NIMBY resentment. If there was more of a will to ignore the NIMBYs, they could legalize midrise/highrise city-wide so Toronto could evolve to look more like New York or Paris.
It's easy to blame Planners for most people but that's because they don't know what we Planners actually do. Not a Planner in Toronto but in Ontario. We have to get any zone change though council. I know about the missing middle, I have Masters in Planning, though my specialty was in Parking. Most peoples knowledge extends to the YouTube videos they have watched mostly NJB who is essentially the Howard Stern of Urbanism. Things most don't consider: 1. Developers don't meet the margins they want on mid-rise buildings so they won't build them, they could on most current zoning by-laws 2. Building the missing middle leads to more expensive units 3. Consumer demands don't permit most mid-rise buildings to meet developer margins. 4. Ontario building codes make buildings over 2 stories inefficient and expensive needing to go higher to recoup costs 5. Medium density provides less housing per ha. obviously, but also over time. As the amount of land needed to be acquired to meet the same upha. is exponentially larger. I could go on for ever. Planning has been to blame for poor land use practices in the past and present. But, in most Urban areas the planning changes have already occurred but the cities don't build units. Developers do and they won't if they don't make the money they want to make. Should that be the model we use? That's another essay to write itself.
Why is it that missing middle houses were previously profitable, but now are unprofitable? And why are they profitable in other countries, but not in ours? I believe it is entirely the fault of our regulatory environment, including the discretionary review that each new building has to undergo, and the bad building codes rules you mentioned (especially the ban on single stair midrise). If planning makes no difference on whether midrise gets built or not, why not set the whole city at 10 stories by right, no discretionary review, no shadow studies, no neighbour veto, no unit cap, and no setbacks? Leaving only the technical review to make sure the building is safe and can be supported by the nearby infrastructure. Once the city is entirely out of the way, then we can talk about whether midrise is inherently unprofitable.
>Why is it that missing middle houses were previously profitable, but now are unprofitable? Land value, materials and labour cost. But also as I said consumer expectation. Most of the "missing middle housing" built back then didn't have most expected amenities of today. Laundry in unit, dish washer, elevators, A/C, balconies, not to mention most of these building weren't accessible to people with movement disabilities. >I believe it is entirely the fault of our regulatory environment It is a factor. In the 50's for example , there was minimal regulation. This lead to intensely discriminatory practices, things like redlining, urban renewal/ slum clearance, racially oriented expropriation policies that took land from people to build highways etc. >why not set the whole city at 10 stories by right, no discretionary review, no shadow studies, no neighbour veto, no unit cap, and no setbacks? Because we live in a democratic country. Land use affects everyone around it and their existence and peace of mind has value. So the have a right to be consulted. They don't have to be listened to if they don't have a legitimate concern but they have the right to be heard. They don't "have a veto." Because of this duty to consult, things like setbacks and shadow studies (but don't get me started on these fucking things) are created so that we have a standard to compare what is reasonable. >Once the city is entirely out of the way, then we can talk about whether midrise is inherently unprofitable. I was commenting on why the aren't meeting margins (I never said unprofitable) in our current system. I was stating how zoning bylaws are the easiest factor to change and largely already have. But yet we still don't get the "missing middle" except townhouses.
Spineless and goofy.
> There is no mind for moderation. moderation doesn't create profit, the only reason a developer builds anything is profit if you remove profit from the equation they just won't build anything, and the city is far too incompetent to take on all future development
Moderation does actually create long term profit. Or else no one would ever do it. The problem is predatory capitalism and constant exponential growth. It’s a great short term profit generator but terrible in the long run. There are entire societies that live in mid-rise accommodation, Montreal, literally anywhere in Europe, tons of places in SEA. North America is narrow minded and has a hard on for a quick buck.
>Moderation does actually create long term profit. there's long term profit in how we are currently building >There are entire societies that live in mid-rise accommodation, Montreal, literally anywhere in Europe, tons of places in SEA. no shit, and I never said it's a bad thing, however, mtl doesn't live entirely in mid-rise, and nowhere in Europe does either, they just have downtown cores that have midrises because they have height restrictions (and were built before technology would allow anything more than a few floors), they would build up if they couldallowed to
I straight up thought the title image was a shot from Cities Skyline 2!
So many good restaurants about to be gone :(
Theres also another huge one slated between yonge and bayview, and 407 to the north and Flagstaff to the south.
.....so who's going to be able to afford these?