Urban planning community

+ Reply to thread
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: As dense as we want to be - interesting opinion on Toronto's density.

  1. #1

    As dense as we want to be - interesting opinion on Toronto's density.



    As dense as we want to be
    BY SHAWN MICALLEF



    Urban density has a bad rep. Cities have been characterized as dangerous places, teeming with malnutrition, epidemics and crime. The rep isn't completely unwarranted. Think, as one inevitably does, of Dickens' London: squalor, poverty, choleric crowding and tuberculin concentration. On this side of the Atlantic, places where the huddled masses massed -- like the Lower East Side of Manhattan -- piled people on top of one another to the tune hundreds of thousands per square mile in the early 1900s.

    But even with all these images in my head, why do I find myself attracted to the parts of Toronto with the highest densities, and why are so many people trying to rob me of my dense urban pleasures?

    Talk of increasing density in Toronto often brings out the NIMBY army. They resist increased density with fears of more St. James Town-style developments rising next to their happy homes.

    To be fair, Toronto has had problems associated with density. St. John's Ward -- a slum between Teraulay Street (now Bay) and University Avenue, around the site of Nathan Phillips Square -- suffered from overcrowding, inferior sanitation and disease problems until just after World War II, when the city bought up all the land. South Cabbagetown, where Regent Park currently sits, was described by author and former resident Hugh Garner as being "the biggest Anglo-Saxon slum in North America" during the 1920s and '30s.

    So when they hear that up to a million new people will be moving to Toronto over the next 30 years, the nimbys get worried. Which is understandable, but not, as it turns out, strictly necessary.

    Prince Charles and other low-rise fetishists may not agree, but there is nothing inherently wrong with either high density or high-rise living. It's high density poorly managed that's the problem. That, and our own unexamined prejudices.

    Take St. James Town, the area south of Bloor, north of Wellesley between Sherbourne and Parliament. It's Canada's densest area at 10 times the city average (about 35,000 per square kilometre) and a bête noire for density critics. But this vilified collection of high-rises doesn't look much different than, say, the Village on the Green apartments between Alexander and Wood streets located just to the west in the gay village. Both developments were designed for singles or couples. The difference is that today, St. James Town apartments often house entire extended families of new Canadians, a few shades darker and a bracket or two poorer than their Village on the Green equivalents, whose household size has remained pretty much as originally intended.

    Aside from the lifestyle choices people from various cultures with very limited funds have made in this area, the fact is that a very large number of people live on very small parcels of land, that many of them have good -- often fantastic -- views, access to green space and can walk to stores and public transit. The St. James Town project was a rather heavy-handed and heterogeneous approach to urban renewal when it opened in 1968 -- by replacing an entire neighbourhood of single-family dwellings rather than incorporating high-density buildings into the extant structure, they disrupted what could have been a natural urban evolution -- but in principle, tall buildings mixed with residential streets can work.

    Like it does in the Annex. This area, perceived as primarily consisting of Edwardian homes, is actually home to a lot of high-rise buildings, especially along Walmer, Spadina and St. George. It's this density, creating a mix of wealthy, middle-class and lower-income residents, that has allowed the stretches of Bloor and Dupont between Spadina and Bathurst to flourish as they have. Similarly, St. Lawrence has a bustling, lived-in feel that contrasts sharply with the low-rise areas to the east.

    Technically, density is the ratio between a building's floor space and the surface area of the lot it occupies: a building with a density of 2.0 creates two square feet of habitable space for every square foot of lot. But really, we know high density when we see it; we sense walking through Riverdale -- with its shops, cafés, restuarants, laundromats and sidewalk activity -- is different from a similar walk in Rosedale, Leaside or Willowdale, where all the area's entertainment is kept within the four well-appointed and generously spaced walls of each single-family residence. Money, in this latter model, buys you privacy and separation from the parts of the neighbourhood you do not own.

    But it's become recently obvious that a fair number of Torontonians are beginning to choose another model entirely. As condos with densities of 15 and 20 go up across the city, what the people snapping them up in unprecedented numbers are paying their money for is to be where the action is. Right on King Street, or Queen Street or beside the erstwhile SkyDome and within spitting distance of their office on Bay Street to which they can walk every morning, with the option of stopping by a dozen cafés, 20 restaurants and encountering a hearty cross-section of the city they've chosen to live in.

    Less dense, suburban-style development was seen as ideal in the post-war era: a healthy antidote to what was perceived as unhealthy city living. There were more trees, green lawns and spaces to play and stretch out: cul-de-sac Lebensraum. Above all, it was safe. Less crime, traffic and weirdos tempting children with poisoned candy apples. Yet it's questionable whether these car-
    centric neighbourhoods, with their streets always deserted at night, are safer than a vibrant, populated downtown.

    High density reduces reliance on cars and curtails subsequent pollution, slows the loss of agricultural land and natural habitat due to sprawl, lowers the associated cost of providing infrastructure to serve low-density development and allows utilities to be shared more efficiently than in spread-out areas. Density does make for happier spreadsheets, sure, but it also increases Toronto's potential to amuse me with an endless stream of people packed in together. I choose to live in Toronto over Vaughan for a reason: I want more.

  2. #2

    Registered
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Solano County, California
    Posts
    6,468
    Low rise advocates, though, argue that overall density can be as high or higher using a four (or even six story) typology, without intrusive towers rising above pockets of single family homes. They note the density of Paris, for instance.

    I'm not sure how I feel, as I do like some high rise towers.

  3. #3
    Here is the response: Unlike Paris, north American cities consits mainly of low-density, single family housing. It would be impossible to achieve the densities of Paris with just six storey buildings along the main roads. Four storeys may be just enough to receive all the disadvantages associated with density, but with none of the benefits IMHO.

  4. #4
    Cyburbian jordanb's avatar
    Registered
    May 2003
    Location
    City of Low Low Wages!
    Posts
    3,236
    Well, the majority of Chicago is 2-3 story flats. I used to live in a three flat zone, now I live in a two flat zone. I notice a significant reduction in the amount of services available to me in my neighborhood, which makes sense as there is 1/3 as many people per square mile.

    In general, though I think land coverage is the most important thing. High-rises in a barren "park"(ing lot) result in a miserable built environment for walking (witness Scarborough or American housing projects). Yet even single-family town homes built densely against the street encourage a great deal of purposeful walking.

    Four story buildings seem optimum to me. Six story is too tall without an elevator. I'd hate to live at the top. Three is OK. One (like the bungalows) isn't tall enough to provide a proper street wall (two might not be either, depends on the width of the street). But housing pods with big side yards are guaranteed to produce a miserable pedestrian environment.

  5. #5

    Registered
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Solano County, California
    Posts
    6,468
    I think jordan nails it. The key is how the buildings meet the street. Suburban high rises can be as isolating and monolithic as any suburb.

    Someone was pointing out the danger of designing even high rises for car friendliness. Such that ex-suburbanites just drive into the blank walled garage podiums and then drive out-leaving the streetscape as dead as any soundwalled arterial.

  6. #6
    I fully agree with jordanb too. The majority of Chicago -- a great city by the way -- consists of 2-3 story flats as jorbanb states. That's great. But other towns and cities have don't have those same densities. Most towns mainly have single family homes on larger sized lots. Chicago proper does not have this problem. So in order to archieve higher overall densities, to reap the benefits of higher densities, then the majority of single family homes would have to be demolished and replaced with more dense buildings such as 2-3 storey flats, or taller more dense buildings would have to be allowed in select places in order to compensate for all the low density single family homes.

    Someone was pointing out the danger of designing even high rises for car friendliness. Such that ex-suburbanites just drive into the blank walled garage podiums and then drive out-leaving the streetscape as dead as any soundwalled arterial.
    Yeah, that was me. How a building meets the street is more important than height, density, architecture or any other planning concern in my view. Yes the others are important but the way a building meet the street is paramount. And two and three storey buildings are not immune to this issue either. Come to think of it, that's the problem with most of suburbia's sprawl.

  7. #7
    Anyone remember this thread from a couple weeks back?

    http://www.cyburbia.org/forums/showthread.php?t=16144

    It's a prime example of how high density (mixes of high-rises, low rises, and townhomes) can work with existing single family homes.

  8. #8
    Cyburbian cmd uw's avatar
    Registered
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    84
    I think the biggest problem that plagues most highrise neighbourhoods constructed between the 50's and 70's was that they were the end product of the governments failed attempt at accommodating lower income housing. We all know that the majority of these housing projects became ghettos due to neglect and poor operational arrangements between the housing cooperatives, landlords and public housing agencies. This 'negative' image is what the majority of the people think of as soon as you mention the words 'higher density housing'.

    Most of today's high density neighbourhoods are condominium or owner-occupied housing. In addition, most lower income or social housing projects are constructed at a higher quality. In addition, most public housing agencies have attempted to remove the mistakes of the past by paying more attention towards management and quality control.
    "First we shape our buildings, and then our buildings start shaping us." - Sir Winston Churchill

  9. #9
    Quote Originally posted by OfficialPlanner
    Anyone remember this thread from a couple weeks back?

    http://www.cyburbia.org/forums/showthread.php?t=16144

    It's a prime example of how high density (mixes of high-rises, low rises, and townhomes) can work with existing single family homes.
    FYI: the park mentioned on that thread (George Wainborn Park) is featured in this month's Landscape Architecture magazine, which I just received today, the same day I first read this thread. Unfortunately, it is not available online, but please support the industry and buy a copy at your local newsstand.

    As per this topic, you may infer from my moniker that I strongly believe in the power of people and social contact to make the place, regardless of the architecture. (Though the spatial definition of place is often catalytic to social contact.)

+ Reply to thread

More at Cyburbia

  1. Replies: 18
    Last post: 18 Sep 2012, 9:22 PM
  2. Replies: 17
    Last post: 24 Nov 2010, 2:51 PM
  3. What to do when dense sf becomes sprawl?
    Design, Space, and Place
    Replies: 17
    Last post: 20 Jul 2007, 12:38 PM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last post: 06 Feb 2007, 4:51 PM