I was recently having a discussion on Twitter about midrise buildings and architect Dermot Sweeny raised the important distinction between creating "spines" and creating "districts."
What he was referring to with "spines" was the way in which Toronto is intensifying its "Avenues" with midrise buildings. It is a kind of linear form of intensification which almost always means that each building must transition in some way to the low-rise housing that typically abuts our Avenues. This is far less relevant in districts.
We have started to increase housing supply in our "Neighborhoods" through things like laneway houses and garden suites, but in most cases, we are arguably not creating urban districts.
This is of course a touchy subject. But I think it's an important discussion to be having for a number reasons:
Increasing housing supply is a good thing
Angular planes and other transition measures make housing more expensive
Urban places are, I would argue, better defined through districts rather than spines
Mixed-use (employment) becomes more viable with districts
Transit infrastructure is better utilized with radial density around its stations
Can you think of any others?
Photo: Old Montrêal (Shot on iPhone)
I love mid-rise buildings. I think they are an incredibly livable scale of housing, which is why I am looking forward to moving into Junction House
I was recently having a discussion on Twitter about midrise buildings and architect Dermot Sweeny raised the important distinction between creating "spines" and creating "districts."
What he was referring to with "spines" was the way in which Toronto is intensifying its "Avenues" with midrise buildings. It is a kind of linear form of intensification which almost always means that each building must transition in some way to the low-rise housing that typically abuts our Avenues. This is far less relevant in districts.
We have started to increase housing supply in our "Neighborhoods" through things like laneway houses and garden suites, but in most cases, we are arguably not creating urban districts.
This is of course a touchy subject. But I think it's an important discussion to be having for a number reasons:
Increasing housing supply is a good thing
Angular planes and other transition measures make housing more expensive
Urban places are, I would argue, better defined through districts rather than spines
Mixed-use (employment) becomes more viable with districts
Transit infrastructure is better utilized with radial density around its stations
Can you think of any others?
Photo: Old Montrêal (Shot on iPhone)
I love mid-rise buildings. I think they are an incredibly livable scale of housing, which is why I am looking forward to moving into Junction House
Here are two excerpts from a recent Globe and Mail article -- titled "Toronto's mix of planning rules limits growth of mid-rise housing" -- that speaks to this dynamic:
For well over two decades, Toronto’s official plan has called for transit-oriented intensification along the “Avenues,” much of it expected in the form of mid-rise apartments that can be approved “as of right” – meaning without zoning or official plan appeals. Such buildings are often seen as more livable and human scale than 50- or 60-storey towers.
Yet, ironically, the highly prescriptive Mid-Rise Guidelines – combined with skyrocketing land, labour and building costs, as well as timelines that can run to six years for a mid-sized building – have turned these projects into pyramid-shaped unicorns, often filled with deep, dark and narrow units dubbed “bowling alleys.”
“The economics are so frail,” says architect Dermot Sweeny, founding principal of Sweeny & Co., who describes the angular plane requirements as “a massive cost” because they make the structure more complicated and expensive while reducing the amount of leasable or saleable floor space.
The critiques extend beyond the industry. Professor of architecture Richard Sommer, former dean of the John H. Daniels Faculty of Landscape, Architecture and Design at the University of Toronto, describes the controls in the guidelines as “very crude.” “They’re built around a mindset of deference to low-rise communities.”
My opinion is that, at a minimum, we need to revisit the "guidelines" that govern these kinds of projects and we need to make this scale of development "as-of-right." In the same way that laneway suites work, where you simply apply for a building permit, we need to make it just as easy for mid-rise housing. There just too many barriers and too many opportunities for something to come up that could hold up the entire project for months or years.
Building at a variety of scales is important for the fabric and vitality of our cities. Unfortunately, I have all but made up my mind that small doesn't work unless it's as-of-right. I would love to build another laneway house and I fully expect that to happen at some point in the near future. But I just can't seem to get my head around another mid-rise building right now. I wish that wasn't the case. And it's certainly not because of a lack of effort.
Here are two excerpts from a recent Globe and Mail article -- titled "Toronto's mix of planning rules limits growth of mid-rise housing" -- that speaks to this dynamic:
For well over two decades, Toronto’s official plan has called for transit-oriented intensification along the “Avenues,” much of it expected in the form of mid-rise apartments that can be approved “as of right” – meaning without zoning or official plan appeals. Such buildings are often seen as more livable and human scale than 50- or 60-storey towers.
Yet, ironically, the highly prescriptive Mid-Rise Guidelines – combined with skyrocketing land, labour and building costs, as well as timelines that can run to six years for a mid-sized building – have turned these projects into pyramid-shaped unicorns, often filled with deep, dark and narrow units dubbed “bowling alleys.”
“The economics are so frail,” says architect Dermot Sweeny, founding principal of Sweeny & Co., who describes the angular plane requirements as “a massive cost” because they make the structure more complicated and expensive while reducing the amount of leasable or saleable floor space.
The critiques extend beyond the industry. Professor of architecture Richard Sommer, former dean of the John H. Daniels Faculty of Landscape, Architecture and Design at the University of Toronto, describes the controls in the guidelines as “very crude.” “They’re built around a mindset of deference to low-rise communities.”
My opinion is that, at a minimum, we need to revisit the "guidelines" that govern these kinds of projects and we need to make this scale of development "as-of-right." In the same way that laneway suites work, where you simply apply for a building permit, we need to make it just as easy for mid-rise housing. There just too many barriers and too many opportunities for something to come up that could hold up the entire project for months or years.
Building at a variety of scales is important for the fabric and vitality of our cities. Unfortunately, I have all but made up my mind that small doesn't work unless it's as-of-right. I would love to build another laneway house and I fully expect that to happen at some point in the near future. But I just can't seem to get my head around another mid-rise building right now. I wish that wasn't the case. And it's certainly not because of a lack of effort.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog