Join >4.5k subscribers and stay updated by getting the latest posts delivered directly to your inbox.
On the exact same day last week, the Toronto Star published two articles about housing. The first one, this one here, is about how "Toronto has protected huge parts of the city from anything denser than detached or semi-detached houses" and how this has resulted in an "uneven city." The second article, this opinion piece, is about the "many repercussions to replacing little bungalows." And one of the implied repercussions is that 3-storey sun blockers that invade privacy might actually kill people. Hmm.
In effect, these are the two sides of this debate. If you zoom out and look at Toronto, you will largely see a contrasting and uneven city of tall buildings and low-rise housing. Instead of building like Paris, which is consistently mid-rise -- but also far denser on average than Toronto -- we have chosen peaks and large plains to constrain new housing. And if you zoom in across those plains, you'll find many areas without sidewalks, along with people, such as the author of the second article above, who believe that nothing more than a single storey is appropriate for human health.
All of this has persisted because it has been politically popular. But time continues to show us that it actually runs counter to our goals of building an inclusive and globally competitive city region. Thankfully, it feels like we are finally reaching a tipping point.
Photo by Jackson Case on Unsplash
Michael Beach used to have a YouTube channel where he "looked at Google Maps a lot." Meaning, he would pan around various cities and comment on their planning and overall built form. Technically the channel still exists, but he stopped making new videos a few years ago. Here is one where he talks about Dubai being "an absolute mess" (3.8 million views) and here is one where he looks at North York (in Toronto) and asks: "why is it here?"
The most important point from his North York video is that it illustrates the deep divide that exists in Toronto (and other North American cities) between single-family "Neighbourhoods" (a defined planning term) and higher-density transit nodes, where things like tall buildings are allowed to go.
In the case of North York, this contrast is perhaps at its most stark. Even the street network is designed to stop these two urban forms from commingling with each other too much. There are ring roads that surround the transit-oriented density, and separate, more suburban streets on the other side of it:
So, I of course think this is silly. But here's a claim that living in high-rises -- that is, buildings with elevators -- is bad for people's physical and mental health:
In the midst of a Vancouver civic election where housing is a hot issue, Vancouver councillor and mayoral candidate Colleen Hardwick stated that “highrises are not good for people’s physical and mental health.”
Last week we asked Hardwick to expand further on her views about health and building types. She told The Tyee she believes highrises radically reduce chance encounters between people because they separate people from the street and from each other.
“Ground-oriented housing typologies are ideal,” she said, referring to housing that allows a resident to reach their place of residence using stairs, perhaps, but not an elevator.
Apparently what happens when you get into an elevator is that you immediately lose your ability to interact meaningfully with other humans. Yeah, I'm not the only one who disagrees:
“Coun. Hardwick is cherry-picking her data” about highrise living and the isolating effects of structures with elevators, accused urbanist and author Charles Montgomery. A six-storey building with an elevator, he told The Tyee, is “the most social place I’ve ever lived.”
Cities, it turns out, are complicated. And there are always trade-offs to be made. During the pandemic, some people thought it would be nice to live in a ground-oriented home in the country and now they are realizing that the country lacks things like amenities and, you know, other people.
Personally, I will happily take an elevator over a soul-crushing commute to a home without one. I also agree with Charles that multi-family buildings can be very social.
This contrast is why there are so many people talking about the "missing middle." And I'm sure that if you started asking random people on the street, most would agree that it would be nice if we could build more moderately-scaled housing. You know, like those buildings you see in Paris.
The problem: Where should it go? Some people would probably suggest the left side of the above ring road. Just don't build as tall, okay? But this kind of land is already a scarce commodity in a city like Toronto. We need these tall buildings because most of the city is codified to look like the right side of the above ring road.
So if we have any chance of actually finding the missing middle, it is going to need to happen here, on the right side. Some progress has been made, not just in Toronto but across North America, with accessory dwellings (laneway suites). But it's not going to be enough.
This was simply a first step. It was us finding a solution to, "how can we add some more housing here without changing the look and feel and character of these residential streets in any way?" But even this small and incremental change has proven to be exceedingly controversial. People still react to new laneway suites like this:
https://twitter.com/evboyce/status/1624840523516182528?s=20&t=Q9gCZfTGLz51rVyupxJDPg
There are complex dynamics at play here.
If you're a homeowner that decides to create a new rental home at the rear of your property, you might be viewed as greedy. You are creating something (a home) that someone needs, and you intend to make a small margin on the transaction. It's like making and selling bread for a small margin, except that selling delicious bread to people is typically viewed in a positive light. On the other hand, ensuring that the value of your house remains as high as possible is generally good practice here. Greed doesn't factor in this way because, you know, single-family homes.
There is no surprise why the missing middle is missing. It is missing because we have decided that we want it to be. But hey, $2,145 per month seems like a very reasonable price for a 2-bedroom house.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog