This is a telling map from Jens von Bergmann. It shows the changes in population density across Toronto from 1971 to 2021 (measured in people per hectare). What is obvious is the spikiness of our city. We have been very effective at adding lots of people downtown, along the central waterfront, and in certain other pockets. But at the same time, we have let our older inner city neighborhoods move in the opposite direction and lose people.
The irony of this outcome is that we have long created policies that refer to these areas as being "stable" neighborhoods. The idea was that they weren't supposed to change, at least not too much. But what this data shows is the opposite. By restricting growth, we actually created the right conditions for them to lose people as demographics changed and household sizes got smaller, among other things. We created unstable neighborhoods.
Thankfully, we have started to change course and allow some intensification. We're not there yet, but I do believe that the next 50-year map will look quite different than the one you see here.
This is the battle that is now playing out across Toronto — and many other cities — as we look to intensify our existing communities; even in the ones sitting on higher-order transit. Cities rightly want to see it happen. But local ratepayers do not.
From the Globe and Mail:
“This project is in no way gentle intensification,” said the architect Terry Montgomery, representing the powerful local group the Annex Residents Association. “It will set a dangerous precedent for all areas in the city which currently [are zoned for] low-scale residential-buildings.”
It’s not clear whether that legal argument is true. At the meeting, City of Toronto planning manager David Driedger and director Oren Tamir – who, to their great credit, were supporting the development – said it would not set a precedent.
But if it did, why would that be “dangerous”? It is commonsensical. The Lowther site has two subway stations within an eight-minute walk. Toronto’s Line 1 and Line 2 intersect right here. This is one of the best-located, best-connected places in all of Canada.
Alex Bozikovic is, of course, right. This is commonsensical.
If our goals are to create more homes, improve housing affordability, reduce traffic congestion, and make us overall a more sustainable city, then there’s no better place to build than on top of transit within our already built-up areas.
This is a telling map from Jens von Bergmann. It shows the changes in population density across Toronto from 1971 to 2021 (measured in people per hectare). What is obvious is the spikiness of our city. We have been very effective at adding lots of people downtown, along the central waterfront, and in certain other pockets. But at the same time, we have let our older inner city neighborhoods move in the opposite direction and lose people.
The irony of this outcome is that we have long created policies that refer to these areas as being "stable" neighborhoods. The idea was that they weren't supposed to change, at least not too much. But what this data shows is the opposite. By restricting growth, we actually created the right conditions for them to lose people as demographics changed and household sizes got smaller, among other things. We created unstable neighborhoods.
Thankfully, we have started to change course and allow some intensification. We're not there yet, but I do believe that the next 50-year map will look quite different than the one you see here.
This is the battle that is now playing out across Toronto — and many other cities — as we look to intensify our existing communities; even in the ones sitting on higher-order transit. Cities rightly want to see it happen. But local ratepayers do not.
From the Globe and Mail:
“This project is in no way gentle intensification,” said the architect Terry Montgomery, representing the powerful local group the Annex Residents Association. “It will set a dangerous precedent for all areas in the city which currently [are zoned for] low-scale residential-buildings.”
It’s not clear whether that legal argument is true. At the meeting, City of Toronto planning manager David Driedger and director Oren Tamir – who, to their great credit, were supporting the development – said it would not set a precedent.
But if it did, why would that be “dangerous”? It is commonsensical. The Lowther site has two subway stations within an eight-minute walk. Toronto’s Line 1 and Line 2 intersect right here. This is one of the best-located, best-connected places in all of Canada.
Alex Bozikovic is, of course, right. This is commonsensical.
If our goals are to create more homes, improve housing affordability, reduce traffic congestion, and make us overall a more sustainable city, then there’s no better place to build than on top of transit within our already built-up areas.
This is the sort of housing project that you'd fully expect to find in Tokyo. Seven homes built on a small urban lot measuring only 11 feet wide by 93 feet deep. But in this case, it's not Tokyo; it's Chinatown, Philadelphia, where a residual lot that was created when the sunken Vine Street Expressway was carved through the middle of the city in the 1950s.
Designed by Philadelphia-based Interface Studio Architects (ISA), the project contains 7 levels of livable space. What's interesting, though, is that from a building code perspective this is still a 4-story building. There are two mezzanine levels that don't get counted (and that create some great double-height spaces). This also seems to be what allowed them to get away with a single egress stair in the middle of the building.
The other technique that was used to maximum density is facade projections. Philadelphia's zoning code allows for projections up to 3 feet in the horizontal dimension. And if you look at the above plans, you'll see that these were used to "top up" or extend the site's 11 foot width to 14 feet, when it made sense to do so from a programming standpoint. The result is some very livable spaces.
I am endlessly fascinated by these sorts of projects because they demand creativity and because you ultimately end up unlocking something that the market had been overlooking. Here is an example of a small leftover urban parcel that was previously used as surface parking for two cars. Now it's seven beautiful homes.
Photos/drawings: ISA
This is the sort of housing project that you'd fully expect to find in Tokyo. Seven homes built on a small urban lot measuring only 11 feet wide by 93 feet deep. But in this case, it's not Tokyo; it's Chinatown, Philadelphia, where a residual lot that was created when the sunken Vine Street Expressway was carved through the middle of the city in the 1950s.
Designed by Philadelphia-based Interface Studio Architects (ISA), the project contains 7 levels of livable space. What's interesting, though, is that from a building code perspective this is still a 4-story building. There are two mezzanine levels that don't get counted (and that create some great double-height spaces). This also seems to be what allowed them to get away with a single egress stair in the middle of the building.
The other technique that was used to maximum density is facade projections. Philadelphia's zoning code allows for projections up to 3 feet in the horizontal dimension. And if you look at the above plans, you'll see that these were used to "top up" or extend the site's 11 foot width to 14 feet, when it made sense to do so from a programming standpoint. The result is some very livable spaces.
I am endlessly fascinated by these sorts of projects because they demand creativity and because you ultimately end up unlocking something that the market had been overlooking. Here is an example of a small leftover urban parcel that was previously used as surface parking for two cars. Now it's seven beautiful homes.
Photos/drawings: ISA
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
