Category: Planning

• Laneway as front door

  Recently, I wrote about 4 predictions that I have for Toronto’s laneways. And one of them is what I refer to as a “market inversion.” What I mean by this is that I think we’ll start to see the laneway side of lots become more desirable than their traditional street frontages.

  Maybe it won’t be a universal thing, but I definitely think we’ll stop thinking about laneways as being the “rear” or “backside” of lots and just think of them as quieter and more intimate streets. Because here’s the thing, as more and more laneway houses get built, we are, in a lot of cases, removing parking at the same time. And so generally speaking, as time goes on, our laneways are going to become even more pedestrian-oriented by default.

  Now here’s a built example.

  Designed by Williamson Williamson, I think this house, called the Garden Laneway House, is immediately notable for two reasons. One, the overall design is beautiful, especially the exterior brickwork. I mean, wow:

  

  

  

  And two, it is a 4-bedroom house for a family of five. In fact, what the family did is turn the front house into a duplex, creating three homes on a lot where previously there was only one. And from the looks of it, it was their preference to live in the laneway house and use the laneway as their front door.

  This is exactly the sort of thing that I was getting at with my predictions post.

  Photos/Plans: Scott Norsworthy & Williamson Williamson

  2024.03.18

• Okay, fine, I support your laneway house

  This week, I received a notice in the mail that a neighbor to Mackay Laneway House is seeking variances for their own laneway house. I immediately thought to myself, “oh, the hypocrisy.” Here is a neighbor that vehemently opposed my Committee of Adjustment application back in 2017 and now wants to do something similar.

  It’s also not like you need minor variances in order to build a laneway house today. They are, as many of you know, permitted as-of-right. That’s how MLH was ultimately built. We went straight to building permit. But in this case, the request is for 7 variances to the current by-law. The build aspires to go above and beyond.

  As I’m sure you can imagine, there’s part of me that wants to be a real asshole here. But of course, that would run counter to many of the objectives that we regularly cover on this blog: more housing, revitalized laneways, and so on. So I can’t do that. It’s directionally the right city building move, and they have my full support.

  2024.03.09

• Front yard setback

  Following yesterday’s post on small-scale apartments, a number of people commented on the 6m front yard setback that was shown on the city’s drawings and that I mentioned in my post. Well, it turns out that I wasn’t entirely correct about the 6m. What is proposed in the draft zoning by-law is the following:

  The modelling has illustrated building setbacks that are appropriate for townhouse developments and small-scale apartment buildings on major streets in a Neighbourhoods context. Based on the review, Urban Design staff recommend that the front yard setback be implemented through use of the average of the existing neighbouring setbacks, or a minimum of 3 meters, whichever is greater. This approach maintains consistency with the existing character of the Neighbourhoods supports protection of existing mature trees.

  As you might expect, the approach with these small-scale apartments is to be mindful of the existing low-rise context. But as many of you rightly pointed out when you saw the 6m, the existing context may not be appropriate or ideal for the planned context, especially if there’s retail at grade.

  This is just one of the many details that we’ll need to be careful with as this initiative moves forward.

  2024.03.03

• Not enough density next to transit

  Reece Martin is a foremost public transit critic based in Toronto. His YouTube channel, RM Transit, has over 284k subscribers and some 50 millions views. If you’re interested in public transit around the world, he is a great person to follow.

  He also writes a blog. And today, he published a post talking about the “5 places in Toronto that should have more density.” This, as we have talked about many times before, is essential. The way you get the most out of transit is to pair it with the right surrounding land uses. And here in Toronto, we have many instances of “not enough density next to transit.”

  For instance, the first place on his list is Bloor-Dundas West:

  The site already has streetcar serving on two routes, the subway, GO, and UP Express (which will be connected with the subway in the next few years — construction is underway), and lots more transit could show up in the future, from an extension of one of the streetcar routes to the Junction (with a transferway please), to the Ontario Line that will be primed for a second phase in this direction if development justifies it, to the potential for future Milton line train service. The site is arguably already the second-best served for transit in the country after Union, and could be made much better in short order.

  Hang on this last sentence for a second: the second-best transit node in the country. That’s an incredible asset! Now consider the area’s land use plan (red is mixed use and yellow is low-rise neighborhood in Toronto’s Official Plan):

  

  Other than the mixed-use triangle wedged between Dundas West and the rail corridor, the area looks pretty similar to much of Bloor Street in this city: mixed-use along the major streets and low-rise neighborhoods everywhere else.

  We know why this is the case; it is about maintaining the status quo. But it is a suboptimal way in which to try and create transit-oriented communities. We need more density, and we need to start thinking radially instead of linearly. So here’s what a 500m walking radius looks like around Bloor-Dundas West and its two closest subway station neighbors:

  

  The important thing to pay attention to in this diagram is all of the yellow that falls within each radius. This is land that ought to be zoned mixed-use, but that we have instead decided to make low-rise and single-use. If our objective is to create more walkable, sustainable, and vibrant transit-oriented communities, this is not the way.

  2024.02.28

• Messy intersections

  I am not a transportation engineer, but sometimes I like to, you know, pretend. And lately, I’ve been thinking about how to better design the Toronto intersection of Dundas, Dupont, Annette, and Old Weston (which I touched on briefly over here). It’s a weird 5-point intersection that is often cited as one of the most confusing in the city. And so there’s a lot that could be done.

  Here’s what it looks like today:

  

  The centerpiece is the Dundas-Dupont Traffic Island, which is actually a city-owned park. It’s not the most generous green space, but the real problem with this park is that it’s very much an island. There’s really only one pedestrian access point — its north end. For the most part, you need to be unlawful in your movements on and off it.

  This is a fairly common occurrence in cities. The island is, almost certainly, a remnant space. It was never explicitly designed; it is just what was left over after they figured out how to connect all of these streets and negotiate the intersection’s grade changes.

  The other signal, that these are remnant spaces, is the paint markings on the street. Their main job is to tell cars where to go. But they’re also unproductive spaces. Nobody is intended to actually occupy them. So what they really say is, “we have too much road and we didn’t know what to do; so we just painted them.”

  If you watch the below video of Claire Weisz (founder of WXY Studio) explaining the work that she has done in New York City, you’ll see remarkable similarities to what I’m talking about here. This sort of thing happens all the time, especially at messy intersections where multiple streets converge. The objective was to connect the streets and the rest became a byproduct.

  But when properly designed, these spaces actually become better for everyone: drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians. And this Toronto intersection strikes me as a perfect candidate. So if my local Councillor Gord Perks is reading this post, I would ask him to do what he can within the city to encourage this kind of positive change.

  And not just here, but wherever there is a street that sucks.

  2024.02.23

• Boston’s office to residential conversion program

  Like many cities these days, Boston has a program in place to incentivize the conversion of office buildings to residential. Here is generally how it works:

  • City to provide an average tax abatement of up to 75% of the fair market assessed residential value for up to 29 years.
  • City to fast track the development review process (only 1 community meeting). Zoning would be considered as-of-right.
  • Construction must start before October 2025.
  • Per the city’s inclusionary zoning policies, 17% of all newly created residential suites must be restricted to households making up to 60% of AMI (Area Median Income), and another 3% of the suites must be reserved for voucher holders.
  • Projects cannot be ground-up construction. Adaptive re-use only. Though additional height/FAR is a possibility.
  • Program is not intended to create micro-units (I’m not sure how firm this restriction is).
  • Any ground-floor retail and public uses must be maintained.
  • Transaction charge of 2% on any future gross sale of the property.

  And here is one example project that is using the program. It is interesting to look at how different cities are approaching this vacancy problem.

  2024.02.22

• It always starts with a bold idea

  

  This is a photo taken from the base village of Val Thorens. I took it while we were sitting on a massive terrace in the middle of it. But what stood out to me even more than the terrace itself was the buildings that frame it. They are all about 8-9 storeys, have no step-backs, and were clearly orchestrated to create a defined “street wall.”

  These framing buildings can be just as important as the public spaces themselves; they form the “walls” of the public realm and create a sense of enclosure. In this case, the buildings also follow a similar aesthetic. They were designed to pay homage to traditional Savoyard architecture, which is known for its use of local woods and stones.

  The other thing I find noteworthy is that all of this is only about 50-some years old. Val Thorens the resort opened in 1971. And it only became an idea sometime around 1969 when Pierre Schneblelen — an engineer and developer — decided that he wanted to build Europe’s highest ski resort. (The base of the resort sits at 2,300 m and the peak elevation is 3,230 m.)

  As time passes, it’s easy to take these kinds of places and experiences for granted. But they only exist because someone, at some point, had a vision. And when that vision was initially presented, it was probably perceived by many, or by most, to be crazy. That’s just how these things go, and so I like reminding myself of that.

  2024.02.01

• Tornado column

  Lyon is located at the confluence of two rivers: the Saône and the Rhône. And where these two rivers physically merge in the south is a neighborhood called La Confluence:

  

  A former industrial area and urban renewal project since 1999, La Confluence is now home to world-class architecture, a broad mix of uses, and a club called Le Sucre.

  The most important piece of architecture is probably the Musée des Confluences, which was designed by the Austrian firm Coop Himmeb(l)au. It is situated at the very southern tip of La Confluence.

  And at the very south end of the museum is this column:

  

  It feels like the exact right place for a column like this.

  2024.01.28

• Skinny fabric building

  

  This skinny 8-story building caught my eye in the Place des Terreaux in Lyon. I think a lot about these sort of small infill buildings because it is generally not how we build, today, in Toronto. But it’s a workhorse of a “fabric building”, and I can think of many streets that would be made better if only we encouraged this kind of built form. Truthfully, it’s probably most streets.

  2024.01.25

• How would you make this street better?

  Let’s resume looking at sidewalks and public spaces.

  If you look in the City of Toronto’s Official Plan for the stretch of Dundas Street West that runs between Dupont Street and Bloor Street West, you’ll find a map that looks like this:

  

  Red signifies “Mixed Use.” And so if you were to just look at this map, you might naturally assume that, in the real world, this is a continuous main street that connects The Junction neighborhood down to Bloor. But that’s not actually the case. Instead, it looks like this:

  

  Because of the rail corridor on the east side, it is a single-sided street. And generally speaking, these don’t make for the best retail streets. But it also has narrow sidewalks and a compromised public realm. If you go back to the map I shared yesterday, you get this:

  

  I don’t think 30cm is entirely accurate here, but that’s beside the point. What matters is that this is just one of many examples in the city of a discontinuous public realm. (Here’s another, undignified example, from Parkside Drive.)

  Over the years, there have been a number of design concepts proposed. Below is one by Brown + Storey Architects that was done I don’t know how many years ago. Their proposal widened the sidewalks along this stretch, and added bike lanes. They also proposed a roundabout at the intersection of Dundas, Dupont, and Annette, which is another matter that needs addressing.

  

  

  But none of this has been implemented and I don’t know of any plans to do it. When we were going through the rezoning process for Junction House, we were made aware of some transportation studies that had been done for the above intersection. But that’s about it. There wasn’t an actual ETA.

  However, now that my commute consists of walking up and down this part of Dundas, I’ve been thinking more about how it could be improved.

  I think there’s no question that the sidewalks need to be widened. It would also be helpful if there were crosswalks to facilitate getting off the south end of this exotic island:

  

  But equally important, I think that something should be done about the single-sided nature of the street. Given that there’s limited width, my mind immediately goes to shipping containers, or something similar, to start activating the east side of the street.

  This has already been done further south on Dundas (east of Bathurst):

  

  And it could work here too. Already there’s a Blondie’s Pizza anchoring the south end of this stretch (really fantastic pizza, by the way):

  

  But I would love to hear your ideas, as I’m currently in the market. I also don’t think that you necessarily need to be from Toronto in order to comment. Great streets are great streets. So if it were up to you, what would you change, if anything, about this part of Dundas Street West? Let me know in the comment section below.

  2024.01.17