I received an email from an ATC reader yesterday who is working on a publication about reimagining public spaces in Toronto. She sent me a few questions and specifically wanted to talk about the Yonge Redux project, which I wrote about a month ago. After I responded to her questions, I figured I should just share them publicly. So here they are:

How would citizens from different age groups benefit from the Yonge Redux project?

I would bet you that this stretch of Yonge Street experiences more pedestrian traffic than it does car traffic. And yet we’ve allocated space in the opposite direction: cars have more space than pedestrians do. So what this project is really about is reallocating the street, or public right-of-way, so that the dominant uses are actually prioritized through urban design. It doesn’t need to be more complicated than that. Ultimately, this will benefit people both young and old.

Do you know what kind of professionals are needed to complete a project like this?

You’d need an architect/designer – one who is awesome at landscape/urban design work. gh3 here in the city comes to mind as a firm I like, if you want an example. You’d need a bunch of engineers to deal with stormwater management and other infrastructure items. You’d likely need a transportation/traffic consultant to assess traffic flows in the area and prove that this project won’t cause the entire city to come to a grinding halt (it won’t). You would need someone to manage the day-to-day of the entire project. And this is just naming a few of the professionals/consultants that you’d probably end up needing.

You’d also have to work closely with the city, the local councillor, and the local community. It’s inevitable that some of the businesses will worry about the loss of potential customers – so that would need to be worked through.

What are some areas in Toronto that, in your opinion, need reimagining in the next few years?

My feeling is that Toronto is still at the early stages of this shift towards better public spaces and a better public realm. But in many ways, projects like Yonge Redux are much easier sells compared to the other areas that could use a face lift. Yonge Street is already urban and pedestrian friendly. The real challenge is going to be dealing with the areas outside of the core – most of which, frankly, aren’t that welcoming to pedestrians and aren’t all that urban. What do we do with those? And do the local communities even want them transformed? They’re going to be much harder to reimagine (though I’m not saying we won’t be able to do it).

Where do you see the future of Toronto’s public spaces in the next 50 years?

All signs point to a more dense, more urban, and more transit-oriented city. With that shift, we’re going to increasingly realize the importance of incredible public spaces. So if we continue down this path, I reckon our public spaces will only get better. I’m optimistic about the future.

How would you personally approach a project like this?

My understanding is that this project has legs. It just has to work through the city bureaucracy at this point. Jennifer Keesmaat supports it.

Depending on who you ask, the current condo boom in Toronto might be viewed as either a good thing or a bad thing (most will have an opinion). Some people think we’re simply building too many condos. And that too many of them are small, crappy, and geared towards investors – as opposed to end-users.

While I do agree that we could be doing more to create complete communities – that is communities which serve everyone from young singles to families with 3 kids – I think there are also a lot of positives associated with Toronto’s condo obsession (full disclosure: I’m a real estate developer). It has made us more sustainable, more reliant on alternate forms of (non-car) transport, and it has made us a generally more exciting place to live.

But that doesn’t mean we can’t do better.

Lately I’ve been wondering about how other cities do it. Specifically, those European cities that somehow seem to always be able to build awesome housing projects. So today I thought I would pick one and profile it. What I really wish I had was a financial pro forma to share with you all, but in the absence of that, I’ll try and back into some of the numbers on my own.

Shown above is the 9-storey Charlotte Apartments in Berlin. It was developed by WI Concept and designed by Michels Architecture Office. I chose this building because I think it’s an attractive one and because it's of the (mid-rise) scale that Toronto is trying to promote along its many avenues. Here are the stats I was able to find online:

• Site area: 347 square meters / 3,735 square feet

• Building area: 3,000 square meters / 32,291 square feet (says gross floor area, but I don't know if that means the same thing as it does here)

• Construction costs: €3.6 million / C$5,065,691 (as of today’s rate)

• Units: 28 (sold within 1 week of launch)

• Market: ~70% of buyers in Berlin are believed to be foreign investors

Now, if we were actually building a development pro forma, we’d want to get a lot more granular in our calculations than what I’m about to do. We’d want to know gross construction area, net saleable areas, and so on. But for the purposes of this post (and because I have very little information), I’m going to simplify and do a back of the napkin set of calculations.

Based on above, the FSI (or density) is about 8.65 (32,291 sf / 3,735 sf). That’s roughly in line with many of the residential developments we’re seeing in downtown Toronto. The average unit size works out to be about 1,153 sf (32,291 sf / 28 units), but in reality it would be less if that 32,291 number is truly the gross floor area. You would need to subtract the corridors and other non-saleable areas from it before doing this calc. Either way, that is big compared to most downtown Toronto condos, but small for Berlin standards according to this ArchDaily article. Finally, if we look at construction costs, we get $157 per square foot in Canadian dollars ($5.065M / 32,291 sf). That’s low. I wonder what the land costs were.

Again, these numbers are rough rough. But I wanted to try and dissect a European development project and compare it to Toronto. The most surprising figure seems to be the low construction costs. If you have any additional insights, I would love to hear from you in the comment section below.

Images: Werner Huthmacher

In 1980, the last train ran on an elevated corridor on the west side of Manhattan known as the High Line. Originally built in the 1930s, the trucking industry had made these trains obsolete and service was halted.

At this point, neighboring property owners began to lobby for the demolition of the High Line, as they no doubt saw it as an opportunity to increase the value of their land holdings. But thanks to local residents – most notably a man by the name of Peter Obletz – the 1.45 mile-long elevated rail corridor was saved from demolition.

In 1999, Joshua David and Robert Hammond then decided to form a non-profit with the goal of both preserving and reusing this unused rail corridor. The group was called Friends of the High Line.

By the early 2000s, Friends of the High Line had successfully made an economic case for transforming the rail line into a public open space and things started moving forward. Initially, it was thought that a public park of this sorts would attract about 400,000 people annually and generate upwards of $286 million in new tax revenues over the following 2 decades (Globe and Mail).

With these expectations in mind, construction on the new High Line Park began in 2006. The first section opened in 2009 – a decade after Friends of the High Line was formed. And the third, and last section, opened just two weekends ago at the end of September.

Today the High Line Park attracts 5 million visitors a year and is believed to be directly responsible for about $2.2 billion in new economic activity. The increased tax revenues over the next 2 decades are expected to reach about $980 million. Without a doubt, the High Line has been a huge success. It has become the 2nd most visited cultural attraction in New York (Globe and Mail).

Which is why every city now wants their own High Line. Philadelphia wants one. Chicago wants one. Mexico City wants one. Seoul wants one. And the list goes on. Here in Toronto, we’ve recently proposed one called the King High Line, which will connect the Liberty Village and West Queen West neighborhoods across a rail corridor.

While I do believe that this is an important connectivity problem to be solved, I worry about how explicit the references are to the actual High Line. Even the street furniture is the same in their promotional video.

I worry not only because it means we’re clearly taking on the role of follower, as opposed to leader, but because an elevated park isn’t going to work in all urban contexts the same way that the High Line worked in Chelsea. This is similar to how Frank Gehry can’t magically turn your city into the next Bilbao. 

So while I have shown my support by becoming a “Friend of the King High Line” (and I would encourage you to do so as well), it’s important to keep in mind that the problems we’re trying to solve here aren’t necessarily the same ones that New York had to deal with.

The High Line – from the start – was designed to have an intimate relationship with its surrounding buildings. The tracks rain directly through them so that the trains could easily load and unload their cargo – that was the whole point. So when the High Line was redone, all of a sudden these buildings were able to reconnect themselves to the park in a way that they were already accustomed to doing.

But in Toronto’s situation, and perhaps in your city, that’s not the case. We’re talking about stitching together two completely disconnected neighborhoods. It’s a noble goal and certainly one that I wholeheartedly believe we should pursue. But I don’t think we should assume that it’s a problem that has already been completely solved for us.

Image: Flickr