Mid-rises

[waterloowarrior]

For those interested in mid-rises and issues like economics, why many developers seem to prefer low rises or highrises, barriers to more midrises etc... here are some good links.

In 2005 the City of Toronto did a mid-rise symposium relating to urbanizing its Avenues (roads like St. Clair, Bloor, etc) http://www.toronto.ca/planning/midrise_symposium.htm

There is lots of interesting information that was presented and discussed.

Some essential readings is the discussion of what a pro forma is and a sample pro forma for a midrise vs a highrise
http://www.toronto.ca/planning/midrise_proforma.htm

There is a page with all the presentations and workshops, including discussions some of the barriers to midrises
http://www.toronto.ca/planning/midrise_workshops.htm

workshop 2 is especially interesting with its discussion of things like building code and fire code regulations
http://www.toronto.ca/planning/midrise_workshop2.htm



More recently, the Canadian Urban Institute did a workshop in December 2009 on making midrises work in the Ontario context. You can see the presentations and discussion paper here.
http://www.canurb.com/events/event_details.php?id=275

and a past CUI event from 2008
http://www.canurb.com/events/event_details.php?id=223

And here is a Globe article from earlier this year, "Encouraging mid-rises a tall order" in case the above links make your eyes glaze over ;)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/encouraging-mid-rises-a-tall-order/article1427929/

Happy reading!

[Ottawan]

It's taken me some time to get through it, but some very interesting reading! Being unfamiliar with Toronto planning, I find it interesting how their designation of "Avenues" seems to correspond with Ottawa's designation of "Mainstreets", with "Old City Avenues" being our "Traditional Mainstreets" and "New City Avenues" being our "Arterial Mainstreets".

The challenges of mid-rise construction are well laid out in these articles, although they have missed mentioning one which has caused problems to several Ottawa mid-rises: restrictions relating to and the prohibitive cost of removing hydro wires.

One fact worth mentioning from the 2009 CUI report that highlights the policy barriers to mid-rise construction is that rezoning or official plan amendments are needed in 75% of midrise approvals in Ontario.

[waterloowarrior]

I would be interested to know if Toronto has had the same problem with hydro wires... they seem to have an even bigger mess of wires with the streetcars there.

Very true, and those are lengthy processes. That's why it's desirable to go through the minor variance process if possible (although even then you can run into problems - see the 129 Main St. thread)

[waterloowarrior]

proposal in Toronto to pre-zone for midrise buildings on the Avenues
http://spacing.ca/toronto/2013/01/29/zoning-for-midrises/

[rocketphish]

Ottawa likely to see more big wooden buildings like one that burned in Kingston

By David Reevely, OTTAWA CITIZEN December 18, 2013 4:35 PM

OTTAWA - The private student residence in Kingston that burned to the ground Tuesday was pushing the limits of wooden construction in Ontario, limits the construction industry wants to loosen further.

Tall wooden buildings are just as safe as traditional concrete ones, experts agree, but only once they’re finished. Under construction, they’re vulnerable to massive fires like the one that consumed the apartment building, threatened a nearby gas station, and trapped a crane operator on the tip of his crane until he was plucked off by a rescue helicopter sent from Trenton.

The remnants were still smoking Wednesday, with fire investigators barely started their work.

People in Kingston called the half-finished building "the Tinderbox," according to a letter entered into the city’s public record as part of a zoning application.

Mayor Mark Gerretsen told the CBC he was surprised such a big building could be framed with wood, though he trusted Kingston’s building-code department to enforce the law.

The building code allows wood-framed buildings as tall as four storeys, though site quirks and design tricks can make a particular one look as though it’s as tall as six. The one on Princess Street in Kingston was to have five levels.

The rule has never been about the soundness of finished buildings, says John Herbert, the executive director of the Greater Ottawa Home Builders’ Association. It’s always been about fire safety. "Structurally, there’s no problem building wood-frame structures at least 10 storeys. It’s done in other parts of the world," he said. But authorities have worried that wooden buildings would burn faster and put their occupants at risk.

These days, in an era of smoke detectors and sprinkler systems and fire-resistant interior panels, that’s less of a danger. "As smoke-detectors were introduced … fire deaths plummeted and now there’s almost no deaths in low-rise wood-framed buildings due to fires," Herbert said.

Ottawa architect Toon Dreessen (who’s a vice-president of the Ontario Association of Architects) is a fan of taller wood-framed buildings, having been involved in designing a five-storey loft condo building on Cumberland Street using wood.

"Once upon a time, a wood frame was two-by-four and two-by-six and chipboard, and now we’re moving more to engineered products," he said. "We’re able to get a lot more out of our wood than we’re used to.’’ By "engineered," he means things like boards of laminated-together layers free of knots and warps and cracks. Practically, it means an architect can design a floor that’s 40 feet across, say, instead of 20, supported by wooden joists whose structural properties are as guaranteed as those of a steel beam.

Above all, Dreessen said, it means more flexibility for builders. Forming concrete is expensive, a cost that builders like to spread out over as many cookie-cutter floors as possible. For six-storey buildings it’s rarely cost-effective. Adding wood-framed buildings to the mix would give developers more options for contractors, too.

"If you look around Ottawa, you’ll see there are very few buildings in the four- to eight- and 10-storey range," Herbert said. That’s where concrete starts to make financial sense. It’s also where many people start to get uncomfortable with the height of a building they’ll be able to see from their porches.

A pro-wood report for the construction industry by Toronto’s former chief planner Paul Bedford (he’s on the board of the National Capital Commission, too) early this year argued that wood-framed six-storey buildings would "unlock the immense potential of a new mid-rise market throughout the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area, the Greater Golden Horseshoe and in many other cities throughout the province," allowing tens of thousands of new apartments and condos to be built efficiently.

But especially after Kingston, the disadvantage of wood-framed buildings is obvious: Wood burns.

Once it’s in a finished building, wood is not any more dangerous than concrete and steel, Dreessen said.

"Is it safe to do six storeys in wood? Yes. Now, under construction, you have all this wood sitting there exposed, and it’s cold so you have propane heaters and things to keep the workers and so on warm, and accidents can happen." In fact, the "engineered" wood is typically infused with glue and other substances that make it even more combustible. But bad concrete can also crumble and collapse, he pointed out.

"The vulnerability of wood-frame structures is while they’re under construction. There’s no question about that. Once they’re up, they’re sprinklered, fitted with all the other modern measures to reduce their vulnerability," Herbert said.

The concrete and cinder-block industries counter just about every pro-wood argument: Aside from the obvious fire worries, they argue that cutting down trees for building materials isn’t environmentally friendly, that many engineers and architects aren’t familiar with wood-oriented construction techniques, that masonry lasts infinitely longer.

It seems to be a losing argument. British Columbia has allowed six-storey wood buildings since 2009 and there’s no indication they’re more dangerous; an academic study led by Surrey’s fire chief concluded tall new wooden buildings are likely safer, once they’re finished, than shorter old ones. Sprinklers are the key difference.

That said, in an unpleasant bit of poetry, the first six-storey wood building under construction there, in the Vancouver suburb of Richmond, burned to the ground in 2011.

Accidental fires aren’t the only danger. Big wooden structures are attractive targets. "Arson is the frequent cause, unfortunately," Herbert said. (It was ruled out in the Richmond incident, though investigators never determined the fire’s cause conclusively.)

He expects that when taller wooden buildings are allowed in Ontario - and he’s pretty sure they will be, likely in the next revision of the building code - the rules will include keeping construction sites set back from neighbouring buildings, to reduce the risk of a fire’s spreading. Dreessen suggested installing sprinklers early in construction, too, akin to having the fire hydrants in a suburban division working long before the houses are finished.

dreevely@ottawacitizen.com

ottawacitizen.com/greaterottawa
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Ottawa+likely+more+wooden+buildings+like+that+burned/9301476/story.html

[1overcosc]

This fire has really unleashed a pandora's box in Kingston. The Edge, the under-construction building that caught fire, was the first project under the City of Kingston's new Williamsville Revitalization Plan, a CDP-like initiative for the section of Princess St between Division & Bath, a very run-down area filled with vacant lots and crumbling housing, that promised to transform the area into a vibrant urban space. The city has invested millions in this by expanding transit in the area, upgrading its water/sewers/hydro, and new bike lanes. What's more, this plan actually has the enthusiastic support of Jim Neill, the local councillor, and area residents.

Now, with this fire, the local community assocation and councillor Neill are pushing to ban wood frame construction for all multi-unit buildings.. which would kill the plan, as mid-rise concrete is not profitable. Developers would either refuse to build, or they would insist on high-rises which are not compatible with the intent of the plan, which is to make the area have the same look and feel as Kingston's 19th-century heritage downtown.

Ottawa likely to see more big wooden buildings like one that burned in Kingston

By David Reevely, OTTAWA CITIZEN December 18, 2013 4:35 PM

OTTAWA - The private student residence in Kingston that burned to the ground Tuesday was pushing the limits of wooden construction in Ontario, limits the construction industry wants to loosen further.

Tall wooden buildings are just as safe as traditional concrete ones, experts agree, but only once they’re finished. Under construction, they’re vulnerable to massive fires like the one that consumed the apartment building, threatened a nearby gas station, and trapped a crane operator on the tip of his crane until he was plucked off by a rescue helicopter sent from Trenton.

The remnants were still smoking Wednesday, with fire investigators barely started their work.

People in Kingston called the half-finished building "the Tinderbox," according to a letter entered into the city’s public record as part of a zoning application.

Mayor Mark Gerretsen told the CBC he was surprised such a big building could be framed with wood, though he trusted Kingston’s building-code department to enforce the law.

The building code allows wood-framed buildings as tall as four storeys, though site quirks and design tricks can make a particular one look as though it’s as tall as six. The one on Princess Street in Kingston was to have five levels.

The rule has never been about the soundness of finished buildings, says John Herbert, the executive director of the Greater Ottawa Home Builders’ Association. It’s always been about fire safety. "Structurally, there’s no problem building wood-frame structures at least 10 storeys. It’s done in other parts of the world," he said. But authorities have worried that wooden buildings would burn faster and put their occupants at risk.

These days, in an era of smoke detectors and sprinkler systems and fire-resistant interior panels, that’s less of a danger. "As smoke-detectors were introduced … fire deaths plummeted and now there’s almost no deaths in low-rise wood-framed buildings due to fires," Herbert said.

Ottawa architect Toon Dreessen (who’s a vice-president of the Ontario Association of Architects) is a fan of taller wood-framed buildings, having been involved in designing a five-storey loft condo building on Cumberland Street using wood.

"Once upon a time, a wood frame was two-by-four and two-by-six and chipboard, and now we’re moving more to engineered products," he said. "We’re able to get a lot more out of our wood than we’re used to.’’ By "engineered," he means things like boards of laminated-together layers free of knots and warps and cracks. Practically, it means an architect can design a floor that’s 40 feet across, say, instead of 20, supported by wooden joists whose structural properties are as guaranteed as those of a steel beam.

Above all, Dreessen said, it means more flexibility for builders. Forming concrete is expensive, a cost that builders like to spread out over as many cookie-cutter floors as possible. For six-storey buildings it’s rarely cost-effective. Adding wood-framed buildings to the mix would give developers more options for contractors, too.

"If you look around Ottawa, you’ll see there are very few buildings in the four- to eight- and 10-storey range," Herbert said. That’s where concrete starts to make financial sense. It’s also where many people start to get uncomfortable with the height of a building they’ll be able to see from their porches.

A pro-wood report for the construction industry by Toronto’s former chief planner Paul Bedford (he’s on the board of the National Capital Commission, too) early this year argued that wood-framed six-storey buildings would "unlock the immense potential of a new mid-rise market throughout the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area, the Greater Golden Horseshoe and in many other cities throughout the province," allowing tens of thousands of new apartments and condos to be built efficiently.

But especially after Kingston, the disadvantage of wood-framed buildings is obvious: Wood burns.

Once it’s in a finished building, wood is not any more dangerous than concrete and steel, Dreessen said.

"Is it safe to do six storeys in wood? Yes. Now, under construction, you have all this wood sitting there exposed, and it’s cold so you have propane heaters and things to keep the workers and so on warm, and accidents can happen." In fact, the "engineered" wood is typically infused with glue and other substances that make it even more combustible. But bad concrete can also crumble and collapse, he pointed out.

"The vulnerability of wood-frame structures is while they’re under construction. There’s no question about that. Once they’re up, they’re sprinklered, fitted with all the other modern measures to reduce their vulnerability," Herbert said.

The concrete and cinder-block industries counter just about every pro-wood argument: Aside from the obvious fire worries, they argue that cutting down trees for building materials isn’t environmentally friendly, that many engineers and architects aren’t familiar with wood-oriented construction techniques, that masonry lasts infinitely longer.

It seems to be a losing argument. British Columbia has allowed six-storey wood buildings since 2009 and there’s no indication they’re more dangerous; an academic study led by Surrey’s fire chief concluded tall new wooden buildings are likely safer, once they’re finished, than shorter old ones. Sprinklers are the key difference.

That said, in an unpleasant bit of poetry, the first six-storey wood building under construction there, in the Vancouver suburb of Richmond, burned to the ground in 2011.

Accidental fires aren’t the only danger. Big wooden structures are attractive targets. "Arson is the frequent cause, unfortunately," Herbert said. (It was ruled out in the Richmond incident, though investigators never determined the fire’s cause conclusively.)

He expects that when taller wooden buildings are allowed in Ontario - and he’s pretty sure they will be, likely in the next revision of the building code - the rules will include keeping construction sites set back from neighbouring buildings, to reduce the risk of a fire’s spreading. Dreessen suggested installing sprinklers early in construction, too, akin to having the fire hydrants in a suburban division working long before the houses are finished.

dreevely@ottawacitizen.com

ottawacitizen.com/greaterottawa
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Ottawa+likely+more+wooden+buildings+like+that+burned/9301476/story.html

[waterloowarrior]

Doug Saunders (‏@DougSaunders)
https://twitter.com/DougSaunders/status/442877056439693312
You fit the most people into a city with 5-6 storey buildings. More storeys than that =lower total population density

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BiVqVLXCQAAyMWg.png:large

This data is from Berlin... not sure if it can be applied across the board but interesting to look at. In the article they said this is because the increased need for land for parking, shopping etc outweighs the density benefits from increased (average) height
http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/umwelt/umweltatlas/ed609_04.htm

Can't really think of any tightly-packed mid-rise blocks like this in Ottawa though.

http://goo.gl/maps/9eoOo

There's not the same ability to develop a whole block and the planning/engineering regulations would discourage it. Because of the priority to preserve existing neighbourhoods we don't spread out the density and instead have higher buildings on main streets at at key areas and zone the rest of the city for low density. All those new Westboro condo buildings still back onto single family homes.

[Dado]

I wonder if it has to do with the types of buildings that families will occupy.

Or, to look at it differently, perhaps in buildings up to 5-6 storeys developers will build units suitable for families, but in taller buildings they build units for one/two people.

With respect to those blocks in Berlin, they're also considerably larger than our blocks. Some of them are over 200 m per side, and most have a minor axis that is at least 100 m. Here in Ottawa, the typical block measures about 180 m by 60 m.

[Fatty McButterpants]

In Ottawa ...

Lowrise = basement dwelling
Midrise = 2 storeys
Highrise = 15 storeys
Supertall = 28 storeys

[gjhall]

I wonder if it has to do with the types of buildings that families will occupy.

Or, to look at it differently, perhaps in buildings up to 5-6 storeys developers will build units suitable for families, but in taller buildings they build units for one/two people.

I think you're partly on to something, but I think another factor is that in cities where 5-6 storeys are dominant, they are consistent, i.e. European city centres don't generally have skyscrapers, but they also don't have single family house neighbourhoods either.

So in those cities, if you want to live centrally you need to live in an apartment.

Perhaps its more historical than anything?

[1overcosc]

^ That's my thoughts as well. Look at Toronto. Lots of high density towers in certain areas, but they're there to offset the low-density single family homes of the rest of the city, so the average density of the city is low despite the presence of lots of very tall residential towers.

I wonder if statistical confounds like that were balanced out in this study.

[1overcosc]

That said I think we do need more mid-rise development. I've always been a fan of cities with long corridors of mid-rise with high-rise restricted to 'nodes' at the junction of these corridors.

[Proof Sheet]

I think you're partly on to something, but I think another factor is that in cities where 5-6 storeys are dominant, they are consistent, i.e. European city centres don't generally have skyscrapers, but they also don't have single family house neighbourhoods either.

So in those cities, if you want to live centrally you need to live in an apartment.

Perhaps its more historical than anything?

Check out Barcelona..this area was once a 'suburb' of the main city. Basically every block is 4-6 storeys in height with ground floor retail/commercial and apartments above.

http://goo.gl/maps/xHDBu

[gjhall]

Check out Barcelona..this area was once a 'suburb' of the main city. Basically every block is 4-6 storeys in height with ground floor retail/commercial and apartments above.

http://goo.gl/maps/xHDBu

Yup, I've been to Eixample, it's very nice indeed. I think there is limited to no appetite to do that here at least for the foreseeable future, as most people seem to want to keep low rise neighbourhoods, and use derogatory terms like "canyon" to describe streets lined with buildings very similar in scale to places like this.

Not a criticism, just a reality check, that while it's very pleasant, it directly contradicts what people are looking for, it seems to me.

[Proof Sheet]

Yup, I've been to Eixample, it's very nice indeed. I think there is limited to no appetite to do that here at least for the foreseeable future, as most people seem to want to keep low rise neighbourhoods, and use derogatory terms like "canyon" to describe streets lined with buildings very similar in scale to places like this.

Not a criticism, just a reality check, that while it's very pleasant, it directly contradicts what people are looking for, it seems to me.

No problem....I went in 2012 and loved the area and the density. It would be quite hard to re-build large sections of Ottawa into that over time with the river(s), and existing street patterns making a grid difficult to achieve everywhere.

Imagine what the Bulldog would have to say.......and ASH and Diane Holmes and the Centretown Community Assocation.

[Uhuniau]

In Ottawa ...

Lowrise = basement dwelling
Midrise = 2 storeys
Highrise = 15 storeys
Supertall = 28 storeys

Where does the Childkiller class kick in?

[Uhuniau]

Yup, I've been to Eixample, it's very nice indeed. I think there is limited to no appetite to do that here at least for the foreseeable future, as most people seem to want to keep low rise neighbourhoods, and use derogatory terms like "canyon" to describe streets lined with buildings very similar in scale to places like this.

Not a criticism, just a reality check, that while it's very pleasant, it directly contradicts what people are looking for, it seems to me.

The market in Canada is failing dismally at providing what a lot of people are looking for: detached or semi-detached housing, on a traditional grid, with a traditional mainstreet.

The existing, pre-war neighbourhoods like that are, for the most part, incredibly expensive to buy into. But the developers, aided and abetted by unimaginative city governments like Ottawa's, refuse to believe that there is a market for NEW neighbourhoods on the same traditional plan.

[Uhuniau]

No problem....I went in 2012 and loved the area and the density. It would be quite hard to re-build large sections of Ottawa into that over time with the river(s), and existing street patterns making a grid difficult to achieve everywhere.

Imagine what the Bulldog would have to say.......and ASH and Diane Holmes and the Centretown Community Assocation.

The inability of suburban crap to be rebuilt into anything other then slightly different suburban crap is a good argument to stop building suburban crap, and start building suburbs that can evolve over time in response to natural social and economic changes and pressures.

But no - we keep building suburban crap.

Let's stop building suburban crap.

[waterloowarrior]

^ That's my thoughts as well. Look at Toronto. Lots of high density towers in certain areas, but they're there to offset the low-density single family homes of the rest of the city, so the average density of the city is low despite the presence of lots of very tall residential towers.

I wonder if statistical confounds like that were balanced out in this study.

This was done at the block level for 12,000 + blocks. You can see from the graph that the majority of blocks were < 3 storeys.

I can't think of very many midrise blocks in Ottawa... many of the midrises we had were demolished or burned down, and like others mentioned the history of when and how the city developed is quite different than Berlin.

[J.OT13]

Doug Saunders (‏@DougSaunders)
https://twitter.com/DougSaunders/status/442877056439693312
You fit the most people into a city with 5-6 storey buildings. More storeys than that =lower total population density

This data is from Berlin... not sure if it can be applied across the board but interesting to look at. In the article they said this is because the increased need for land for parking, shopping etc outweighs the density benefits from increased (average) height
http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/umwelt/umweltatlas/ed609_04.htm

Can't really think of any tightly-packed mid-rise blocks like this in Ottawa though.

http://goo.gl/maps/9eoOo

There's not the same ability to develop a whole block and the planning/engineering regulations would discourage it. Because of the priority to preserve existing neighbourhoods we don't spread out the density and instead have higher buildings on main streets at at key areas and zone the rest of the city for low density. All those new Westboro condo buildings still back onto single family homes.

I don't see how density is lowered by the need for parking, which is underground, or retail, which is built into podiums.

The closest things to a mid-rise neighborhoods in Ottawa are;

Centretown, and this is before the Centrals, Opus and Centropolis;
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/occ/2008/04-09/pec/ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0053_files/image004.jpg
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/occ/2008/04-09/pec/ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0053.htm

and the University of Ottawa, before the Vanier Tower and the research building on King Eds;
http://mysite.science.uottawa.ca/mberezov/index_files/image371.jpg
http://mysite.science.uottawa.ca/mberezov/index_files/Contact_Info.htm

Of course in Toronto and New York, this could be considered a tightly packed, uniformed "mid-rise" neighborhood (BTW, I would love to see an updated version of this one);
http://storage.ottawasun.com/v1/dynamic_resize/sws_path/suns-prod-images/1297234773766_ORIGINAL.jpg?quality=80&size=650x
http://www.ottawasun.com/2014/01/02/candidates-start-signing-up-for-2014-election

[Dado]

I don't see how density is lowered by the need for parking, which is underground, or retail, which is built into podiums.

The data informing the study is from Berlin, where much of the built form is from just after WWII, hence there is little underground parking. Much of the parking they do have is onstreet, which clearly runs out sooner or later.

Retail too is likely restricted to the first floor, and given the intervals at which streets appear in Berlin, before long you're going to run out of retail space (or, rather, the rents will be driven up) if the buildings go too high.

[waterloowarrior]

Another factor is that higher buildings require great spacing between towers, more elevators and narrower footprints to reduce shadowing, so even though you are going up higher, your overall residential space per floor is less, and a greater percentage of the space on each floor is taken up by elevators etc.

[YOWetal]

The market in Canada is failing dismally at providing what a lot of people are looking for: detached or semi-detached housing, on a traditional grid, with a traditional mainstreet.

The existing, pre-war neighbourhoods like that are, for the most part, incredibly expensive to buy into. But the developers, aided and abetted by unimaginative city governments like Ottawa's, refuse to believe that there is a market for NEW neighbourhoods on the same traditional plan.

We have debated this a bit before but I don't see how the grid layout is much of a factor in the desirably of pre-war neighbourhoods. It is distance from downtown and reputation that are the key factors. Another very desirable attribute is the perception of quiet, especially from traffic. This is where the loopy streets are in fact more attractive to many. Amenities are also a factor but I think for single family homes this is much lower on the list.

I very rarely travel out to the suburbs but aren’t their communities in Barhaven that have these layouts and also feature a “main street”? If developers saw a demand for your ideal suburb they would of course build more.

[Dr.Z]

If developers saw a demand for your ideal suburb they would of course build more.

The developers aren't driving the lack of new mainstreet design, its the businesses. Tenants don't want a location without off-street parking in the suburbs. An established mainstreet like Bank or Richmond is different because its already established. But out in the burbs vacancies will be high. So commercial developers don't want to gamble on the costs of construction and not have any income to see IF tenants will lease 90% or more of their space.

Whether businesses actually need off-street parking or not to succeed in the suburbs is irrelevant: its the perception that counts and that perception is popular enough to create a potential vacancy vacuum that commercial developers don't want to gamble against when the plaza is format is less risky but provides the same income per sq.ft.

Even in plazas, things don't get constructed until a lease is secured for an anchor tenant and they are big enough to create income and draw other smaller businesses; that's why they are called an anchor.

[gjhall]

The developers aren't driving the lack of new mainstreet design, its the businesses. Tenants don't want a location without off-street parking in the suburbs. An established mainstreet like Bank or Richmond is different because its already established. But out in the burbs vacancies will be high. So commercial developers don't want to gamble on the costs of construction and not have any income to see IF tenants will lease 90% or more of their space.

Whether businesses actually need off-street parking or not to succeed in the suburbs is irrelevant: its the perception that counts and that perception is popular enough to create a potential vacancy vacuum that commercial developers don't want to gamble against when the plaza is format is less risky but provides the same income per sq.ft.

Even in plazas, things don't get constructed until a lease is secured for an anchor tenant and they are big enough to create income and draw other smaller businesses; that's why they are called an anchor.

This can be overcome. (I feel like I'm channeling Uhunian, so please bear with me)

Step 1: Build a suburb with straight streets and a central straight commercial street with on-street parallel parking, or lanes that could be converted from travel lanes to on-street parking lanes later.

Step 2: Have businesses set up on this new street, with doors that open on the street as well as doors that open to the back, where you will find...

Step 3: ...ample free parking which will meet the perceived need for retailers/commercial developers, etc.

Step 4: Build houses along the perpendicular straight streets and on parallel straight streets on a grid.

Step 5: When demand for parking lessens, either absolutely or relatively compared with the economic value of the land being reserved for parking, as a result of this new desirable and walkable neighbourhood, convert that parking into developable lots for new houses on the straight perpendicular residential streets. Presto, a brand new Glebe/Westboro/Hintonburg/etc.

Step 6: Profit.