How much does the lack of lowrise apartment nabes "harm" Toronto's urbanity?

[Docere]

This "criticism" of Toronto seems to come up a fair amount: if only we had a "Lincoln Park" or "Plateau" type neighborhood.

I don't think it matters that much. Most central neighborhoods that look like stable SFH neighborhoods are pretty densely populated and have a mix of dwelling types.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Docere

This "criticism" of Toronto seems to come up a fair amount: if only we had a "Lincoln Park" or "Plateau" type neighborhood.

I don't think it matters that much. Most central neighborhoods that look like stable SFH neighborhoods are pretty densely populated and have a mix of dwelling types.

What other cities are like Toronto in having lots of SFH and lots of high rises but few of the lowrise, mid-height category in between?

Any really prominent examples of a similar city, that is still seen as "urban"?

[Docere]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

What other cities are like Toronto in having lots of SFH and lots of high rises but few of the lowrise, mid-height category in between?

Any really prominent examples of a similar city, that is still seen as "urban"?

Queens NY probably comes the closest to Toronto's "SFHs and big apartments" mix.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Docere

Queens NY probably comes the closest to Toronto's "SFHs and big apartments" mix.

The mix is only specific to Queens though right, as many other parts of NYC famously have the low rises that give New York its character.

But there's no really one standalone single metro area where it's dominated by this mix of SFH and tall towers but little in between, the way Toronto is.

I wonder why it's so rare. You might find it locally elsewhere in North America but not really one entire city like Toronto (let alone its own metro area) where tall towers rise above SFH in the old city and in suburbia alike. Where's the American equivalent of say, a suburb as expansive with this combo, as Mississauga, if not North York, Scarborough, East York etc.

What accounts for the lack of mix elsewhere-- Toronto was just booming at the right combinations of times when the building styles were like that? Just different policies?

[Docere]

That urban typology exists across Ontario, though Toronto being the biggest city has it on the largest scale.

[Capsicum]

Probably more deliberate planning maybe on behalf of Ontario's cities? Otherwise it's hard to explain why other cities all across the continent don't conform to this typology as much.

[Doady]

In recent years, Toronto has adopted the Vancouver style: skinny high-rise towers upon low-rise and mid-rise podiums.

Go to Cityplace, most of the streetwalls there are low-rise and mid-rise, not high-rise.

Mississauga actually has a lot of low-rise multi-family housing, in the form of semi-detached houses and rowhouses (commonly referred to as townhouses).

In 2013, Mississauga had 36,600 rowhouses and 31,000 semi-detached houses compared to 96,100 detached houses and 75,400 apartments.

[a very long weekend]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

What other cities are like Toronto in having lots of SFH and lots of high rises but few of the lowrise, mid-height category in between?

Any really prominent examples of a similar city, that is still seen as "urban"?

This is what Vancouver does too. They have 75%+ of the city zoned to single family homes, which has led to catastrophic affordability issues.

[vincebjs]

I used to think this too, but I think that this problem is common to most North American cities other than New York City, Chicago, Philadelphia, and to lesser extents Boston and Washington, DC. Look at Pittsburgh and San Francisco, for example. Most of these cities are SFH as well. Pittsburgh being in the rust belt doesn't have the same developmental pressures as Toronto and San Francisco but historically it was a much larger and important city.