Is Toronto having a mid-rise crisis?

M II A II R II K · #1 Posted: **May 29, 2012, 4:02 PM**

Is Toronto having a mid-rise crisis?

May 22 2012

By Christopher Hume

Read More: http://www.thestar.com/news/article/...id-rise-crisis

Quote:

Perhaps it should come as no surprise that Toronto, a city of a certain age, is experiencing such a difficult mid-rise crisis. Though six- to eight-storey development is ideally suited to many corners of the city, we have made it all but impossible to build. And to listen to residents of the Beach, a mere half-dozen floors are enough to lay waste to a neighbourhood, no matter how well-established, well-liked or well-heeled it might be.

- “It’s going to feel like downtown,” one resident said recently. “It’s not going to feel like a small town.” “All of a sudden, it’s becoming Toronto,” another complained. Did we miss something? Becoming Toronto? Such words should be recognized for what they are — nonsense. In truth, the scheme these east-end NIMBYs hate so much is one of the finest to come along in a while. It could serve as a model for the sort of development the city badly needs. And if rampant NIMBYism weren’t enough, City Hall also does what it can to frustrate mid-rise construction.

- For decades, architects and builders have railed against the outdated and excessive parking requirements, emergency exit regulations and construction techniques that make the economics of mid-rise so tough. Most sites are too small to accommodate such space gobblers. Besides, several years ago, the city approved a condo on University Ave. with no parking. Growing demand for urban life has brought thousands to Toronto; most growth now occurs in the city, not the suburbs, and most of that is highrise. People are now willing to pay dearly to live in tiny units, as long as they’re downtown. “We’re seeing mid-rise development spread across the city,” says Roland Rom Colthoff, the architect who designed the Beaches condo. “It’s all about livability.

- Mid-rise hotbeds include Ossington, Queen (east and west), King St. E., Dundas St. W., the Junction and Gerrard and Woodbine. The only thing they all have in common, Colthoff argues, is ready access to transit. Little wonder so many cities in the world, especially across Europe, are awash in mid-rise; it is the urban residential form par excellence. The nattering nabobs of NIMBYism notwithstanding, the work of Colthoff and others proves that mid-rise can be adapted to Toronto, practically and beautifully. Beaches-East York Councillor Mary-Margaret McMahon explains away her constituents’ protests as “passion.” Perhaps, but more probably it’s petulance, unbecoming in any part of town, no matter how many storeys there may be.

.....

MolsonExport · #2 Posted: **May 29, 2012, 4:43 PM**

Is the Star resorting to cliches?

Doady · #3 Posted: **May 29, 2012, 9:05 PM**

I don't see any cliche...

suburbanite · #4 Posted: **May 29, 2012, 10:09 PM**

Perhaps the play on midlife crisis?

Doady · #5 Posted: **May 29, 2012, 10:17 PM**

Yes, I realize that "mid-life crisis" is a cliche. What I didn't realize was that "mid-rise crisis" is a cliche also. I guess you learn something new every day.

Yorkie · #6 Posted: **May 29, 2012, 11:20 PM**

I sure hope it's not contagious......

suburbanite · #7 Posted: **May 30, 2012, 12:13 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doady

Yes, I realize that "mid-life crisis" is a cliche. What I didn't realize was that "mid-rise crisis" is a cliche also. I guess you learn something new every day.

My post appears somewhat condescending now that I look at it. I was actually curious too, and didn't think a pun of a cliche was really a cliche either.

Doady · #8 Posted: **May 30, 2012, 12:50 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by suburbanite

My post appears somewhat condescending now that I look at it. I was actually curious too, and didn't think a pun of a cliche was really a cliche either.

No, it wasn't condescending. Your post did not rub me the wrong way, I just wanted to use a cliche in my own post.

Gresto · #9 Posted: **May 30, 2012, 5:53 AM**

Well, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Your turn.

JManc · #10 Posted: **May 30, 2012, 12:22 PM**

Now watch Toronto dump the wife, sell the minivan and buy a Vette.

brickell · #11 Posted: **May 30, 2012, 1:48 PM**

Toronto complaining is already old hat.

Nouvellecosse · #12 Posted: **May 30, 2012, 5:57 PM**

Yes, I know the article was very hokey and cutesy in its setup, presenting the issues with mid rise buildings in the context of a midlife crisis. But isn't anyone going to discuss the actual issue or comment on whether or not it makes any valid claims?

Is it really that difficult to build mid rise buildings? Is Toronto losing out due to most of its development being high rise within designated areas with little more finely-grained development outside that?

M II A II R II K · #13 Posted: **May 30, 2012, 6:00 PM**

Downtown it's not an issue. New midrises go up all the time, of course there are already midrises there to start off with.

MonkeyRonin · #14 Posted: **May 30, 2012, 7:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Yes, I know the article was very hokey and cutesy in its setup, presenting the issues with mid rise buildings in the context of a midlife crisis. But isn't anyone going to discuss the actual issue or comment on whether or not it makes any valid claims?

Is it really that difficult to build mid rise buildings? Is Toronto losing out due to most of its development being high rise within designated areas with little more finely-grained development outside that?

I don't think so. After all, the city's official plan encourages mid-rise development on major streets across the city, and either way, there have been hundreds of them built in recent years or that are in the development stage right now. Probably comparable in number to high-rises (which would be a lower unit amount though, of course).

The "crisis" outlined in the article seems to be the case of this one building in one neighbourhood that is being opposed by NIMBY neighbours.

osmo · #15 Posted: **May 31, 2012, 12:28 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

I don't think so. After all, the city's official plan encourages mid-rise development on major streets across the city, and either way, there have been hundreds of them built in recent years or that are in the development stage right now. Probably comparable in number to high-rises (which would be a lower unit amount though, of course).

The "crisis" outlined in the article seems to be the case of this one building in one neighbourhood that is being opposed by NIMBY neighbours.

This is true but there still exists goofy parking requirements even for well served transit arteries.

Where are these mid-rises you guys talk about tho? I don't see many of them. Some scattered here and there downtown in around Adelaide and King St but other than that I don't see many of em'.

Toronto's NIMBY's are trolls beyond belief. They don't believe they live in a City of almost 3 million. The Old City has no excuse to be so difficult. They had no care for letting Walnut-Hall and the other critical properties in around Sherbourne rot away but raise a ugly shop for a mid-rise and they start to cry. Trolls.

niwell · #16 Posted: **May 31, 2012, 12:52 AM**

Some of Toronto's new mid rise proposals are among the best in the city. I'm thinking the stuff in the west end in particular, Dundas, Ossington, College etc.

Abacus lofts, Dundas and Ossington:

pauljohnston.com http://pauljohnston.com/wp-content/f...abacuswide.jpg

The City has had a fair amount of trouble encouraging mid-rises along the avenues but a lot more have been built than one would guess. They tend to slip through the cracks except in high profile cases such as what's going on in the Beach(es). The urbantoronto database shows just how many mid-rise projects are in the pipeline right now.

WhipperSnapper · #17 Posted: **May 31, 2012, 2:37 AM**

No doubt high-rise construction is outpacing mid-rises. There are more 40 storey towers under construction than six to nine floor buildings (a large percentage of those being non-market/institutional) A tiny part are the relaxed parking and other requirements. A larger chunk are the fire regulations however, it really comes down to the market. Land, construction costs , etc. make them uneconomical in most parts of the city.

someone123 · #18 Posted: **May 31, 2012, 3:06 AM**

Toronto is a little strange in that you find a lot of large-scale highrises next to some very modest buildings. I think that's mostly the product of its rapid growth more than a result of poor planning. At the end of the day it's also pretty unclear that it matters much. Tall buildings can have nicely designed lower floors as well.

I guess in a market like Toronto where you have major companies building real estate is pretty binary -- either they take on the run-of-the-mill 30-40 storey condo building or they don't, and they repeat similar projects over and over (maybe with cosmetic differences, maybe not). Not many of them are going to elect to build lowrise. You might get some smaller companies taking on boutique projects but those won't be of the same volume, though they don't necessarily have to be to have the same street-level impact.