Silence&Motion
Senior Member
There are plenty of areas with dense low and mid-rise developments: Marda Loop, Kensington, Bridgeland, etc. What the numbers definitely show is that Calgary doesn't have an excess of residential high-rises.
|
|
|
Urban Development and Proposals Discussion
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
There are plenty of areas with dense low and mid-rise developments: Marda Loop, Kensington, Bridgeland, etc. What the numbers definitely show is that Calgary doesn't have an excess of residential high-rises.
Silence&Motion
Senior Member
For those wondering about other cities, here is an expanded table. I included the top 10 CMAs, and Red Deer just to add a little more Alberta content.
Few observations:
1. As others have said, Montreal has a significant number of low-rise apartments (Quebec City as well). In fact, it is the only city on the list where single-detached homes are not the most common dwelling.
2. With the exception of Winnipeg, Calgary has the highest proportion of single-detached homes. A long way to go to become more urbanized.
3. Interesting to see how few low-rise apartments there are in Toronto compared to other cities. The original twitter conversation where Greg Morrow posted these numbers was basically a bunch of Calgary urbanists criticizing Jennifer Keesmaat (chief planner of Toronto) for protecting single-detached neighbourhoods from the kind of infill we see in Calgary and pushing all new development toward high-rise condos on major arterial roads. Keesmaat's vision is basically to turn all the suburban arterial roads into urban avenues lined with mixed-use, high/mid-rise buildings, and (she reasons) allowing developers to build within suburban residential blocks would pull demand away from the arterial roads. Of course, that means that Torontonians are forced to choose between gigantic 1970s suburban homes, or tiny apartments in 30-storey buildings. As someone who grew up in a 1970s Scarborough subdivision, I find it mind boggling that these houses are not being redeveloped into townhouses/quadruplexes with the average housing prices now +$1,000,000.
Few observations:
1. As others have said, Montreal has a significant number of low-rise apartments (Quebec City as well). In fact, it is the only city on the list where single-detached homes are not the most common dwelling.
2. With the exception of Winnipeg, Calgary has the highest proportion of single-detached homes. A long way to go to become more urbanized.
3. Interesting to see how few low-rise apartments there are in Toronto compared to other cities. The original twitter conversation where Greg Morrow posted these numbers was basically a bunch of Calgary urbanists criticizing Jennifer Keesmaat (chief planner of Toronto) for protecting single-detached neighbourhoods from the kind of infill we see in Calgary and pushing all new development toward high-rise condos on major arterial roads. Keesmaat's vision is basically to turn all the suburban arterial roads into urban avenues lined with mixed-use, high/mid-rise buildings, and (she reasons) allowing developers to build within suburban residential blocks would pull demand away from the arterial roads. Of course, that means that Torontonians are forced to choose between gigantic 1970s suburban homes, or tiny apartments in 30-storey buildings. As someone who grew up in a 1970s Scarborough subdivision, I find it mind boggling that these houses are not being redeveloped into townhouses/quadruplexes with the average housing prices now +$1,000,000.
Attachments
AJX
Active Member
I haven't researched Jennifer Keesmat's ideas, but right off the bat I think I prefer what Calgary is doing by adding infills and 3-4 storey walkups in inner city neighborhoods dominated by single family homes. In Calgary's case I'm not sure they can do anything with the subdivisions because of the way they are built. Toronto might be different.
Always_Biking
Senior Member
I'm a big fan of low rise and mid rise buildings, so I'm good with seeing the Calgary type infill. It's hard to compare the two cities though. In Toronto there are far more high-rises, so maybe protection of SFHs is needed? In Calgary that's not the case. i look at a neighborhood like Sunnyside or Hillhurst, and wish it had a few more mid rise buildings in it.
darwink
Senior Member
I'd like to see a map like this of Calgary:
Yellow are primarily single family homes, in neighbourhoods where the goal is 'stability'.
Yellow are primarily single family homes, in neighbourhoods where the goal is 'stability'.
The purple is industrial/commercial?
I'd like to see a map like this of Calgary:
Yellow are primarily single family homes, in neighbourhoods where the goal is 'stability'.
Beltline_B
Senior Member
Sorry, by stability do you mean residents moving and in and out of the neighborhood?
I'd like to see a map like this of Calgary:
Yellow are primarily single family homes, in neighbourhoods where the goal is 'stability'.
darwink
Senior Member
"The City of Toronto Official Plan identifies Toronto’s Neighbourhoods as areas that are stable but not static. Fully three-quarters of the City's land area is devoted to neighbourhoods, parks, ravines, watercourses and valleys. Unlike the City's Downtown, Centres, Avenues and Employment Districts, Neighbourhoods will see modest physical change. "
"The stability of our Neighbourhoods’ physical character is one of the keys to Toronto’s success.
While communities experience constant social and demographic change, the general physical character of Toronto’s residential Neighbourhoods endures. Physical changes to our established Neighbourhoods must be sensitive, gradual and generally “fit” the existing physical character. A key objective of this Plan is that new development respect and reinforce the general physical patterns in a Neighbourhood."
http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=578a4b9bfde44510VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD
"The stability of our Neighbourhoods’ physical character is one of the keys to Toronto’s success.
While communities experience constant social and demographic change, the general physical character of Toronto’s residential Neighbourhoods endures. Physical changes to our established Neighbourhoods must be sensitive, gradual and generally “fit” the existing physical character. A key objective of this Plan is that new development respect and reinforce the general physical patterns in a Neighbourhood."
http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=578a4b9bfde44510VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD
darwink
Senior Member
Employment lands.
I can't argue with that logic. Neighbourhoods change over time, but in Calgary's case if the zoning can keep higher density in and around arterial roads, neighbourhoods like Sunnyside, Mission, Inglewood, etc.. should be able to maintain their character and make-up despite density increases. That seems to be the case with Hillhurt/Sunnyside so far.
maestro
Senior Member
Toronto has thousands of lowrise walkup apartment buildings in its prewar negihbourhoods. They just don't amount to a sizable portion of the population given they usually have 10 to 20 units each. These neighbourhoods are seeing more midrise infill than high rise as well.
Toronto like Calgary biggest booms happened post war. The biggest different in the numbers is that Toronto built skyward in its post war neighbourhoods while Calgary followed more conventional lines of thinking in building out. Those 4 storey suburban lowrise pack as many units as a 15 to 25 storey tower in a park.
Interesting to see how few low-rise apartments there are in Toronto compared to other cities. The original twitter conversation where Greg Morrow posted these numbers was basically a bunch of Calgary urbanists criticizing Jennifer Keesmaat (chief planner of Toronto) for protecting single-detached neighbourhoods from the kind of infill we see in Calgary and pushing all new development toward high-rise condos on major arterial roads. Keesmaat's vision is basically to turn all the suburban arterial roads into urban avenues lined with mixed-use, high/mid-rise buildings, and (she reasons) allowing developers to build within suburban residential blocks would pull demand away from the arterial roads. Of course, that means that Torontonians are forced to choose between gigantic 1970s suburban homes, or tiny apartments in 30-storey buildings. As someone who grew up in a 1970s Scarborough subdivision, I find it mind boggling that these houses are not being redeveloped into townhouses/quadruplexes with the average housing prices now +$1,000,000.
This is complete malarkey. Putting higher densities along High Street is sound planning. The high average cost of housing is exactly what is making redevelopment unfeasible for larger assemblages of single family homes. Single lots are forever being divided into two smaller lots. The concern and rightfully so is the form of redevelopment that fits the character more of a 905 suburbs (a garage for a front facade) than a prewar streetcar one.
Last edited:
Beltline_B
Senior Member
For the most part I'm happy with the direction Calgary is going. I like idea of highrises in specific neighbourhoods such as East Village and the Beltline, and around LRT transit notes, with lower and mid rise development going up around arterial roads. I'd like to see the city upgrade so morning along with some of Calgary's arterial roads.
The only thing I would like to see more of is higher density along some of those roads, but the city is getting around to that.
The only thing I would like to see more of is higher density along some of those roads, but the city is getting around to that.
MichaelS
Senior Member
Do you mean this, from the Municipal Development Plan? Granted, not as detailed as the Toronto version:I'd like to see a map like this of Calgary:
Yellow are primarily single family homes, in neighbourhoods where the goal is 'stability'.
Attachments
AJX
Active Member
It's interesting how Toronto's employment commercial areas are scattered throughout the city, but in Calgary they are heavily concentrated in two areas.
Spudski
New Member
Not sure how much I like the expanse of future greenfield developments, though I'm probably preaching to the choir here. Anyone know what the ratio of infill to fringe developments is in Calgary?