This proposal by Dubbeldam Architecture + Design, called Incremental Density, is both an obvious step in the right direction and a problem. It is directionally right because it is exactly the kind of “gentle density” that we need and that many of us hope to see in our cities.
Four to six storeys, prototypically built on an as-of-right basis all across city, possibly by small-scale owner/developers. In fact, this approach is one of the things that Toronto’s new mayor, Olivia Chow, has been speaking about on her first day in the office:
Further, Chow said she wants to make it “easy and fast” for those who want to “build up” their single-family, often detached, homes to address what is known as the “missing middle” due to a history of “red tape” around zoning.
“What I’m saying is ‘build, build, build, build,’ up to four storeys if you want to have four units,” she said. “You can rent out three of them and some money right. Then you are creating more housing, and you’re earning some extra dollars,” she continued.
“So I want to unleash the power of the homeowner and say to them, ‘go build it,’ because we need housing right here now.”
Here’s the problem, though. I’m going to go out on a limb and assume that at least a few people will not want 6 storeys beside them and their backyard. I mean, I struggled with a 2.5 storey laneway house for many years. (11 to be exact.)
So how do we get from where we are today to what you see above? It’s going to take some finessing. Maybe it’s only in specific areas and on certain sites to start, or maybe we need to gradually increase the massing over time. Either way, I too am ready to “build, build, build, build.”
What do you all think of this proposal?
Images: Dubbeldam
BRANDON DONNELLY 
I think you are being way too conservative; humans are nothing if not adaptable. I’m in EY in an area of bungalows built in 1944 that has been subject to ‘topping’ (adding a second storey) and on some streets the bungalows are now a minority; no-one complains because it has taken a decade for the change to occur. Those ‘tops’ could easily have been multi-unit dwellings. Demographics suggests that virtually all these bungalows will be vacated by their aging occupants (many have been there since built) and could easily be multi-unit dwellings and the change would now not be so noticeable because they would be built adjacent to ‘tops’. Another decade and the density of this area could easily triple! Between aging change and normal migration the area changes constantly. Do not be so afraid!
And as for Heather’s proposal, most of the ‘tops’ are architectural messes; anything that Dubledam would do would be a vast improvement in the urban landscape!
LikeLike
You and so many are implicitly buying into that build build build mentality. We just elected another mayor who will do the same – as would have all the leading contenders. The all encompassing influence of the development industry that has no regard whatsoever for the social effects much less the inadqueacy of the infrastructure is appalling. We have swung from an anomalous reform council who promulgated an OFFICIAL PLAN whose central tenant is the protection of neighbourhoods to a gung ho anything goes building nightmare. The social costs of uprooting lower income folks of huge density increases all without adequate sewers schools hospitals transit parks and roads are shocking. Even more shocking will be when folks choose to flee this dysfunctional. You got to hand to the industry the propaganda has been incredibly effective.
LikeLike
What would be a better way to house our growing population?
LikeLike
Why do we need our population to grow so fast to begin with – trudeau is doubling an already high rate of 250,000 immigrants in 2015 to 500,000 in 2025, though with TFWs and students Canada grew by 1.05 million in 2022.
In 2019, when immigration was 341,000, canada grew by 1.4% while the US by only 0.7%, and the other 5 G& countries were much lower, or even shrinking (Japan and Italy).
Every major country has a low birth rate and even India is now beloe the 2.1 replacement rate – yet our government is in a panic about aging demographics yet actually rolled backincreasing the retirement age. The US is now at 67 – other countries like France are doing it too.
LikeLike
Notice that the building above is actually 7 storeys – which is what the midrise rules allow with extra height for a mechanical penhouse and no such rule exists in residential neighbourhoods.
Yes, seniors or people in existing homes will leave those 3-4 bedroom homes – but look at the cost of a 3-4 bedroom condo and there is not much of a savings and the demand for 3-4 BR condos is low except for maybe stacked townhomes in th efringes of the city.
If these new units are actually cheaper to build after paying for the land and the house to be demolished, then chances are the land values will increase for all the homes nearby int he image based on this potential profit and afforability gets worse. Not many people wanto be landlords or lack the capital – so say goodbye to owner occupiers.
LikeLike
See other comments 🙂
LikeLike
This is ridiculous… it looks ridiculous, and no doubt will add to parking problems as in many areas with permits people will still have cars.
The 2002 Official Plan constantly referred to “transitions” and fitting into the the planned context as well as the existing context. We are now saying “screw context, or any sense that a neighbourhood should have any consistent rules all that matters is density.”
This is not gentle density – angular planes were meant to make density more gentle yet those are being thrown out too.
Go to the 2010 Avenues & Mid Rise Building Study. The idea was a Toronto where streets were like in Paris or Berlin with consistent heights and form so that there was some sense of order and buildings relating to each other. The 2002 OP and 2010 AMRBS have flaws and often have been ignored but now we are saying we don’t give a crap about making Toronto look planned or orderly.
Remember when in the 1990s we built the Sheppard Subway and there was supposed to be density to pay for it – which is only happening now because the extra development charges and other conditions meant that the demand was weak as buyers preferred a detached house in the 905 or a condo in the Kings! Same thing here – “the best laid plans…”
We actually have 200,000 units approved and unbuilt in the 416 and 400,000 units in the application process, along Eglinton and other places like downtown with transit. There is only so much capacity to build – 20,000 units a year unless we magically find skilled labour, and few immigrants go into construction because the points system is built for educated white collar immigrants instead.
So we end up with either destabilizing relatively affordable areas with 3-4 bedroom homes which are now more valuable because of potential extra density, and new condos on Eglinton are delayed for decades like Sheppard, or we have high rise condos from the 600,000 applications and this idea of gentle density is a bust and we just get a wildly out of context 6 storey building randomly built here and there.
The real problem is not a lack of supply – we have 40 year records of new housing and record numbers of cranes, the problem is too much demand from high population growth from immigration far above US levels. The US housing market is different – just go to Buffalo or California to see the extremes – lots of cities where missing middle can fill in the gaps like Buffalo, and it is impossible to build in California so loosing zoning makes sense but we have the OLT which rarely sides against developers.
Essentially, we are panicking and throwing out rules and good planning as part of this based on the wrong assumption and fads brought in from the US are used as justification instead of questioning why we need to double immigration from an already high 250,000 to 500,000 – plus TFWs and foreign students adding even more to demand.
LikeLike
If we built these everywhere, wouldn’t that be like Paris and Berlin?
LikeLike
No – because we keep changing the rules so that that will never happen.
The 2010 Avenues guidelines had that idea in mind – but now instead of a 1:1 ratio we are getting much taller buildings. It would take 100 years to see most of the streets redeveloped and it means losing the 100 year old urbam fabric in stable neighbourhoods. We have 100 years of chaos across the entire city.
The 2010 guidelines were supposed to see 6-13 storey buildings on major Avenues with transit – yet not that many have been built and it looks horroble to have one massive building surrounded by low old ones, or worse, orphaned sites that are left behind and cannot be intensified to the same height.
Jane Jacobs is probably rolling over in her grave as her street in the annex would likely be like this too.
This is the way this city works – the planners introduce rules as maximums, then allow exceptions to the rule so that the rules are meaningless.
This is very Canadian – go to extremes out of good intentions even when it really makes no sense.
LikeLike
Paris Amsterdam Rome London – all of those “ideal” cities so often touted as an excuse for density are totally devoid of 90 storey monsters. While this project is not that monstrous it is predicated on profit maximization – I dont blame developers for doing that – but the planners politicians engineers consultants lawyers who have a duty to the public, are not fulfilling their duty professionally or to the public. Toronto is now apparently the densest city in North America (Mexico excepted – and not an ideal to strive for). You are implicitly accepting that our population needs to grow. That is a VERY big assumption. Even if it needs to grow – then we need to deal with the Quantum – and in any event the capacity to accommodate those we all in?
LikeLike
Conceptually, it doesn’t seem that challenging. Additional matter-of-right building height can be allowed as a function of predominant surrounding building height. The example image would have looked totally reasonable if rendered as 4 storeys instead of 6 in the context of the existing massing. The devil is in the details of implementation, of course.
LikeLike
exactly correct Greg – the devil truly is in the details – and we should all know from experience when you allow – as of right 4 storeys AND you do not actively and implacably oppose anything over that – that developers will seek to rezone or vary for far greater density – then blame the process for delays. The city has implicitly become a wild west where anything goes. The results are a slowly evolving dystopian nightmare. Where service capacity is vastly outstripped and the city is effectively bankrupt.
LikeLike
Looking at taller buildings amongst Toronto’s low-rise homes would feel like a fingernail on a chalkboard, as if someone made a mistake. Get over that Toronto has side streets full of low-rise housing; that is its charm. This is NorthAmerica! I also lived many years in Stockholm (a beautiful city) where they live in three to six or seven storey apartment/condo buildings. Singles as well as families. Lovely, but that is Europe.
One helpful solution for the housing deficit would be if we followed what finally became a plan for building Toronto’s future. Almost my entire life I’ve lived along the Bloor-Danforth corridor that has remained two to three stories (sometimes even one storey) for about a century. Why hasn’t this been built up?
I can only surmise that these properties are almost exclusively privately-owned sometimes passed down through generations. So it may be a daunting effort to make changes. But at some point change must happen.
Recently there was a proposal for a 49 storey condo building at the north-east corner of Pape and Danforth where the subway and Ontario line will meet. I now see that the businesses on that block have had to move elsewhere. Unfortunate for those businesses but it seems that changes can happen. Pape will become a major transportation hub and should be built up. Even so, 49 stories is hardly gentle.
LikeLike
Unlike Bloor West, Danforth has the problem that subway stations are 1 km or more apart while they are about half that west of Yonge.
The idiocy of the Ontario Line cutting through Riverdale, is that in the Official Plan it was not to have much growth – unlike west of Bayview which has no north south LRTs east of yonge yet will have massive redevelopment.
It is hard to get to Danforth and Pape by car, truck or taxi, particularly since the changes to Danforth make it one lane each way at all hours.
The 2010 Avenues policy was for 29m high buildings with angular planes front and rear but they just did a specific set of guidelines west of Coxwell, and an earlier set east of Coxwell – mostly 11-13 storeys. BUT the rules for Avenues mean it is impossible to build except on corner sites if there is no rear laneway… developers have been slow to do avenues projects- highrises are more profitable for little more effort.
BUT Greektown is not so Greek anymore but no doubt new buildings will ruin it – condos generally are poorly laid out for retail/restaurants,
The planners no longer plan and look at what can be sustainable and if the roads, schools, parks etc. will be able to handle all the potential growth – their answer is essentially “Someone in future will figure it out”
LikeLike
the failure to develop along Danforth over the last 50 years has been city policy. It was part and parcel of protecting enhancing neighbourhoods, carried to a ridiculous extreme, given the subway investment. Now however the developers have effectively taken over the province and the city. We are seeing proposals for massive development at Broadview, Pape and Main. These proposals greatly exceed the capacity of the schools road sewers hydro water parks hospitals. Developers don’t care, so long as it is profitable they will build it. The fact that the city is already functionally bankrupt does not even enter into their calculus. Nor does the obviousl fact that the subway is already over capacity, ask anyone who uses it. That so many folks merely accept that we MUST accommodate anyone and everyone who chooses to live in Toronto would be laughable if the results were not so deleterious. If is the centralization of jobs and amenities that “drives” folks to prefer living in Toronto – it most certainly is not the sewage problems, the gridlock the bussing the deteriorating public housing. Every time we build more commercial towers or amenities downtown we ensure more gridlock more pollution more dysfunction, but that is not the point. Every single tower every single amenity (i.e. Ontario Place The Science Centre) props up downtown property values – which is entirely the point. The results are very profitable for a few and very dysfunctional for everyone else. The necessity of accommodating masses surging into the city and the build to enhance affordability are the two latest in a long series of myth legends and fairytales propagated by the development industry to feed the monster. This propaganda is as foolish as the “shortage of land” and “preservation of farmland” tropes they have mostly replaced.
LikeLike
Pingback: The future of Toronto’s neighborhoods – BRANDON DONNELLY