“In , an unusually large number of high- rise apartments poke above the flat land­scape many miles from downtown… this is a type of high density suburban development far more progressive and able to deal with the future than 1 h e a d the endless sprawl of the US…”

runnin Richard Buckminster Fuller, 1968 i A The Suburban 84 85 Tower

Beyond Downtown: Toronto’s Modern Fabric as the ‘historic city’ of the 1940’s, and, perhaps more Much of the mythology surrounding Toronto is significantly, hundreds of thousands were being focused on the image of a “city of neighbourhoods”, housed in large-scale high-rise apartments (fig. 1).3 and Toronto’s enabled by the city’s early rejection of modernism In an about face from policies restricting the through citizen groups and the Reform council. development of ‘multiples’ prior to the war, city Gr a e m e St e w a r t Yet what is perhaps of equal interest is the thor- planners encouraged modern apartments to oughness and completeness with which Toronto become the predominant form of housing.4 By First Mass accepted the modern project prior to this point. 1966, at the peak of Toronto’s first mass housing Of the radical changes affecting the region in boom, nearly 40% of the city’s housing stock and the era of vast economic expansion following the 77% of housing starts were apartments of this war, none were as tangible as the shift in the pat- type.5 Seas of bungalows were built in concert with terns of settlement. In what is perhaps the most hundreds of tower blocks throughout the entire Housing Boom significant development period in the city’s his- Metro region. tory, between the late 1950’s and the 1970’s the As a consequence, Toronto currently contains Toronto area grew to a region of millions regulated the second highest number of high rises in North by thoroughly modern guidelines.2 By 1965, Toron- America (defined here as buildings of 12 stories and tonians inhabited an urban area over twice as large higher).6 According to the real estate research orga-

1 Fuller Geometrics, Architects, 4 Richard Dennis, “Zoning Before Engineers, Planners, “Project Toronto: Zoning: The Regulation of Apartment A Study and Proposal for the Future Housing in Early Twentieth Century Development and Design of Toronto”, Winnipeg and Toronto”, Planning Per­ (Cambridge, Mass, 1968). spectives, 15 (2000).

2 Metropolitan Toronto Planning 5 Metropolitan Planning Board, Board, Metroplan, Official Plan of The Study of Apartment Distribution Metropolitan Toronto (Toronto, 1977). and Apartment Densities in the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area, 3 Metropolitan Planning Board, (Toronto, 1966) 10. The Study of Apartment Distribution and Apartment Densities in the 6 “Toronto Highrises” Emporis Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area, 2006 http://emporis.com (Toronto, 1966).

86 Ai t h e suburban t o w e r fig. 1 1975. to 1955 circa built Toronto of City the within buildings apartment Highrise TORONTO: POST-WARAPARTMENTS 1955 -1975 Toronto, the pre-war typology popularized by the the by popularized Toronto,typology pre-war the Toronto’s towers are predominantly located away located predominantly Toronto’s are towers has resulted in clusters of residential high-rises as high-rises of in residential clusters resulted has late represents a a minority within City In contrast to its American counterparts, In however, contrast to counterparts, its American the majority of Toronto’s apartments were the the were apartments Toronto’s of majority the (fig. 2). However, unlike the European experience, experience, theEuropean (fig. unlike 2). However, result of market forces. They were built by large large by built were They forces. market of result munities associated with typically North America or Towns’ ‘New British resembled closely more nization nization ‘Emporis’, Toronto contains less half than nant fabric both typologically and organization and typologically both fabric nant as 350as people hectare per far as 20 km from downtown with densities as high and their families as a lucrative consumer base. consumer alucrative as families their and from the downtown core in what were the former former whatcore the were in downtown the from ally at odds with the historic city, and with many many with city,and historic the with odds at ally corporate developers who saw young professionals of New York’s double yet nearly of Chicago’s. that of Toronto’s developmental relationship within within relationship developmental Toronto’s of counterparts. American North of its domi a in resulted has guidelines Metro of ence influ The conception. modern predominantly of Soviet dormitory blocks than the suburban com suburban the than blocks dormitory Soviet suburban boroughs suburban of Toronto.Metropolitan This This This poses some questions, in interesting terms of of new City the Today, boundaries the inside In In many portions of respects, Toronto’s suburbs 8 . 9 7 - - - -

Although apartments were considered a detriment 1954 when Metropolitan Toronto was established. Toronto 1954established. Metropolitan was when This typology was first introduced to the city city the to introduced first was typology This what does it mean for our future? for our itwhat mean does post-warurbanization of Metropolitan Toronto. place almost immediately after the war. The Toronto Planning Department was established in 1942, 1942, in established was Department Planning entirely population numbers(theareaconsists determined bytakingtheresidential for at theUniversityofToronto. Figures Hess intheDepartmentofGeography as itsbase,andwascompiledbyPaul GIS datawith2001 8 2006 http://emporis.com “Toronto Highrises” 7 tive took tive consolidation officially place on 1 January ravine ments usingpropertydatamaps.The that bythepropertyareaofapart- to in thecensustract,was excluded not through City Park apartments, a complex developed developed complex a apartments, Park City through to society to prior tosociety the Second World War, the mod- the North American city system, and in assessing assessing in and system, city American North the inMarseille. response to density allowances as a result of the the of result a as allowances density to response ning board. ning as suburbanas organization. Regional administra T C only two year after Le Corbusier’s Corbusier’s Le only after two year ern high-rise became a significant feature in the in feature significant a became high-rise ern contemporary planning issues facing the region. region. the facing issues planning contemporary ern towerern would its prominence.gain Specifically: how did this form come to be and and be to come form this did how Specifically: soon followed by the Toronto and Suburban Plan- TorontoSuburban the and by followed soon sit and other infrastructures were defined as well well as defined were infrastructures other and sit tran- Highway, mass region. for the ofplans series subway. Yet it would be in the suburbs that the mod the that suburbs the in be would it Yet subway. This he I he

reating the S the reating give thedensityofhousing and

thelargerneighbourhood. the The process of Metropolitanization was set in in set was Metropolitanization of process The

system,

Kipling of nverted Metropolis: nverted

figure high

which rise and

was

towers) Steeles 12 censustractdata

determined 11 11 is These agencies quickly developed a developed quickly agencies These

also The project was built downtown in in downtown built was project The Emporis u

and

b

area included ur

dividing

were using b

an T an

ower

House, 2002)26. ture, 1945–1965,(Toronto: Coach Urbanism, Toronto modern:architec­ Bureau ofArchitectureand 12 (1957) 132. Institute ofCanada,Journal,34 Apartments”, RoyalArchitectural PeterCaspari,“CityPark 11 Perspectives 15(2000). Winnipeg andToronto”, Planning Housing Zoning: TheRegulationofApartment Richard 10 Press, 1973). and SuperProfits,(Toronto: Dupont GrahamBarkeretal.,Highrise 9

in

Early Unité Unité d’habitation

Dennis.

Twentieth

“Zoning

Century

Before 10 st

- - ,

87 88 Ai t h e suburban t o w e r York, marking the beginning of Toronto’s beginning the greatest York, marking ­ metro American North first the was This was a key process in fostering new development development new fostering in process key a was planning and services of unification the felt was while tabling the new legislation that created created that legislation new the tabling while private development and public infrastructure infrastructure public and development private public developments. The of purpose Metro was to Metro: ‘the solution of the housing problem is is problem housing the of solution ‘the Metro: through effective planning. Premier Frost stated stated Frost Premier planning. effective through modern project. modern numerous efforts, the Toronto area was lagging lagging was area Toronto the efforts, numerous ing Toronto and several adjacent townships and and townships adjacent several and Toronto ing behind other regions in terms of new private and and private new of terms in regions other behind and economic growth. economic growth. and and co-operations of municipal governments’ of municipal co-operations and government to be formed since the creation of New dependent… on roads, arterial credit… water sewers encourage growth through the harmonization of harmonization the through growth encourage stimulate the development of housing. Despite Despite housing. of development the stimulate A large push for the creation of Metro was to to was Metro of creation the for push large A The borders of Metro were extensive, contain extensive, were Metro of borders The 13 politan politan 14 . It - which was eventually chosen as the operating operating the as chosen eventually was which vision of ‘health, space and light’ as fundamental fundamental as light’ and space ‘health, of vision villages, allowing for coordinated planning of the planning for coordinated allowing villages, periphery with self contained satellites. contained self with periphery projects as well as the development strategies of of strategies development the as well as projects advocated for planners development of the periph- hinterland under one administration. Given the the Given administration. one under hinterland urban centre, suburban periphery and agricultural 11. 1953) (May, Review Planning Community Toronto”, Metropolitan of 14 Oxford UniversityPress,1997)258. North Americasince1600,(Toronto: and Nature’sLimits;GreatCitiesof JamesLemon,LiberalDreams 13 to new developmentto3–4). new (figs. tive plans argued forcomplete ‘expansion’, which argued plans tive model by Metropolitan Toronto. Metropolitan by model into the periphery. It was the ‘expansion’ approach inspired by Ebenezer Howard’s Ebenezer by inspired major concern of both approaches was the inte the was approaches both of concern major new American suburbs American new gration of mixed forms of housing and industry industry and housing of forms mixed of gration creating a definitive greenbelt and populating the andgreenbelt populating a creating definitive conceptualized the entire area as ‘developable’. A as area entire the conceptualized ery. Following contemporary European rebuilding growth, new of shape the outline to opportunity Municipality “The Rose. Albert Early plans for the region followed a model model a followed region the for plans Early , 111:1 15 , planners , pushed the planners pro (Toronto, 1947). and SuburbanPlanning Board, Suburban PlanningBoard. Toronto 16 Toronto Press,1993)53. Planning, (Toronto: Universityof City: Toronto StruggleswithModern JohnSewell.TheShapeofthe 15 Report oftheToronto and garden city garden 16 Alterna- , thus thus , ­ - fig. MANY OFTHESTATESIN‘NEW’EUROPE. WHATHAVETHEYTOTEACHUS? COUSINS. THOUGHCREATEDUNDERRADICALLY OPPOSINGCIRCUMSTANCES,WEARECURRENTLYFACINGSIMILARPROBLEMS TO FABRIC INMANYWAYSMORECLOSELYRESEMBLES EUROPEANANDSOVIETEXAMPLES,THENITDOESSUBURBSOFOURAMERICAN AS ARESULTOFBUILDINGPRACTICESDURING THEPERIODSOFEXPLOSIVEGROWTHFOLLOWINGWAR,TORONTO’SSUBURBAN 2 MOSCOW TORONTO Moscow. of reminiscent are suburbs inner Toronto’s Moscow/Toronto. "...this could be Belgrade, this could be Moscow" be could this Belgrade, be could "...this - European Writer Cor Wagenaar during a recent trip up the Don Valley Parkway in Toronto in Parkway Valley Don the up trip recent a during Wagenaar Cor Writer European - OUR EUROPEAN PROBLEM: EUROPEAN OUR 89 90 Ai t h e suburban t o w e r DonValley Parkway, 1952and1972. fig. 4 undeveloped farmland. of Metroencompassedlargeareas fig. 3 Lawrence Avenueand Toronto in1954.Theborders 91 92 Ai t h e suburban t o w e r fig. 5 Plans forToronto’s Western End,1940stopresent. 1946 plan for (fig. 5). The plan had been been had Etobicoke for1946 (fig. plan The plan 5). Toronto’s macro grid into the countryside, outlining was a regular consultant to the City in planning planning in City the to consultant regular a was plan articulates the relationship between residen- between relationship the articulates plan urban zones using the principles close to those those to close principles the using zones urban the best social and economic benefit. economic and social best the tial and industrial land use and clearly identified identified clearly and use land industrial and tial matters and was responsible for developments developments for responsible was and matters in bringing the principles of modernism to main- to modernism of principles the bringing in and planner E. G. Faludi. Faludi was a key figure key a was Faludi Faludi. G. E. planner and a framework for new low and high density projects. developed by Roman-trained Hungarian architect architect developed Hungarian by Roman-trained elab sion plan was favoured (paradoxically) as it pro it as (paradoxically) favoured was plan sion stream stream Toronto planning circles. His Toronto office such as in Etobicoke.in Village Thorncrest as such “Gradual growth by accretion” was felt to bring felt bring to was accretion” by growth “Gradual The ‘expansion’ model was proposedfirst in the orated by CIAM. Most strikingly, it extended extended it strikingly, Most CIAM. by ­orated 18 Theexpan- 17 Faludi’s -

vided vided a means ofwithin growth future containing vate developers would be the instrument of execu- vate developers would be the instrument pri and framework overall the determine would population within servicing limits, as well as the the as well as limits, servicing within population planners, municipalities and developers alike alike developers and municipalities planners, left the US for Canada during the turbulent years years turbulent the during forCanada US the left Metro’s servicing zone. Planners were sceptical of sceptical were zone.Planners Metro’sservicing 1987) 242. at 65,(Toronto: HarvestHouse, Hans Blumenfeld,LifeBegins 18 (Toronto, 1952). Development byRealtors,Developers Ten Years ofAchievementinLand in theMetropolitanareaofToronto: E.G.Faludi,LandDevelopment 17 the garden city model’s ability to contain new new contain to ability model’s city garden the tion of Metro was as much a plan for economic economic for plan a much as was Metro of tion tion. The expansion plan satisfied the desires of desires the satisfied plan expansion The tion. Gordon Stevenson and German Hans Blumenfeld Blumenfeld Hans German and Gordon Stevenson growth growth as it was one of housing and form. Planners government intervention to ensure the “continued encing the planning department. Both Englishman challenges it posed for private development. development. for private it posed challenges climate of economic expansion”. economic of climate Faludi was not the only European ex-pat influ ex-pat European only the not was Faludi One One of the key of missions Metro was the use of (1952). Development byRealtors, Ten Years ofAchievement inLand in theMetropolitanarea ofToronto: E.G.Faludi,LandDevelopment 20 Coach House,2002)20. Architecture, 1945–1965(Toronto: Urbanism, Toronto Modern: BureauofArchitectureand 19 19 The organiza The Developers Developers 20 . - - - 93 94 Ai t h e suburban t o w e r were sceptical of unregulated free market developfree were of sceptical unregulated planning body with a mandate of regional man regional of mandate a with body planning plan, they were given the authority some consid some authority the given were they plan, housing was housing needed regions in in orderperipheral ’s nascent planning depart Toronto’splanning of nascent University tionship is evident in Stevenson’s advocacy for for advocacy Stevenson’s in evident is tionship ­ establish about set They regions. peripheral the the London County Council (LCC) has been dis been has (LCC) Council County London the of work the and (MARS) group Research tectural mixed housing typologies and densities (known (known densities and typologies housing mixed ing guidelines, which would equitably distribute distribute equitably would which guidelines, ing of planning comprehensive favoured and ment ment, working with fellow British expatriate and and expatriate British fellow with working ment, CIAM member Jacqueline Tyrwhitt. The relation- The Tyrwhitt. Jacqueline member CIAM and and mobility as key considerations. planning They as ‘mixed development’) within new suburban suburban new within development’) ‘mixed as agement. Put in charge of drafting agement. the Put in new ofcharge official drafting zones. out of were pleased necessity, to they astrong find of McCarthy politics. of McCarthy of workers. classes all for accommodation providing was egy out expanding regions. out expanding and through housing employment, transportation, ered “a planner’s dream”. “aered planner’s cussed previously in this publication. this in previously cussed ship between ship Torontobetween and England’s Modern Archi Gordon Stevenson saw also a brief tenure at the Once in Toronto they advocated employment employment advocated they Toronto in Once 25 It was believed that significant apartment apartment It that significant was believed 21 Coming to Toronto perhaps 23 Fundamental to the strat 22 24 This rela ------­

Design Design Council This This was synonymous with contemporary English nity Planning Review Planning nity high-density suburban development. Projects of of Projects development. suburban high-density Park. Begun in 1958, it was the first privately devel privately first the 1958,was itin Begun Park. London, London, had con been to introduced the Canadian Press, 1994)94. Ireland, (London:Yale University Scotland, Wales, andNorthern modern publichousing inEngland, MilesGlendinning,Tower block: 25 IV:2 (2005). Kelly Crossman,“Alsop’s Art”, AI, 24 65, p.240. HansBlumenfeld,LifeBeginsat 23 Pennsylvania Press,2004)252. 1965, (Philadelphia,Universityof Europe andNorthAmerica:1945– the CrisisofUrbanLiberalismin and Reform:ModernistPlanning ChristopherKlemek,Urbanism 22 1987) 251. at 65(Toronto: HarvestHouse, HansBlumenfeld,LifeBegins 21 financial success for developer E. E. was P. Taylor. It developer for success financial the the park’ as key to equitableproviding and healthy this type, such as Roehampton in the suburbs of suburbs the in Roehampton as such type, this to facilitate employment and transit objectives transit and employment facilitate to themselves in themselves practice in Don a Mills, project both ing mix. Theproject use catalyzedthemix. which ing fully municipalities helped push these ideas into policy. into ideas these push helped municipalities interest of national housing agencies. The creation apartments reached their full potential in the hous the in potential full reached their apartments as “(of) the most attractive (new) town that I have have I (new) that town attractive most the “(of) as ground breaking in its modern urbanism and a and urbanism modern its in breaking ground oped apartment neighbourhood in North America. North in neighbourhood apartment oped Flemingdon was tower apartment suburban the of ever ever seen.” Holford Sir by planner William English described of official plans of Metropolitan Toronto and its its and Toronto Metropolitan of plans official of an become had development peripheral density discourse discourse which, at the time, increasingly favoured Scandinavian projects, saw the modern ‘tower in in ‘tower modern the saw projects, Scandinavian sciousness through early publications of publications early through sciousness ship removed its height that restrictions suburban English planners, influenced themselves by by themselves influenced planners, English Notions of mixed development manifested first 29 . Yet it notwas YorkNorth until Town- 28

(fig. andmixed 6).Master-planned 27 and The and Coach House,2002)20. Architecture, 1945–1965 (Toronto: Urbanism, Toronto Modern: BureauofArchitectureand 29 1964) 70. Canadian HousingDesignCouncil. Recently BuiltinCanada,(Ottawa: Some ExamplesofMultipleHousing Hazeland,HousinginCities: A. 28 Association ofCanada,1956)12. VI:1, (Ottawa:CommunityPlanning 27 (Toronto, 1966). Metropolitan Toronto PlanningArea Apartment Densitiesinthe Study ofApartmentDistributionand MetropolitanPlanningBoard,The 26 Community PlanningReview. Canadian Housing Housing Canadian Commu 26 - - - - . London, 1954. fig. 6 Roehampton development, 95 96 Ai t h e suburban t o w e r planner, Macklin Hancock in describing the proj- the describing in Hancock Macklin planner, lish version of International Modernism”. International of version lish Eng- to a “specifically as contributing laus Pevsner housing at high densities. British advocates work- advocates British densities. high at housing large corporate developers as the mechanism of of mechanism the as developers corporate large . Don London’s Roehampton, whose ‘towers in the land- the in ‘towers whose London’sRoehampton, was completed, variations on on variations completed, was Park Flemingdon and DonValley Parkway. fig. 7 this theme were adopted as a core approach to to approach core a as adopted were theme this the model that combined the best housing stan housing best the combined that model the as towers saw Gibberd, Frederick as such terpart), ing for the London County Council (Metro’s coun- forCouncil ing London the County ment. Densities offered profit margins for both both for margins profit offered Densities ment. acter acter – to the correct sprawled formless peripheral frequently criticized by the LCC. the by criticized frequently houses sprawling of zones the avoided approach development. ect: “… to create a new community of urban char urban of community new a create “…to ect: dard dard possible with the responsible use of land. This establishing tower living as a desirable mode of of mode desirable a as living tower establishing with credited be can Park Flemingdon delivery, sity and an equal amount of open space as did as space open of amount equal an and sity scape’ were described by architectural critic Niko- critic by architectural scape’ were described same arguments were used by Flemingdon Park’s Park’s Flemingdon by used were arguments same suburban habitation as well as private develop private as well as habitation suburban sectors of Metro Toronto of Metro sectors (fig. 7).” speculative speculative developers and municipalities looking Flemingdon Park offered three times the den the times three offered Park Flemingdon If If the legacy of was the Donof acceptance Mills Aerial viewofFlemingdon park 32 The project had many similarities to similarities many had project The 34

31 30 Many of these these of Many 33 After After - - - -

70% common suburbs the in open space formulas was also the only legal type of mass housing. mass of type legal only the also was which resulted, and the innovative response of the projects in the City (figs. 8+9). (figs. City the in projects - emerg clusters apartment of review critical udi’s urbs, urbs, Toronto forged ahead with towers of this type sub the to lost status and assessments tax for up Housing Corporation as a requirement for new as a all Corporation requirement Housing Reform council need not be reiterated here. here. not reiterated need be council Reform Architectural Press,1956)172–176. Englishness ofEnglishArt,(London: Pevsner,Nikolaus,The 33 City, p.102. JohnSewell.TheShapeofthe 32 City, p.100. JohnSewell.TheShapeofthe 31 Press, 1994)54 Ireland, (London:Yale University Scotland, Wales, andNorthern modern publichousinginEngland, MilesGlendinning,Tower block: 30 towers quickly appearing throughout the towers appearing entirety quickly this form within the historic city. historic the within form this not only the form most of popular development, it ing ing in the and Annex South Parkdale, maximizing market created a diaspora of the typology, with with typology, the of diaspora a created market mode of development now periph- common the in in its older districts. The contentious situation situation contentious The districts. older its in Guided by the official plan, and supported by Fal- by supported and plan, official the by Guided became the symbol of both top-down planning planning top-down both of symbol the became and free market development. development. market free and became endorsed by the Canadian Mortgage and and Mortgage Canadian the by endorsed became architectural community, citizen groups and the the and groups citizen community, architectural among municipalities for among new municipalities projects. for tax revenues. This generated fierce competition gence of planning ideology and the development the and ideology planning of gence open space became a key concern. key a became space open of the Metro region. And, ironically, the towers towers the ironically, And, region. Metro the of ery, as a corollary it stipulated the application of application the stipulated it corollary a as ery, The planning policies not only reinforced the the reinforced only not policies planning The By the early 1960s, the “tower in the park” was was park” the in “tower the 1960s, early the By (Toronto, 1961). on ApartmentsinSouth Parkdale”, Faludi andAssociates,“Report 37 1963). Annex PlanningDistrict” on BuildingdevelopmentintheEast FaludiandAssociates,“Report 36 study (Toronto: Proctor,1964) Planners, MountDennisdevelopment Consulting EngineersandTown Redfern,BousfieldandBacon 35 (Toronto, 1966)12. Metropolitan Toronto PlanningArea, Apartment Densitiesinthe Study ofApartmentDistributionand MetropolitanPlanningBoard,The 34 38 Eager to make to make Eager 37 The 60% to to 60% The 35 A conver- (Toronto, 36 -

97 98 Ai t h e suburban t o w e r The legacy of large-scale corporate development, development, corporate large-scale of legacy The which began with Don has Mills, left Toronto with planning polices of the 1960’s provided Metro’s Metro’s provided 1960’s the of polices planning urbia urbia in Yetother districts. presently, development hoods”, free from large scale development. This This development. scale large from free hoods”, neighbour “stable of zoning blanket the under City the of most places which plan, official latest of many exhibit areas these aesthetic, unpopular Echoes of this thinking are evident in Toronto’s in evident are thinking this of Echoes them has become the prevailing mode of operation. tique, one problematic manifestation was the loss was onetique, problematic manifestation heralded as the ‘solution’ the characteristics to sub into key areas adjacent to existing infrastructure. infrastructure. existing to adjacent areas key into discouraged. largely is regions these in A autonomy and a freeze on developments within within developments on freeze a and autonomy usually (figs. suburbia 10–16). Thetypical is with associated than landscape different markedly a approach protects established areas from “rene from areas established protects approach gade” intervention, and funnels major development of the notion of regional planning. Neighbourhood existing transit corridors. Though of a currently currently a of Though corridors. transit existing suburbs with nodes with of suburbs along situated high density ctivis Of the many healthy benefits of modernism’s cri modernism’s of benefits healthy many the Of m and and N eglect eglect - ­ - - This is intended to allow for densification while while densification for allow to intended is This period. As a result, vast areas of the city were were city the of areas vast result, a As period. April. 29,2006. market stillrolling”, TheToronto Star, Theresa Boyle,“Toronto condo 39 (Toronto, 1963). the EastAnnexPlanningDistrict” on Buildingdevelopmentin FaludiandAssociates,“Report 38 to create desirable neighbourhoods throughout. throughout. neighbourhoods desirable to create to Grow” new report are inundated with being con in North America North in condo boom largest the experiencing currently is deemed once neighbourhoods suburban modern wide a instigate to acted also movement reform is the inherent in equity Metro’sattempts original Yetfabric. residential what approach is lost in this maintaining the “stability” and support of Toronto’s ment in the official andplan the“Places Provincial nearly all investment and growth within the city city the within growth and investment all nearly and are falling into decline. decline. into falling are and as the city’s most are now progressive off the radar architecture and urban design considerations. considerations. design urban and architecture focused in “intensification” zones “intensification” in focused official policy andpolicy development official interests. Toronto the of Many attention. civic of unworthy deemed of the city remains outside of the scope of new new of scope the of outside remains city the of spread rejection of the projects from the modern modern the from projects the of rejection spread struction. Yet while the last half decade has seen seen has decade half last the Yetwhile struction. The emphasis on historic fabric implicit in the the in implicit fabric historic on Theemphasis Once again we are witnessing a convergence of we witnessing are Once again 39 . Areas identified for develop for identified Areas .

(Berlin: Birkhaeuser,2004) 224. INURA: The Tent Goonewardena. “Poverty ofPlanning: AdrianBlackwellandKanishka 40

City

and Contested Metropolis.

40 the , the majority majority the ,

New

Official

Plan”,

- - - adjacent ravinesandparks. complexes areoftenseparatedfrom fig. 9 anced withlargeareasofopenspace. Higher densitiesweregrantedifbal­ fig. 8 Open spacearoundapartment Apartments onKiplingAvenue.

99 100 Ai t h e suburban t o w e r apartment clusters,open spaceandnaturalsystems. fig. 10 Apartments andproperties inWest Toronto showinginterrelationshipof fig. 11 DENSIT T O R O N T O N E I G H B O U R H O O D S Zone 2 Zone 1 8 7 Density inToronto neighbourhoods 9 10 1KM 5 Y 4 2 PERSONS PER HECTARE - STATSCAN, 2001 6 3 2 1 11 Zone 1 Yonge and Eglinton Zone 2 Zone 1 5 4 Zone 2 Zone 1 Zone 1 Zone 1 17 500 St. Jamestown 1 20 205 9 030 33 905 26 750 7 417 21 940 Little Italy Transit Use (Work):Ave. Income: Density: Area: Dwellings: Population: Parkdale 714.7 225.7 155.7 217.1 191.7 170.0 93.0 3 CITY OF TORONTO 2 481 510 (2001) 629.91 km2 39.3 /ha $69 125 943 065 28% WESTERN RAIL CORRIDOR All Housing 587 810 (2001) Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 1 Bathurst and Steels Humber 128.34 km2 7 46.5 /ha 210 530 $51 224 27.9% 12 506 25 020 10 635 6 WESTERN RAIL CORRIDOR 64.3 262.7 44.1 High Rise Housing 128.34 km2 46.5 /ha 210 530 587 810 Boston Philadelphia ONLY HIGHRISE 128.34 km2 16.11 /ha 206 867 71 580 at St. Jamestown High Rise Housing Atlanta Houston Density WITHOUT HIGHRISE 128.34 km2 30.7/ha 138 950 394 594 8 Zone 2 Zone 1 Rexdale - North Kipling 9 Los Angeles 13 365 33 060 Weston Zone 1 TORONTO AREA Old City of Toronto URBAN Metro Toronto Western Rail Corridor Markham Richmond Hill Mississauga York Etobicoke 15 575 Zone 2 Zone 1 89.5 107.7 353.5 6 557 59 465 172.5 76.7 69.6 39.9 46.5 13.0 21.2 64.8 34.3 27.2 9.8 Zone 1 Don Mills 22 545 10 New York Copenhagen Madrid Berlin Vienna EUROPE Montreal Vancouver Washington DC Houston Atlanta OTHER NORTH AMERICA Chicago Manhattan 37.3 11 258.4 102.9 28.5 85.9 56.0 69.4 43.2 47.5 34.8 13.0 12.2 49.2 Greater New York Copenhagen Madrid Berlin Vienna Montreal Vancouver Washington DC Houston Chicago Atlanta METROPOLITAN 20.5 26.5 24.0 23.9 14.3 16.8 19.3 51.9 38.1 39.3 8.8 6.4 101 102 Ai t h e suburban t o w e r complex nearAllenExpressway. fig. 14 Kipling StreetandSteeles Avenue. fig. 13 often oneofneglectanddisrepair. space aroundapartmenttowersis fig. 12 Modern landscapingin tower Apartment complexesat The stateofgenerousopen 103 104 Ai runnin h e a d Street andDixonAvenue. fig. 16 fig. 15 Typical suburbanstripplazaadjacenttoapartment complexatKipling Hydro corridoratJane Street andSteelesAvenue. “Europeanization” of Toronto’s socio-economic struc of Toronto’s socio-economic “Europeanization” The policies which shaped the creation of subur of creation the shaped which policies The while while extensive regions in the “Metro” suburbs are part untouched, there is no planned future use foruse is there nofuture untouched, planned part lated upon the incremental intensification of tra of intensification incremental the upon lated us with an interesting paradox: the densest subur- densest the paradox: interesting an with us unique neighbourhoods are suffering from from suffering are neighbourhoods unique Home to many new Canadians, these culturally culturally these Canadians, new is many to Home neglect and poverty growing the of Much ten social and inequity the reinforce riots Paris data maps. fig. 11 fig. 10 fig. 9 fig. 7 Amendments (Toronto, 1970);CityofToronto, OfficialPlan(2002) for Development(1946);MetropolitanToronto Planning Board,MetroPlan66 – and SuburbanPlanningBoard,E.G.Faludi,Etobicoke:AThirtyYear Program fig. 5 fig. 3 figs. 1,2,4,6,8,12,13,14,15,16 Illustration Credits this resource. resource. this ture. The core is becoming increasingly wealthy wealthy increasingly becoming is core The ture. most suited for thoughtful reinvention. reinvention. for thoughtful suited most amongtheareas arethey plan, in the new Official as aP as ban nodes contain the city’s largest continuous continuous largest city’s the contain nodes ban left Torontohave in complexes high-density ban becoming increasingly marginalized. areas of open space. Underutilized, and for the most focussed on Toronto’s portfolio of modern towers. Toronto’stowers. on modern of focussed portfolio T ditional suburban housing. extreme neglect. Paradoxically labelled as “stable” as labelled Paradoxically neglect. extreme sions which may arise if this trend is to continue. continue. to is trend this if arise may which sions oronto’s A oronto’s Always ahead of her time, Jane Jacobs specu Jacobs Jane time, her of ahead Always As a result, we are currently witnessing the the witnessing currently are we result, a As Drawing GraemeStewart usingdatafromCityofToronto propertydatamaps University ofToronto DataMapLibrary Data from;Toronto andSuburbanPlanningBoard,ReportoftheToronto Photo ofToronto, 1954,UniversityofToronto Datamaplibrary Drawings GraemeStewart. MapscourtesyCityof Diagram GraemeStewart, spacedataprovidedbyGeoffThun lace to G to lace sset: H sset: row igh D igh courtesy GraemeStewart ensity S ensity 42 Perhaps the same can u b ur Toronto property 41 b The recent s

- - ­ - - vision ofvision Toronto as a and thoughtfully- progressive planned urban region. region. urban planned Richard Buckminster Fuller’s complimentary complimentary Fuller’s Buckminster Richard and reinvestment for centres as suburbs Metro London’s ‘Sustaining Towers Project’ are working working are Towers Project’ London’s‘Sustaining thermore, as many vast areas of green space associ space green of areas vast many as thermore, to this effect. What are the possibilities here? possibilities the are What effect. to this ing assets. Perhaps, once again, they could reflect reflect could they again, once Perhaps, assets. ing as one areas of these most the City’s promis- recast greenfields than solutions green for position rior reinvention. With issues of regional sustainability natural systems, they may offer a launching pad pad launching a offer may they systems, natural be true of apartment blocks. Do these complexes these Do blocks. apartment of true be form of growth for the city. Missing from the dis- the from Missing city. the for growth of form an increasing concern, perhaps the existing den existing the perhaps concern, increasing an agriculture? New initiatives in Europe such as as such Europe in initiatives New agriculture? alternatives to typical developments such as urban “permacultural” even perhaps and ecological for ated with these towers are located adjacent to large cussion is the use of its aging high-rises and older and high-rises aging ofits use the is cussion or traditional suburbia. suburbia. or traditional commercialization and social programming? Fur- programming? social and commercialization intensification, for suburban opportunity an offer sity and land amenity places these areas in a in supe- areas places these amenity land and sity structure of mixed density suburbs could act to to act could suburbs density mixed of structure There is much debate about the appropriate appropriate the about debate much is There Careful reconsideration of our adopted urban urban adopted our of reconsideration Careful sustainingtowers.org/ “Sustaining Towers”, 2005.http://www. Price andMyersArchitects, 43 (Toronto: RandomHouse,2004). JaneJacobs,DarkAgeAhead, 42 pdf3/cpa44.pdf http://www.toronto.ca/demographics/ 41 “Flemington Park” CityofToronto. 43 - - 105