urban density case studies in the greater golden...

Urban Density Case Studiesin the

Greater Golden Horseshoe

by George Baird and Robert LevitThe Daniels Faculty of Architecture,

Landscape, and Design University of Toronto

This study was prepared with the support of the Ontario Growth Secretariat at the Ministry of Infrastructure as background research during the development of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006, under the Places to Grow initiative. The study’s analysis predates the final policies of the Growth Plan, so language and assumptions made here may reflect that. Notwithstanding, the study still offers both valuable insight into understanding the capacity and opportunities for intensification in existing built-up areas.

Places to Grow is the Ontario government’s program to plan for growth and development in Ontario in a way that supports economic prosperity, protects the environment and helps communities achieve a high quality of life. The foundation of the Places to Grow initiative is the Places to Grow Act, 2005. The Places to Grow Act enables the Ontario government to plan for growth in a coordinated and strategic manner. It gives the provincial government the authority to designate any geographic region of Ontario as a growth plan area; develop a growth plan in consultation with local officials, stakeholders, public bodies, and individuals; and develop and implement growth plans.

Background

The first growth plan to be developed under the Places to Grow Act is the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006 - a 25 year vision for this rapidly growing urban region ringing western Lake Ontario. The Growth Plan achieves this vision for managing growth by:

• Revitalizing downtowns to become more vibrant and convenient centres

• Creating complete communities that offer more options for living, working, shopping, and playing in closer proximity

• Providing greater choice in housing types to meet the needs of people at all stages of life

• Curbing sprawl and protecting farmlands and green spaces• Reducing traffic gridlock by improving access to a greater range of

transportation choices

The Growth Plan guides decisions on how land is developed, resources are managed, and public dollars are invested in the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH). It includes policies on intensifying existing communities by directing a significant portion of new growth to their existing built-up areas, focusing intensification in intensification areas, anddeveloping mixed-use, transit-supportive, pedestrian-friendly urban environments.

The Growth Plan requires intensification areas to be planned and designed to provide a diverse mix of land uses to support vibrant neighbourhoods; provide high quality public open spaces with urban design standards that create attractive and vibrant places; support transit, walking, and cycling; and achieve higher densities than the surrounding area, with an appropriate transition of form to adjacent areas.

This study examines 10 urban neighbourhoods in Toronto and the Greater Golden Horseshoe that accommodate Growth Plan target densities in a manner that enhances rather than harms the community. These examples provide informative models for how such densities can be accommodated in vibrant, successful neighbourhoods.

The following case studies have been selected with the following in mind: density comes in many forms and not all of it is good. Good density must be shaped according to urban design principles that foster social variety and richness, physical health, conservation of resources, and economic vitality. The changes brought about by intensification must take advantage of existing qualities of place and integrate with networks of transportation infrastructure and natural settings. In brief,

…not just increased urban density but enhancedurban form…

Among the desirable characteristics sought are:

• Street-oriented built form• Transit-oriented neighbourhoods

• Diversified land use• Diversified housing types• Mixed built-form densities

• Neighbourhoods with integrated natural heritage

Purpose of Study

Through the example of selected illustrations from one Case Study (the neighbourhood at the intersection of Yonge and Lawrence streets in Toronto), it is possible to see both the methods used in the analysis of the case studies and the desirable qualities found in the chosen case studies.

The accompanying diagrams illustrate the relationship of the Lawrence and Yonge neighbourhood to major and minor roads, to two forms of public transportation, and to a natural heritage feature.

A Sample Case Study

Density Pyramids: When seen in conjunction with the transportation diagram, this illustration of density shows what we shall call a pyramid pattern of density around the intersection of Yonge and Lawrence. A density pyramid refers to the way in which a spike in density is visible in the concentration of taller and bigger buildings around major intersections–especially transportation hubs. Yonge and Lawrence is not only a major road intersection, it is also the site of an important link between subway and bus lines.

It is common for such density pyramids to occur at major intersections of roads and public transportation lines. The pattern of the density pyramid is important, because it demonstrates how a mix of densities can be arranged to give a large number of people and businesses easy access to transportation, while also showing that different building forms and their associated qualitiesof urban and social space can be brought into harmony with each other in a single neighbourhood or district.

…a lively city comes from varied density, varied building form, mixed-use and accessible transportation…

Density pyramids are typical of metropolitan form and reflect good urban design.

The adjacent three-dimensional or axonometric view shows the relationship between the higher densities along Yonge Street and their concentration at Lawrence Avenue. To the east and the west, single apartment buildings give way to single-family-house districts. Many of the buildings are organized around a natural landscape feature— a ravine park—that flanks the east side of Yonge Street south of Lawrence.

A mix of commercial and residential, multi-family and single family, and residential and institutional uses is a desirable consequence of the density pyramid.

The example of Lawrence and Yonge, like that of other case studies, showed that mixed use and mixed density is typical. It can be seen in the adjacent land use diagram.

What do “200 people + jobs/hectare” look like?

The Growth Plan has established minimum density targets of 200 people and jobs/hectare (p + j/ha) for urban growth centres (UGCs) of the inner ring (the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Areas (GTHA)) of the GGH and 150 p + j/ha for UGCs of the outer ring (municipalities outside of the GTHA). Central to the case study analyses was answering the question: what do urban densities look like? In other words, what is the urban form that corresponds to 150 or 200 people +jobs/hectare?

Case Studies and Measuring Density

Density measurement and study area boundary: The examples of the case studies began with census data (Statistics Canada, 2000 Census) . The unit of measurement for population surveys is called the Dissemination Area (DA). Study areas are comprised of many DAs. In the diagram on this page the study area includes eight DAs, others have included as many as twenty-four. Through an examination of individual or different combinations of DAs, it is possible to see how different mixes of building types and variations on the boundary of an area under consideration effect density. For instance, in the case of the Yonge/Lawrence example on this page, the combination of multi-storey apartment and commercial buildings with houses on small lots make DA 2 fairly dense at 230 people + jobs/hectare. By contrast, the large house lots in DA 8, together with a portion of a natural heritage feature, bring this area down to 34 people + jobs/hectare. The density for the whole study area—that is, for all eight DAs combined— is 111 people + jobs/hectare.

Units per hectare figures in the case studies were based on 2006 data from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC).

Case Studies

Toronto01 Spadina Rd. /St. Clair Ave. 125 ha - 99.9 people+jobs/ha02 Yonge St./Lawrence Ave. 65 ha - 110.5 people+jobs/ha03 Leaside/Bayview Ave. 390 ha - 43.7 people+jobs/ha04 North Kingsway 293 ha - 47.6 people+jobs/ha 05 Kingston Rd./Victoria Park 91 ha - 79.6 people+jobs/ha06 Woodbine/Queen St. East 115 ha - 103.9 people+jobs/ha07 Avenue Rd/St. Clair Ave. 28 ha - 111.3 people+jobs/ha

GGH

08 Port Credit-Mississauga 91 ha - 78.1 people+jobs/ha09 Downtown Burlington 250 ha - 61.2 people+jobs/ha 10 Downtown Peterborough 125 ha – 93.2 people+jobs/ha

Case Studies in the GGH

Gross Gross Density*

Includes all land in a given area

Gross Density

Includes all land in agiven area minus natural heritage feature

Net Density

Residential and commercialParcels exclusive of natural Heritage features, streets and parks

Definition of density measure terminology

Net Residential Density

Only residential parcelsExclusive of natural heritage features, streets, parks, and non-residential use properties

Categories of Density Measurement

*consistent with gross density in Policy 2.2.4.5 of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006

Spadina/St Clair

01Case Study

Toronto

Spadina/St Clair01Context: Transportation, Landscape, Roads

Study area

Street car lines

Subway system

Natural heritage feature

Figure Ground Plan

SpadinaSpadina

St Clair

Bathurst

Bathurst

Russell H

ill

Ardmore Rd

90.3% Gross/Gross-Gross

73.2% Net/Gross

64.6%Net Residential/Gross

Spadina/St Clair01

Spadina/St Clair01

Gross Gross Density(area = 124.5 ha)

36.7 units/ha*76.0 people/ha23.5 jobs/ha100 people + jobs/ha2.1 (1.8**) people/unit

Gross Density(area = 112.4 ha)

40.7 units/ha*84.2 people/ha26.4 jobs/ha110.6 people + jobs/ha

Net (all land-use) Density(area = 91.1 ha)

50.1 units/ha*103.9 people/ha32.6 jobs/ha 136.5 people + jobs/ha

Density measures

Net residential Density(area = 72.8 ha)

62.8 units/ha*130.0 people/ha

n/a n/a

Plans Showing area of

*This calculation is based on MPAC data.**This calculation uses Statistics Canada data for both people and unit counts

3D Form

Built Footprint aspercentage of land

21.3% Gross-gross23.6% Gross32.3% Net

Spadina/St Clair01

Dissemination areas (DA) aggregate statistics

12

3

45

6

7 89

10

13

1112

14

Spadina/St Clair01

Land use

Net Land Areas by Land Use

Commercial area: 4.7haInstitutional area: 4.8haResidential area: 72.8ha

Total net area: 82.3ha

Spadina/St Clair01

ResidentialCommercialResidential & commercialInstitutionalParks

SUB-AREA A Plan

Lonsdale

SpadinaSpadina

Russell H

illR

ussell Hill

Coulson

Heath W

Spadina/St Clair01

Building Footprint

28.7% Gross39.0% Net

SUB-AREA A Aerial ViewSpadina/St Clair01

SUB-AREA A Density measuresSpadina/St Clair01

Gross Density

33.8 units/ha*55.1 people/ha*

Net (all land-use) Density


Net residential Density


*The calculation is based on MPAC data.

Plans Showing Areas of:

SUB-AREA A 3D FormSpadina/St Clair01

SUB-AREA A Street ProfileSpadina/St Clair01

SUB-AREA A Street ProfileSpadina/St Clair01

A

B

C1

C2

SUB-AREA A Individual Types

Density252.0 units / ha*302.0 people/ha*

30.2 jobs/ha**332.2 people

+jobs/ha

Lot area6,400sq ft

Lot coverage58.8%

Density94.0 units / ha*

188.0 people/ha*18.8 jobs/ha**

206.8 people+jobs/ha

Lot area13,700sq ft

Lot coverage36.9%



+jobs/ha

Lot area12,260sq ft

Lot coverage47.0%

Spadina/St Clair01



+jobs/ha

Lot area7,215sq ft

Lot coverage24.6%


**Estimated 10% of residentsdoing live-work.

SUB-AREA A Individual TypesSpadina/St Clair01

SUB-AREA B Plan

Heath W

LonsdaleLower Village G

T

Spadina

Spadina/St Clair01

Site Coverage


SUB-AREA B Aerial ViewSpadina/St Clair01

Spadina/St Clair01SUB-AREA B Density measures


Gross Density

114.2 units/ha*162.2 res/ha*





Plans Showing Areas of:

SUB-AREA B 3D FormSpadina/St Clair01

SUB-AREA B Street ProfileSpadina/St Clair01

SUB-AREA B Street ProfileSpadina/St Clair01

A

B

C

D

SUB-AREA B Individual Types

Net-Net Density

291.0 units / ha*463.0 people/ha*


+jobs/ha

Lot area58,760sqft

Lot coverage100%

Net-Net Density



+jobs/ha

Lot area19,355sqft

Lot coverage44.4%

Net-Net Density



+jobs/ha

Lot area61,990sqm

Lot coverage37.1%

Spadina/St Clair01



SUB-AREA B Individual TypesSpadina/St Clair01

Yonge/Lawrence

02Case Study

Toronto

Context: Transportation, Landscape, Roads 02Yonge /Lawrence

Study area

Bus routes

Subway system

Natural heritage feature

Figure Ground Plan 02Yonge /Lawrence

YongeSt

Lawrence Ave E MT Pleasant R

d

96.3% Gross/Gross-Gross

70.3% Net/Gross

60.1%Net Residential/Gross

Aerial View 02Yonge /Lawrence

YongeSt

Lawrence Ave E

MT Pleasant R

d

02Yonge /LawrenceDensity measures

Gross Gross Density(area = 65 ha)

33.1 units/ha*65.5 people/ha45 jobs/ha110.5 people + jobs/ha1.98 (1.97**) people/unit

Gross Density(area = 62.6 ha)

34.4 units/ha*68 people/ha46.7 jobs/ha114.8 people + jobs/ha

Net (all land-use) Density(area = 45.7 ha)

49.0 units/ha*96.3 people/ha64 jobs/ha 157.2 people + jobs/ha

Net residential Density(area = 39.1 ha)

57.2 units/ha*108.9 people/ha

n/a n/a

*This calculation is based on MPAC data.**This calculation uses Statistics Canada data for both people and unit counts


3D Form

Built Footprint aspercentage of land

28.0 % Gross-gross29.1% Gross41.4% Net

02Yonge /Lawrence

Dissemination areas (DA) aggregate statistics

12

34

5

6

78

02Yonge /Lawrence

Land use

ResidentialCommercialResidential & commercialInstitutionalParks

02Yonge /Lawrence

Net Land Areas by Land Use

Commercial area: 2.7 haInstitutional area: 3.8 haResidential area: 37.8 ha

Total net area: 44.3 ha

SUB-AREA A Plan 02Yonge /Lawrence

YON

GE ST

YongeSt

Lawrence Ave E

Site Coverage


Typical Block Size

SUB-AREA A Aerial View 02Yonge /Lawrence

02Yonge /LawrenceSUB-AREA A Density measures

Gross Density








SUB-AREA A 3D Form 02Yonge /Lawrence

SUB-AREA A Street Profile 02Yonge /Lawrence

SUB-AREA A Street Profile 02Yonge /Lawrence

A1

A2

B

C

Sub-area A Individual Types

Density292.0 units / ha361.0 people/ha

36.1 jobs/ha397.1 people

+jobs/ha

Lot area33,935sqft

Lot coverage46.9%



+jobs/ha

Lot area17,570sqft

Lot coverage68.4%

02Yonge /Lawrence



+jobs/ha

Lot area6,750sqft

Lot coverage21.1%

Sub-area A Individual Types 02Yonge /Lawrence

SUB-AREA B Plan 02Yonge /Lawrence

YongeSt

Lawrence Ave E

Site Coverage


SUB-AREA B Aerial View 02Yonge /Lawrence

02Yonge /LawrenceSUB-AREA B Density measures

Gross Density








SUB-AREA B 3D Form 02Yonge /Lawrence

SUB-AREA B Street Profile 02Yonge /Lawrence


A

B

C

D


A

C1

B

C2

Sub-area B Individual Types

Net-Net Density276.0 units / ha*321.0 people/ha*


+jobs/ha

Lot area52,194sqft

Lot coverage48.9%

Net-Net Density211.0 units / ha*253.0 people/ha*


+jobs/ha

Lot area53,892sqft

Lot coverage42.2%

02Yonge /Lawrence



Sub-area B Individual Types 02Yonge /Lawrence

urban density case studies in the greater golden...

Documents