Elderly high-rises abound in suburban Toronto. When developers put them up across the city during our last residential high-rise boom, some 40 years ago, those thousand or so new towers were built to last — and, for the most part, their sturdy concrete bones have lasted very well indeed.
Their skins, however, have not been so lucky. Clad stingily in the first place, and poorly maintained over the years, many of these suburban tall buildings have turned into big energy-wasters, and leave an unacceptably large carbon footprint on the urban environment. The aprons of lawn around the towers — originally intended to open suites to fresh breezes, scenic views and sunlight — have too often been allowed to deteriorate into barren, ugly patches that do nothing to encourage a sense of community and pride among residents.
But in the past couple of months, we've witnessed what could be the dawn of a brand new day for our old high-rises.
In May, a consortium of investors organized by former U. S. president Bill Clinton picked Toronto and 15 other large cities around the world to receive $5.4-billion for energy-saving retrofits. In New York for the announcement, Toronto Mayor David Miller hailed the promised outlay as an "opportunity to train workers in our poorer neighbourhoods. We have aging apartment buildings that consume huge amounts of electricity. We would invest in our neighbourhoods and reduce greenhouse gas emissions dramatically."
Three examples of overcladding of old apartment towers in Berlin, a method used extensively in Europe to make older buildings more energy efficient. (E.R.A. Architects Inc.)
Related Articles
And last week, the mayor and his executive committee got a bright glimpse of what such retrofitting might look like. It came in an arresting presentation by Graeme Stewart, a designer and researcher with Toronto-based E.R.A. Architects Inc.
In Mr. Stewart's vision, rundown suburban apartment towers would be stripped back to their skeletons, then re-dressed in energy-efficient and stylish skins. Zoning restrictions would be loosened to allow development of now-empty land around high-rises: Mr. Stewart foresees cinemas and libraries, open-air markets and community centres.
"The high-density nodes speckled through the region are great opportunities, an incredible asset," he told me recently. "If we could retrofit them for higher environmental standards and mixed-use development, right off the bat we could transform these currently neglected areas into socially sustainable neighbourhoods. It could be real, thriving community, no matter how little money people made."
If all this sounds like so much futuristic day-dreaming, it's not. Mr. Stewart knows his stuff. Over the past few years, his research has taken him on fruitful trips throughout Europe, especially Russia and the former Soviet satellites, where he has studied promising and ambitious schemes to renew old apartment buildings.
Dilapidated blocks are getting fresh, efficient cladding. Formerly isolated towers are being stitched back into the urban fabric by means of retail and service outlets such as schools and restaurants. If it's happening there, it can happen here. And the incentives that might be made available to property owners under the Clinton initiative could make these remarkable things happen here soon.
Mr. Stewart's presentation at City Hall was part of a continuing discussion between local politicians and E.R.A., all meant to develop wise, viable policies for the retrofitting of old apartment buildings. We should wish all parties well in this city-building adventure. And we should expect good answers to certain knotty questions raised by the background research.
What, for example, will happen to the poor people? Toronto's suburban high-rises are now home to many low-earning recent immigrants and their families. The modernization and beautification of these towers could become an occasion for a jack-up of rents. While one can hardly blame property owners for wanting to maximize profits, how can the potentially serious social costs of building improvement be prevented? And anyway, do we really want every square inch of Toronto gentrified?
I am also concerned about the possible results of relaxing current constraints on development at the bases of towers. Mr. Stewart's proposals for infill are sensible and very attractive. But why would a landlord want to fill his newly freed-up spaces with cafés, markets and so on, when a much quicker buck is to be made off townhouses?
Such questions go to a problem in Mr. Stewart's approach, for which I've not yet heard a solution. Most of his examples of excellent retrofitting have been gleaned from Eastern Europe and Russia, where residential towers are still largely in the hands of public agencies. In Toronto, of course, nearly all residential real estate is squarely in the middle of powerful market forces. What will happen when European idealism runs into the realities of North American capitalism?
It will be interesting to find out, as this admirable project rolls out over the coming months and years.
The lowdown on high-rises
Some facts about residential high-rises supplied by Graeme Stewart of E.R.A. Architects:
After New York, the Greater Toronto Area has North America's greatest number of residential towers — about 2,000 — that are 12 storeys or higher. Chicago follows with just over 1,000, and Vancouver with more than 600.
Most GTA high-rises are concrete apartment towers built between the 1950s and the 1970s. Most are in North York, Etobicoke and Scarborough, with large concentrations in Mississauga.
Hong Kong leads the world in apartment towers, with more than 7,000 buildings.
While the production of roughly 16,000 suites last year made Toronto the largest condo market in North America, in 1968, nearly 30,000 units were built. During Toronto's mid-century apartment boom, more than 200,000 new units went to market.
Many mid-century apartment towers in the United States and Europe were social projects, but the vast majority of Toronto's apartment buildings were privately developed, and marketed to a wide spectrum of incomes.
Clusters of high-rises give some Toronto suburban areas a density as high as 350 people a hectare, three times that of a typical downtown neighbourhood such as the Annex.
Toronto's first suburban apartment neighbourhoods, Thorncliffe and Flemingdon Park, began in the 1950s. They were North America's first privately developed modern apartment "new towns."
Planners and public agencies promoted the leaving of large open spaces around towers for reasons of "health and recreation." A typical tower complex contains more than 90 per cent open space, mostly consisting of lawn and parking. Today, most of this space is blocked off with chain link fence.
Most towers built during the last boom have required substantial upgrades for 15 or more years, and some are suffering from severe neglect.
The apartments in such buildings waste 25 per cent more energy a square metre than a single-family home. Most contain no insulation. Simple environmental upgrades can cut energy use in half, and are well-suited for district geothermal installations and other "off the grid" energy sources.
Toronto is evolving into something like a European city, with an increasingly wealthy historic centre, and increasingly impoverished suburbs of high-rise apartment buildings. Europe has been actively investing in improving these neighbourhoods.
