Intensifying your Neighbourhood

2009 Google Street View of Ossington Ave. between Dundas St. W and Queen St W. Copyright Google, 2012

A recent uproar in the Ossington neighbourhood in Toronto over a proposed mid-rise building in Toronto has (once again) brought about resident fears that their neighbourhood will be in ruins if the proposed building is allowed to be erected. There are a couple of ideas addressed in the opposition to this development, and I'm going to try and touch upon two of them: the height of the proposal, and its contents. Quote one of the residents from a Toronto Star article about the proposed development:

“It would suck the life out of the strip".

 I am certainly not familiar enough with the area to really comment on this specific proposal, but I can certainly give you an idea of how the  developer, Reserve Properties, came to their proposal.

To the north (Dundas St. West) and south (Queen St. West) are areas of the city designated as "Avenues" in the city's Official Plan. The strip in question runs about 600 metres according to Google Maps from one end to the other, including the corner lots where the tallest buildings would likely be found. It is zoned as a "Commercial/Residential" zone (i.e. Mixed Use), and the current by-law allows for a height of 14 metres, or 4 stories (Quick rule of thumb: a commercial floor is about 4.5m, and residential floors are about 3m). The zoning is a bit more complicated than that, but I tell you this so you have a idea what the "as-of-right" zoning allows in terms of what could be built upon it (in other words, what they could build without requiring the permission of City Planning). Unfortunately for the neighbourhood opposition, the zoning by-law that they are hoping will protect them from this proposed development is almost certainly out of date.

Despite the fancy "2012" slapped onto the zoning by-law (in fact, it's barely a month old at this point), most by-laws are relics from pre-amalgamation Toronto, in some cases about as old as I am. It's often said that Toronto has "under-zoned" itself in order to drag "concessions" from developers. As Councillor Adam Vaughan says in the above Star article, it can lead to developers "shooting for the stars". I don't think two stories is "shooting for the stars" (when I interned at the city, we had one couple come in an propose a 20+ story building in a similar type of area. We told them "six"), but whether you agree or not, it certainly means that developers have little incentive to not request more than what the by-law contains when there is a long history of them getting more, backed by a quasi-judicial body (the Ontario Municipal Board) who will follow Provincial policy and allow higher densities.

So if you're Reserve Properties and you want to get the most out of your investment, you're going to ask for more. And why not? Ossington is a fairly attractive piece of real estate, especially this piece which is sandwiched between two major avenues (each with their own streetcars). From a certain point of view, this is a great target for intensification.

Planners at the city expect this, and what often happens is there is a negotiation over what will be supported by planning staff (as a reminder, getting the support of city planning staff is one of the best ways for a developer to ensure their development is approved, either by city council or by the Ontario Municipal Board). I don't know if this particular development has planning staff approval, but if it does you can almost be certain it has met all the requirements that were asked for, such as shadow and traffic studies.

In a planning environment where intensification is expected to be occurring all over the city (not just in the former downtowns and designated avenues), you'll be lucky not to see your neighbourhood intensified in some fashion. Just as how sometimes a former school becomes the site of a new in-fill development of townhouses, or a corner lot near a busy intersection becomes a dreaded high-rise building, sometimes the two-to-three story building needs to become a six-to-ten story building. I'm sure that regardless of whether council approves the development, its size will not be a hit with everyone.

2009 photo of Malvern Town Centre. Copyright Google, 2012.

What goes inside the building is another conversation entirely, but I will try and be concise about it here. Another quote from the Toronto Star article (emphasis mine):

"The proposed condo was loudly denounced for breaking the zoning bylaw by two storeys, for units too small for families, and for a huge, ground-level retail space likely to attract a “character-destroying” big chain store."

Both of these issues are tied to the zoning by-law as well, which aside from height and density, can also dictate minimum/maximum sizes for units, including retail. Another article in The Atlantic, "Of Storefronts, Soulless Banks, and the Slow Death of Nora Ephron's Upper West Side", is a quick read that hits on this idea that "successful" neighbourhoods can be their own downfall.

It's simple math (although not to be confused with a simple problem): successful neighbourhoods attract investment that drive the value of the land up due to its desirability. You can be certain that the people who own land along this particular strip in Ossington are keeping a close eye on the outcome of the Reserve Properties proposal, for it could potentially raise the value of their land substantially. Higher value however, comes with higher property taxes, which can put pressure on tenants such as "mom and pop" stores, who might be considered to be valuable neighbourhood institutions.

This isn't an unusual phenomenon; one of the planning studios I participated in at Ryerson looked at how suburban "indoor" malls can help older adults and seniors to socialize (thanks to Kari Ala-Leppilampi for that, it was primarily his idea). Of course, the indoor mall is often under threat of being replaced by a chain of "big-box" stores (your Wal-Marts, Staples, etc.), an effect which would be the death of many smaller, independent stores. At Malvern Town Centre, for example, you can find a beauty store dedicated to black women, a south-east Asian bakery, and even a cafe that serves bubble tea (ugh, a drink I could never enjoy). 

In a funny way, they can exist because the mall is successful enough to allow them to stay in business, but not successful enough to encourage the owner of the Malvern Town Centre property to convert the property to turn it into the new "plaza" shopping malls that are more common today (and which could pay higher rents).

It's essentially the same thing on a smaller scale for businesses on strips such as Ossington, but instead of having an indoor mall replaced by a Target, it would be two or more stores being replaced by something bigger. Maybe it's a restaurant (say, McDonald's or a Starbucks), or maybe it's a grocery store (your Loblaws or Sobeys). Regardless, the "neighbourhood" institution gets replaced by something much more corporate. It's not surprising that a developer who is looking to redevelop a piece of real estate would want to get a business on board that has a proven track record at payin' the bills (re: rent). Unfortunately, yes that usually means someone who isn't mom and pop.

Visioning Map for Queen St E Study. Copyright City of Toronto, 2012

To not drag this out longer, I will forgo talking about the issue of "what kind of people/family" that these new condos are being built for as it is itself a pretty complex issue, but the solutions are very similar toward "protecting" small businesses.


Get your local councillor to get the zoning by-law updated to reflect how your neighbourhood could change! This is true if you live here in Toronto; such a process may work elsewhere, but not all planning environments have the mechanisms to "easily" change a zoning by-law like Ontario does. If your neighbourhood tries to use a zoning by-law that is more than a decade old to shield itself from larger development, it's going to be awfully disappointed when the by-law is shredded in front of it. Any neighbourhood is going to have the potential for intensification, so your best bet is to get in front of it as early as possible and see what is realistically on/off the table. 


The current ongoing study of Queen Street East is an example of how a neighbourhood can envision itself in the future, and better roll with the change. You can visit the link there to see how a neighbourhood can envision "change", but the important thing about such an endevour is that it can set clear guidelines not only for developers, but residents about what is/is not appropriate in the neighbourhood, and then change the local by-law to reflect this. While certainly that doesn't preclude a developer from appealing to the Ontario Municipal Board, it means that the city planner (as being a participant in the study) will almost certainly side with the residents, which will give the city more ammunition at the Board. 

Best of all, such a study allows you to update the current by-law to demand (for example) a certain percentage of three bedroom living spaces, and maximum retail size limits for the area as a whole, rather than tackling such issues in piecemeal fashion (as would happen in a situation such as at Ossington). Rather than fighting with a relic of a by-law, you can then fight with something current, and something that you can actually contribute to.