Monday, December 31, 2012

The Draft Ossington OPA: I respond to the OCA!

2011 Google Image of Ossington Avenue (looking south from Dundas West). Copyright Google, 2012.
 
The other day, I got an e-mail from Jessica Wilson - President of the Ossington Community Association - regarding my take on the third public meeting that was held about two weeks ago regarding a proposed Official Plan Amendment (OPA) for the area. The e-mail is written in full in the post below this one.

If you haven't, please therefore read her response first; her comments are highlighted in blue below.

I will be allowing Jessica to respond to this one in full, as I'm fairly sure that 4096 characters won't suffice (we have talked via e-mail before, and came to the conclusion that replying to each other was a full-time job). As for anyone else that wishes to comment, you've got ~4000 characters. I've appreciate it if you remained concise, rather than submitting multiple comments at once. If you really wish, you can e-mail me at elarusic at gmail.com. I'm not interested in turning this blog into a giant debate about the future of Ossington, but if there are any interesting comments/observations I might respond in a future post. Otherwise, I'll stick to the comments like everyone else.



    Some clarifications, if I may.  Apologies for the length; there's a lot to say.
    1. It is unclear what it means for a given ZBL to be "out-of-date".  One sort of consideration might reflect that there was no more room to grow within the existing ZBL.  That's not true for Ossington: as a conservative estimate there is room to triple the density on Ossington within the current 14m limit.  Another sort of consideration might reflect new directions taken in an Official Plan whereby certain areas are explicitly flagged as targets for growth typically above and beyond present their current ZBL.  Ossington is not so targeted by the Official Plan---most saliently, as a narrow (17.5m ROW) pedestrian eddy destination district, it is not and is nothing like the designated Avenues---broad long transit thoroughfares, such as King, Queen, Dundas, Bloor---that (along with Downtown, Employment Districts, and Centres---are targeted for growth in the OP.

When I say that many zoning by-laws are "out of date" I mean that the zoning does not necessarily reflect was is "good planning". The majority of height and density limits are carryovers from over two decades ago. Meanwhile, the way the planning profession examines built form has changed dramatically, not only through legislation (such as the Planning Act and Official Plan), but also economically (e.g. the price of oil) and environmentally (e.g. reducing greenhouse gases). To expect that planners got it "right" 25 years (or more!) ago is therefore a poor defense against reexamining zoning by-laws (ZBLs) in Toronto. Planning staff affirmed this at the draft OPA presentation earlier this month.

I don't think anyone would really disagree that the zoning that exists on Ossington is out of date; the zoning (even in the new draft by-law) does not properly reflect aspects such as a maximum floor-space for commercial properties, and the density allowed is likely too low. Even the OPA reflects that the height is likely low-balled; even in Area 1 of the draft OPA, there is potential for building taller than 14m (as long as they remain four stories and fit the angular planes).

The ability for developers to attempt to change the ZBL is a right given under the Planning Act. That there is room to grow under the "current" ZBL is not a defense against intensification over the current ZBL; developers have the right to ask. The appropriateness of any development over the ZBL is therefore  judged by the neighbourhood context. The ZBL does (and should) only represent the "as-of-right" context, in which a developer can be sure that city approval is unnecessary. As an example, the building at the northwest corner of Queen and Ossington (where the Starbucks is going) was, to my knowledge, built under the 1986 ZBL.

Continuing from that, just because certain areas are "targeted" for growth (i.e. the Avenues on Map 2 of the Official Plan) does not preclude the possibility of growth outside of those areas. That there is sufficient space within the designated growth areas for "foreseeable" population growth forecasts is important for a city building exercise as a whole, but irrelevant in deciding the appropriateness of an individual development. The merits of any ZBL amendment are (and should) be judged on their context, not on whether they've got an appropriate colour on a map. Many residential developments in the city have intensified over the underlying ZBL (and indeed, one can find examples that increase it over just 6m) because of the appropriateness of the neighbourhood context; why should the Ossignton strip be judged differently? I'm extremely confident that if you asked any professional planner at the city (including Toronto's new Chief Planner, Jennifer Keesmaat) you would get a similar answer.

I have talked to about half a dozen professional planners  about the issue of Map 2 / OP Mixed Use Areas, and all have reiterated that the OP direction on areas such as the Ossington strip is to allow developers to make the case; denying them because the property does not fall within on an Avenue would be a poor argument. As an example, the OMB case at 134-162 Broadview Ave. was denied the proposed intensification (a nine-storey mixed use building). That the proposal laid outside of Map 2 was not what "killed it". As the OMB member stated:

In her witness statement (Exhibit 26), Ms Nott stated, “The City’s Official Plan framework of  ‘Downtown and Central Waterfront’, ‘Centres’, and ‘Avenues’ reflects the Growth Plan’s definition  of ‘intensification areas’ and identifies these areas as major opportunities for intensification.  However, in my opinion, neither the Growth Plan nor the City’s Official Plan precludes other localized intensification initiatives on properties or sites outside of these areas (provided such site-specific proposals address a number of development criteria established by the Toronto Official Plan….).”

Ms Prejel agreed that localized intensification in areas outside those specified for intensification can occur, but added that, Policy 4.1.7 of the Official Plan states that proposals for intensification of land on major streets in Neighbourhoods are not encouraged by the policies of the Plan. The policy states that, “when a more intense form of residential development than that permitted by existing zoning on a major street in a Neighbourhood is proposed, the application will be reviewed in accordance with Policy 4.1.5, having regard for both the form of the development along the street and its relationship to adjacent development in the Neighbourhood (Exhibit 55).
(emphasis mine, link)

What killed the Broadview proposal was that the development did not respect the nearby residential. Both the OMB member and city planner (Ms Prejel) agreed that the potential for intensification existed, just that this proposal was inappropriate for the neighbourhood context (it wanted to change the OP designation to Mixed Use, and the nine-stories was thought to be too large for the nearby single-family homes).

Although the OCA argues that 20m developments would not respect the surrounding  Neighbourhood, I (and the professional planners that I have talked to) do not think it is necessarily an open-and-shut case. The Ossington strip is Mixed Use rather than Residential (which carries less restrictive zoning). That city planners such as Thomas Rees might agree (due the presence of Area 2) simply strengthens my opinion that the OP should not be read so narrowly as the OCA might prefer it to be.

I would also note that the right-of-way (ROW) of Ossington might be currently about 17.5m, but the city has decided that the ROW of Ossington should be 20m, and are taking land as the strip develops. To the larger point, Ossington absolutely shares several features with OP designated Avenues such as Dundas and Queen, such as it's land-use and transit connectivity. But whether Ossington is (or ever resembles) an OP designated "avenue" (such as Dundas and Queen) is irrelevant; no one (not even the developer of 109Oz, Reserve Properties) is attempting to change the OP to make it one. Much like the issue of Ossington's ROW, the only way to turn it into an OP designated "Avenue" is to introduce an OP amendment. As clarified at the last meeting, neither the OP designation or ROW is changing in the area.
     2. You say "all the feedback given (including over a 1000 strong petition to keep Ossington low-rise) has spoken primarily to resident fears, rather than any solid evidence that a six storey building at 103-111 Ossington would destabilize the neighbourhood."

    On the contrary, the OCA has canvassed many OP-based arguments against the proposal; we have also been at the forefront of blocking bad OP-based arguments in favor of the proposal.  Let me mention three of these latter sorts of arguments, which constitute the main reasons that have been offered in support of putting a large (82ft including mechanical penthouse) mid rise in a low-rise (46ft max) area, in obvious insensitivity to existing built form context.


    First is the argument that Ossington, while not a designated Avenue, is fated to become an Avenue (or something like an Avenue) due to its appearing on Map 3 as slated to have a 20m ROW.  This argument is fatuous, since (a) this widening should not happen, since it would require tearing down all the Victorian and other main street character buildings that give Ossington its distinctive character; (b) this widening will never happen, due to the several historical buildings on the strip, including Toronto's first library, one of its first firehouses, and the Levack Block building; (c) there is no motivation for widening, since Map 3 is supposed to track major transportation flows, but N-S traffic from Queen to Dundas occurs along Shaw, not Ossington (the latter carries a miniscule percentage of N-S traffic).  For all these reasons, the motivation from Map 3 (which was cited in Planning's justification for 41 Ossington) is a total crock.

    
To the first argument, as mentioned earlier there is no one arguing to turn the Ossington strip in question into an OP-designated Avenue. But in regards to the ROW, the OP envisions a 20m ROW on Ossington sometimes in the indeterminate future; the presence of historical buildings need not disrupt this.

Aside from the likely unpalatable ways of "preserving" the buildings (i.e. facadism), there are potentially ways to preserve them that might allow the buildings to be "moved" the ~1.25m required to allow the 20m ROW. If the technology doesn't exist now (and I'm pretty sure it does), perhaps it will in fifty (or a hundred!) years. From this, if one is attempting to create buildings that do not disrupt things such as sunlight and are appropriately massed, then better to create the buildings now based on a future 20m ROW now rather than waiting decades and decades for it to happen.

On the note about traffic, from my discussions with planning staff, the ROW widening is not due to vehicular traffic; the plan with the future ROW is to expand the pedestrian realm (i.e. sidewalks), not roads. They are seeking to make the area more walkable, not to make it handle more cars. Regardless, the ROW would need to be expanded across the entire strip to fit in an additional lane.

I also note that while Shaw St. might handle most of the north/south traffic (I will take your word on this), Shaw St. is one-way north of Dundas W, which prevents it from being an arterial road like Ossington. I also note that the OP designated Ossington - not Shaw - as a "major street" on Map 3. The closest road that could "fulfill" that purpose otherwise would be Dovercourt to the west, but the section south of Dundas W. is neither recognized as a major street (only the section north of Dundas), nor has bus service. I also must admit that I find it strange to hold in deep respect one section of the OP (Map 2) yet downplay another (Map 3).

A second and related fatuous motivation is that because Ossington has a bus on it, it is a "major street" or a "main street" with "transit" of the sort that the OP supposedly targets for growth above current ZBL.  This is the sort of inaccurate presentation of the OP growth strategy that we have seen in Hume's and Gee's columns.  Again, the OP does not target any street with some stores and a bus route on it for over-ZBL growth.  The Official Plan Growth Policy is in Chapter 2, page 5, Policy 2.2; the targeted areas for growth (Avenues, Downtown, Centres, Employment Districts) are on Map 2.  Ossington is not on Map 2, and again for good reason (too narrow to be an Avenue, not to mention being a pedestrian eddy destination district as opposed to a major transit thoroughfare, yadda yadda).

I will refrain from repeating myself on the second argument, except to reiterate that whether a 20m building rests on a designated Avenue or not as relevant as you might wish it to be; what largely matters is the context of the proposal. The term "over ZBL growth" is not a term or concept that the city does (or should) recognize. Such a term fails to recognize any nuance about a proposal or the neighbourhood. I also do not believe that a six-storey building will necessarily prevent the area from being a pedestrian eddy destination district yadda yadda either.

    The third fatuous motivation is that Ossington is a mixed-use area, and the OP targets any mixed-use area from over-ZBL growth.  The OP does not target any and all mixed-use areas for such growth.  What it does say, in Chapter 4, is that the land use designations that will see the most growth *within* the categories (Avenues, Downtown, etc.) targeted for growth in the OP growth policy are Mixed Use areas as opposed to, e.g., Neighborhoods.  Those who say that the OP targets any and all Mixed Use areas for growth are committing a fallacy.
    All of these arguments are OP-based, not "fear-based" arguments. In addition to these and other OP-based arguments, the case against 109OZ and the Area 2 principles is based on widely recognized planning considerations (e.g., that the Area 2 principles violate the "Core-Perimeter" principle according to which taller buildings should be placed at the perimeter, not the core, of a low-rise character area) and a full range of specific details about negative impact to the business, residential, and school communities. 

You're correct that the OP does not target "any and all" Mixed Use Areas for growth, but that does not mean that the default assumption should be that growth is impossible. There is nothing in the document states that a six-storey (or 20m tall) building would be inappropriate on Ossington. Section 4.4 of the OP on Mixed Use Areas - the most relevant section in this discussion - even seems to trump the idea of intensification in an area such as this one. I note that section 4.4, policy states:

In Mixed Use Areas development will:

a) create a balance of high quality commercial, residential, institutional, and open space uses that reduces automobile dependency and meets the needs of the local community;
b) provide for new jobs and homes for Toronto's growing population on underutilized lands in the Downtown, the Central Waterfront, Centres, Avenues, and other lands designated Mixed Use Areas, creating and sustaining well-paid, stable and fulfilling employment opportunities for all Torontonians;
c) locate and mass new buildings to provide a transition between areas of different development intensity and scale, as necessary to achieve the objectives of this Plan, through means such as providing appropriate setbacks and/or stepping down of heights, particularly towards lower scale Neighbourhoods;
d) locate and mass new buildings so as to adequately limit shadow impacts on adjacent Neighbourhoods, particularly during the spring and fall equinoxes;
h) take advantage of nearby transit services;

That other sections of the OP might struggle against these points does not invalidate the above; the OP is meant to be read as a whole. That Mixed Use Areas such as Ossington do not have a document such as the Avenues and Mid-Rise Guidelines to help developers intensify streets such as Queen W does not preclude the possibility of intensification "over the ZBL". As I stated earlier, one should not read the OP so narrowly. The planning process - which includes public input - can (and is) figuring out whether the intensification (either in the draft OPA Area 2, or with the 109Oz ZBL amendment proposal) represents "good planning".

Finally, I note that the Ossington Strip is not a character area as defined by the City of Toronto, nor a Heritage Conservation District. The city, to my knowledge, does not recognize anything such as a "core-perimeter" rule, not in "official" Character Areas nor in Heritage Conservation Districts. That "taller" buildings are often placed on the corners of streets (due their their prominence, and reduced shadow impact) does not (and should not) preclude a taller building appearing in the middle of a street if it make sense, especially when stepbacks and angular planes are involved to help hide a mere 6 metres.

With the proposed OPA stepbacks, the additional six metres on this one particular stretch of the Ossington strip will not appear to "tower" over the rest of the neighbourhood once development fills or builds on the existing structures. One must remember that we do not interact with buildings from a helicopter; we interact with them at ground level. There are numerous examples of stepbacks that effectively mask the height and density quite effectively, and I believe such stepbacks and angular planes (as proposed in the draft OPA) could on Ossington as well.

The proposed impacts that the OCA states on the nearby residential, commercial, and school services are, in my opinion, over-exaggerated. More residents in the area will have a positive effect on the vitality of both the street and businesses, and the 400m2 commercial floorspace size limit will prevent a lot of the "undesirable" commercial uses from coming into the area (that this may not happen at 109Oz is a separate issue). If there is concern on things such as the bike lane and fear for the safety of the local children, then traffic impacts can be mitigated through thoughtful design, a redction in parking requirements, etc. Reducing the maximum height allowed by 6m is not the only "solution".

    3. Speaking of negative impacts, these are completely obvious to anyone familiar with the area.  But one specific word about the traffic study presented by Reserve.  That study sucked, because it failed to register basic facts such as that there is a laneway residence on Argyle Place and such as that there will be significant other traffic incoming from 41 Ossington and the Givins collection residences.  The shadow study offered by Reserve also sucked, using a non-"as of right" comparison (which involved a two storey, 14m tall building occupying the whole of the lot) as the comparison building.  Such a building is not as-of-right, since the current zoning has set-back requirements.

I would say that if there are issues with the traffic study, they might play out at the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). But more to my point, the challenge the OCA faces is discrediting a company that has been doing this kind of stuff for over 30 years. Without a competing traffic study, it is going to be the "completely obvious" word of the OCA against the evidence-based word of the BA Group, who have more than likely done the OMB rodeo before. History and research has shown that the OMB has tended to side with evidence over the "obvious".

I would look at it this way; the OCA's position is that the increased density (and subsequent impact on vehicular traffic) will be exacerbated by additional/current development on Argyle (such as 41 Ossington) and create a wholly negative impact on the one laneway residential property. Do you have a professional report to back such an opinion up? I do not say that to criticize (neighbourhood associations rarely have the resources for such documents), but to instead be realistic about one's chances of dismissing the document at the OMB. I imagine that a member of the BA Group would have an answer to both of those issues; perhaps the answer may not be palatable to the OCA's narrative, but that does not mean it is an incorrect one.

I would also counter that such thought it mere speculation by residents that are looking for reasons to deny intensification rather than to look for ways to mitigate or reduce the number of parking spaces that new development must provide. On the example of 109Oz, the additional two stories that Reserve Properties is asking for creates roughly 25 more parking spaces. These 25 parking spaces are the traffic "impact" of the additional two stories (the other 45 might be said to be allowed as-of-right given that four stories is allowed).

The strip is well connected to transit, and (save for a grocery store) has access to many different services. There is therefore an excellent argument to be made to relax the parking standards in this location. I would imagine that the developer is fine with reducing the amount of parking required, so why not work to reduce it? Even if 25 parking spots are not eliminated, some thoughtful design can signal to pedestrians and cyclists that the lane does carry vehicular traffic, and safety measures (perhaps a mirror?) could help drivers see incoming traffic better. In other words, that the building is 20m (or 21.5m) need not prevent the issue from being addressed. To suggest otherwise is, in my opinion, a failure of imagination.

On the issue of the shadow study, the current draft ZBL has set-back requirements, but the ZBL that is being modified by 109Oz (the 1986 one) does not. I have talked to the planner in charge of 109Oz, Francis Kwashie, who has confirmed this: the shadow study was done correctly. Regardless, the comparison is somewhat moot; one must prove that the proposal will cause undue shadowing, and that will be difficult without a competing study. On the subject of the OPA however, one notes that the proposed angular planes are more restrictive than those on the 109Oz proposal, so shadowing is likely even less of an issue within the draft Area 2.

    4. As regards whether the results of the OPA will impact 109OZ.  Of course they will, even if only indirectly.  The Official Plan says that when a proposal for significant growth comes in, Council shall determine at the earliest point in the process whether an Area Study will be conducted, etc.  It was because the OCA created a big hue and cry about this specific passage in the OP that Layton requested the Area Study, BTW---note that he should have done this for 41 Ossington.  Anyway, the clear suggestion is that the proposal, if judged under the existing planning context, would be rejected---as 109OZ should be, if judged solely under the existing context of a 14m height and 2.5density limit.  The whole point of the Area Study is to consider whether the ZBL is in fact outdated such that perhaps the building should be allowed, even so.  If it looks like the Area Study is going to affirm the existing limits, then the oversize proposal will likely not be approved.  If the Area Study rather says---sure, let's go higher---then the oversized proposal will likely be approved.  This is confirmed in certain OMB decisions.

The 109Oz development would be rejected if solely compared to the current ZBL, but Reserve has moved to modify it (as is their right). The draft OPA requirements will not be held against the 109Oz proposal because to do so would be against city policy. One might imagine how frustrating it would be for a homeowner to be halfway through building a backyard deck, only to find out partway through construction that the city changed the rules to prohibit decks yesterday, long after the lumber had been purchased. The same idea applies here; the recommendations of the draft OPA (i.e. height limit, cornice line, angular planes) will not apply to the 109Oz proposal because they did not apply when the application for rezoning was submitted.

The proposed OPA may be presented to the OMB, but the developer still has the right to argue that their proposal will not unduly impact the neighbourhood (i.e. that it fits the context of the existing neighbourhood). After all, they have the right to try and modify the OP just like they do a ZBL; that they do not need to go through the process of amending the OP makes their job easier, but it is not unimaginable that an OMB member would allow the OP to modified to reflect the developer's vision. Hence, the proposal will stand (or fall) on it's own merits; the threat of an upcoming OPA need not derail it. If an OMB member decides the draft OPA should apply (either the recommendations and/or vision), it is their prerogative, but I wouldn't count on it unless Reserve properties really drags their feet on their appeal to the Board.

Certainly, in an ideal world, the zoning and OP designation in Toronto would be reviewed regularly. Unfortunately, a lack of resources prevents this. However, that does not mean that developers have the capacity to proposed anything; I would expect that a ten storey building (and likely even an eight storey building) would be absolutely rejected by the city. Yet, the developer still may appeal to the OMB and make their case. This is true anywhere in the city (and indeed, Ontario), regardless of the presence of a ZBL or OP; the Planning Act has provisions to modify both.

And I would note that the OPA does not change the underlying ZBL (developers may still be required to submit a ZBL amendment). The city planner, Thomas Rees justified the four-storey limit in "Area 1" of the draft OPA largely based on the depth of lots on the majority of Ossington, not because the existing 14m height limit was deemed "correct" over the entire strip. Indeed, buildings taller than 14m would be allowed across the strip under the draft OPA. So in that sense, the draft OPA does indeed agree that a 14m height limit does not realistically represent the potential of the strip.

    5. Concerns that Planning did not appropriately take community input into account do no advert to our not entirely getting our way, but rather specifically refer to (1) the fact that Planning evidently discounted or dismissed the 2100 signature petition, on grounds of concerns about its legitimacy, with neither Layton's office nor Planning informing the OCA of this fact; (2) Rees did not take into account previous site-specific input pertaining to the 109OZ lands (hundreds of pieces of feedback at public and private meetings, in emails, phone calls, etc.), even though previous Area Studies (e.g., the Queen West Triangle Study) did so, and even though Planning singled out, via Area 2, the very sites for which massive anti-midrise feedback had been given for mid-rise development; (3) Rees seems to have discounted the public Visioning Process meetings, which again clearly resulted in a low-rise consensus, as encoded in the final Visioning Process Principles, instead adverting to a 34-person survey in which, he claimed, there was a 70-30 split in favor of low-rise; here it is worth noting that at least 4 of those 34 were members of the developer's team; adjusting for vested interests and the drunk heckling guy, that leaves around 13% in favor of mid-rise.  Of course, that's nothing compared to the hundreds and thousands of pro-low-rise voices; my point is that Rees seems to have discounted or ignored the vast majority of these.

This raises numerous questions: should planning be a democracy? And how does one evaluate feedback - particularly massive amounts of feedback from residents - against professional opinion, study, and principles of good planning? Let me return to a parking study example. You have two "data points": a professional study done by an experienced planning group that suggests that a proposed development's parking will not negatively impact the neighbourhood. You also have 2000 signatures on a petition that declare that the same development's parking will negatively impact the neighhourhood. Who do you believe? Does it matter if it's only 100 signatures? 5000?

Part of the planning process is weeding out the fears from the reality. That there are over 2000 people who fear mid-rise on Ossington should not automatically prevent mid-rise on Ossington. In Ontario, private property rights allow for a process to decide the appropriateness of a zoning application. This is not to diminish public input; professionals can learn a lot from residents about how the neighbourhood "works". But making decisions in the public interest sometimes means going against popular opinion.

As an example, consider the Vehicle Registration Tax (VRT) that was struck down by Mayor Ford shortly after taking office. I would argue that the VRT was a great example of how to properly tax a problem (car use), and to funnel the tax into a solution (transit expansion). I believe the loss of the VRT was against the public interest. Yet, Ford was quite clear in his desire to remove it, and ultimately he won the popular vote (and not by a slim margin): the removal of the VRT was supported by the plurality (if not majority) of voters. Hence, I would argue that the public interest was undermined by public opinion.

It's great when the public interest and public opinion align, but in the arena of politics this is sometimes impossible. As planners, we therefore must therefore be vigorous in defending the public interest, even when it is not always popular to do so. We are trying (not always successfully, but trying) to build a city that "works". Sometimes that means going against a neighbourhood's wishes because the evidence, our planning experience, and the larger forces of economics and the environment disagree. This does not make the residents of a neighbourhood wrong; it means figuring out if their concerns are legitimate, and if so, can they be addressed. Sometimes, concerns have no remedy because the "solution" places to unfair a burden on the property owner and city.

I will not comment on the methodology of the survey, except to say that the meeting open to all members of the public; the developer had every right to submit a survey as a resident of Toronto - as did anyone who appeared at that meeting. Planning does not work when artificial borders divide the city into fiefdoms. I would also (to echo my statements above) suggest that just because Rees's draft OPA did not mirror the position of the OCA (and the supporters of a low-rise Ossington) does not mean that voices were discounted or ignored; it simply means that other factors led him to a different conclusion. He is certainly not the only planner I've talked to who has suggested that a 20m building might be appropriate on Ossington. I know there has been some suggestion that Rees "gave in" on 109Oz by suggesting a 20m tall building on the location is appropriate. I would instead suggest that an analysis of the area (like one I did before) allows the possibility of a 20m tall building. That two (or more) professional planners can come to the same conclusion is hardly evidence of collusion; it may be because a 20m tall building is appropriate for the site.

Finally, I want to end on a positive note; I've talked with several people both on the "pro" and "con" side of "over ZBL" intensification in the neighbourhood, and I truly believe that the neighbourhood is a lot stronger and more resilient than some would make it out to be. I am confident that no matter how tall a structure lands on Ossington, that the neighbourhood will adapt, because the residents and businesses of Ossington are strong supporters of their little piece of Toronto, who will ensure that the neighbourhood continues to evolve and thrive. A 20m (nor, I suspect, a 21.5m) building on the strip will doom it: Ossington has too many advocates - such as the OCA - for that to happen.




As mentioned at the start of this (long) post, if you have comments that do not fit into 4096 characters, please e-mail them to elarusic at gmail.com; I am allowing the president of the OCA, Jessica Wilson, to have the final word, so I will not be publishing individual e-mails (although I might reply to some interesting comments inside them). If I reply, it will be in the comments like anyone else.

Please refrain from making multiple comments in reply to above if possible; if e-mailing me is insufficient, consider e-mailing Jessica Wilson so she may include it in her reply. I believe the contact information found on the Ossington Community Association's website should be sufficient to reach her. Otherwise, be concise! I'm well versed about this topic, so I will likely know what you're talking/referring to even in point form.

I am also going to be trying to move my blog to a WordPress format in the new year, which should allow for extra large comments, so hopefully this won't be an issue in the future. Thanks for reading, and Happy New Year!

Wednesday, December 26, 2012

The Ossington OPA: The OCA responds

OCA members J.P. Manoux, Jessica Wilson and Benj Hellie. Photo by Bernard Weil, copyright 2012 the Toronto Star

Hope everybody is having a happy holidays! I'm recovering from the flu, so I haven't really been thinking about urban planning, but the Ossington Community Association has continued their fight against mid-rise on Ossington. Their president, Jessica Wilson, tried to post a comment in reply to my article about the OPA meeting, but the Blogger comment section doesn't allow more than ~4000 words to be written at once. I'm looking into going to a Wordpress format, with maybe my own URL, so maybe in the future this won't be a problem.

Once I'm feeling a bit better, I will try responding. If anyone has any comments or additions, reply below (but please try and keep it under 4096 characters).

Hi Eddie,
Thanks for posting on this important issue.
Some clarifications, if I may.  Apologies for the length; there's a lot to say.
1. It is unclear what it means for a given ZBL to be "out-of-date".  One sort of consideration might reflect that there was no more room to grow within the existing ZBL.  That's not true for Ossington: as a conservative estimate there is room to triple the density on Ossington within the current 14m limit.  Another sort of consideration might reflect new directions taken in an Official Plan whereby certain areas are explicitly flagged as targets for growth typically above and beyond present their current ZBL.  Ossington is not so targeted by the Official Plan---most saliently, as a narrow (17.5m ROW) pedestrian eddy destination district, it is not and is nothing like the designated Avenues---broad long transit thoroughfares, such as King, Queen, Dundas, Bloor---that (along with Downtown, Employment Districts, and Centres---are targeted for growth in the OP.
 2. You say "all the feedback given (including over a 1000 strong petition to keep Ossington low-rise) has spoken primarily to resident fears, rather than any solid evidence that a six storey building at 103-111 Ossington would destabilize the neighbourhood."
On the contrary, the OCA has canvassed many OP-based arguments against the proposal; we have also been at the forefront of blocking bad OP-based arguments in favor of the proposal.  Let me mention three of these latter sorts of arguments, which constitute the main reasons that have been offered in support of putting a large (82ft including mechanical penthouse) mid rise in a low-rise (46ft max) area, in obvious insensitivity to existing built form context.
First is the argument that Ossington, while not a designated Avenue, is fated to become an Avenue (or something like an Avenue) due to its appearing on Map 3 as slated to have a 20m ROW.  This argument is fatuous, since (a) this widening should not happen, since it would require tearing down all the Victorian and other main street character buildings that give Ossington its distinctive character; (b) this widening will never happen, due to the several historical buildings on the strip, including Toronto's first library, one of its first firehouses, and the Levack Block building; (c) there is no motivation for widening, since Map 3 is supposed to track major transportation flows, but N-S traffic from Queen to Dundas occurs along Shaw, not Ossington (the latter carries a miniscule percentage of N-S traffic).  For all these reasons, the motivation from Map 3 (which was cited in Planning's justification for 41 Ossington) is a total crock.
A second and related fatuous motivation is that because Ossington has a bus on it, it is a "major street" or a "main street" with "transit" of the sort that the OP supposedly targets for growth above current ZBL.  This is the sort of inaccurate presentation of the OP growth strategy that we have seen in Hume's and Gee's columns.  Again, the OP does not target any street with some stores and a bus route on it for over-ZBL growth.  The Official Plan Growth Policy is in Chapter 2, page 5, Policy 2.2; the targeted areas for growth (Avenues, Downtown, Centres, Employment Districts) are on Map 2.  Ossington is not on Map 2, and again for good reason (too narrow to be an Avenue, not to mention being a pedestrian eddy destination district as opposed to a major transit thoroughfare, yadda yadda).
The third fatuous motivation is that Ossington is a mixed-use area, and the OP targets any mixed-use area from over-ZBL growth.  The OP does not target any and all mixed-use areas for such growth.  What it does say, in Chapter 4, is that the land use designations that will see the most growth *within* the categories (Avenues, Downtown, etc.) targeted for growth in the OP growth policy are Mixed Use areas as opposed to, e.g., Neighborhoods.  Those who say that the OP targets any and all Mixed Use areas for growth are committing a fallacy.
All of these arguments are OP-based, not "fear-based" arguments. In addition to these and other OP-based arguments, the case against 109OZ and the Area 2 principles is based on widely recognized planning considerations (e.g., that the Area 2 principles violate the "Core-Perimeter" principle according to which taller buildings should be placed at the perimeter, not the core, of a low-rise character area) and a full range of specific details about negative impact to the business, residential, and school communities.
3. Speaking of negative impacts, these are completely obvious to anyone familiar with the area.  But one specific word about the traffic study presented by Reserve.  That study sucked, because it failed to register basic facts such as that there is a laneway residence on Argyle Place and such as that there will be significant other traffic incoming from 41 Ossington and the Givins collection residences.  The shadow study offered by Reserve also sucked, using a non-"as of right" comparison (which involved a two storey, 14m tall building occupying the whole of the lot) as the comparison building.  Such a building is not as-of-right, since the current zoning has set-back requirements.
4. As regards whether the results of the OPA will impact 109OZ.  Of course they will, even if only indirectly.  The Official Plan says that when a proposal for significant growth comes in, Council shall determine at the earliest point in the process whether an Area Study will be conducted, etc.  It was because the OCA created a big hue and cry about this specific passage in the OP that Layton requested the Area Study, BTW---note that he should have done this for 41 Ossington.  Anyway, the clear suggestion is that the proposal, if judged under the existing planning context, would be rejected---as 109OZ should be, if judged solely under the existing context of a 14m height and 2.5density limit.  The whole point of the Area Study is to consider whether the ZBL is in fact outdated such that perhaps the building should be allowed, even so.  If it looks like the Area Study is going to affirm the existing limits, then the oversize proposal will likely not be approved.  If the Area Study rather says---sure, let's go higher---then the oversized proposal will likely be approved.  This is confirmed in certain OMB decisions.
5. Concerns that Planning did not appropriately take community input into account do no advert to our not entirely getting our way, but rather specifically refer to (1) the fact that Planning evidently discounted or dismissed the 2100 signature petition, on grounds of concerns about its legitimacy, with neither Layton's office nor Planning informing the OCA of this fact; (2) Rees did not take into account previous site-specific input pertaining to the 109OZ lands (hundreds of pieces of feedback at public and private meetings, in emails, phone calls, etc.), even though previous Area Studies (e.g., the Queen West Triangle Study) did so, and even though Planning singled out, via Area 2, the very sites for which massive anti-midrise feedback had been given for mid-rise development; (3) Rees seems to have discounted the public Visioning Process meetings, which again clearly resulted in a low-rise consensus, as encoded in the final Visioning Process Principles, instead adverting to a 34-person survey in which, he claimed, there was a 70-30 split in favor of low-rise; here it is worth noting that at least 4 of those 34 were members of the developer's team; adjusting for vested interests and the drunk heckling guy, that leaves around 13% in favor of mid-rise.  Of course, that's nothing compared to the hundreds and thousands of pro-low-rise voices; my point is that Rees seems to have discounted or ignored the vast majority of these.



Saturday, December 15, 2012

Ossington: the Draft OPA and Public Input

Picture of Ossington Avenue, by Kerry Prunskus, copyright 2010 the Toronto Observer.

 Last Thursday, Ossington residents and city planning staff met to go over the neighbourhood working group's final recommendations, and to hear a proposed official plan amendment (OPA) from city staff. This was what might be the final step in the public consultation process in regards to the upcoming change in the Ossington neighbourhood. As readers might recall, this whole process began roughly with the application known as "109Oz", a six storey building that was proposed on the strip, which the developer has recently appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). As the focus of the meeting was about the OPA and not 109Oz, I want to give a few comments about the process and the OPA itself, but I will end with some observations that might affect the 109Oz decision.

For those unfamiliar with the various levels of planning documentation in the City of Toronto, there are two basic ones that govern land-use planning (if I might generalize): the zoning by-law (ZBL), and the official plan. Zoning by-laws tend to be very specific about what can/cannot go on a particular property, but they're also very malleable. Many of Toronto's ZBLs are out of date, still existing largely because of a lack of resources and the need to standardize them in the wake of the city's amalgamation back in 1998. It's been over ten years since, and the city is still in the process of trying to harmonize them. The planning framework has changed a lot since ~1986, and that makes many ZBLs a very weak defense against proposed development.

What has changed - largely in step with the changing planning environment - is the introduction of official plans, which tend to broadly direct growth in the city. Unlike ZBLs, OPAs are more difficult to get amended, and coupled with the study that goes into them, are much stronger at enforcing a standard of zoning than a 25 year old ZBL. The official plan tends not to be overly specific in regards to development, but when necessary, it can be. The proposed OPA on Ossington would be an example of where the city tries to create some "teeth" to the legislation, in order to prevent growth that might be considered "bad".

The meeting on Thursday was the last of three meetings, where written notes and surveys were compiled and a draft decision as to how the OPA might look was presented. I think huge props are in order for both Councillor Mike Layton for organizing all of this, and to city planners Thomas Rees and Deanne Mighton; there was a lot of work that went into this, particularly given the high amount of feedback and consultation that was done. While I know not all the Ossington residents are thrilled about the draft OPA as it was presented, it appears to me that community got 90% of what they wanted, so I would chalk the draft OPA up as a "win" for the community. Myself, I find the OPA a bit too conservative, but I will address that below. But first, some brief context.

The Ossington Strip (referring to the piece of the road between Dundas W and Queen W) is a largely mixed-use community that is likely to see some change in the near future. A six storey development was approved on 41 Ossington this year. The same developers purchased a string of adjacent properties (103-111 Ossington), with a desire to put another six storey development on the site.

The neighbourhood, led by the Ossington Community Association has largely opposed this development, wishing to keep the entire strip low-rise (i.e. four stories or less). I am simplifying their position here, but it's perhaps the best one-sentence description I can make. With Mike Layton's help, a string of community consultation was pushed forward in order to help clarify what future development on the strip can or may look like.


The Draft Official Plan Amendment

Diagram of the "Two Areas" proposed in the Draft OPA.
 
The draft OPA can be roughly summarized as follows:

1) A maximum retail floor space of 400sq m. Previously, there was no maximum.

2) A stepback from the third floor, to give a consistent "cornice" line. There is no such consideration in the 2012 amalgamated ZBL, but it should be noted that the Avenues and Mid-rise guidelines would suggest a stepback from about the fourth floor.

3) Two "areas" that set the maximum height of the 14m and 20m respectively (see image to the right). I'm not sure if that includes a mechanical unit; normally ~5m is allowed on top of the maximum for one. I'm seeking clarification on that.

There is more to it than that, but I think those are the three most important changes that the OPA would make.

The first proposed change is, in the abstract, a no brainer for the neighbourhood. The area truly is defined by smaller stores, and this change will prevent larger stores (with the possible exception of what occurs at 109Oz, which came in before this draft OPA) from coming here, preferring to keep them either on Dundas or Queen. The 400 sq m. maximum is (as the planner admitted) a bit aggressive. Some of the businesses currently on the strip (including a Home Hardware) would become legal non-conforming uses, so perhaps some tweaking here is in order. The general intent is a good idea however.

The second proposed change, the creation of a "cornice" line, is not something I'm particular gung-ho about. It's biggest effect would be to reduce the amount of "space" a building has to work with, which would make five and six storey buildings difficult to "fit" in on many properties. This was one of the big concessions to the neighbourhood opposition; I'm curious as to whether (with the addition of other guidelines) if any meaningful increase in density over the existing ZBL can be achieved.

The third proposed change, splitting the area into two "Areas" that govern the maximum height, was the second big "concession" to the neighbourhood. Now, I admit that I haven't studied the neighbourhood in great detail, but I wonder if having two zones is really necessary. I know the Ossington Community Association is gearing up to fight the proposed "Area 2", but in my mind Area 2 is a good thing, and would be better applied to the entire area.

The rationale for keeping the rest at 14m or lower had largely to do with the lot depth of many properties (which fall near or just short of the 30m that one would want to create a six storey building) and potential rear lane access (which might cut into the remaining lot depth). In the absence of an existing rear lane, a building would need roughly 39m of depth (30m for the building, 7.5m for the laneway, and 1.5m given to the city to expand the Ossington right-of-way). Given that the need to respect the angular planes and lot depths that often fall several meters short of the "sweet spot", many properties will find it difficult (or impossible) to reach the 20m limit.

Having both the strict angular planes and a height limit therefore seems somewhat redundant. I think leaving the window open for a developer who might come along with a clever site design, or one who might buy up some of the residential behind (to create a "deeper" lot) would be preferable, particularly on some of the corner lots that would have less traffic and shadowing issues. But I'll bow to the research that City Planning has done here. 


Implications for 109Oz, and some comments on community input

Since the meeting, I know that the Ossington Community Association has begun to gear up to fight this proposed "Area 2". Some of its members wish this draft OPA to apply to the 109Oz site, but given that the OPA is a good nine months from being officially approved, the chances are quite slim that the Ontario Municipal Board would give it any weight. 109Oz will likely be approved (or not) on its own merits, rather than on the principles that are guiding this OPA.

If the Ossington Community Association Facebook group is any indication, they're not happy with Area 2 allowing potentially a 20m building. They would prefer a blanket "Area 1" (i.e. 14m) over the entire neighbourhood. One of the criticisms from the group I'm seeing is that the planner is somehow ignoring the community's input by allowing this "Area 2" to exist.

I find it a hard argument to swallow for two reasons. The first is that as far as I can see, the draft OPA is more than concessionary to the neighbourhood's viewpoint. The planner stated that about 7/8ths of the neighbourhood (with its four storey height restriction) is covered under Area 1. With the addition of the third storey cornice line, reaching a economically profitable six stories in Area 2 is going to be difficult. Secondly, such a viewpoint dismisses the other inputs that a professional planner has to take into account. There must be consideration to evidence, professional opinion, planning law, policy, and private property rights. As planners, we'd of course prefer our opinion to overlap with the opinion of the residents (we do work for the public good after all, no matter what side of a development we sit on!), but that doesn't always happen. This does not necessarily indicate a failure in public participation!

Venn diagram from Planning Staff's presentation last Thursday showing the various inputs that determine recommendations.


Imagine an example of where an imaginary neighbourhood fears a proposed development would cause undue shadowing on adjacent residential properties (note: I am not talking about 109Oz here. Despite shadowing concerns popping up, from my conversations with them they've indicated that shadowing is no longer one of their bigger concerns with the proposal). The residents keep repeating to the city planners: "we fear the shadows created will negatively impact us and our neighbourhood, do not approve this building because of the shadows it creates." Now, the planners have a shadow study, and guidelines that have been applied elsewhere that have been tested that significantly reduce or outright eliminate any concern that shadowing will be a problem. Which should they bow to?

I do believe that the planners involved with both the Area Study, OPA, and 109Oz have heard loud and clear what the residents concerns are. That the planners at the city have deemed this section of Ossington potentially fit for 20m building is not surprising; I wrote as such back in September, and other planners I've talked to have expressed the same opinion that six stories sounds appropriate for the site given it's context (it's part of the reason I'm surprised that "Area 2" is so small)! I don't think the Ossington Community Association has yet to find a very convincing argument - from a planning perspective - to deny six storeys on the 109Oz site, and that likely spells trouble for them at the OMB.

As an example, the Ossington Community Association has been vocal about traffic concerns that six storey development would bring, yet that must be weighed against a traffic report that was independently conducted for the 109Oz development. That the councillor, planners, and developers would likely all be on board to reduce the number of parking spots in the 109Oz development makes the argument somewhat hollow.

This is the hypothetical situation I see playing out in regards to the 109Oz application: the city - given that they appear receptive to six storey buildings in the segment of Ossington the proposal is under - will likely try and settle with the developer before the OMB hears it. As mentioned earlier, they did this before at 41 Ossington with the same developer, where they approved a six-storey building. I'm not privy to the negotiation of course, but I imagine (in regards to the original application) that the city's biggest issue was the angular plane at the rear; it began 3m taller at the rear than what the city would normally prefer. If they can figure out a compromise there, I suspect the city would be willing to support it rather than challenge it at the OMB.

This would leave the Ossington Community Association in a tricky situation; if they continue to reject six storeys outright (and there is no indication they will change their position here), then they might end up in a situation where both the city and developer have settled, and therefore be fighting the application alone. I probably don't need to tell you this, but neighbourhood associations tend to have a extremely difficult time "winning" at the OMB against a developer, especially one that has the support of city planning.

There is some hope expressed by opposition that this draft OPA could be used against the 109Oz proposal, but the chances of that happening are slim. The city's policy is not to "change the rules" on developers, meaning that the environment they submit into is the one their application is judged under. The OMB has, in the past, sometimes (although rarely) applied "new" policy when it appears that the developer has been "dragging their heels" in getting an appeal heard, but this doesn't appear to be the case yet. Certainly, a study is a study is a study, but all the feedback given (including over a 1000 strong petition to keep Ossington low-rise) has spoken primarily to resident fears, rather than any solid evidence that a six storey building at 103-111 Ossington would destabilize the neighbourhood. The draft OPA, as is, seems to offer little to their cause; perhaps that is the biggest reason for their opposition to it.

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

That Deaf Dumb and Blind Zoning

2012 photo of the owners of the Pinball Cafe, Jason and Rachel Hazzard. By Carlos Osirio, copyright the Toronto Star.
 
One of the pieces of news that has been making the rounds is the closure of the Pinball Cafe, which was yet another attempt to combine something fun with coffee in our fair city (the benchmark is probably still Snakes and Lattes). It's once again drudged up a bit of the drama between entrepreneurial spirit and zoning by-laws, with the (former) owners of the Pinball Cafe claiming they were stymied thanks to the planning framework (there was a facebook post that has since been removed it seems), and the ward councillor, Gord Perks, claiming that the venue was a victim of inertia from the owners.

I don't know the full details of the place (unlike board games, pinball isn't exactly an activity that would attract me to the venue), but let's put aside the whole drama of the situation and ask the core question in all of this: why wouldn't the city want a cool venue that served both espressos and potential triple pinball action?

If you're a big believer in Jane Jacobs, you might also be a fan of letting the market decide what the heck goes on within a building. Jacobs was no fan of many zoning by-laws, mainly for what we might call very basic economic reasoning: they distort the market. It goes something like this: people are generally very smart at figuring out what can work in a neighbourhood. Without barriers, people will innovate and figure out how the use the space they have in very creative ways. Those familiar with her work in Toronto might be familiar with the "Two Kings", which revitalized a neighbourhood in Toronto by lifting the zoning in an industrial area to allow commercial and residential uses. The poster child of her philosophy (and a building in the area), 401 Richmond, has a sizable display with her face on it. Once a lithography and tin manufacturer, the building now has a huge variety of artist and commercial spaces within.

And yes, even if we don't tell it not to, the chances of a new industrial plant popping up in downtown Toronto is pretty small; the market (or rather, the cost of land) will prohibit many uses even if we choose to do nothing.

Despite that, there is still some rationale in "protecting" certain areas from particular development through a zoning by-law (or in the case of Toronto, through its Official Plan). The best example in Toronto would be its employment lands (i.e. not retail). There has been significant pressure to "rezone" such lands to allow new commercial and residential uses, but while it's relatively easy to convert industrial land to a new use, it's generally hard to convert non-industrial land to employment uses. The reason for this is relatively straight forward: people generally don't like living next to employment uses. Because of that, Toronto tries its best to protect what employment land it does have, knowing that once it's gone, it likely isn't coming back.

But let's come back to the Pinball Cafe, whose "closure" has irked some because there doesn't seem to be a really good reason not to have such a hip place in the city. I've written before that Toronto's zoning by-laws are often inadequate, and sometimes in fact "wrong" for the neighbourhood. In general, Toronto's zoning by-laws tend to set the bar "high" in terms of what can "go" there. This conservative approach to zoning absolutely stifles innovation, but here's the dirty little secret about zoning:

Residents want strict zoning.

(This was probably not a very good secret.)


Call it NIMBYism or whatever, but residents (well, not necessarily entrepreneurs) want a great deal of control of what happens in their neighbourhood. Politically (and especially under a ward system), that means that if you're a councillor, there is more incentive for you to say no than there is for you to say yes. Restrictive zoning therefore puts the ball in the developer/entrepreneurs court to prove why their "vision" should be allowed.

Thus, a reasonable question is "why does the City of Toronto care about preventing amusement arcades so much?"

The answer is likely because the "amusement arcades" of old weren't exactly beloved. Arcades of old were often associated with juvenile delinquency, and the concept of getting children to spend a small sum of money for a few minutes of entertainment was (perhaps rightly) seen as a step away from gambling. Technology would eventually "destroy" the viability of amusement arcades as home systems, such as the Playstation, began to accurately mimic the arcade hardware.

But the damage was done to the definition of an amusement arcade. As I've written before, these broad definitions are rarely helpful when thinking about the actual use, but in this case it's not completely unreasonable that there would some concern over allowing new amusement arcades "as-of-right" when compared to other potential uses.

But it sounds like the Pinball Cafe people had an option that (according to Councillor Gord Perks) they didn't take. The city's Committee of Adjustment (CoA) is a body who can grant "minor variances". Rather than get stuck on explaining what a "minor" variance is, you can consider it to be any change to the in-effect zoning by-law that does not majorly change what is allowed on the property. The CoA is an environment that is relatively inexpensive and time sensitive (whereas a rezoning can take six months to more than a year to settle, the "CoA" can generally deliver a decision in only a month or two, depending on how busy it is). If you've never been to a CoA meeting, they're pretty great, and despite my issues with how Toronto is zoned, they're a fantastic body for getting things done.

That the Pinball Cafe owners apparently did not consider going to the CoA kills a lot of my sympathy for them; the system isn't perfect, but it might have worked for them. Blame the zoning by-law, but acknowledge that you had a relatively painless way of changing it!

(In fairness to the Pinball Cafe owners, the other option Perks suggested - getting a zoning by-law amendment - would have been extremely costly and time consuming. I don't blame them for not choosing it as an option.)

The second part to this whole drama - the interm control by-law (ICBL) - is a different discussion. I think ICBLs are often abused by city councillors; they're often used as a sledgehammer to prevent "future problems", but I think they do little more than push the "problems" elsewhere. This wouldn't be the first neighbourhood in Toronto to throw a moratorium on establishments that serve liquor (nearby Ossington Avenue had one too), and while it's unfortunate that the Pinball Cafe would be somehow "victimized" by it, I also think that it's kind of weak to gut the namesake of your establishment in favour of trying to make some money on booze. The owners had time before the ICBL was enacted to apply for a license, and they chose not to. Once again, my sympathy appears to be disappearing.

In conclusion, let us not mourn the loss of the Pinball Cafe. As archaic as Toronto's zoning by-laws can be, the city cannot be responsible for neglect on the part of its entrepreneurs. And if you're looking for a fun time in Toronto, might I suggest Snakes and Lattes?

(But if you want an "adult" beverage, please remember that only one side of Snakes and Lattes is permitted to serve alcohol, because of Ontario liquor laws.)

Sunday, December 09, 2012

Neighbourhood Diversity

Location of the ten least/most diverse neighbourhoods in Toronto. Copyright 2012 The Grid and Wellbeing Toronto.

The Grid and Wellbring Toronto recently posted an interesting map of the "most" and "least" diverse neighbourhoods in Toronto. Thanks to the loss of the long-form census (thanks Steve), we'll probably be seeing some more creative ways of "mapping" our country; here we see "diversity" as determined via "mother-tongue" response rates on the Census. As they explain it, the "diversity" of a neighbourhood in Toronto was determined by the chance that two random people in the neighbourhood would share a mother tongue. It's certainly not the strongest indicator one could use, but - in the absence of stronger ones - it does give some insight into the composition of each neighbourhood.

Perhaps it's not worth making too big a hay over given the strange metric, but aside from the geographic "clustering" seen, one notable observation is that the "least" diverse neighbourhoods are, well, wealthy, while many of the "most" diverse neighbourhoods aren't.

If you live in any of Forest Hill, Lawrence Park, or Rosedale, chances are you make twice as much money than if you lived in Flemingdon Park, Agincourt-Malvern, or L'Amoreaux. It's hard to tell the implications without more research, but what is likely happening is that we're seeing a social divide between the rich "English-speaking" population and the non-English one. Whereas in the "most" diverse neighbourhoods, about 30% of the population counts English as a mother-tongue, in the "least" diverse neighbourhoods you're looking at 75%+. Put bluntly, this is yet another indication of the gap between immigrant families and the rest.

It's unreasonable to assume that every new immigrant who arrives on our shores be loaded with cash, but it does raises questions about why people are living where they are. To be clear, this isn't necessarily about starting Occupy Leaside in an attempt to fit some social housing into the neighbourhood; that an established Canadian family might have more money than a family that is relatively new to Canada should not be surprising. That a person who speaks Tagalog might choose to live near people who might also speak Tagalog is hardly scandalous either. And truthfully, that immigrants make less money  than non-immigrants is hardly revelatory.

Many of the reasons for this disparity are beyond the realm of urban planning, getting into both economics and politics. But there are ways that urban planning can help. The most immediate is of course, ensuring that there is access to social services, ensuring affordable housing is available across the city, and providing good (and accessible) public transit. But in particular, we need to ensure that the communities we build are complete ones.That cuts both ways. Many unservered communities are often lacking access to more than just income; they're lacking essential access to things that more affluent communities have access to, such as grocery stores. At the same time, affluent communities need to shoulder their share too, whether the land-use be "undesirable" or not.

Not every neighbourhood must be Rosedale, but it's not a competition. It's about building a city we can all share.

Monday, December 03, 2012

The Heights (and Lows) of Section 37

Photo shamelessly taken from Jake Tobin Garrett's article about Section 37 by cookedphotos from the Torontoist Flickr Pool.
 
Last week it was reported that our beleaguered mayor, Rob Ford was not pleased over some Section 37 benefits that his quotable nemesis, Adam Vaughan, was to receive. Ford was quoted as calling the benefits, a "shakedown" on the developer.

I'm not familiar with the proposal (or the deal) that Vaughan made, but at this point you probably have two questions: "what is Section 37" and "is Ford right, or is he shooting from the hip again?"


What is Section 37?

Section 37 is a piece of Ontario's Planning Act. It reads as follows:

37.  (1)  The council of a local municipality may, in a by-law passed under section 34, authorize increases in the height and density of development otherwise permitted by the by-law that will be permitted in return for the provision of such facilities, services or matters as are set out in the by-law.
(some conditions follow, but this is the important piece).

In "legal" speak, this means that council may approve a proposed development (or, zoning by-law amendment; that's what "section 34" deals with) that exceeds the height and density of the original zoning by-law if the developer agrees to give them stuff ("facilities, services or matters as are set out in the by-law"). Perhaps even more bluntly, if the city allows the developer to "do more" with their property than is allowed, the city can ask for stuff in return.

Perhaps a zoning by-law allows a six storey building to be built. The city might allow the developer to build an eight storey building, on the condition that the developer give the city some money with which to create a historical study of the neighbourhood.

Another example might be on a site where a former school was. In exchange for allowing more height and density (to allow say, 25 infill houses rather than 20), perhaps the developer gives the city a piece of their land to be used as a public park.


How should Section 37 be used?
 
Section 37 benefits tend to be popular with politicians, because they get stuff out of invoking it. And it can be popular with residents, if they agree to trade a larger development for something they want. While the Section 37 benefits can be pricey, there is no arguing that the added density allowed, coupled with potentially avoiding a costly Ontario Municipal Board trial, can make up for it. Of course, some city wards are just naturally prone to more development than others, so Section 37 "monies" (if I might call them that) benefit some wards more from it that others.

Regardless, Section 37 can be a very effective (and flexible) negotiation tool. Rather than arguing for minutia over a building's design, Section 37 recognizes that the developer will be the one who benefits the most by "allowing" a building to exceed the zoning by-law. It's money in their pocket if it means another dozen condos. It can therefore "compensate" a neighbourhood in a way that arguing over the minutia of a building envelope can't, with very tangible results.

But I think that Section 37 can push a bit of a sore spot in planners, and its presence is often abused here in Toronto. If you ask nearly any planner in the Big Smoke, I'm sure they'd tell you that our city has "under-zoned" itself. By refusing to "update" zoning by-laws to properly reflect "good planning" in our city, they've created a mechanism where developers have no choice but to shell out Section 37 money/benefits to the city, even if their proposals are altogether "reasonable".

If we picture an "ideal" zoning by-law, it would be one that encapsulates "proper" planning for any individual property. For a hypothetical piece of land, we could prove (through studies and consultation) say that "25m" is the height maximum, here's a complete list of uses allowed (i.e. clinics, grocers, casinos), and given the nearby transit infrastructure, we should allow 42 car parking spaces (etc.).

If we've done our studies well, we can say that anything larger than 25m is "inappropriate". Perhaps it would cause shadowing on a nearby residential property if the building were 26m, and we as a city don't want that. Because of that, anything above would be "inappropriate". Now, if we're Toronto, we'd probably have a junky by-law that allowed, say, only 16m for height. We could represent it on a MS Paint drawing kind of like this (note: not to scale):


In the above diagram, we have three imaginary buildings (A, B, and C) against a backdrop of three colours. The purple indicates the area where a building would fall in line with the Toronto zoning by-law. The blue area indicates an area where the height would not have a measured impact, whereas the pink area represents heights that might have a negative impact on the neighbourhood.

If a developer proposed building "A" they would come under the current ZBL height, and not have to pay for Section 37 benefits. But what if they proposed building "B"?  It would come under the height with no "negative impact", but the councillor could still demand Section 37 benefits, as it technically exceeds the zoning by-law. In the above diagram (and in my opinion), the only building that should "qualify" for Section 37 should be building "C".

This is my point: Section 37 can be a powerful tool, but I think there's a good argument against using it for a proposal unless there is potentially a negative impact on the neighbourhood. In those cases, Section 37 justifies itself, by trading a negative impact for a positive benefit.

I should also be clear that a building in the "pink" area shouldn't be outright denied; rather, that the developer, planning, councillor, and community should sit down and make a deal. But the starting point shouldn't be a crummy zoning by-law that does not reflect the planning reality.


So... is Rob Ford... right?

I think only in the abstract. The Toronto Sun has complained about Section 37 benefits before (I would assume that is where his rage against them comes from), and while there are political issues with using them (they've certainly been inconsistently applied), it's quite inaccurate to call them a "slush fund," given that councillors cannot pocket the money - it must be spent on specific projects as any Section 37 agreement in question dictates - but the current rules are certainly open for criticism.

A more formalized process (i.e. "for every additional square foot of floor space above the zoning by-law, you must give $100 in benefits) would give certainty to both the city and developers. Ensuring there is a process for agreeing to benefits would be helpful too, as is ensuring that the community has a say in where the "monies" go.

In regards to the Toronto Star article I started this piece with, Ford seemed to object to the idea that Vaughan's ward would get a million bucks in benefits despite city planning being against the proposal. He's slung mud at Section 37 before, but mostly at councillors who use it, rather than at the notion that it should exist or not, which to me seems a bit disingenuous. Given what I wrote above, a few backseat comments:

1) It's an awkward time for Ford to now be concerned with what city staff has to say,
2) City Planning's role is, like any bureaucratic position, advisory; council's will reigns supreme, and
3) the details of the development notwithstanding, a proposal that city planning rejects seems like the ideal time to invoke Section 37 benefits.