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.)