In yesterday's post, we spoke about the strengthening of Toronto's urban grid and how the city has evolved and is evolving beyond a monocentric, downtown-oriented city. But in arguing this, I was careful to say that the policies and our efforts remain a work in progress. And that's because, when the rubber hits the road, it's not easy transforming car-oriented suburbs into something that resembles urbanity.
Here, for example, is a six-storey infill apartment project proposed for Pharmacy Avenue, south of St. Clair Avenue East, in Scarborough. Pharmacy is a designated "major street," so in theory, a project of this scale could advance straight to a building permit. But for whatever reason, the developer needed some planning variances and went to the Committee of Adjustment to ask for permission.
The Committee recently said no:
“I understand it’s an arterial [and] I understand we want intensification along arterials,” one of the members said at the hearing, “but honestly, to shoehorn an apartment building into a lot like this doesn’t make any sense to me.” Tristone has appealed.
Which is frustrating:
Blair Scorgie, Mr. Malhotra’s planning consultant, points to apparent contradictions in the city’s land use and zoning policies. While council voted in favour of such intensification on its major streets, including those in the suburbs, proposals that optimize what’s allowed run up against other provisions in the official plan that aim to regulate “neighbourhood character” as well as a host of highly site-specific zoning rules that predate the city’s 1998 amalgamation.
“The fact that it appeared like `mini-mid-rise’ surrounded by bungalows has absolutely nothing to do with the policy and the regulatory framework,” he says. “That has everything to do with neighbourhood character and the prioritization of the existing context over the planned future context that’s envisioned by the city.”
Blair hits the nail on the head with these comments. Six storeys shouldn't matter. A lack of parking also shouldn't matter. The reason the proposal was refused is because the lens of review was that of yesterday's Toronto, rather than that of the Toronto of tomorrow. If the goal is more housing, and a medium-density grid that can support a comprehensive transit network, then these are exactly the kind of projects we should be building all across the city.
And they should not necessitate any planning variances.
Cover photo by Joaquin Alcaraz on Unsplash
Project rendering from Noam Hazan Design Studio
Toronto's Eglinton Line 5 opened last weekend — finally. I have yet to ride it, but I'm really looking forward to doing so the next time my day brings me north of St. Clair or I find the time for a joyride. Notwithstanding the fact that it took a really long time, it's a crucial piece of transit infrastructure for the city.
It's a need that we arguably recognized in the 80s with a proposed busway, and then started and stopped construction on in the 90s with the Eglinton West line. Some four decades later, we now have a 25-station, 19-kilometre rapid transit line that runs across the middle of the city.
Transit consultant Jarrett Walker is calling it the first major transit investment that shows Toronto is moving away from its downtown-oriented network. Historically, Toronto's transit network has emphasized bringing commuters from the suburbs and other lower-density parts of the city to downtown for work. Then, at the end of the day, these people would return home. Simple.
But this kind of network no longer reflects the reality of today's city, which has become and is continuing to become far more polycentric.
Walker's argument is that Toronto needs a transit network to match its grid geography, so that "people can go from anywhere to anywhere in a simple L-shaped trip, usually with a single transfer." Line 5 is an example of this approach and, of course, we need much more of it.
But the other thing that is needed alongside a "grid transit network" is the right land-use approach. One of the fundamental principles that we espouse on this blog is that land-use and transportation planning are interdependent.
In this regard, Toronto is undertaking some important planning work. It has been proposing new Avenues (a defined term that you can read about here) and encouraging
How the Gordie Howe International Bridge came to be is a city and nation-building story worth telling. The Windsor-Detroit crossing is the busiest commercial border crossing in North America. It handles about one-third of the trade between Canada and the US, or about $1 billion per day, much of which passes over the Ambassador Bridge.
This is problematic for a few reasons.
One, there are concerns about capacity. Two, the bridge is, unfortunately, in the wrong place and doesn't offer direct highway-to-highway access. A truck coming off the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor has to pass through something like 17 traffic lights before reaching Highway 401. And third, and most importantly, the bridge is privately owned.
So, at some point, various people in government got together and said, "Hey, this bridge is pretty critical to our respective economies, it might be in our national interests to have a publicly owned bridge."
The federal government of Canada reportedly tried to buy the bridge in 2009, but the late Manuel Moroun wanted too much for it, and a deal was not struck. So then, in 2012, the Canadian and US governments approved the construction of a new bridge, now nearing completion and called the Gordie Howe International Bridge.
However, a second river crossing meant that Moroun would no longer have a monopoly, and so, an aggressive lobbying campaign was mounted. It was so effective that the bridge almost got canceled and funding for it became a "third rail" in Michigan politics. To save the project, the following deal was struck:
Canada pays 100% of the ~C$6.4 billion cost to build the bridge.
In yesterday's post, we spoke about the strengthening of Toronto's urban grid and how the city has evolved and is evolving beyond a monocentric, downtown-oriented city. But in arguing this, I was careful to say that the policies and our efforts remain a work in progress. And that's because, when the rubber hits the road, it's not easy transforming car-oriented suburbs into something that resembles urbanity.
Here, for example, is a six-storey infill apartment project proposed for Pharmacy Avenue, south of St. Clair Avenue East, in Scarborough. Pharmacy is a designated "major street," so in theory, a project of this scale could advance straight to a building permit. But for whatever reason, the developer needed some planning variances and went to the Committee of Adjustment to ask for permission.
The Committee recently said no:
“I understand it’s an arterial [and] I understand we want intensification along arterials,” one of the members said at the hearing, “but honestly, to shoehorn an apartment building into a lot like this doesn’t make any sense to me.” Tristone has appealed.
Which is frustrating:
Blair Scorgie, Mr. Malhotra’s planning consultant, points to apparent contradictions in the city’s land use and zoning policies. While council voted in favour of such intensification on its major streets, including those in the suburbs, proposals that optimize what’s allowed run up against other provisions in the official plan that aim to regulate “neighbourhood character” as well as a host of highly site-specific zoning rules that predate the city’s 1998 amalgamation.
“The fact that it appeared like `mini-mid-rise’ surrounded by bungalows has absolutely nothing to do with the policy and the regulatory framework,” he says. “That has everything to do with neighbourhood character and the prioritization of the existing context over the planned future context that’s envisioned by the city.”
Blair hits the nail on the head with these comments. Six storeys shouldn't matter. A lack of parking also shouldn't matter. The reason the proposal was refused is because the lens of review was that of yesterday's Toronto, rather than that of the Toronto of tomorrow. If the goal is more housing, and a medium-density grid that can support a comprehensive transit network, then these are exactly the kind of projects we should be building all across the city.
And they should not necessitate any planning variances.
Cover photo by Joaquin Alcaraz on Unsplash
Project rendering from Noam Hazan Design Studio
Toronto's Eglinton Line 5 opened last weekend — finally. I have yet to ride it, but I'm really looking forward to doing so the next time my day brings me north of St. Clair or I find the time for a joyride. Notwithstanding the fact that it took a really long time, it's a crucial piece of transit infrastructure for the city.
It's a need that we arguably recognized in the 80s with a proposed busway, and then started and stopped construction on in the 90s with the Eglinton West line. Some four decades later, we now have a 25-station, 19-kilometre rapid transit line that runs across the middle of the city.
Transit consultant Jarrett Walker is calling it the first major transit investment that shows Toronto is moving away from its downtown-oriented network. Historically, Toronto's transit network has emphasized bringing commuters from the suburbs and other lower-density parts of the city to downtown for work. Then, at the end of the day, these people would return home. Simple.
But this kind of network no longer reflects the reality of today's city, which has become and is continuing to become far more polycentric.
Walker's argument is that Toronto needs a transit network to match its grid geography, so that "people can go from anywhere to anywhere in a simple L-shaped trip, usually with a single transfer." Line 5 is an example of this approach and, of course, we need much more of it.
But the other thing that is needed alongside a "grid transit network" is the right land-use approach. One of the fundamental principles that we espouse on this blog is that land-use and transportation planning are interdependent.
In this regard, Toronto is undertaking some important planning work. It has been proposing new Avenues (a defined term that you can read about here) and encouraging
How the Gordie Howe International Bridge came to be is a city and nation-building story worth telling. The Windsor-Detroit crossing is the busiest commercial border crossing in North America. It handles about one-third of the trade between Canada and the US, or about $1 billion per day, much of which passes over the Ambassador Bridge.
This is problematic for a few reasons.
One, there are concerns about capacity. Two, the bridge is, unfortunately, in the wrong place and doesn't offer direct highway-to-highway access. A truck coming off the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor has to pass through something like 17 traffic lights before reaching Highway 401. And third, and most importantly, the bridge is privately owned.
So, at some point, various people in government got together and said, "Hey, this bridge is pretty critical to our respective economies, it might be in our national interests to have a publicly owned bridge."
The federal government of Canada reportedly tried to buy the bridge in 2009, but the late Manuel Moroun wanted too much for it, and a deal was not struck. So then, in 2012, the Canadian and US governments approved the construction of a new bridge, now nearing completion and called the Gordie Howe International Bridge.
However, a second river crossing meant that Moroun would no longer have a monopoly, and so, an aggressive lobbying campaign was mounted. It was so effective that the bridge almost got canceled and funding for it became a "third rail" in Michigan politics. To save the project, the following deal was struck:
Canada pays 100% of the ~C$6.4 billion cost to build the bridge.
These efforts remain a work in progress, but at their core, they serve to broadly increase the average density across the city (which is a prerequisite for transit ridership) and to, what I'm going to call, "strengthen the urban grid." It helps move Toronto further away from being a monocentric, downtown-oriented city toward something more akin to a Paris.
What we have is a really interesting moment in time where transportation efforts and land-use policies are starting to coalesce around a new kind of Toronto. One that is decidedly more urban and less car-oriented. This is good. Now, let's do it faster.
Transit map via the TTC
Construction jobs and materials are sourced from both sides of the border.
Oversight of the bridge is handled by the International Authority, a board with equal representation (3 members from Canada, 3 from Michigan).
Canada receives 100% of the toll revenue until it recoups its costs; after that, toll revenue will be shared with Michigan.
In other words, the only way this deal got done was (1) for Michigan not to spend any money on it and (2) for Canada to finance Michigan. This was the solution to dysfunctional politics, where individual interests trump the greater good. I have not looked into and modeled the exact terms under which Canada is financing Michigan, but let's hope that taxpayers are being fairly compensated for bringing this solution.
Regardless, there's no doubt that this is a crucial nation-building project for both Canada and the US. It will be an exciting moment for our countries when it opens and people and goods begin to flow. Based on the current status of construction, my understanding is that this will happen early this year. It's basically ready.
Cover photo from Gordie Howe International Bridge
These efforts remain a work in progress, but at their core, they serve to broadly increase the average density across the city (which is a prerequisite for transit ridership) and to, what I'm going to call, "strengthen the urban grid." It helps move Toronto further away from being a monocentric, downtown-oriented city toward something more akin to a Paris.
What we have is a really interesting moment in time where transportation efforts and land-use policies are starting to coalesce around a new kind of Toronto. One that is decidedly more urban and less car-oriented. This is good. Now, let's do it faster.
Transit map via the TTC
Construction jobs and materials are sourced from both sides of the border.
Oversight of the bridge is handled by the International Authority, a board with equal representation (3 members from Canada, 3 from Michigan).
Canada receives 100% of the toll revenue until it recoups its costs; after that, toll revenue will be shared with Michigan.
In other words, the only way this deal got done was (1) for Michigan not to spend any money on it and (2) for Canada to finance Michigan. This was the solution to dysfunctional politics, where individual interests trump the greater good. I have not looked into and modeled the exact terms under which Canada is financing Michigan, but let's hope that taxpayers are being fairly compensated for bringing this solution.
Regardless, there's no doubt that this is a crucial nation-building project for both Canada and the US. It will be an exciting moment for our countries when it opens and people and goods begin to flow. Based on the current status of construction, my understanding is that this will happen early this year. It's basically ready.
Cover photo from Gordie Howe International Bridge
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
