I was in Toronto's Kensington Market over the weekend and so naturally I decided to tweet out a glib remark about how the neighborhood should be mostly pedestrianized. This, as many of you know, has been an ongoing debate in this city for as long as I can remember. But there are, in fact, things happening. Watermain replacements are scheduled for the area in 2024 and 2025 and so the city is rightly using this as an opportunity to rethink the area's streets. Here's the official website for the project. Here's the staff report that was adopted. And here's what design changes are right now being proposed.
One of the things that you'll find in these documents are answers to the following question: "How supportive are you of the proposed design for the Pedestrian-only Zones?" And the results are pretty interesting. When the question was proposed to all respondents (the total number being 1,165), 90% were either very supportive or supportive of the Pedestrian-only Zones. And when narrowed to "visitors" of the area, the number appears to increase to 94% supportive. However, when this same question was asked to "people who live/work/own within the affected streets" the number drops to 55% supportive, with 28% being "very unsupportive" of the idea.
One of the concerns with pedestrianization is that it could make it difficult for businesses to operate in the market. This is an understandable concern. But in my lay opinion, this is a problem that has already been solved in many other cities around the world. Delivery vehicles would still be allowed to load/deliver, and you control their flow through things like mechanical bollards. The other concerns raised by community seem to suggest something different. They seem to suggest that pedestrianization might make the area too desirable. More specifically, it might "accelerate gentrification" and cause "traffic and other issues in the neighborhood." I'm assuming the traffic being referred to here is non-vehicular, because we are, after all, talking about pedestrianization.
This dichotomy is an interesting one. On the one hand you have visitors and customers who overwhelmingly want the area to be pedestrianized or, at the very least, have pedestrian-only zones. But on the other hand, the businesses themselves seem to be concerned about their operations and the area becoming too successful. On some level, I guess, this makes sense, if your concern is displacement and/or the area becoming too corporate or whatever. But it's also counterintuitive. Usually when you run a retail-oriented business you like things that (1) make your customers happy and (2) drive foot traffic.
So how do we go about reconciling this city building divide? Well, like many/most urban initiatives these days, you run a pilot! And that's exactly what the city plans to do. There will be more consultation sometime next year, and then construction is planned for 2024-2025. Once that wraps up, the plan is to test out the various pedestrian-only zones. So I reckon we could be 2026 before we truly know where this is landing. I remain optimistic. But until then, please continue to refer to my glib weekend tweets.
Let's assume that you're Mayor of your city and that, for whatever reason, you have no need to pander to voters. You're a benevolent dictator. You can do whatever you think is best overall for the city and it will just happen. What would you do? This is more or less the question I asked on Twitter this morning, and I think it's only fair that I answer my own question. So here is a non-exhaustive list of items that came to mind while thinking of Toronto:
Substantially increase the pay of public sector workers throughout the city and bonus them based on measurable outcomes. Forget things like time limits on development applications; instead align incentives. For example, if we're trying to get more shovels in the ground on affordable housing, incentivize people based on building permits issued. I'll never forget what Roger Martin told me while I was at Rotman. When he became Dean of the school, Rotman was a whatever business school that wasn't faring all that competitively in the rankings. One of the problems he discovered was that the school's professors were getting paid far less than those at Wharton, Harvard, Stanford, and so on. So if you were a star, why would you ever want to teach at Rotman? He immediately matched the salaries of those top-tier schools and then, not surprisingly, the top-tier talent arrived. You get what you pay for.
Immediately price roads and congestion, and direct, to the fullest extent possible, the funds toward transit and cycling infrastructure. At the same time, the planning and building of transit would be depoliticized. There would be a reccurring funding stream and a plan that we're continually building out. Minimize protracted debates. Never stop building. There's a lot of talk this mayor election about solving traffic congestion. I have yet to see a plan that will actually work. Accurately pricing congestion likely won't be popular, but I can guarantee you that it will be highly effective.
Ensure that property taxes are sustainably covering the costs of operating the city and then, at a minimum, peg all future increases to CPI.
Make any new housing development less than 12 storeys as-of-right. That would mean, no rezoning process and no site plan approval; just straight to building permit.
Empower the private sector to build affordable housing through incentives and subsidies. Affordable housing isn't feasible to build on its own, which is why nobody is doing it. Inclusionary zoning also won't get us there. Make developers want to build it and they'll do it.
Liberalize licensing and cut red tape to empower small entrepreneurs across the city in various industries. A perfect example in my mind is street food. Toronto is the most diverse city in the world with some of the best restaurants, and yet the only thing you can buy on the street is a stupid hot dog. If we empowered small entrepreneurs to setup shop on our streets, we would easily have the best street food scene in the world. And I am positive that there are countless other latent opportunities in this city that are being held back by dumb and archaic rules.
Make dramatic improvements to our public realm with an eye toward becoming the most beautiful and livable city in the world. Finally pedestrianize Kensington Market, remove the elevated Gardiner Expressway, make it so that we can swim in the Lake, build beautiful public washrooms all across the city that are actually open and aren't gross, and the list goes on. And yes, "beauty" should be requirement so that we don't end up with shit like this.
Focus on art, design, culture, and innovation as central pillars of Toronto's brand. Miami is a good example of what this approach -- along with favourable taxes and nice weather -- can do for a city. I've said this before, but here's just one example: Toronto is in many ways the birthplace of the cryptocurrency Ethereum. Why is nobody talking about this? Why are we not celebrating and leveraging this? It's a missed opportunity. Broadly speaking though, I think just having and doing three things can be effective in promoting new ideas for these pillars: have reasonably affordable housing, be a city that young people want to live in, and remain open and tolerant to immigrants.
Stop thinking of the night-time economy as a nuisance and instead think of it as a powerful economic development tool. I recently responded to this "night economy survey" that the City of Toronto released and the obvious bias is that nighttime things are seen as a terrible nuisance. In other words, "tell us how do we make all of this less annoying for grouchy voters." My response was to extend last call to 4am and to start thinking of it as an opportunity to draw in young people, tourists, and whoever else. This complements my previous point.
This is, again, a completely non-exhaustive list. But if I had to summarize the overall ambition, it would be to make Toronto a truly exceptional and remarkable city. We should never be happy with mediocrity.
What else would you do? Leave a comment below.
Photo by Aditya Chinchure on Unsplash
BlogTO recently reported that “snarky anti-condo signs” have been popping up around Toronto. Here is one of them via Instagram. It reads (in all caps): Dear Condo Dwellers: Locals Hate You Go Fuck Yourself.
I find these posters curious, though it is obvious that they are a reaction to growth, intensification, and general change in this city.
For one, it implies that condo dwellers and locals are mutually exclusive. In other words, “locals” don’t live in condos. Presumably the implication is that they live in low-rise grade-related single-family housing. Or maybe they live in rental housing? Is it a tenure thing?
According to the latest 2016 Census data, just over 26% of private dwellings in Toronto are condominiums. And about 30% of people live in a building that has 5 or more storeys. If you include “apartments” less than 5 storeys, this latter number jumps to 40%. So many potential non-locals.
However, it could be that these posters are primarily directed toward new condos and new condo dwellers. This poster seems to have been plastered in front of this recently completed condo building on College Street.
If that is the case, then I wonder if there is a temporal cut-off for the hate. For example, the condo building that houses (at its base) my regular grocery store was completed in 1983.
The units are large and the demographic seems to skew a bit older. Are these condo dwellers – some of which may have been there for over 3 decades – to be hated? Are they non-locals? Or does urban myopia set in after awhile and they become locals?
At the same time, it wouldn’t be unusual for the residents of an older condo building to oppose a new proposed condo building. So perhaps “local” isn’t about building typology and it’s more about who came first. That’s certainly a tricky one. Better end here.
A curious poster that could use a bit more specificity. What do you make of it?