Last month, I wrote about Toronto's proposal to add additional "Avenues" to its urban structure. ("Avenues" is a defined term that I touch on in last month's post). Well, this week the new Avenues Policy went to City Council for debate and approval. You can read all the back and forth via Matt Elliott on X. Not surprisingly, some Councillors were/are opposed to it, fearing it will create some sort of dystopian future for Toronto. An attempt was made to send it back for further study and consultation, which is the typical delay tactic. Comments were made that people in multi-family buildings are lonely because they don't know their neighbors. And it was argued that Kipling Avenue should not be a designated "Avenue", even though it's already called one. (Toronto street suffixes can be weird sometimes.) Thankfully, the new Avenues passed. And this is a big deal for Toronto. Over time, this expanded Avenue network is going to create new housing and employment opportunities, and make transit and other forms of mobility far more viable all across the city. As I said last month, I think it's going to be foundational in helping us move away from the outdated model of the monocentric North American city. Slowly but surely we are laying the groundwork for an urban structure that is actually, and more uniformly, urban.

This is Map 2 from Toronto's Official Plan, dated January 2024. It shows the city's "urban structure", and one of the main things it tells us is where the city is anticipating growth. You have the downtown and central waterfront, urban "Centres", and then "Avenues." All three of these colored areas are where growth and intensification are encouraged. The problem, however, is that it still resembles a mono-centric city, with a dominant core and then mostly low-rise housing surrounding it. The Centres in the inner suburbs are relatively small and many of the Avenues are broken up without a lot of connectivity back to the rest of the city's grid. It sets us up for a divided city -- core versus the rest -- because different built forms naturally create different political priorities.

Now let's look at what Toronto has just proposed in terms of new Avenues (shown above in purple). This is the kind of thing that immediately gets me excited because, as proposed, it implies a significant upzoning for a large portion of the city and it creates a much more uniform urban structure. Here, we have a blanket of intersecting Avenues, which will open up a ton of new housing opportunities and make it far more feasible to build efficient transit and other mobility solutions across the city. In fact, I'd argue that this is one of the most important land use discussions taking place in Toronto today. It's foundational to moving us away from the anachronistic model of the car-oriented North American city.

Now we just need to make it happen, and then empower developers and builders of all scales to build housing and a mix of uses all along these purple lines. For more on this, check out the City of Toronto's Housing Action Plan.

Cover photo by Adam Vradenburg on Unsplash

Back in March, we spoke about how Toronto wants to allow small-scale apartments on all of its major streets. Well today, this study -- known as the Major Streets Study -- passed at Planning and Housing Committee.

It still has to pass at Council. And the Committee did ask for city staff to look at certain amendments, such as reducing setbacks and increasing the maximum dwelling count from 30 to 60 suites. However, all signs point to this new policy being fully approved sometime in the coming months.

There's still work to be done. For example, I don't know why there even needs to be a maximum number of homes. Maybe one of you can explain it to me. We are already dictating the overall built form, so why not let people just build as many homes as possible.

It feels like we're saying: "We desperately want more homes on our major streets, but you know, we don't want the economies of scale to be too great. We'd rather see more, smaller projects. This way each home is more expensive to build!"

In any event, this is still meaningful progress. It is what so many urbanists have been clamoring for over the years; more homes in our low-rise neighborhoods. So I think it's important that we recognize today as such. Nice work.