Join >4.5k subscribers and stay updated by getting the latest posts delivered directly to your inbox.
Good news: If you would like to open a small-scale retail business in Toronto — and you have a property that is residentially zoned on a major street (in one of the approved areas), or you have a corner property on a designated “community street,” or you have a property that abuts a non-residential use such as a park or public school — you may now be allowed to do it, with some restrictions. (Consult your local planner for exact details.)
This, as we talked about recently, is meaningful progress for Toronto. But as is always the case, it was not easy. Toward the end, local community groups even started using AI slop in an attempt to terrify the public into thinking that this would be a harbinger of littering hoodlums loitering in all of our neighborhoods.
Thankfully, this city has people like Dan Seljak, Blair Scorgie, and many others — including, of course, the EHON team at the City — who have been instrumental in getting something passed, even if it had to change a little along the way. City building ain’t easy. They should all be proud of what they've accomplished. I look forward to seeing what kind of local entrepreneurship this unlocks. Go Toronto.
We all know what value engineering is when it comes to buildings. Generally speaking, it is the process of trying to identify high-cost items with relatively low perceived value. Once you identify these items, you then remove them (if you can), replace them with alternatives, or find other creative solutions. All projects have to do this at one point or another because, well, money doesn't grow on trees.
One way to think about this is in terms of the following four-quadrant chart:
Low-value and low-cost items aren't expensive, so you will probably just leave them alone. But if you can move them up to the next quadrant, that's even better.
High-value and low-cost items are the ideal place to be. One example might be a low-cost material that gets applied in a creative way so as to create high perceived value. This is where design really becomes alpha.
Low-value and high-cost items are the fertile ground for value engineering exercises. If the perceived value is low, why spend the money on it? Surely there must be other options.
High-value and high-cost items, on the other hand, require the most thought and debate. How high value is it? Do we really need or want to spend the money on it? One example of this would be the architectural facade lighting at
One of the things that I’ll often hear people say about Toronto is that we’re a car-oriented city with inadequate transit, and that’s why we simply can’t implement things like congestion pricing. Usually it’s accompanied by statements like this: “Sure, I can see how it might work in London or New York, but they have proper transit systems, and we don’t.”
But is this really fair to say?
Let’s look at some of the data from the 2022 Transportation Tomorrow Survey.
For all trips starting and ending in the City of Toronto, people driving themselves around is the dominant mode share at 45.3%. But the transit mode share is not nothing at nearly a quarter of all trips. And if you add up taking transit, walking, cycling (and other forms of micromobility), and taxiing, you get to 42% of all trips within the city. That’s a meaningful number.
Years ago, the team presented it as a possible value-engineering option. But ultimately, we viewed it as being fundamental to the overall design. Its perceived value was off the charts. I mean, why invest so much in the architecture only to cut the very thing that helps prominently display it? So a decision was made to keep it and, boy, am I glad we did.
There's nothing else going up in Toronto like it.
For home-based work trips within the City of Toronto, the split between driving and taking transit becomes dangerously close. (A home-based work trip is a trip within the city that either starts or ends at home and is done for the purpose of work.) Driving sits at 39.4% and transit sits at 37.1%. Add in walking (10.2%), cycling/micromobility (5.8%), and taxiing/ridesharing (1.4%), and non-car forms of mobility dominate when it comes to getting to and from work.
Looking at all trips to only downtown Toronto, transit once again dominates at 40.4%. Add in the other non-car forms of mobility and we’re up to nearly 75% of all trips.
The numbers become even more pronounced if we look at only home-based work trips to downtown. In this case, transit ridership increases to 48.7%. Add in the other non-car forms of mobility and we’re now at 80%!
These are fascinating figures because, let’s say you were considering a congestion charge for motorists driving into downtown Toronto, and that the proceeds of this charge would be used to make impactful investments in transit and other mobility infrastructure. Based on this data, you’d actually be benefiting the greatest number of Torontonians.
These numbers also help to debunk the objection that people simply have no other option. If you’re coming into downtown Toronto, you have options. The transit exists, and the majority of Torontonians use it.
I guess Toronto isn’t so car-oriented after all. (The rest of the region is a different story.)
Charts via the City of Toronto (TTS 2022); cover photo by Aditya Chinchure on Unsplash
Share Dialog
