Issues - Toronto's Planning Process

Toronto is in the process of recreating itself. Massive redevelopment schemes are underway in the downtown as condos are converting the area to high rise residential neighbourhoods. The Waterfront is being transformed from industrial to residential and recreational uses. The Railway Lands, the Etobicoke Waterfront, Eglinton and Yonge, Fort York: the schemes are colossal in size and enormous in their impact on the city and its future.

The City of Toronto has adopted an official plan and neighbourhood plans that are fine documents enunciating stellar principles about architecture and planning, and yet the process of planning in the City of Toronto is politically driven. The results are poorly planned neighbourhoods with little coherency and buildings that have very little aesthetic merit.

The development industry understands that they have to spend money to get their projects approved. It is no accident that Vote Toronto found that developers and development lawyers contributed more money to political campaigns than any other industry and that practice is continuing in the GTA municipalities. The developers contribute money to candidates in order to get favourable attention from the politicians and it works.

When politicians meddle in the planning process it is to the detriment of almost everyone except the developers. Some councillors in downtown Toronto wards actually negotiate directly with developers, trading density for community amenities. Not only does this lead to poor planning that often violates the official plan, but this practice defies the long held principle that the role of politicians is to set policies while the role of civil servants is to implement them.

The provincial government has helped in the politicizing of the planning process. In the Mike Harris years the province removed any reference to aesthetic considerations in the evaluation of projects. All we are left with is formulas on density and coverage. They also made new appointments to the Ontario Municipal Board which strengthens the ability of developers to appeal the decisions of municipalities that they did not like.

This has led to a political system of approvals driven by profits. Make no mistake. There are huge, enormous profits in the development industry. One decision of council to change the number of floors of a building or a zoning by-law can mean millions of dollars in profits for the developers.

We have paid a major price for this type of planning system. Our city lacks a sense of coherency. The height of buildings varies from one area to another. There are dense, high rise neighbourhoods, like Jane and Finch that are remote from the rest of the city. We have allowed gems of our architectural heritage, like the Inn on the Park and the Bata Shoe Headquarters, to be ripped down while buildings with no architectural merit, like the Sheraton Centre across from City Hall and the Huang & Danczkay buildings on the Waterfront have been built.

Buildings provide the public realm of our city. It is essential that they be functional and make a positive contribution to the way we live and work. They should also be aesthetically pleasing, using interesting materials and art objects. They must make a contribution to neighbourhoods by encouraging shops, restaurants and coffee houses and inviting the public to participate in the life that has been created in the space. But how can we make all of that happen?

There has been a lot of discussion about reforming the planning process. Many Toronto planners and architects advocate the Vancouver system. In that city politicians have been removed completely from the planning process. Developers must present their projects to a 12 member design review committee made up of professional architects and planners. They judge projects from many different viewpoints. Once the project is approved, it goes forward to a three member board composed of city bureaucrats where it gets final approval. At no point are the politicians involved.

It is obvious why the architects and planners like this system; they dominate the planning process. Vancouver has built a number of spectacular buildings and projects that are widely admired but this process cuts the politicians out of the decision making process completely, and by cutting out the politicians the public essentially is removed from the process. The public must be involved in the planning process. It is far too important to leave all of the decisions up to professionals.

What if, and we are very much in the realm of speculation here, what if we developed a hybrid planning system? What if Toronto established a design review committee made up of professional architects and planners to look at all projects? The committee would judge the projects on key issues like functionality, aesthetics, and the project’s contribution to the community. Once a project was approved by the committee it then would pass on to the local city councillor and city council for approval, but if the politicians make any changes the project must automatically return for approval to the design review committee. Once the revised plan is approved by the committee it goes back to the politicians for final approval.

This process might appear clumsy and overly bureaucratic, but under this type of system the real power has shifted to the design review committee. The politician who wants to challenge their decision will have to marshal strong arguments to convince them that they were wrong.

If this process is to work the OMB must be eliminated. Originally the OMB was set up to ensure that municipalities were responsible, but in recent years they have been used by developers as a way to avoid municipal planning restrictions. Maybe small municipalities need oversight on their planning, but large and sophisticated municipalities like Toronto do not need the OMB meddling in their affairs, and if a design review committee system is implemented then they would be a negative nuisance.

Reforming the planning process is urgently needed. In the fall of 2008 there has been a sudden halt in development in the city. Virtually all new construction has been stopped because of the recession and the lack of capital. Now is the time to use this pause to bring in a new policy that sets a new process in place that can take into account both the expertise of architects and planners and the politicians and public.