News   Mar 28, 2024
 1.1K     2 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 575     2 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 877     0 

Planned Sprawl in the GTA

Here's a map showing where apartments are allowed.
Cuwj_Y6WgAEr7Xo.jpg

from: https://twitter.com/g_meslin/status/787043620406890496

red = high density* mixed use
orange = high density residential
yellow = low density residential
purple = employment only
blue = institutional
brown = not sure? maybe none of the above? looks like mostly mixed use of some sort since it includes the entertainment district... maybe unlike the red mixed use, this allows industrial and/or institutional uses in addition to commercial and residential?

*midrise to highrise, depending on the area
 
"Low density" includes single-story bungalows, two-story, and three-story, detached and semi-detached and townhouses. The bad news is that there are NIMBYs who oppose three-story or townhouses, or any accommodations that don't look like their own.
 
"Low density" includes single-story bungalows, two-story, and three-story, detached and semi-detached and townhouses. The bad news is that there are NIMBYs who oppose three-story or townhouses, or any accommodations that don't look like their own.
Sure, when I meant low density, I mostly meant lowrise "freehold" housing with minimal potential for an increase in units - usually only an increase in unit size. If you have a 1300 sf bungalow in Scarborough, you generally can't replace it with two 1800 sf semi-detached homes, or three 1400 sf townhomes, or with a 5000 sf fourplex, only with a bigger single family home, which will probably be about the size of that 5000 sf fourplex in order to justify the demolition of the bungalow. But that mostly only happens in a select few areas of North Toronto, Willowdale and Central Etobicoke, because there's only so many multi-millionaires to buy 5000 sf homes, while the market for small to medium sized units is much greater.
 
Last edited:
Don't know if this is the most apt forum to post this in, but I'm very glad to see farmers pushing back on this: (Lead story on Guelph Today website)
Dear city slickers, farmers have had enough of your urban sprawl
Your growth can go elsewhere, Golden Horseshoe
0
about 2 hours ago by: Village Media
farmer-surly.jpeg;w=630

Stock photo
NEWS RELEASE

ONTARIO FARMLAND TRUST

*************************
Farming groups unite to call on province to freeze urban boundaries now

Guelph, ON – For the first time, all of Ontario’s major farm organizations, representing some 52,000 farms and 78,000 farmers, have come together to present a strong, united message to the province: freeze urban boundaries now to stop urban sprawl and protect farming in the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH).

“The province needs to impose real boundaries on urban expansion, not more restrictions on farming,” says Keith Currie, President of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA). “Hard municipal growth boundaries must be part of the solution to supporting agriculture in the GGH so we don’t pave over the region’s farmland and displace more farm families and farming communities.”

OFA is joined by fifteen other agriculture organizations that are calling for stronger provincial leadership on farmland preservation, including the Ontario Farmland Trust (OFT), Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario (CCFO), National Farmers Union-Ontario, and the Golden Horseshoe Food & Farming Alliance.

The agriculture groups say that the province’s recently proposed changes to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and Greenbelt Plan fail to protect the majority of farmers and farmlands in the region from ongoing and poorly-planned urban sprawl. They are concerned that the proposed new policy reinforces and enables status quo sprawl, making it difficult to see a future for local food and farming in the region.

“Nothing is more fundamental to protecting farmland and achieving the goals of the Growth Plan than freezing urban and rural settlement boundaries,” explains CFFO President Clarence Nywening. “This holds municipalities accountable to meeting their growth targets by using urban lands more efficiently and supporting denser, transit-oriented developments rather than allowing councils to be passive and complacent about sprawl.”

The province’s population growth projection of 4.5 million new residents by 2041 is being used by developers to argue that more farmland should be designated for urban uses in the GGH.

However, independent research by the Neptis Foundation and others shows that more land for urban development in the region is not needed, with an excess of 25 years’ worth of farmland already designated by municipalities to accommodate growth in both urban and rural settlement areas. An area of prime farmland 1.5 times the size of the City of Toronto is in the process of being converted to housing subdivisions, warehouses and strip malls.

Not just home to the best farmland in Canada, the Greater Golden Horseshoe is home to one of North America’s largest agricultural and agri-food industry clusters, with a unique diversity of primary farm production, food processing, food service, food distribution and retail that represents the fastest growing employment sector in Ontario and generates $12.3 billion in annual economic activity.

Citing the outpouring of public support for a larger provincial role in establishing firm urban boundaries and protecting agricultural land during the Coordinated Land Use Planning Review, Norm Ragetlie, Chair of the Ontario Farmland Trust, says that “We are at a unique moment in history where there is an opportunity for the province to demonstrate real leadership in growth planning by enacting meaningful limits on urban expansion. Everyone wins when we design better planned, healthier urban and rural communities, while also creating an environment for farming and the agri-food economy to remain prosperous, and working together to protect farmland forever.”

All groups calling for a freeze on urban boundary expansion include: the Ontario Farmland Trust, Ontario Federation of Agriculture, Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario, National Farmers Union – Ontario, Golden Horseshoe Food & Farming Alliance, Sustain Ontario, Ecological Farmers Association of Ontario, Preservation of Agricultural Lands Society, Food & Water First, Farms at Work, FarmStart, Land Over Landings, Langford Conservancy, Sustainable Brant, and the Simcoe County Greenbelt Coalition.
https://www.guelphtoday.com/local-n...s-have-had-enough-of-your-urban-sprawl-477429
 
McCallion is right in that she speaks for a number of...errr...bedroom communities, land use and planning in them is still decades out of date. Make that 'generations out of date'.

But some munis have refreshingly progressive leaders, as named in the article, and Miss has one even more so than Toronto has right now:
Mayor Crombie (albeit we had a Mayor Crombie well over a generation ago, but I digress...).

Mississauga doesn't even want to help fund and build the Crosstown LRT portion within Mississauga (AKA Pearson Airport).
Don't dismiss Crombie's stance on the basis of Tory's manipulative gerrymandering. I would have told Tory where to shove his plan in far more graphic language than either she, or Miss Council has. Why should they dance to a tune he decides to call without asking?

Crombie is going to be a very important ally on road tolls. Tory's Oxfords shine like the patent leather they are, he still has a lot to learn about dancing though.

Objectively, some good discussion is going to come out of McCallion's stance. This is not to let QP off the hook for a moment though...more on this later, but at least the discussion will be sparked by this.
 
there is a general theme of municipalities that have "sprawled out" thinking increased intensification is great, and ones that haven't thinking its the devil. Obviously the municipalities are are 100% urbanized aren't going to care about sprawl. Newmarket, Burlington, Mississauga, etc. are generally built out entirely within their borders. Caledon and East Gwillimbury are sprawling, and are going to get angry when they can't continue to do that.
 
there is a general theme of municipalities that have "sprawled out" thinking increased intensification is great, and ones that haven't thinking its the devil.[...]
I did some Googling to get some exact quotes and a better gauge of where general sentiment lies. This TorStar article half a year back is very informative:
Ontario setting new rules to end era of suburban sprawl across GTA
The province is promising bold new moves to foster denser, more walkable communities with transit, while preserving green space.
[...]
Many of the bold changes which will be reviewed until the end of September, before they can be incorporated into existing legislation, will directly affect how municipalities handle their growth. They include:

  • Requiring “pre-zoning” along transit corridors to guarantee dense development if cities want to get future transit funding.
  • Ensuring that at least 60 per cent of all new residential developments in municipalities are in existing “built-up” areas.
  • Substantially increasing employment density so greenfield spaces within cities can’t be eaten up by things such as sprawling warehouses.
  • Requiring municipalities to provide “transparent” calculations to show how they are properly using land to meet smart growth targets.
If implemented, the new measures, created in response to a critical December report on the province’s growth plans by a panel headed by former Toronto mayor David Crombie, could dramatically turn around the sprawling, developer-driven patterns of build-out that have taken place across the GTA over the past three decades.

Take this poll

It's about time 82.55% (3,552 votes)

It's a terrible idea 12.04% (518 votes)

Don't know 3.44% (148 votes)

Don't care 1.97% (85 votes)

Total Votes: 4,303

The man who represents one of the largest development industry groups in Canada wasted little time in criticizing Tuesday’s announcement, warning of bad news on the horizon for people living in the region.

“What this announcement means today is more intensification, more condos, more cranes, fewer housing choices for single-family dwellings,” said Bryan Tuckey, president of the Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD). “The net effect will be higher housing prices across the board.”

Tuckey, who attended the announcement, says skyrocketing GTA home prices are the result of supply failing to meet demand, and that the province’s proposed new measures to curb sprawl by imposing zoning and land use requirements on municipalities will make things even worse.

He said further cuts to the supply of land to build single-family homes will cause prices to rise dramatically, even in an already overheated housing market.
[...]
Mississauga Mayor Bonnie Crombie, who hosted the ministers inside a Port Credit community centre, said her city is “ready to embrace greater density.”

Once the model for land-gobbling suburban sprawl, Mississauga, with its rapidly rising downtown skyline, is now the province’s poster child for reversing the trend.

Crombie promised to continue in the right direction.

“Mississauga in the next 20 years will look much different than it looks today. Mississauga has grown out, and now it is time that we grow up.”

The ministers also acknowledged the province could do a better job of coordinating growth management across all ministries.

They were pressed to address how the province, with its proposed new growth regulations, will deal with what critics say is the single biggest cause of urban sprawl — developer-driven planning decisions, and a heavily criticized Ontario Municipal Board, which rules on disputes between municipalities and developers over land use.

“There will be some other significant changes, believe me,” promised Ted McMeekin, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. “I was a small-town mayor and I know a fair bit about the OMB. There will be some significant changes there that will change the landscape, favourably.”
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...to-end-era-of-suburban-sprawl-across-gta.html

There's a profound irony in where the flash point that galvanizes change is on this: 401 Richmond in Toronto, of all places, and it's via MPAC, but involves the City and Queen's Park to have arrived at the point it has. I will discuss further, but with a limited space left in this post, consult "401 Richmond" in Google News. Much more to come on this...
 
Last edited:
The best way to stop urban sprawl is to tax it and make it financially pay for itself rather than subsidizing it. Put a fee on any all low density properties to pay for the full cost of services to it and sprawl will be too costly to maintain. Dense areas are subsidizing the massive costs it takes to build and maintain roads/sewers, electricity and other utilities to low density areas. We also need to update zoning laws and building rules to encourage larger size dense housing that can include families. This means larger condos, and more duplex/triplex, townhouses.
 
The best way to stop urban sprawl is to tax it and make it financially pay for itself rather than subsidizing it. Put a fee on any all low density properties to pay for the full cost of services to it and sprawl will be too costly to maintain. Dense areas are subsidizing the massive costs it takes to build and maintain roads/sewers, electricity and other utilities to low density areas. We also need to update zoning laws and building rules to encourage larger size dense housing that can include families. This means larger condos, and more duplex/triplex, townhouses.
For a Gov't that claims to be so 'pro-active' when it comes to being anti-sprawl, Ontario's present (and past) one is thick on rhetoric, and thin on action.

The Planning Act needs a complete rework. And both MPAC and the OMB are relics of the past. However, since Wynne et al are in the pockets of developers, and the Cons are no better if not worse, we're not going to see much change. Just more weasel words...
 
The best way to stop urban sprawl is to tax it and make it financially pay for itself rather than subsidizing it. Put a fee on any all low density properties to pay for the full cost of services to it and sprawl will be too costly to maintain. Dense areas are subsidizing the massive costs it takes to build and maintain roads/sewers, electricity and other utilities to low density areas. We also need to update zoning laws and building rules to encourage larger size dense housing that can include families. This means larger condos, and more duplex/triplex, townhouses.
Land Value Tax would also be worthwhile.
 
Exactly. We should tax land value not home value. For a city with so much housing demand we can't afford to have so many SFHs near the central core. We could easily increase our density without overwhelming infrastructure with mid-rises. I'm hoping Eglinton Crosstown will set the trend for this. I'd love to see is build a mid-rise street wall along Eglinton.
 

Back
Top