1.2K 
In our previous instalment of the DenseCity series, we explored the decision-making process in Toronto’s private development industry, and got a glimpse at what determines how much density to propose, and how a development application is put together. The meticulous process is a lengthy one, but ultimately, it is up to the City to determine whether or not a development is constructed. Now, we head to City Hall and take a look at how staff assess these applications, and explore the issues that come into play when deciding what gets built in our city.
We sat down with James Parakh, Manager of Urban Design for Toronto and East York, and Gregg Lintern, Director of Community Planning for Toronto and East York, to get a sense of what happens behind the scenes at City Hall.
Assessing Development Applications
As we discovered in the previous instalment, pre-application meetings commonly occur between City staff and developers, something that the City strongly encourages applicants to partake in. During these meetings, the City will make clear their vision for the neighbourhood, and will identify any obvious issues with the proposal.
There is a spectrum for what stage the design is at when developers contact the City, which ranges from seeking advice on whether or not to purchase a piece of land, all the way to giving notification that an application will be submitted the following week, and providing a preview before it is submitted. “Sometimes we do get applications out of the blue without expecting them,” says Parakh, but this, of course, is not an ideal situation. The earlier the developers get in touch with the City, the better.
When it comes to reviewing the applications, both Parakh and Lintern stressed that there is no single approach that can be applied to every proposal, but rather, each one is unique and comes with its own set of challenges and criteria. But both pointed to the Official Plan as the starting point for assessing an application, where the proposal is first tested against the many policies of the Plan to see if it meets the City’s goals in terms of healthy growth. The Official Plan must be read as a whole, Lintern explains, which means that even if a development is in a designated growth area, it will still be subject to other policies depending on its specific context, such as those regarding heritage if a listed building exists on the site, or those pertaining to parks and public spaces if it is adjacent to an open space, or those regarding transit and infrastructure, and so on.
There are a host of other planning tools at the City’s disposal that are used depending on the circumstances, and the application will also be circulated to various relevant departments within the City for review, depending on what the proposal entails. The submission will pass through many different hands as it is being evaluated, and will be tested against all existing planning framework in a thorough, comprehensive review.
The entire process can be described as an iterative one, with the developers receiving feedback from the City and the community, and responding in kind to the issues and concerns that are raised. The back and forth will result in the various changes to the proposals that we see after the first images are revealed. Community building is the ultimate goal of the City, both Parakh and Lintern stressed, and the application process is a way to assess the building in terms of what it adds to the community, and to shape it in a way that will benefit the city in the long term.
However, it isn’t always a rosy relationship that develops. “I like to think that we’re building a city and we’re undertaking community planning,” states Lintern. “I appreciate that there’s a business aspect to development, but we are all working toward the goal of building a great city, and if you only take the perspective that it’s my right to apply, to wait, and eventually to appeal, we can lose focus of the ultimate goal.” This mindset regarding the application process does occur, and it can create a negative view of the development industry, which isn't always the case.
Lintern touts that the City has actually been very supportive of development in Toronto, and cites some recent successes where the City’s input has helped shape some major upcoming developments. He mentions The Well and Mirvish Village, two high-profile redevelopments in the pipeline, which he considers good examples of complete communities that integrate a mix of residential, commercial, retail, and public space components within each. He also points to North St. James Town, a case where more density is being added to an already dense neighbourhood, where the City pushed for greater heritage conservation and retail components in the proposal, and the developer listened. In all of these cases, he adds, credit is often given solely to the developer, but in reality, the final product is an outcome of collaborative input from City staff, the community, and the landowner that resulted in a more complete, livable community.
“Someone comes in on their site and wants to talk about only their site, but our job as city planners is to look at the community and look at the area and understand how that development works in the context of that community,” says Lintern. “We want to make sure that what we’re assessing on that site actually contributes something to building a complete community.”
The Inherent Conflicts of the Planning Process
What has been described thus far is an ideal situation, where developers and City staff work hand in hand to provide the most appropriate built form for each community. But these two parties don’t always see eye-to-eye, and as a result of varying perspectives, conflicts may arise that might add some friction to the process.
From the City’s perspective, assessing a development application isn’t simply a matter of looking at the numbers and checking off all the right boxes. “We’ve moved away from just numbers over time,” Lintern explains. “It’s more an evaluation of the consistency of the proposal against the planning framework. It’s not just a number… it’s a lot more nuanced.”
But while City staff are evaluating whether a building contributes to a complete community and adheres to all of the relevant planning policies, private industry isn’t necessarily doing the same. The market operates mainly on the ‘highest and best use’ policy—assessing the value of the land based on its development potential, rather than its actual built form. “While we have moved away from numbers over time, I don’t believe the market has moved away from numbers,” states Lintern, “I think planning decisions driven by land values and densities is too simplistic and doesn't reflect the nuance required.”
What this means is that land value will be assessed based on what development is happening around it, regardless of the unique conditions of that specific site. If there are five towers over 30 storeys going up nearby, then a developer may expect the same on their site, not taking into account that there might be unique attributes of that property that will not allow a 30-storey tower. For example, if there is an existing heritage building on the property, or if that height may cast a shadow on a nearby park whereas the others did not, or if the site is smaller than the others and therefore cannot support the same amount of density, then the tower will not adhere to all of the policies of the planning framework, and may not be approved. These extraneous conditions do not necessarily factor into the assessment of the property’s value, and so sets up a scenario where a landowner may cry foul when their development doesn’t match the allowances of their neighbours.
“When you plan by numbers, you create this ‘me too’ kind of world, and that’s dangerous,” says Lintern, “because the context changes, the consideration of each block changes, and just because you got a number, that doesn’t mean I get a number too. But the market value that is established by a number sets us up for speculation, and sets us up for conflict, because there’s an expectation. And the process gets dumbed down to a number, when in fact, the process is a lot more complex than that."
Lintern adds: "The stars will align when highest and best use and consistency with the Official Plan mean the same thing.”
The issue of speculative land value leads into a second pertinent conundrum: when entire neighbourhoods see a flurry of development activity, how can the City manage multiple developments in close proximity to each other, and still ensure that the outcome is a complete, livable community? It is easy enough to master plan a brownfield or greenfield site, as the carte blanche allows all necessary components of a complete community to be incorporated from the start, but how does one master plan in an infill context when there are multiple landowners who may submit their development applications at different times?
It is an issue that City staff are very much aware of, and they are currently working to provide viable solutions in the TOCore and Yonge-Eglinton studies. The City must navigate the difficulties of attempting to include a park, locate a community centre, achieve affordable housing, and coordinate public realm improvements, among many other issues, between as many as four or five different landowners at once. “The expectation of ignoring the world around you, those days are over,” says Lintern. “You’ve got to work with the City, you’ve got to work with communities, you’ve got to work with your neighbours, and the proof is that you get a much better outcome.”
There has been some measurable success so far in coordinating amongst developers to the benefit of the community. Parakh points to Yorkville, where the City advocated that the Four Seasons Hotel development provide open space next to the adjacent historic fire hall to allow the heritage structure to once again be fully articulated. Then, across the street, the City convinced Minto and KingSett to adjust their 27-37 Yorkville development to allow a public lane that aligned with the tower of the fire hall, providing an unobstructed view. Just down the street, the City advocated that Bazis and Plaza’s 1 Yorkville development maintain the heritage structures along Yonge Street by setting the tower back, to which the developers obliged. The coordination of the various developments in the area has resulted in an enhanced and connected public realm, which would otherwise be nonexistent if each development had occurred in isolation of the others.
Parakh also cites 300 Front, where the City asked Tridel to mirror their building so that the proposed POPS could connect with the existing city park across the street. At the nearby RBC Tower and Ritz-Carlton development—initially proposed as three towers but shrunk down to two—the City advocated for a mid-block pedestrian connection that linked David Pecaut Square to Front Street. “We do think that expanding the public realm is in our interest and in everybody’s interest in terms of making sure that downtown remains a livable place,” states Parakh. Indeed, the efforts by City staff to coordinate amongst the various developments have brought tangible public realm improvements to the City, efforts that are often unbeknownst to its users.
Zoning By-Laws, the Official Plan, and Development
The rezoning application is commonplace these days, and accompanies nearly every development application submitted to the City. Both developers and City staff acknowledge that this is simply part of the process, as it always has been, but the necessity for rezoning applications also begs the question as to why the City’s zoning by-laws are perpetually lagging behind Official Plan policies. And while the City is normally successful in meeting the timeframes required for reviewing applications, occasionally an evaluation may exceed its allotted time and may end up at the OMB as a result, due to the fact that the process is a lot more complex.
Lintern acknowledged that this is something that many take issue with, and the City is taking steps to update the zoning by-laws to be more in line with provincial and Official Plan policies. Just last year, the City updated the by-laws for tall buildings, increasing the side lot line setback above the podium from 5.5 metres to 12.5 metres, following the widely used Tall Building Design Guidelines. But Lintern laments with a chuckle: “We heard about the zoning being out of date, so we updated it, and we were appealed. But we also hear complaints that we do rezonings site-by-site because the zoning has not been updated; everyone wants something different it seems, and so we have the challenge of trying to make one thing work for everyone.” Not to anyone’s surprise, the update to the tower setback zoning is currently tied up in appeals at the OMB, and has yet to officially come into force.
The process of reviewing applications is becoming much more complex, and this translates into an increased effort required on the part of the City in assessing them. Parakh smirks as he pulls out a thick binder, which he explains is every circulation of a development that passed through the Urban Design Department for Toronto and East York in 2016. The total count is 425 for that area of the city alone, which he and the six other urban designers in his department were tasked with reviewing. He then shows me a shelf with stacks of newly arrived circulations, and pulls out several smart-looking booklets of planning studies and design guidelines that were completed in-house at the initiative of City staff, in addition to the review of the development applications. It seems there is no shortage of work these days at City Hall. He also stresses that the goal of City staff is to ensure the construction of a livable city regardless of how long that takes, though the City has been mostly successful in meeting the mandated timeframes.
The City is beginning to be more proactive when it comes to updating the zoning by-laws, with constant planning studies on the go, many Avenue studies already completed, and several other initiatives like TOCore on their way. Lintern explained that the first post-amalgamation Official Plan in 2006 was aimed at consolidating the various policies and by-laws of the six municipalities; the next step is updating the zoning to match. He adds that, though they may not admit it, developers (particularly their investors), City Council, and even the OMB would very much prefer that these studies be put in place, as it provides much greater certainty as to what would be permitted in these areas, which in turn reduces the associated risks of applying for development.
Another interesting thing to note is the reason behind the policies of the Official Plan; Lintern explains that they are very much a reflection of the values of Torontonians. For example, Toronto’s protective Neighbourhood zoning, which prevents any dense development among the city’s swaths of single-detached houses, is a direct product of the public’s resistance to allowing high-density developments into their neighbourhoods. The policies can be traced back to the 1960s, when communities began launching protests against speculative developers buying up houses and tearing them down for apartment towers. Since then, there has been a repeated reaffirmation of these sentiments that City staff and Councillors have responded to; Toronto’s Neighbourhoods are protected simply because Torontonians have demonstrated that this is what they want.
The Impact of the Approval Bodies
As much as City staff work tirelessly to provide a livable city, it is ultimately up to the approval bodies – City Council and the Ontario Municipal Board – to make the final decision. These decisions may be aligned with the recommendations of City staff, but occasionally, the approval bodies will vote against that advice and head in a different direction.
This is what happened in the Entertainment District, also known as the Eastern Precinct of the King-Spadina district. The area, when it was first conceived as a Regeneration Area in the Official Plan, was never intended to be a high-rise neighbourhood, instead planned for new development that was of the same height as the existing historical built form. Through a series of decisions by both City Council and the OMB that directly contradicted City staff’s recommendations, King-Spadina gradually moved away from the original planning vision, to the point where City staff now recognize the district as a tower neighbourhood.
Lintern explains that this sometimes happens with approval bodies, and City staff must adjust their approach as a result. He gives an example of a hypothetical neighbourhood planned with a 20-storey height limit. A few 20-storey towers are built out before an applicant comes along with a 22-storey proposal. The approval body determines this to be within an acceptable range and allows it. The next applicant comes along with a 24-storey tower, which is again deemed acceptable and approved, followed by a 26-storey tower, then a 30-storey tower, and so on. The pattern continues, and as the heights grow taller, the initial 20-storey context that was planned for no longer matches what actually exists, and so the policies need to be readjusted to account for the new conditions.
To this end, Lintern acknowledges that the OMB has had an influence on planning in Toronto over time. It is a part of the planning process, and as such, has the authority to approve development in the city. As a result, City staff must adjust and adapt to whatever new planning context may result from these decisions. Neither Parakh nor Lintern, however, distinguishes whether this impact has been positive or negative; it is simply part of the process. Their goal, they stressed, is to focus on good planning.
In the end, the role of City Planning focuses on the people; it is about having the oversight to coordinate amongst landowners in order to ensure complete, livable communities and a viable future for the city. If there is one area that the City is lagging in, Lintern admits that it is infrastructure, as we are all too well aware that the City is struggling to keep up with the torrent pace of development in Toronto. But to their credit, the majority of development in Toronto has adhered quite closely to the Official Plan, for better or for worse, and with many initiatives aiming to mitigate issues currently plaguing the planning process, the future is cautiously optimistic at City Hall.
In the next and final instalment of the DenseCity series, we wrap up our analysis of density in Toronto with a look at where the city heads next as it builds for the future, expanding on key themes around density and highlighting important points to keep in mind as development continues. In the meantime, keep checking back on UrbanToronto to get updates on all the developments happening across the city, and you can get in on the discussions by checking out their respective Forum threads.
