New York planning chief offers tips

[MisterF]

... but I sort of expect those things such as repairing sidewalks after they probably destroyed them while building to start with etc. That's pretty basic. In my last post I talk about a bigger plan involving greater vision where the city actually controls urban development in terms of a blueprint for streetscaping and infrastructure etc but gets the developers to contribute to it in an incremental way. Not that this would cover all the cost but it would make the balance of cost more affordable. Just an idea anyway.

I'm not sure what you're expecting that's not already being done. The city does have policy (or a blueprint if you will) regarding streetscaping and infrastructure around new development. And developers pay for it.

 

[Tewder]

I'm not sure what you're expecting that's not already being done. The city does have policy (or a blueprint if you will) regarding streetscaping and infrastructure around new development. And developers pay for it.

Where was the plan for Bay street, as just one example?

 

[MisterF]

Where was the plan for Bay street, as just one example?

The city has site-specific urban design policies, including a couple spots on Bay, as well as city-wide guidelines governing streetscaping. Look them up on the city's website, they're publicly available.

What do you mean by "was"? Sidewalks have been rebuilt, widened, and landscaped for developments on Bay for years. You could argue about the merits of the landscaping, but the policies are there.

 

[Tewder]

... Yes, I question the merits and the policies themselves, in this context at least, where I'm not talking about 'site-specific' improvements or rebuilding sidewalks, which is very much a piecemeal and slap-dash approach to urban planning but about a larger vision for our urban spaces that includes masterplans for major corridors and the harnassing of development to help achieve this. Again, given Bay as an example the city should have a masterplan in place (similar in scope to the revival of Bloor Street in terms of having a cohesive vision) that contributions from developers will help achieve. This is how we can elevate the experience and the appearance of major thoroughfares. BIA initiatives can also contribute as well as property taxes.

 

[junctionist]

I know what Tewder is getting at. Walking down the stretch of Bay with the condos, it looks like every building approached the public realm improvements in very different ways. Some buildings have small plazas with landscaping, some have arcades. Some stretches of roads in the Financial District seem to have completely different sidewalk paving materials depending on the adjacent building. It's a patchwork approach that's not that attractive.

The enhancements on Bloor in Yorkville are a much better approach because of the cohesiveness.

 

[MisterF]

True, a more cohesive approach would be nice. But enhancements on streets like Bloor tend to be BIA-driven, and BIAs pay for much of the work. If the city were to do that on a street with no BIA, it would be the city paying for it. You can't expect developers to pay for improvements to public infrastructure that doesn't abut their property, unless of course it's through bonusing. Besides, the problem with Bay is more the architecture than the streetscaping.

 

[junctionist]

True, a more cohesive approach would be nice. But enhancements on streets like Bloor tend to be BIA-driven, and BIAs pay for much of the work. If the city were to do that on a street with no BIA, it would be the city paying for it. You can't expect developers to pay for improvements to public infrastructure that doesn't abut their property, unless of course it's through bonusing. Besides, the problem with Bay is more the architecture than the streetscaping.

The point is that the City should coordinate the improvements which developers and property owners pay for to in order to achieve Bloor-like cohesion. While Bay Street has a lot of banal architecture, there's plenty of good architecture, and the Financial District has buildings comparable to the best in any city in the world. It's the streetscaping that should tie it all together and create a visual environment for visitors that allows the banal buildings to be overlooked.

 

[MisterF]

The point is that the City should coordinate the improvements which developers and property owners pay for to in order to achieve Bloor-like cohesion. While Bay Street has a lot of banal architecture, there's plenty of good architecture, and the Financial District has buildings comparable to the best in any city in the world. It's the streetscaping that should tie it all together and create a visual environment for visitors that allows the banal buildings to be overlooked.

I recognize that the improvements aren't cohesive from one property to the next. The point is that you can't make developers pay for a total rebuild of the whole street. Or are you saying that properties that are already built should be forced to pay for new streetscaping? Can the city even do that? Since we're talking about lessons from New York, the article doesn't mention harnessing developers to totally rebuild a street, only bonusing to get community benefits. BTW, I meant the northern half of Bay, not through the financial district.

 

[ecoute]

Vancouver Shangri-la contribution (called density bonusing): 13.5 million, 60 storeys
Toronto Shangri-la contribution (section 37): 2.45 million, 65 storeys

Same developer who was said to be surprised at how little Toronto requested. The above figures are available in city reports and news articles online.
You can also check out other towers in Vancouver and see how much they give back to the city. It is argued that real estate prices in Vancouver are higher but they are levelling out with Toronto's for the swanky condos I would say. There is also the additional cost of seismic structure in Vancouver which for a 60 storey tower is considerable.

As long as the OMB rules, the citizens will lose - that's just my opinion.

 

[Mike in TO]

The affordability of the housing should be a concern as well if you keep adding additional costs onto housing. A CMHC study in 2006 found government imposed charges in Toronto to be higher than in Vancouver (that's a general study vs site specific like the Shangri-La) - but the above example only looks at density bonusing and ignores development charges which are significant infrastructure contributions, land dedications (cash-in-lieu in most high density examples in Toronto), various processing and permit fees, Toronto Land Transfer Tax, Ontario Land Transfer Tax, GST, PST (soon to be HST which is a significant tax increase for product over $400k), warranty etc - plus all sorts of non-monetary transfers and obligations negotiated through sec 37 such as public art, streetscape improvements etc. Then you can take into account the tens of millions of dollars flowing to the feds and province from the economic activity generated by the construction of a condo tower itself (income taxes from all people involved in the development ranging from general labour to planners and architects, corporate taxes, CPP premiums, EI premiums, WSIB premiums etc) and of course the long-term stream of property taxes generated from the enhancements made to the property. New development is very very lucrative in terms of tax revenue for all three levels of government.

I certainly agree that in areas like the North Bay corridors and others could have a more cohesive approach to street improvements. But to suggest a simple squeeze of more revenue from one of the most heavily taxed commodities when other groups are screaming about housing affordability (I'm not talking about core need - but the issue of middle class housing becoming less and less affordable) is an easy target and it isn't the best solution. Yes New York has a fairly systematic method of bonusing. But some posters have made the incorrect assumption that there isn't a lot of revenue pouring into the government from new condo development in Toronto. It is a matter of how that revenue is allocated rather then the quantum of revenue (I’d hazard a guess it’s higher in Toronto than New York).

I'm not even going to bother getting into the OMB in any detail, but it is a rahter sophisticated entity that exists to uphold the public interest and ensure provincial and municipal planning policies are upheld based on the planning merits of the application itself. Unfortunately some local planning decisions are based on short-term political situations rather then the merits of the application or on actual planning policy. If local governments consistently made sound planning decisions the OMB would oversee very few appeals. Lastly even when applications for additional density go to the OMB, sec 37 still applies - however the local municipality may lose some of their negotiating leverage. OMB hearings are very costly and many developers will seek to negotiate a deal involving higher sec 37 contributions to avoid and OMB hearing, this incentive to negotiate higher contributions is lost if the case is either appealed or if the local municipality neglects to make a decision in a timely manner.

 

[taal]

So, if I were to read inbewteen the lines of your above post, I'm led to reach the conclusion that what you're implying here is that the OMB makes the 'correct' decisions when it comes to the development process ... actually, what you're implying is cities make the wrong decisions and builders (who of course have the best intentions in mind for the city) go to the OMB to remedy the 'wrong' the city comitted ...

'public interest' is what exactly here? Increasing profit for developers ... which in turn helps the local economy ... there's nothing wrong with this argument.

This isn't to say the cities are always correct either, in many cases, there's likely no correct answer, just a series of comprimies, but 'Unfortunately some local planning decisions are based on short-term political situations' ... really seems to imply the builder's know best as it is them who file greevences with the OMB.

I think we know at the end of the day the end goal for developers is not city building ... they could care less ...

 

[EnviroTO]

The OMB forces the city to reach the goals of its own official plan and zoning rules. The city has plans but then whenever a proposal comes along that stirs up local NIMBY groups the city tries to stop the development. The city is its own worst enemy. They create plans that are either not detailed enough or contain directives that they turn around and try to claim every controversial development is an exception to their directives, or claim the zoning or directives are outdated. Only when it comes to empty lands like in the Waterfront or Downsview do they put enough detail into a plan that they can hold developers to it. The rest of the city has directives for intesification but everybody wants it in someone elses backyard.

 

[Mike in TO]

So, if I were to read inbewteen the lines of your above post, I'm led to reach the conclusion that what you're implying here is that the OMB makes the 'correct' decisions when it comes to the development process ... actually, what you're implying is cities make the wrong decisions and builders (who of course have the best intentions in mind for the city) go to the OMB to remedy the 'wrong' the city comitted ...

'public interest' is what exactly here? Increasing profit for developers ... which in turn helps the local economy ... there's nothing wrong with this argument.

This isn't to say the cities are always correct either, in many cases, there's likely no correct answer, just a series of comprimies, but 'Unfortunately some local planning decisions are based on short-term political situations' ... really seems to imply the builder's know best as it is them who file greevences with the OMB.

I think we know at the end of the day the end goal for developers is not city building ... they could care less ...

Hi Taal,

I think Enviro explained things well in his post and I'll have to respectfully disagree with many points in your post.

The OMB does exist to uphold the public interest and it is governed by provincial statues that regulate the land use planning and development system in Ontario - i.e. the Planning Act, the Greenbelt Act, the Provincial Policy Statement, the Places to Grow plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and dozens of other provincial pieces of legislation as well as municipal official plans and secondary plans. Your comment "increasing profit for developers" - has absolutely NOTHING to do with the planning process - the OMB and any other decision making body or appeal body couldn't care less what the project pro forma is (I’ve never seen one discussed at any OMB hearing). The OMB weights expert witness testimony and planning evidence against the planning & legislative framework in order to make a rational planning decision based on facts. The 'public interest' is based on long-term planning, not profit as you've suggested, nor the short-term political climate or re-election of local councilors which sometimes guide local planning decisions - hence the reason for many appeals to the OMB.

Builders (or anyone that participated in the municipal planning process that wants to file a $125 fee) have the ability to appeal a decision to the OMB. Your suggestion that it is only builders that file to the OMB is false (you seem to make a lot of incorrect assumptions in your post as to how the process works or who's interest it serves....). At that point a strong planning case must be made as to why a local decision should be overturned. So yes in some cases when an appeal is made (typically one would only make an appeal when they believe they have a strong case to win - it's a costly process, so most proponents don't waste time and money by appealing losing cases) I would suggest that the development proponent does know a thing or two about city building as they along with their legal and planning consultants are left to defend provincial and municipal planning laws and policies against what is perceived to be a poor local decision that failed to uphold sound planning principals and the legislative framework regarding a specific application. The OMB attempts to take the political aspect out of a planning application and base decisions on the planning merits of an application.

Re: ‘builders and city building’ - there are a lot of different companies operating in the GTA, some better then others - but many do care a great deal about city building (others not so much). Don't paint them all with the same brush.

 

[Tewder]

I recognize that the improvements aren't cohesive from one property to the next. The point is that you can't make developers pay for a total rebuild of the whole street. Or are you saying that properties that are already built should be forced to pay for new streetscaping? Can the city even do that? Since we're talking about lessons from New York, the article doesn't mention harnessing developers to totally rebuild a street, only bonusing to get community benefits. BTW, I meant the northern half of Bay, not through the financial district.

We have to start looking for new and creative ways to achieve improvements that 'traditional' methods are failing at. Nobody is suggesting the complete transferring of cost of urban planning and improvements to private development. The idea instead is to make their contributions - contributions they already make - more meaningful. In the absense of any overall vision or plan - or masterplan, if you will - this simply cannot be done, leading to the piecemeal appearance we see everywhere, not to mention the city's constant fall-back position that they're too broke to do anything about it...

Where is the vision for what major Toronto streets or thoroughfares should look like? What is the philosophy for our public spaces and how they should be experienced? Is there a mandate for tree canopies for example, or environmental sustainability, or natural and local/regional materials, or a standard of quality or cohesiveness for such things as pavings or plantings or boulevards etc? We see the city doing some of these things for major projects like the waterfront, and we see BIA areas doing it to one degree or another but what is the city's larger vision for vast parts of the real city that Torontonians experience on a day to day basis that don't fall within tourist or commercial mandates? Again, an overall philosophy is needed within which key corridors for urban development should be identified, and not simply for issues of zoning. Once this plan is in place funds from development can be directed to it to top up existing city budgts. This will have far more impact than forcing developers to pay for art installations. Developers will have to replace pavings and plantings etc after construction anyway but this way the mandates will dictate how they do this, creating greater cohesion and a more attractive streetscape than what we see when developers are left to their own devices.

 

[Mike in TO]

Tewder,

I agree completely - this is starting to be done in some areas (e.g. Bloor Vision Study), but unfortunately the City Planning Department has been a victim of many staffing & budget cuts and they don't have the organizational capacity to do a lot of the 'visioning' work that needs to be completed to allocate sec 37 funds or infrastructure funding in a cohesive and comprehensive manner that would stitch together communities and enhance the streetscape.