Toronto East Harbour | 214.2m | 65s | Cadillac Fairview | Adamson

abovegrade said:
It would have been nice to host international design competitions for the district, akin to quayside, but the province and the city are too cookie-cutter
and don't care about doing something like that.
Click to expand...
AlvinofDiaspar said:
They had OMA for the initial master plan - and they quickly ditched it. Now the whole thing looked like a cube with road cuts volumetrically.

AoD
Click to expand...

Alvin is certainly correct that OMA was previously employed on this.........

But I think it equally important to add; the City of Toronto cannot impose a specific planner or competitive bidding process on private development.

They might be able to exert some pressure, but that's about it.

Arguably, the province could impose; though it might still require legislation.

In practice, were the province so inclined it could threaten to downzone via an MZO to get its way.

But that just isn't done.

The plan here is on CF, not the gov't.
 
Northern Light said:
Alvin is certainly correct that OMA was previously employed on this.........

But I think it equally important to add; the City of Toronto cannot impose a specific planner or competitive bidding process on private development.

They might be able to exert some pressure, but that's about it.

Arguably, the province could impose; though it might still require legislation.

In practice, were the province so inclined it could threaten to downzone via an MZO to get its way.

But that just isn't done.

The plan here is on CF, not the gov't.
Click to expand...
This is kind of confusing because the city and province have signed agreements on how planning will remain the city's responsibilities for TOD and with some broad design requirements. And yet, the approvals process isn't really in the city's hands anymore. At the same time, the government is proposing to get rid of Site Plan Approval for projects that have MZOs.
 
daniel_kryz said:
This is kind of confusing because the city and province have signed agreements on how planning will remain the city's responsibilities for TOD and with some broad design requirements. And yet, the approvals process isn't really in the city's hands anymore. At the same time, the government is proposing to get rid of Site Plan Approval for projects that have MZOs.
Click to expand...
Can you please link to info on the government proposing to drop SPA for MZO sites?

42
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
They had OMA for the initial master plan - and they quickly ditched it. Now the whole thing looked like a cube with road cuts volumetrically.

AoD
Click to expand...
To be fair, the OMA stuff was never more than a visioning exercise. Nothing serious was going to come of that...

Untitled.png
 
interchange42 said:
Can you please link to info on the government proposing to drop SPA for MZO sites?

42
Click to expand...
They amended the planning act to allow the province to overrule SPA requirements a year or so ago, while also adding a prohibition from MZOs being issued in the greenbelt.

I don't believe the province has used it yet however, and it isn't an automatic exemption of all MZOs from SPA approval. Unless the province takes the second action of approving an SPA agreement through an MZO, it remains up to the city to approve any SPA application on a site with ministry-ordered zoning.

Normally any provincially led project isn't required to get SPA approval anyway. There's a reason GO's station work only rarely shows up on the City's development application tracking site. They will go through the City's process in some cases as a goodwill thing though, particularly on larger projects where it's more useful to get city input like large new civic buildings.
 
Last edited:
interchange42 said:
Can you please link to info on the government proposing to drop SPA for MZO sites?

42
Click to expand...
Sure, here you go.
It's already been put into the Planning Act and gives the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing the authority to remove SPA powers for an MZO. Also, MZOs are no longer required to be consistent with even the Provincial Policy Statement.

Government website: https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/019-2811
Toronto City Planning's report to Council: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2021/ph/bgrd/backgroundfile-165702.pdf
^ highly recommend reading the report, it is very well written.
 
innsertnamehere said:
Normally any provincially led project isn't required to get SPA approval anyway. There's a reason GO's station work only rarely shows up on the City's development application tracking site. They will go through the City's process in some cases as a goodwill thing though, particularly on larger projects where it's more useful to get city input like large new civic buildings.
Click to expand...
That's a really unfortunate thing. Everyone should comply to planning rules. Otherwise, what's the point?
 
daniel_kryz said:
That's a really unfortunate thing. Everyone should comply to planning rules. Otherwise, what's the point?
Click to expand...

It's always been that way as the City operates at the will of the province. The province doesn't need the city's say in things as they are the boss. Most of the time it makes sense to get the city's input for detailed matters like engineering standards, interfaces with the public realm, etc., so they do still go through with the SPA application, but the province can overrule the city at any time.

That said, East Harbour is developer led and wouldn't be exempted from this. Only provincially-owned lands that are constructed by the province would be.
 
innsertnamehere said:
It's always been that way as the City operates at the will of the province. The province doesn't need the city's say in things as they are the boss. Most of the time it makes sense to get the city's input for detailed matters like engineering standards, interfaces with the public realm, etc., so they do still go through with the SPA application, but the province can overrule the city at any time.
Click to expand...
That's why I would like a government that cares about cities, strengthens their power, and only overrules them on a reasonable set of criteria. Also, the OLT is a major failure for delaying projects, overly favouring developers, discouraging collaboration, delaying the approval of plans so much that they are no longer relevant once they're dealt with, and just making a joke out of the entire planning process.
innsertnamehere said:
That said, East Harbour is developer led and wouldn't be exempted from this. Only provincially-owned lands that are constructed by the province would be.
Click to expand...
The East Harbour site would still be granted an MZO, so I'm pointing out the possibility of there being no Site Plan stage... meaning CF would do literally whatever it wants.
 
Regular reminder that the City has literally requested MZOs from the Province to get their supportive housing projects fast-tracked. Not a super helpful comparison, I'll concede, but "Province = bad, City = good" in land use planning is just way too simplistic (and in the eye of this beholder, inaccurate).

One need look no further than the delay in the delivery of the HousingNow projects -- on which the City is the planner, proponent, owner, and approvals authority -- to see that expediency isn't really the City's strong suit when it comes to planning and housing, to say nothing of the substantive planning shortcomings of many of those sites.
 
ADRM said:
Regular reminder that the City has literally requested MZOs from the Province to get their supportive housing projects fast-tracked. Not a super helpful comparison, I'll concede, but "Province = bad, City = good" in land use planning is just way too simplistic (and in the eye of this beholder, inaccurate).

One need look no further than the delay in the delivery of the HousingNow projects -- on which the City is the planner, proponent, owner, and approvals authority -- to see that expediency isn't really the City's strong suit when it comes to planning and housing, to say nothing of the substantive planning shortcomings of many of those sites.
Click to expand...
Absolutely agree with this. In terms of planning, I would say that the city has a better understanding of local issues and the province isn't as affected by NIMBYs. The two priorities are not mutually exclusive, meaning that the city's plans & planning processes need a rethink and the province should respect genuinely good ideas from the city.

One thing the city could do is hire more planners to get rid of delays in planning approvals and also the development of planning studies to ensure good development across the city. There are little more than 400 people in the planning department, which is really low for our development boom and population. I would also suggest that there need to be clearer responsibilities for who is reponsible for what, whether it is planning or infrastracture, and to create the funding mechanisms necessary for that. Other metropolitan areas have developed balanced governance models, while Toronto's governance is subject to whoever's in Queens Park. The legality of developer donations to politicians makes things even worse.
 
ADRM said:
Regular reminder that the City has literally requested MZOs from the Province to get their supportive housing projects fast-tracked. Not a super helpful comparison, I'll concede, but "Province = bad, City = good" in land use planning is just way too simplistic (and in the eye of this beholder, inaccurate).

One need look no further than the delay in the delivery of the HousingNow projects -- on which the City is the planner, proponent, owner, and approvals authority -- to see that expediency isn't really the City's strong suit when it comes to planning and housing, to say nothing of the substantive planning shortcomings of many of those sites.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Another example of this from where I live in cambridge. Smartcenters wanted to redevelop their site and wanted an MZO to fast track the process. So the developer asked the city if it was ok to seek and MZO for the site and the council held a vote on it which voted in favour of them requesting an MZO.

So though it wasn't initiated by the city, the city still voted in favour of the MZO to fast track the development. MZOs are not inherently a bad thing.
 
Bjays92 said:
MZOs are not inherently a bad thing.
Click to expand...
They are if they make Official Plans useless. I get their use for urgent projects, but there's a reason why planners exist... because things would be worse off if politicians (many of whom are funded by developers) decided on each development's approval without any process or comprehensive priorities (which is why we have Official Plans, not just zoning).
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top