Sometimes the calibre of arguments against a particular proposal at city hall reveals how far we have to go to make progress.
Such was the case during a housing debate at February's city council meeting.
Councillors debated a package of motions designed to make it easier to build mid-rise residential buildings. You would think that in the midst of a housing and affordability crisis, finding ways to fast-track construction would be a no-brainer. You'd be wrong.
The proposals were straightforward enough. City staff recommended expanding the number of streets officially considered avenues, which hadn't been updated since 2010. Doing so allows mid-rise buildings along the avenues and taller buildings on sites within 500 metres of a transit station. It also removes some consultation to make development on avenues move faster. A pilot project to allow six-unit building as-of-right was also considered.
In the context of Toronto housing, where the average semi-detached home costs over $1 million, the average rent for a one-bedroom unit is $2,385 and thousands of twentysomethings are leaving Ontario for more affordable opportunities elsewhere, this package of housing initiatives seems like the bare minimum.
But to hear it from the vocal critics of the plan — who trotted out the NIMBY greatest hits — doing anything to change the housing status quo is the real travesty.
"I fear we are building a dystopian future," warned Coun. Lily Cheng (Willowdale) about a Toronto that makes it easier to construct mid-rise buildings.
Etobicoke Centre Coun. Stephen Holyday called council’s decision to consider the housing items as a package "an affront to democracy," remarks he later withdrew.
In a headscratcher moment, Holyday also wondered aloud how city staff could possibly consider Kipling Avenue an avenue.
Coun. Jennifer McKelvie (Scarborough Rouge-Park) criticized the work by city staff, calling the plan a "bait and switch" and demanding more consultation — despite the 25 formal consultations that already took throughout the city and online.
Ultimately, the contentious avenues motion passed (16 votes to eight), so one might mistakenly think all the noise was for nothing.
But this was the easy part. Getting councillors to approve abstract housing and zoning principles is much easier than getting them to approve specific projects.
Given the level of sound and fury at this stage, expect the noise level to grow much louder when it comes to getting particular projects built.
The critics of the plan to increase gentle density in broader parts of the city are responding to genuine concerns from their constituents. I have no doubt they hear lots of loud objections to new housing in their wards from voters who don't want to see their neighbourhood change.
There's a certain type of councillor — Rob Ford was famous for this — who adopts a "the customer is always right" approach when it comes to vocal constituents. After all, an elected official’s job depends on making their voters happy.
As anyone who has worked a retail or service job will tell you, the customer isn't always right. Expectations or requests can be unreasonable.
I’ve compiled a list of reminders for councillors to share with Toronto residents who complain about expanded housing permissions like adding mid-rise buildings to major streets, as the avenues policy dictates.
- If the status quo for housing affordability is unacceptable, then the status quo for the built form must change. It is unreasonable for Toronto residents to demand that only detached houses can exist within a couple hundred metres of a subway station. It's the status quo that's untenable in these cases, not future proposals.
- Residents don't get a veto over who their neighbours are. Throughout North America, zoning rules have historically been used to exclude people based on race and class. Some homeowners look down on tenants or mid-rise residents as having less of a stake in the community. This is nonsense. The beauty of city living isn't uniformity, but diversity. That includes a mid-rise on the corner and a detached house down the street, all supporting people at different ages and stages of their life.
- Cities evolve. Neighbourhoods cannot be cast in amber. In order for cities to remain vibrant, they must change to meet the needs of the day. If arguments against changing the character of neighbourhoods were applied 100 years ago, Toronto wouldn’t have built Maple Leaf Gardens, a subway system or Scotiabank Arena. Council would still be debating in Old City Hall.
Building more housing on major avenues and by transit stations makes a lot of sense. There's a housing affordability crisis, we're spending billions on improving transit and the city is evolving. Now we need to evolve our way of thinking alongside it.
—
David Hains is the former editor of Torontoist and deputy editor of Queen's Park Briefing.
