ADRM
Senior Member
Burn Planning to the ground, disband SIPA and Urban Design, merge the remains of Planning with the Housing Secretariat, and for the love of God have Abi Bond replace Gregg Lintern at the top of the merged org.
- Thread starter Automation Gallery
- Start date
A Torontonian Now
Senior Member
Based on the knowledge I have gleaned as a member of UT over the years, this sounds like the thesis statement to a sensible manifesto. For those of us without the insider perspective, could you expand on this a bit?
ADRM
Senior Member
Absolutely. There's a lot going on here, and this is of course an oversimplification/generalization, but:
> At the highest and most fundamental level, Planning and the Housing Secretariat do not see eye to eye (though no one in either department would ever freely admit that in kind company); the mandate of the Secretariat (which is led by Abi Bond, who cut her affordable housing bureaucracy teeth as a fast riser in Vancouver) is to make Toronto more affordable, and its main KPI is the number of affordable units approved/delivered (there are other downstream KPIs, too, but that's the macro level goal). Planning's mandate, if you're being charitable (which I am disinclined to be, having spent too much time arguing with members of that department), is to "manage the growth" of the city. My kind-of-unfairly-cynical-yet-not-unfounded characterization of its actual mandate -- or at least the byproduct of its worldview -- is to say that the preservation of the "rights" and interests of single-family homeowners trumps more or less all other planning considerations, at least at the margins. Planning has KPIs that it reports back on but is never really held accountable in any real way; in fact it is generally rewarded for being cautious and conservative.
> There are lots and lots of great people in Planning who know that their current approach is unsustainable and undesirable, but the leadership starts at the top and Gregg Lintern is not particularly fit for the job. He doesn't really believe we need to significantly change City policies to accommodate for the scale of growth that it is reasonable to predict we will see; he certainly doesn't see Planning as an obstacle to creating a more affordable city (which is patently nuts if you're not a Kool-aid drinker); and he is just generally a very cautious and unambitious personality at the helm of an organization that has overseen a historic growth in the cost of living, which is obviously a huge problem. John Tory likes his bureaucrats controllable and timid, so Lintern is pretty much the perfect man for the job.
> Gregg (and others in senior positions who share his outlook and temperament) are surrounded by juniors who get it, know generally of the problems that exist, and work to fix them from within to the extent that Gregg and others let them (which is not very much!). I feel very badly for the folks in Planning who know enough to see how messed up the place is, but aren't able or in a position to challenge it -- this is one reason why the department has a huge brain drain problem.
> Abi Bond, on the other hand, sees the housing crisis for what it is, and regularly challenges (in her polite, calm, intelligent British way) the status quo internally through her work leading the Secretariat. She is a force for good and also understands development economics better than Gregg Lintern could ever hope to.
> And then, finally, SIPA and Urban Design are literally worse than useless: they are direct barriers to the creation of a more attractive, affordable, and livable city, even though they will to a man take exception to even the slightest intimation of that reality. At best, they have horrible ideas about urbanity that were being taught at planning and architecture schools 25 years ago (and were becoming outdated even at that point), and at worst they (at least UD) think they're some combination of the reincarnation of Jane Jacobs and Frank Lloyd Wright and are convinced that they know better than everyone else.
All of that is pretty abstract, so to be more concrete: I've noticed a tendency on the forum for some people to assume that politics is the problem with particular planning policies or the development review process of any particular application; sometimes this is the case (especially in instances in which virtually any suburban councillor not named Shelley Carroll is involved), but anyone who works in planning and development in Toronto has experience with or at least knowledge of numerous instances in which density, affordability, or good design was sacrificed solely at the hands of Planning/Urban Design. Councillors typically really don't like to run afoul of Planning, the Mayor is mostly MIA as usual (though I concede he has been a force for good on the supportive modular housing), and most of lefty civil society are actually NIMBYs, and thus we have our current state of affairs. (It should be said, of course, that @HousingNowTO is of course the sterling example of civil society fighting on the right side of history on the housing file.)
Northern Light
Superstar
Interesting take, I agree with much.........but might want to quibble at the margins.
A smidge harsh, but yes.
I basically agree with this; but to be fair to Gregg, Keesmaat was bold and thought in different terms; yet the needle moved little.
Suggesting it isn't quite as simple as whether the Chief Planner is willing to poke the bear.
The political issue here is tangible.
There's also an inter-departmental one.........
Parks is very reliant on the money from Section 37/Community benefits for its budget. So, for that matter is Urban Design (assuming they are still managing the non-BIA streetscape work)
More permissive zoning kills that 'Golden Goose'; which in turn leaves Parks and Public realm even more under funded than they already find themselves.
That creates internal pressure against change, as PF&R has never found the muscle to lean on Council for the funds they require for operation, State-of-Good-Repair or New/Expanded facilities.
Gregg isn't the right leader, but a change of leader is insufficient on its own. One cannot underweight the issue of driving enough City revenue to fund important City-Building activities by means other than Community Benefits and associated Development charges.
Yes
My only past interactions with UD were on streetscape files, what are their other responsibilities?
Certainly true in some measure; but I do think it's important to mention that many bad proposals that poorly relate to their neighbours/context and are often excoriated here for their aesthetics would draw strong blowback from just about anyone, anywhere on the political spectrum.
It's fair enough to say that some excellent proposals also draw lots of opposition; and that's a real problem; but we have seen many better ones slide through with much less trouble.
Planning is part of that problem, but so are developers that fail to think creatively or invest in thoughtful, sensitive podium/grade-related treatments.
I applaud the ideals and efforts of Housing Now; I do worry that the rhetoric sometimes elicits the very opposition that is the problem.
You need 'honey' and 'vinegar' to move the needle.
A smidge harsh, but yes.
I basically agree with this; but to be fair to Gregg, Keesmaat was bold and thought in different terms; yet the needle moved little.
Suggesting it isn't quite as simple as whether the Chief Planner is willing to poke the bear.
The political issue here is tangible.
There's also an inter-departmental one.........
Parks is very reliant on the money from Section 37/Community benefits for its budget. So, for that matter is Urban Design (assuming they are still managing the non-BIA streetscape work)
More permissive zoning kills that 'Golden Goose'; which in turn leaves Parks and Public realm even more under funded than they already find themselves.
That creates internal pressure against change, as PF&R has never found the muscle to lean on Council for the funds they require for operation, State-of-Good-Repair or New/Expanded facilities.
Gregg isn't the right leader, but a change of leader is insufficient on its own. One cannot underweight the issue of driving enough City revenue to fund important City-Building activities by means other than Community Benefits and associated Development charges.
Yes
My only past interactions with UD were on streetscape files, what are their other responsibilities?
Certainly true in some measure; but I do think it's important to mention that many bad proposals that poorly relate to their neighbours/context and are often excoriated here for their aesthetics would draw strong blowback from just about anyone, anywhere on the political spectrum.
It's fair enough to say that some excellent proposals also draw lots of opposition; and that's a real problem; but we have seen many better ones slide through with much less trouble.
Planning is part of that problem, but so are developers that fail to think creatively or invest in thoughtful, sensitive podium/grade-related treatments.
I applaud the ideals and efforts of Housing Now; I do worry that the rhetoric sometimes elicits the very opposition that is the problem.
You need 'honey' and 'vinegar' to move the needle.
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
Sounds like what needs to be done keeps running into the Great Wall of The Peter Principle here. >.<
Nice write up though in the things that need to be said. /bows
...I'm not. Toronto needs to be made more affordable for everyone, to which includes building that needs to house those who need and want to live here where ever possible. And the increasing tent populations within our city is testament to our abject failure to meet that, IMO.
Nice write up though in the things that need to be said. /bows
Undead
Senior Member
Yeah, that "right side of history" stuff sounds so dystopian.
HousingNowTO
Senior Member
A thread and video from this morning's COMMITTEE meeting for your weekend review...
AlbertC
Superstar
Housing advocate slams 'extremely weak' Scarborough plan for affordable housing in Guildwood
Oct 27, 2021
Housing advocate slams 'extremely weak' Scarborough plan for affordable housing in Guildwood
Residents’ complaints in Toronto still lead to fewer affordable units getting built, and HousingNowTO’s Mark Richardson sees that "recurring problem" at Scarborough’s 80 Dale Ave.
HousingNowTO
Senior Member
The (former) Councillor's Letter about this 80 DALE site during the 2018 election was kind of a classic of the genre.
The funny part is that Councillor Crawford wrote it on June 25th, 2018 - and on July 27th - only one-month later... he was no longer the Councillor for the area when the Ward maps were changed by Doug Ford.
PDF - https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2018/ah/comm/communicationfile-85140.pdf
HousingNowTO
Senior Member
Next door Condo Board (90 Dale, Prominence Point, 17 Storeys / 150 units – Circa ~1990) have filed the attached OLT Appeal (OLT-21-001856), including the their reason – that the building that has already been substantially reduced is still “too big” - and that it “doesn’t have enough affordable-housing”...
ProjectEnd
Superstar
m.paiva@RPlawyers.ca is council's email. I'd suggest those interested send Michael polite but strong condemnation of this appalling and unconscionable course of action.
HousingNowTO
Senior Member
It's been over a YEAR - since anything was posted about this site.
I can't find the case on the OLT site any more - OLT-21-001856
Site is still an empty-lot.
Anyone have any insight / links..?
I can't find the case on the OLT site any more - OLT-21-001856
Site is still an empty-lot.
Anyone have any insight / links..?
HousingNowTO
Senior Member
Long-form wonk video -
Obsidian
Active Member
Any movement on this project?
I hate that the NIMBY's are winning this battle
I hate that the NIMBY's are winning this battle
HousingNowTO
Senior Member
Assume the developer is waiting for the Province to release their new (P)MTSA density policy... and then will add extra units and density within those rules.