[Rainforest]

If the city wants employment growth around those "growth centres", then perhaps we should offer lower commercial property taxes in those locations. Not permanently, but for a period of 10-15 years, with subsequent gradual increase to the standard level.

If it works, then the existing transit system will be used more efficiently as more riders will travel counter-peak.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

If the city wants employment growth around those "growth centres", then perhaps we should offer lower commercial property taxes in those locations. Not permanently, but for a period of 10-15 years, with subsequent gradual increase to the standard level.

If it works, then the existing transit system will be used more efficiently as more riders will travel counter-peak.

There's a Metrolinx policy paper somewhere where they suggest a discounted Development Charge as a policy measure to implement around mobility hubs. Some municipalities (Markham comes to mind) already offer some discounts for implementing TDM measures too. Municipalities also offer those kinds of tax breaks to lure big companies so no question that if you're Vaughan and want some marquee tenant for VMC, you need to give them a financial reason not to set up in some boring business park along the 400.

 

[JoeParez]

I was at the York University site for a site measure/meeting.
Got some pictures of the main entrance.

Enjoy!

 

[aquateam]

There's a Metrolinx policy paper somewhere where they suggest a discounted Development Charge as a policy measure to implement around mobility hubs. Some municipalities (Markham comes to mind) already offer some discounts for implementing TDM measures too. Municipalities also offer those kinds of tax breaks to lure big companies so no question that if you're Vaughan and want some marquee tenant for VMC, you need to give them a financial reason not to set up in some boring business park along the 400.

Kind of ironic considering Metrolinx was also considering extra development charges within 500m of new rapid transit lines as a way of paying for them...

 

[44 North]

Thanks. NYCC seems on track to ready its target of 400 residents + jobs/ha, but still well off the original target of 93,000 jobs by 2011.

I recall a planner recently mentioning that not a single one of our centres in Toronto had met their growth targets, including NYCC and Eglinton-Yonge. Their growth has been largely residential - not the coveted commercial growth. Naturally I'm quite skeptical of claims that new transit infrastructure is justified because it will bring jobs intensification to the suburbs. fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.

A lot of the Prov stuff concerning UGCs and Mobility Hubs is confusing, changing, arbitrary, and can be fairly useless. The info about NYC that DVR linked to is for the Mobility Hub, which I believe is only 800m radius around a station. But North York Centre has three of these hubs (Finch, North York Centre, and Sheppard-Yonge). Considering a circle's shape I doubt if we add up the three that they'd give correct info about the UGC of North York Centre.

As of 2006 the UGC of NYC had 391 ppl+jobs/ha (out of 400). Probably way above that now. Naturally the Mobility Hub of Scarboro Centre won't match the UGC of Scarboro Centre either. And it seems the UGC doesn't seem to match the City's definition for that matter. The Metrolinx Mobility Hub says it had 18% pop growth between 2009-2014 (more than NYC!), but the (differently-sized) UGC says it has 143/400 ppl+jerbs/ha (2006).

Then there's area. Apparently Downtown Toronto is doing badly in comparison to many UGCs! Well that's not surprising considering it's 35x the area of Yonge-Eglinton and 11x the size of NYC (remember that's the NYC UGC not the NYC mobility hub). Downtown Toronto also has five mobility hubs, but no question there should be and will be more. Long and short much of this "Centres", P2G UGC, and Mlinx MH stuff is an exercise in futility.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

All just a reminder we have to compare apples to apples.

Mobility hubs are very specific radii within larger centres and plenty of them don't actually exist yet. And UGC boundaries can vary significantly - they are all defined through the OP so I'm not sure if/why the NYCC Secondary Plan area wouldn't align with the UGC boundary...Those 2 things should be synonymous but the mobility hub (by definition) is only the area right around the transit station(s). And then there's ANCHOR mobility hubs too!

Of course, when Places to Grow came into existence there were 2 centres (downtown and Yonge/Eg) that were already at their density targets, whereas other UGCs were in transition (like Mississauga Centre) and others (like VMC) green/brownfield sites. So those aren't apples-to-apples either.

It can give you a headache, is the real point. But I don't know that means it's an exercise in futility either. At the end of the day, it's all working towards the same, larger policy goal of concentrating development around major transit facilities. What other policies are needed to assist that (be it Inclusionary Zoning or the end of the OMB or discounted DCs or whatever else your imagination can come up with) is a larger question.

(And, FWIW, IMHO putting extra DCs around mobility hubs is the very definition of counter-productive. The entire policy regime, from the PPS on down, seeks to concentrate affordable housing close to transit. Getting good housing in your prime areas isn't going happen if you're lumping EXTRA charges on top of the existing costs.)

 

[innsertnamehere]

for job growth, Vaughan Centre has quite a bit of office space going up. It has good subway and highway access, which doesn't exist elsewhere. Office is fleeing NYCC today because the 401 is too congested for car commuting employees to reach it, this is not true for the 407 and 400.

 

[44 North]

All just a reminder we have to compare apples to apples.

Mobility hubs are very specific radii within larger centres and plenty of them don't actually exist yet. And UGC boundaries can vary significantly - they are all defined through the OP so I'm not sure if/why the NYCC Secondary Plan area wouldn't align with the UGC boundary...Those 2 things should be synonymous but the mobility hub (by definition) is only the area right around the transit station(s). And then there's ANCHOR mobility hubs too!

Of course, when Places to Grow came into existence there were 2 centres (downtown and Yonge/Eg) that were already at their density targets, whereas other UGCs were in transition (like Mississauga Centre) and others (like VMC) green/brownfield sites. So those aren't apples-to-apples either.

It can give you a headache, is the real point. But I don't know that means it's an exercise in futility either. At the end of the day, it's all working towards the same, larger policy goal of concentrating development around major transit facilities. What other policies are needed to assist that (be it Inclusionary Zoning or the end of the OMB or discounted DCs or whatever else your imagination can come up with) is a larger question.

(And, FWIW, IMHO putting extra DCs around mobility hubs is the very definition of counter-productive. The entire policy regime, from the PPS on down, seeks to concentrate affordable housing close to transit. Getting good housing in your prime areas isn't going happen if you're lumping EXTRA charges on top of the existing costs.)

Not really talking bout the 905 in that reply to TM, but for the City of Toronto Places to Grow is fairly useless. Unless the mandate has been updated to include the policy goals of creating confusion, pissing contests, or have people try and get away with outright lies (e.g 'Scarboro has seen zero residential or office development').

 

[innsertnamehere]

Places To Grow's only policy that doesn't really effect Toronto is minimum intensification targets, since Toronto is fully built out, 100% of growth will be intensification.

All their other policies regarding complete communities, UGCs, population projections, etc. all still function.

 

[44 North]

Places To Grow's only policy that doesn't really effect Toronto is minimum intensification targets, since Toronto is fully built out, 100% of growth will be intensification.

All their other policies regarding complete communities, UGCs, population projections, etc. all still function.

But function in what capacity though? Toronto has had centres, intermediate centres, and the concept of complete communities going back decades. What difference does it make whether there's a provincial document that states something we've been doing since the 60s? And what happens if we ignore certain policies outlined in P2G?

The Prov seems to be little more than a funding partner, albeit one that's unreliable or politically-motivated in their meddling. They offered a Sheppard Subway, an Eglinton East subway, a Scarboro subway, and have altered their GO expansion plans so that they're now effecting municipal rapid transit plans and possibly their own Mobility Hub plans.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

We're getting off-topic but...arguably it's somewhat abstract but Toronto is still affected because, as we've seen repeatedly, COUNCIL is not necessarily beholden to those ideals, even if they have all those concepts built in. That's why they keep losing at the OMB when someone proposes a tall condo and council shoots it down because residents don't like it. Far be it from me to defend the OMB, but they're a big part of making sure Toronto fulfills Places to Grow.

Then there are other little things, like the density minimum for new development, the overall population targets....its policies prevent the city from converting employment lands etc. But the biggest part (as with the OMB) is holding the city to a standard beyond their own. I could argue Markham was kind of in the opposite situation, well below the density targets but with most of the policy directions long built-in to their planning process. Now everyone has to adhere to the same policies, everyone is on the same page.

And further off topic, the 2.0 document will contain provisions about things like coordinating growth and infrastructure planning which, ahem, the city has shown itself to be not-so-great at. So, maybe it boils down to that Places to Grow locks Toronto in and makes them answer to a higher power, and a bigger picture, even if they were already doing lots of the little things.

 

[aquateam]

Not really talking bout the 905 in that reply to TM, but for the City of Toronto Places to Grow is fairly useless. Unless the mandate has been updated to include the policy goals of creating confusion, pissing contests, or have people try and get away with outright lies (e.g 'Scarboro has seen zero residential or office development').

Places To Grow's only policy that doesn't really effect Toronto is minimum intensification targets, since Toronto is fully built out, 100% of growth will be intensification.

All their other policies regarding complete communities, UGCs, population projections, etc. all still function.

We're getting off-topic but...arguably it's somewhat abstract but Toronto is still affected because, as we've seen repeatedly, COUNCIL is not necessarily beholden to those ideals, even if they have all those concepts built in. That's why they keep losing at the OMB when someone proposes a tall condo and council shoots it down because residents don't like it. Far be it from me to defend the OMB, but they're a big part of making sure Toronto fulfills Places to Grow.

Then there are other little things, like the density minimum for new development, the overall population targets....its policies prevent the city from converting employment lands etc. But the biggest part (as with the OMB) is holding the city to a standard beyond their own. I could argue Markham was kind of in the opposite situation, well below the density targets but with most of the policy directions long built-in to their planning process. Now everyone has to adhere to the same policies, everyone is on the same page.

And further off topic, the 2.0 document will contain provisions about things like coordinating growth and infrastructure planning which, ahem, the city has shown itself to be not-so-great at. So, maybe it boils down to that Places to Grow locks Toronto in and makes them answer to a higher power, and a bigger picture, even if they were already doing lots of the little things.

You can find a lot of specific criticisms of places to grow in the Neptis review of it. Basically it's not worth the paper it's printed on because:

A) The targets for reurbanization are unambitious and basically code existing rates of sprawl as targets
B) There's no link between transportation planning and development (no TOD)
C) It's toothless and has no mechanism for enforcement

Hopefully the 2.0 document actually does something. The province was talking about eliminating parking minimums, for instance.

 

[innsertnamehere]

eliminating parking minimums would not come through P2G, but rather a ministerial zoning order.

Obama is now apparently calling for the same thing in the US, if it were to happen it would create a huge pushback from municipalities.. but how very nice it would be.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

You can find a lot of specific criticisms of places to grow in the Neptis review of it. Basically it's not worth the paper it's printed on because:

A) The targets for reurbanization are unambitious and basically code existing rates of sprawl as targets
B) There's no link between transportation planning and development (no TOD)
C) It's toothless and has no mechanism for enforcement

Hopefully the 2.0 document actually does something. The province was talking about eliminating parking minimums, for instance.

Neptis has done some GREAT work on this and these are all great points. It's still an exaggeration to say it's not worth the paper it's printed on. There have been many OMB decisions that boil down to "because Places to Grow says so," (which makes the OMB a partial enforcement mechanism) it forced some laggard municipalities to update their OPS and come into the 21st Century. They haven't all excelled on the ground (starting with Simcoe, most obviously) and one could certainly quibble about how much the market was ahead of the legislation but I think it's crazy to suggest P2G has had no effect. It's at least partly responsible for everything from the downtown condo boom to what's going on in Markham and Mississauga. There is also no question that sprawly, greenfield neighbourhoods are far denser than they used to be (they're not MIXED, but they're still denser). And, putting all those details aside, there's simply the fact that it's the first provincial move towards regional planning, probably since the creation of Metro and then the regions.

So, yeah, still many holes to be patched and 2.0 does a lot of that. But it has not been a worthless document at all.

eliminating parking minimums would not come through P2G, but rather a ministerial zoning order.

That would be an "Extreme" move. Is there any reason that would not simply be part of an amendment to the Planning Act? MZO's tend to be for specific areas.

 

[44 North]

You can find a lot of specific criticisms of places to grow in the Neptis review of it. Basically it's not worth the paper it's printed on because:

A) The targets for reurbanization are unambitious and basically code existing rates of sprawl as targets
B) There's no link between transportation planning and development (no TOD)
C) It's toothless and has no mechanism for enforcement

Hopefully the 2.0 document actually does something. The province was talking about eliminating parking minimums, for instance.

It's true it is toothless, but it makes a lot of sense for P2G to be in place for the areas outside of Toronto. Many of the towns and cities are practically rural and the attitudes by their gov'ts proudly support that mindset. But things are obviously different in Toronto. I'm of the opinion that the OMB can do more harm than good for a city of our size, age, and density. Doesn't mean we shouldn't have a last-stop appeals body, rather one specific to Toronto. Right now it seems more like a disengaged motley crew that will auto-greenlight in spite of a lack of coordinated growth/infrastructure.