[ADRM]

My observation is that there are a lot of points brought up by multiple posters.

1. Toronto's planning process takes too long. (I agree)
2. MZOs are the answer. (I disagree)
3. Community feedback is the problem. (I disagree. My guess is that it's a process/local-political-football/official-plan/zoning problem, but that's less sexy to talk about and fix.)
4. This MZO is a good way to get density. (Maybe?)
5. This MZO is a good way to give us affordable housing. (I disagree. I guess I'm more cynical, but if the minister wanted this, it would be in the MZO as opposed to a talking point)
6. MZOs are the way to get density in general. (I disagree. Fix the process and make it transparent for everyone.)
7. WDL is underbuilt. (I agree)

This is a good list, to which I'd also add another aspect that I think is muddying the waters, which is the problem of the process by which the Province handled these three particular MZOs.

Instead of just picking up the phone and calling some combination of Tory's staff, the local councillor's staff, and Planning staff and saying "hey, we're going to do this thing, this is why, we know you're not going to like it but it's done", what they did instead is bury it in a reg change buried inside of a Friday news dump. The underhandedness of it was just stupid and, to the point that a few others have made, raises suspicion that the Province has already made warrants to a proponent on the one MZO'd site that is not already spoken for.

That's a process question that's completely separate from the actual substantive questions around the appropriateness of planning-by-MZO, but it's definitely complicating the discussion.

 

[everydayhim]

Notwithstanding the obvious argument that the blatant corruption behind a move like this represents (it's difficult to fathom why someone may think that the negative impact of this is unclear), I'm having trouble understanding the argument that WDL is under-built.

Does Toronto require a substantial amount of new housing? Most definitely. But is WDL the right place to put point towers with no clear transportation infrastructure to serve it? I'm not so sure. Besides that, the neighbourhood is designed to be a mid-rise community with an abundance of at grade public area. The folks at WDL and WT have worked hard to ensure this fabric is persistent and IMO, it's why the neighbourhood has been turning out so balanced and healthy. Sure it could be happening faster, however I'm in favour of making sure things get decided upon correctly at the outset.

The mid-rise and homogenous zoning across WDL is exactly what make it feel like a special neighbourhood, and it's one of the elements that differentiate it from other mass urban densification projects like Liberty Village. The intent to place taller zoning at WDL towards the perimeter at the Don Valley and the rail corridor has so far proved to be a successful model in terms of public access to sunlight, noise study, and relationship to infrastructure. Intensifying to a drastic height degree what is currently the only heritage designated block in the area, as @mcornett pointed out, completely departs from every sense of logic and rational that has been put into more than a decade of people's work int this neighbourhood.

 

[picard102]

Okay, but there’s no development proposal here. It’s not like the city has been fumbling approvals here. There has not been anything to approve, and there’s still no plan available for the public to see.

So why would the bother waiting for the city to fumble as usual, when they can avoid it.

 

[lomeri]

Two things to add:

1) The negative impact of this, if any, is unclear. Just because certain community benefits aren’t required in the MZO, that doesn't mean the province won’t require them. The minister promised 30% affordable housing in all these projects. They might break this promise. But they might not.
2) The west Don lands is being underbuilt. The existing master plan is far from perfect. (it’s mid rise, with huge gaps between the buildings and wide streets, achieving middling density.) This absolutely is a place where there should be tall towers.

The reason the benefits are unclear is that nothing has actually been put forward to the public. There is nothing to scrutinize other than an MZO buried into a Friday. This development could very well bring benefits to the community and create a ton of new affordable housing. But there’s no way for us to really know, and there is no way for anyone to request reasonable changes once a proposal is available to the public.

Much of the West Don lands isn’t even built yet. For example, there remains no public proposal for Block 13, right next to Corktown Common. Blocks 10, 4, 5, 7, 20 have not even started construction. Block 8 and 12 are under construction. How can you be so sure that it doesn’t “feel” dense enough? Toronto needs more mid rise neighborhoods. Extreme density and single/semi detached housing can’t be the only available options in the city.

 

[Mike in TO]

5. This MZO is a good way to give us affordable housing. (I disagree. I guess I'm more cynical, but if the minister wanted this, it would be in the MZO as opposed to a talking point)

The affordable housing component is not set out within the MZO. That aspect of the development is subject to a different negotiated deal between the province and the development proponent. The provincial government owns the land and certainly holds all the cards in terms of setting terms of the deal for the affordable housing component in a mixed income (market rental and affordable housing) community. They choose to advance the planning process on the lands they own to reduce risks, timelines and costs for a project they want to move forward quickly. A key aspect of the MZO tool is it is not appealable.

 

[WislaHD]

Two things to add:

2) The west Don lands is being underbuilt. The existing master plan is far from perfect. (it’s mid rise, with huge gaps between the buildings and wide streets, achieving middling density.) This absolutely is a place where there should be tall towers.

To this second point, there is a convenient example within the neighbourhood to point towards. Cherry Place (where the Rekai Centre is planning an LTC building) in the West Don Lands was originally supposed to be a partnership between Rekai Centres and Options for Homes (a non-profit developer with an affordable ownership model).

The partnership originally proposed a tower on the site alongside the LTC facility, which City Planning balked at because it superseded the mid-rise built-form in their master plan, and told them to lower the height and density. At this point, Options for Homes disappears from the partnership alongside their 29-storey tower. I'm going to speculate and say that the reduced height and density imposed on the site led Options for Homes to walk away as they could no longer make the pro-forma work.

And to play devil's advocate to the point others have made that it was cynical of the for-profit developer and province to proceed with an MZO to pre-zone a tower on the site instead of even putting forward a development application, look at how City Planning treated the two above non-profits proposing an affordable 29-storey tower on their site. You think City Planning would have more love for a 241m tower proposal coming from a for-profit developer? The local city councillor? I am sure these are considerations that the developers are playing out in their heads.

I'm firmly of the camp that the City is its own worst enemy when it comes to affordability and housing supply.

 

[Northern Light]

Two things to add:
...
2) The west Don lands is being underbuilt. The existing master plan is far from perfect. (it’s mid rise, with huge gaps between the buildings and wide streets, achieving middling density.) This absolutely is a place where there should be tall towers.

I don't see any reason to conclude the WDL is being underbuilt.

I happen to think the road widths excessive in WDL in many cases, and would have no problem supporting narrowing them, whether that went to adjacent park/public realm in some cases, or to increased building footprint in others.

But that's a thoughtful detail; rather than an unambiguous endorsement of authoritarian heavy-handedness and a cowardly move to hide the action from the public and media.

There is a legitimate use for MZOs.

The first is to override a local government that simply won't get on-board with provincial objectives (presuming these to be legitimate and pressing); the second is to expedite a planning process where there IS substantial agreement from all the players, and the MZO simply serves to modestly lower costs and get things done 6 months to 18 months faster.

As handled, this use of the MZO does not qualify.

 

[Ward8]

I'm firmly of the camp that the City is it's own worst enemy when it comes to affordability and housing supply.

There is no doubt that the city needs to enact serious zoning reform. From the yellow belt to parking minimus there are huge steps to be taken to increase housing availability and affordability. The MZO here is cynical because it is a) anti democratic and b) very likely an example of government cronyism. If any of us owned development companies would we have the same privilege of having a minister re-zone our lots? Why is this lot more special than the other thousand applications that have similar criteria?

Very few people here seem to be angry at the resulting density. It's the process that is toxic and smells of corruption. I'm happy to be wrong though.

 

[Dr. Snoot]

To this second point, there is a convenient example within the neighbourhood to point towards. Cherry Place (where the Rekai Centre is planning an LTC building) in the West Don Lands was originally supposed to be a partnership between Rekai Centres and Options for Homes (a non-profit developer with an affordable ownership model).

The partnership originally proposed a tower on the site alongside the LTC facility, which City Planning balked at because it superseded the mid-rise built-form in their master plan, and told them to lower the height and density. At this point, Options for Homes disappears from the partnership alongside their 29-storey tower. I'm going to speculate and say that the reduced height and density imposed on the site led Options for Homes to walk away as they could no longer make the pro-forma work.

And to play devil's advocate to the point others have made that it was cynical of the for-profit developer and province to proceed with an MZO to pre-zone a tower on the site instead of even putting forward a development application, look at how City Planning treated the two above non-profits proposing an affordable 29-storey tower on their site. You think City Planning would have more love for a 241m tower proposal coming from a for-profit developer? The local city councillor? I am sure these are considerations that the developers are playing out in their heads.

I'm firmly of the camp that the City is it's own worst enemy when it comes to affordability and housing supply.

Do we KNOW why Options for Homes is no longer involved in the project and that it was because of City opposition? Otherwise, this really is just useless speculation made in an effort to support a predetermined opinion. What we do know is that Rekai gained almost instant approval from the City and community groups for a large, 13 storey long-term care centre.

And to the point made by others, what's wrong with the City seeking to plan a brand-new, moderately intense mid-rise neighbourhood? There are already several towers built or planned for the area - they were just logically located on the periphery. By your thinking, the province should just rezone all of Toronto with MZOs with no explanation, just in case there is opposition (or not), even though the OMB / LPAT already exists to appeal City refusals on a principled basis.

 

[Dr. Snoot]

There is no doubt that the city needs to enact serious zoning reform. From the yellow belt to parking minimus there are huge steps to be taken to increase housing availability and affordability. The MZO here is cynical because it is a) anti democratic and b) very likely an example of government cronyism. If any of us owned development companies would we have the same privilege of having a minister re-zone our lots? Why is this lot more special than the other thousand applications that have similar criteria?

Very few people here seem to be angry at the resulting density. It's the process that is toxic and smells of corruption. I'm happy to be wrong though.

I wholly agree with this. I would just like to add that the density for Blocks 3, 4, and 7 and Block 20 was very likely to be approved by the City in substantially the form it was proposed by the developer. I don't think anybody really opposed the density, as the sites were always planned for taller buildings. What the MZO did was cut short the potential for improvements or benefits that might have been negotiated by the neighbourhood or the City.

I think the considerations are very different for Block 17 and people might have had legitimate concerns with the proposed denisty on this site (or not). This site holds the Dominion Foundry Complex -- the largest collection of the very few heritage buidings in the West Don Lands. The province has now pre-approved three buildings on the site at 141m with no specific heritage protection. It is hard to imagine that they won't be substantially demolished. Given that this is a brand new neighbourhood with little history, this is a crying shame. If you have ever been by the complex, it is easy to see the great potential it could offer to the public if kept in situ.

 

[WislaHD]

There is no doubt that the city needs to enact serious zoning reform. From the yellow belt to parking minimus there are huge steps to be taken to increase housing availability and affordability. The MZO here is cynical because it is a) anti democratic and b) very likely an example of government cronyism. If any of us owned development companies would we have the same privilege of having a minister re-zone our lots? Why is this lot more special than the other thousand applications that have similar criteria?

Very few people here seem to be angry at the resulting density. It's the process that is toxic and smells of corruption. I'm happy to be wrong though.

And to the point made by others, what's wrong with the City seeking to plan a brand-new, moderately intense mid-rise neighbourhood? There are already several towers built or planned for the area - they were just logically located on the periphery. By your thinking, the province should just rezone all of Toronto with MZOs with no explanation, just in case there is opposition (or not), even though the OMB / LPAT already exists to appeal City refusals on a principled basis.

I do agree. This being said, it is not like it is any random development parcel in Toronto, it is land that is actually owned by the province, and land which Infrastructure Ontario has been visioning out for the greater part of two decades with much public and municipal oversight and input (and I wouldn't be surprised if the development partner here is the same one which is actively delivering that vision out on the other WDL blocks).

This is still a significant step behind randomly issuing MZOs to friends and cronies of the ruling party on unrelated plots of land. A step in the wrong direction maybe, but still on the thin edge of that wedge.

Do we KNOW why Options for Homes is no longer involved in the project and that it was because of City opposition? Otherwise, this really is just useless speculation made in an effort to support a predetermined opinion. What we do know is that Rekai gained almost instant approval from the City and community groups for a large, 13 storey long-term centre.

No, just to be clear it is speculation on my part. Many things could have happened of course, change in visions, relations, opportunities, or financing. But I also don't think it is a giant leap to imagine how a significant chopping of a residential tower could significantly impact the pro-forma of an affordable housing model which likely was operating at tight margins to make the project work to begin with.

Predetermined opinion? Yes. Other jurisdictions like Ottawa would be actively courting these opportunities and accommodating groups looking to build affordable ownership models. We do things differently in Toronto.

 

[WislaHD]

I wholly agree with this. I would just like to add that the density for Blocks 3, 4, and 7 and Block 20 was very likely to be approved by the City in substantially the form it was proposed by the developer. I don't think anybody really opposed the density, as the sites were always planned for taller buildings. What the MZO did was cut short the potential for improvements or benefits that might have been negotiated by the neighbourhood or the City.

I think the considerations are very different for Block 17 and people might have had legitimate concerns with the proposed denisty on this site (or not). This site holds the Dominion Foundry Complex -- the largest collection of the very few heritage buidings in the West Don Lands. The province has now pre-approved three buildings on the site at 141m with no specific heritage protection. It is hard to imagine that they won't be substantially demolished. Given that this is a brand new neighbourhood with little history, this is a crying shame. If you have ever been by the complex, it is easy to see the great potential it could offer to the public if kept in situ.

This is all important points being made. The public process for instance, brought significant revisions to the inner courtyard of Blocks 3, 4, and 7 and I think the end result was ultimately an improvement over what was initially proposed.

 

[innsertnamehere]

I wholly agree with this. I would just like to add that the density for Blocks 3, 4, and 7 and Block 20 was very likely to be approved by the City in substantially the form it was proposed by the developer. I don't think anybody really opposed the density, as the sites were always planned for taller buildings. What the MZO did was cut short the potential for improvements or benefits that might have been negotiated by the neighbourhood or the City.

I think the considerations are very different for Block 17 and people might have had legitimate concerns with the proposed denisty on this site (or not). This site holds the Dominion Foundry Complex -- the largest collection of the very few heritage buidings in the West Don Lands. The province has now pre-approved three buildings on the site at 141m with no specific heritage protection. It is hard to imagine that they won't be substantially demolished. Given that this is a brand new neighbourhood with little history, this is a crying shame. If you have ever been by the complex, it is easy to see the great potential it could offer to the public if kept in situ.

The buildings proposed along the rail tracks were most certainly not contemplated for high rise densities and I fully suspect the city would take issue with it as it is a significant departure from the West Don Lands Master Plan (now 15 years old, mind you).

 

[AlexBozikovic]

As to the density of this area… The proposed East Harbour is literally next door. Ten million square feet of office space, with zero (!) residential. If this neighbourhood does not have high density residential, it is planning malpractice.

 

[lomeri]

As to the density of this area… The proposed East Harbour is literally next door. Ten million square feet of office space, with zero (!) residential. If this neighbourhood does not have high density residential, it is planning malpractice.

I think we can agree that high density can be added to this neighborhood without entirely leaving area residents in the dark about what the province is doing with some unnamed developer. I don't know why it's unreasonable for the public to want to see a proposal and have time to comment, especially considering that this is a major change from a decade-in-the-making master plan. If we want to talk density, we should also be talking about upzoning the yellowbelt the biggest opportunity the city has to add density. Its not like this single location makes or breaks housing affordability in Toronto or the GTA.

East Harbor is just proposed, and very little of it will be completed before the end of 2030. Is it actually happening? Who knows? And there is plenty of development opportunities nearby to feed into it - Portlands, the 3C site, Lower Down Lands, and plenty of opportunity to intensify the east end. Lets not clutch pearls over a single development making or breaking area density.