https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6291-943X
![Sample our Geography journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5937/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Geography.jpg"})
Abstract
This article is published as part of the Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography special issue ‘Revisiting the green geographies of welfare planning’, edited by Johan Pries and Mattias Qviström.
ABSTRACT
In the midst of the growing ecological crisis, the ‘compact city’ has become the mainstream urban paradigm for the sustainable future of western cities. However, the uneven implementation of densification policies can have adverse impacts on the amount and quality of urban green spaces, which are vital resources for local communities. This paper explores the controversies of introducing compactness in the case of Toronto’s ‘towers in the park’: housing estates built in comprehensively planned neighbourhoods from the 1950s through the 1970s. It does so through the lenses of urban design and landscape planning, by tracking the evolution of narratives that underpin the current urban regime, and by assessing their legitimacy from the perspective of residents. The findings highlight a persistent mismatch between Toronto’s dominant urban design paradigm and the sociomaterial context of its uncritical application. Exemplar episodes of tower infill show two discursive tropes to justify compactness: the alleged underuse of open spaces, and the creation of a proper public realm by replacing these spaces with buildings and streets. Beyond uncovering the fallacy of both claims, this paper outlines an alternative perspective for more equitable strategies for common green spaces, outside unconditional protection and zealous quest for “value uplift.”
Acknowledgements
I am thankful to the many residents of Toronto modernist suburbs who shared with me their stories and hopes. I would also like to thank Johan Pries, Mattias Qviström, and Nik Luka for sharing their knowledge, and providing feedback and support throughout the writing process. I am grateful to the two anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments on an earlier version of this paper, and to Nicolas Therrien for his editing work. Finally, I wish to dedicate this work to Sonali Praharaj and Yasir Hameed, whose friendship is an endless source of energy.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMbAHdh0Y2s&t=2557s (start at 1:21:00).
2 Due to the Canadian Constitution, debates on governance conventionally refer to municipalities as ‘creatures of the provinces.’ In Ontario, the Greenbelt Act and the Place to Grow Act were milestones of provincial legislation in trying to curtail sprawl while strengthening urbanized areas. These objectives guided the Provincial 2005 Policy Statement (Ontario Citation2005a), which mandated context-oriented intensification at the municipal level, and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Ontario Citation2006), which encouraged the creation of compact, complete communities. The 2019 revision of the last two documents further compelled municipalities to set minimum density targets based on access to public transit, and promote private development by reducing barrier costs and enhancing certainty. Provincial policies have been the reference for the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), now Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT), to settle disputes on planning matters between private actors and local governments. As such, the latter have little power to oppose intensification. Although a nuanced discussion of provincial policies is outside the scope of this work, I added a more explicit reference throughout the article based on the suggestion of an anonymous reviewer.
3 The findings of this paper result from the following primary sources: three semi-structured interviews with seven planners and urban design professionals operating in Toronto; the consultation of eleven planning policies from 1959 to 2019, eighteen planning reports from 1965 to 2020 (twelve of which on recent development cases), several local newspaper articles, and the video recordings from four community council meetings. Finally, one personal attendance at a public meeting on a development proposal and twenty-one semi-structured interviews with residents from the Don Valley North ward contributed to the findings. All interviewees lived in the area of the two case studies, and thirteen of them in ‘towers in the park.’ Participants were recruited via flyer posting, snowballing, and direct engagement in community events.
4 Established in 1954, the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto was a two-tier metropolitan government that grouped the City of Toronto, four suburban townships, four towns, and three villages, which contributed financially to ‘Metro’ in proportion to their taxable assessments. While the 1946 Ontario Planning Act obliged each lower-tier municipality to adopt a local plan, in 1953, regional planning became a responsibility of the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Board (once the Toronto and Suburban Planning Board, est. 1946). The first Official Plan of the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area (MTPB Citation1959) primarily dealt with population growth, density targets, infrastructural development, and environmental conservation. Despite the plan being adopted only in 1981 in its third version, its principles strongly influenced municipal and district planning since its first introduction (see: Sorensen Citation2010; Hess and Sorensen Citation2015).
5 In suburban Toronto, towers commonly ranged between 15 and 20 storeys, though no height target was imposed by the applicable zoning by-laws. For example, in North York towers were built under the category ‘Multiple-Family Dwellings Sixth Density,’ which as the densest residential zone allowed a Floor Surface Index (F.S.I.) of 1.5. Given that buildings could occupy as much as 35% of each lot, different morphologies (four-storey walk-ups included) could be used to maximize development rights (City of North York Citation1984).
6 In North York, the zoning by-law mandated a minimum on-site landscaped area of 18 m2 each 82 m2 of gross area (ca. the size of a two-bedroom apartment). If development rights were maximized (F.S.I. = 1.5), this value corresponded to 33% of the lot (City of North York Citation1984, 15.8). However, larger green spaces were achieved in practice. A collection of reports on building applications issued for the Don Valley Village neighbourhood in the 1960s shows that, for the twelve developments there included (one to five towers each), between 60 and 70% of every site was landscaped (North York Planning Board Citation1965a).
7 As pointed out by an anonymous reviewer, in the early 1970s, the Housing Work Group (HWG) of the former city of Toronto proposed mid-rise and medium density residential developments for an ambitious social and non-profit housing programme (Citation1973). Similar urban design strategies have been more recently invoked for introducing the ‘missing middle’ in all low-rise neighbourhoods across the amalgamated city (see: Clayton and Petramala Citation2019; Scorgie Citation2019; Bozikovic et al. Citation2019). The term refers to all building typologies whose height stands somewhere between low-rise buildings and towers, such as the so-called ‘plexes’ (multiple-entrance buildings) and mid-rise, single-entrance apartment buildings.
8 ‘Conditional zoning’ preventively establishes specific site performances in exchange for redevelopment rights, such as housing security measures, energetic retrofit strategies, pedestrian connectivity, optimization of material resources, and ecological services.
9 Since its establishment, the main outcomes of Tower Renewal have been the institution of a responsible public office, the introduction of the Residential Apartment Commercial (RAC) category in the zoning by-law, and the inclusion of ad hoc policies in the 2015 Five Year Review of the Toronto Official Plan (OPA 320) (City of Toronto Citation2015a). RAC authorized a vast array of small-scale commercial activities, and the expansion of buildings’ ground floors for this purpose. Unfortunately, in spite of being implemented across different sites, no real change has happened, a fact that demonstrates the shortcomings of regulatory tools on land use against property as a path-dependent institution (Sorensen Citation2018). For more information, see: http://www.raczone.ca/ (last access: August 15, 2020).
10 To date, ERA Architects have already completed three tower renewal projects in Toronto in sites owned by the city’s largest social housing landlord, Toronto Community Housing (4301 Kingston, Lawrence-Orton, and Gordonbridge. See: http://www.eraarch.ca/portfolio/). To extend its reach, the firm foresees collaboration with housing cooperatives with enough assets to expand on their sites, also thanks to ad hoc government aid (ERA Architects 2019, personal interview).
11 Three city-adopted studies preceded and inspired the latest version of the Tall Building Guidelines: HOK Architects Corporation and City of Toronto (Citation2006) Design Criteria for the Review of Tall Building Proposals; Urban Strategies Inc., Hariri Pontarini Architects and City of Toronto (Citation2010) Tall Buildings: Inviting Change in Downtown Toronto; and City of Toronto (Citation2012) Downtown Tall Buildings Vision and Performance Standards Design Guidelines.
12 Authored by Project and Planning Associates, the plan for North York District 12A covered an area of 1,760 ha and expected a population of 86,600, later set to 100,000 (North York Planning Board Citation1965b). Following the modernist suburban template, the district was organized into several neighbourhoods. Two thirds of the district’s total dwellings were in multifamily buildings, half of which were in ‘towers in the park.’ The latter were uniformly distributed across neighbourhoods and located near major infrastructural corridors and services.
13 In exchange of development rights, ELAD contributed to community benefits through the reconstruction of the community centre with a new daycare; the construction of an outdoor swimming pool; the addition of outdoor amenities near the central park and between buildings; and CAD500K for an additional community project selected through participatory budget (City of Toronto Citation2006). Direct financing and provision of community assets in return to up-zoning rights are a normalized practice in Toronto, guaranteed by Section 37 of the Ontario Planning Act. The clearest political advantage of this system is to avoid large constituencies additional taxes for public services, while developers are increasingly misperceived as benefactors.
14 The reference to the massing principles of the Tall Buildings Guidelines in the consultant’s planning report is striking: ‘Sculpt tall buildings into 3 prominent sections: base, shaft and roof. Rooftops to be designed to create [a] distinctive skyline for the Don Mills Road/Sheppard Avenue intersection. Podiums envisioned as brick-clad buildings with punched windows. Towers above predominantly glass and aluminium finish to differentiate from base.’ (WZMH Citation2007, 9).
15 While no measurable parameter is indicated in the policy to compare the site performances of tall buildings with other types, the list of objectives includes the following: to support existing and new open spaces, to promote grade-related dwellings, to adequately limit shadow, and to improve landscaped open spaces (LPAT Citation2018, 11).
16 Beyond general incompatibility with existing planning policies, the City identified the following issues: building massing, height and location; amount and location of parking space; driveway design; lack of coordination with surrounding properties; pedestrian connectivity; visual impact; shadow and wind impacts; amenities provision; garbage management; and landscaping (City of Toronto Citation2017b).
17 See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKj2_YDfFW8 (start at 2:20:50) (last access: February 8, 2021).
18 See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWYdR6Mw3fg (start at 1:17:10) (last access: February 8, 2021).
19 See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYHdUTfUpTc (start at 1:05:00) (last access: February 8, 2021).
20 See: https://www.toronto.ca/services-payments/water-environment/environmentally-friendly-city-initiatives/ (last access: February 17, 2021).
21 See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMbAHdh0Y2s&t=2557s (start at 1:21:00) (last access: February 8, 2021). After adoption by the City of Toronto Council in June 2020, the Block Context Plan and its associated Official Plan Amendment (OPA 476) were approved by the LPAT in November 2020. At the time the article was written, the owner of the corner lot still had to submit a redevelopment proposal.