Skip to main content
Canada’s most-awarded newsroom for a reason
Enjoy unlimited digital access
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
Canada’s most-awarded newsroom for a reason
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
// //

A master plan for the Mirvish Village/Honest Ed’s development.

Westbank

What’s more important? Delivering new affordable apartments, or keeping tall buildings away from people’s houses?

Strange as it sounds, this is a real question as Toronto plans to build 12,000 apartments with its Housing Now program. And the city is giving the wrong answer.

The good news is that Toronto could house thousands more people, if it chose – and as the COVID-19 pandemic continues, creating an even more unequal metropolis, one city councillor is calling for just this sort of change.

Story continues below advertisement

Housing Now is the city’s program to build housing on land that it owns. It turns underused sites into new developments, where private condos and apartments help pay for cheaper subsidized rentals. It is very modest. It serves mostly people earning low to middle incomes, not those most in need.

It’s still significant. Last week city council added six sites to the program, bringing the total to 17 sites and an estimated 12,000 apartments. The challenge is using those sites effectively: The bigger the building, the more affordable housing. But the first round of proposals are all too small.

City Councillor Brad Bradford, a trained planner who worked for three years at the city, says the city should be pushing harder. “If these sites are supporting a public policy objective, delivering affordable housing, then these sites could do more,” Mr. Bradford said. “The [planning] and the process should reflect that goal.”

The problem is land-use planning and urban design: all the rules that a city makes to decide what can be built, where and in what shape. Toronto’s are convoluted and outdated. They are shaped by decades of regressive politics and inertia. Private developers push to build bigger, and they routinely win – often with the support of city planners.

But with Housing Now, the city itself refuses to play this game. Its real estate agency, CreateTO, largely defers to city planning, following the rules – often terrible rules – that other people get to ignore.

Mr. Bradford, rightly, sees this as a problem. “I think it’s time to revisit some of the fundamental assumptions we’ve made in city planning over the past few decades, and get back to our core objectives,” he said.

He’s concerned with assumptions like the one I began with: keeping bigger buildings away from smaller houses. “The basic idea is that a contrast in scale, between existing low-rise buildings and anything new, is a problem,” explains Mark Sterling, a private-sector planner and architect who heads the master of urban design program at the University of Toronto. “They can’t exist alongside each other, and the difference has to be smoothed out in some way.”

Story continues below advertisement

The history of such ideas in urban design is complicated. They mash together aesthetics and politics, including the classist and racist attitudes with which some people view apartments and affordable housing. In an online community meeting in May, one woman complained that a Housing Now development might bring a “ghetto” in her neighbourhood.

This is a complicated conversation. But it’s enough to know that not all urban designers and planners care about good “transitions.” Mr. Sterling – himself a former Toronto city planner – has no time for that orthodoxy. Yet it is shaping all the Housing Now projects, and it has consequences: It makes homes disappear.

Take the Danforth Garage, one of the new Housing Now sites. It’s five acres, currently occupied by a TTC facility and a public library. Last year, CreateTO finished a plan for the site that would combine civic functions and housing. This is largely fine. But the apartment buildings would be five, eight and 10 storeys: perhaps 300 homes total.

The Danforth Garage site is five acres, currently occupied by a TTC facility and a public library.

If this was a private development, it would absolutely be much bigger. The old Honest Ed’s site at Bloor and Bathurst is 4.5 acres, and it has many of the same constraints. But it’s got towers 26 storeys tall, 800 apartments and at least twice as much density. The city’s former chief planner Jennifer Keesmaat praised it to the skies. If private developers can do that, why can’t the city?

It can. Government should not be tied down by its own dysfunctional process and arcane guidelines. It should do the most good for the most people. And if some neighbours care more about tall buildings than creating a diverse and equitable Toronto, it will be clear what kind of people they are, and what kind of city they live in.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow the author of this article:

Follow topics related to this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies