The purpose of my research on the City of Toronto’s Official Plan is to critique Toronto’s current planning process. The scope of my critique involves the examination of various social, livability, and quality of life issues. I will critically assess the arguments for and against amalgamation into Toronto’s ‘megacity’, investigating any biases that may exist, and observing the effects on the aforementioned issues under a centralized metropolitan planning system. My objectives involve critiquing the establishment of a strong central authority for dealing with population growth and urban sprawl, discussing any potential problems and concerns, and examining whether this governing body is on the right path towards increasing the viability of its quality of life, livability, community building, and social development strategies for urban regional planning in Toronto.

i. Arguments Against Toronto’s Official Plan

The City of Toronto has a main goal of building a more livable urban region. In 1998, the regional level of government was eradicated and Metropolitan Toronto’s six municipalities were amalgamated into a single ‘megacity’. I will now critique this Plan’s policies and objectives by discussing a number of social and quality of life issues relating to arguments and perspectives against the political restructuring and amalgamation of Toronto. The Plan first develops a strategy for directing growth within Toronto’s urban structure. It sets out policies for the management of change through “the integration of land use and transportation” (Toronto, 2002, 9). Although the increased accessibility of traveling around Toronto with an integrated regional transportation system would benefit certain residents, the provincial government proceeded with opposition from the City and local governments, along with thousands of protestors, towards any form of a centralized metropolitan planning system. The conflict over megacity “generated a sense of public outrage” (Hodge and Robinson, 2001, 136), as policies of the new agency revealed the decision-making occurring at the bureaucratic level. The subordination of public opinion resulted in strong opposition against the “neoliberal policies of the Tory government” (Keil, 2000, 766) that have led to increasing traffic congestion. Granted, although urban sprawl and suburban development make the provision of public transit and use of non-motorized forms of transportation very difficult, the Plan’s strategy of reducing vehicle dependency and making better use of its existing urban infrastructure has left Toronto still facing increased traffic congestion, a key concern in planning for a livable city.

I will now critique the impact of redevelopment on the quality of life in Toronto with regards to housing. The Plan intends to consider the needs of the whole region by offering a broader choice of housing type, tenure and affordability (Toronto, 2002). However, despite having a goal of making housing choices available for “all people in their communities at all stages of their lives” (Toronto, 2002, 3), a shortage of affordable housing remains one of Toronto’s chief concerns (Macionis and Parrillo, 2004). As well, the effects of the City increasing the supply of housing in mixed-use environments, such as in commercial districts where people can live and work locally, remain in question. In particular, the Plan’s focus will be to redevelop and reurbanize Downtown by providing a full range of housing opportunities for Downtown workers, in addition to encouraging residential intensification in Downtown’s mixed-use and regeneration areas (Toronto, 2002). However, these policies could result in trade-offs in environmental integrity (Ie: lack of preservation of heritage structures and landscapes in both the natural and built form, and environmentally significant areas, in favour of increasing Downtown’s housing density) along with trade-offs in social well-being (Ie: concern over sense of community, or lack thereof, in Downtown; affordability of housing). Tomalty (1997) explains that Toronto’s housing policy statement allows for a “wide degree of interpretation” (133), resulting in “weak provincial policy instruments” (133) that present a challenge for translating provincial intentions into local policies. It has yet to be determined whether these provincial objectives regarding housing intensification policies will be successfully achieved. At present, these growth management objectives are inadequately reflected in Toronto’s urban structure. Hanna et al (2004) report there is still a severe shortage of housing for new immigrants, and the housing crisis is not just a local matter. In fact, “47% of those sleeping in shelters for homeless [in Toronto] come from outside the City, and 14% are new Canadian immigrants” (56). The Plan has not met its goal of improving homelessness through housing intensification and redevelopment. As a segue into my next point of critique, there is growing concern not only in the quality of life in the City’s urban core, but also in the preservation of social and ‘progressive’ services in Toronto (Boudreau, 1999), including multicultural, women, and immigrant programs.

A further concern of the Plan involves Toronto’s social infrastructure, including the promotion of social equity and inclusion (Toronto, 2002). With concentrations of new immigrants and other minority groups, Toronto has a unique, multicultural social profile. Therefore, the plan for Toronto’s future is focused on achieving the “greatest social benefits” (Toronto, 2002, 2) for all of its public. However, missing from the discussion is an elaboration and review of what in fact constitutes the greatest social and public good.

There is limited discussion pertaining to the quality of the community services, facilities, and region-wide transport systems that all affect the quality of life in neighbourhoods (Toronto, 2002), but it is rather vague. Toronto is a large and growing city, and its diverse population represents “arguably the most multicultural city in the world” (Hodge and Robinson, 2001, 243). The Plan does not adequately address the lack of neighbourhood identity and opportunity for cultural expression within Toronto’s social milieu.

Although this Plan could not possibly accommodate every citizen, it appears the needs of certain special interest and ethno-specific groups continue to be omitted in the planning process (Keil, 2000). The ‘top-down’ planning structure underpinning Toronto’s Plan has resulted in an ostensibly patriarchal planning body, with bureaucratic/provincial interests, and not necessarily public opinion, at the forefront of planning. When a central agency is above the municipalities, as in this megacity, infrastructure deterioration can occur, creating inequalities in development that are reflected both socially and politically. Despite the Plan’s objective of having Toronto evolve as the focal point for specialized services [Ie: education, health, culture, retailing] for the whole region (Toronto, 2002), Hodge and Robinson (2001) assert that the government’s focus for an amalgamated Toronto has created a “weak regional structure in the rest of the GTA, where most of the recent growth has been taking place” (356), resulting in “fragmented, compartmentalized, and complex” (351) service provisions. Holden (1997) also mentions the “loss of identity” (26) and “lack of individuality” (27), calling the amalgamation “ill conceived” (26). Finally, Boudreau (1999) argues the political restructuring has resulted in a spatial struggle between different segments of Toronto’s middle class. Boudreau discusses the Plan’s failure in addressing the internal dichotomy of an urban/suburban middle-class split, whereby suburban inhabitants identify the urban middle class as “oppositional and radical” (78), while the urban residents stereotype their suburban counterparts as conservative for their allegiance to “green space” (78) (along with their public resistance to high density living, leading to urban sprawl). In 1997, resistance to the megacity was clearly expressed in a referendum vote, when 76% of voters in Metro Toronto said ‘No’ to the new Plan (Keil, 2000; Boudreau, 1999). Evidently, this Plan did not adequately account for the importance of public participation in building cohesive communities, with limited public involvement over the decisions affecting their lives and social well-being.

ii. Arguments For Toronto’s Official Plan

I will now shift my focus to critiquing various quality of life and livability issues relating to positions supporting Toronto’s amalgamation. With regards to transportation, Toronto has demonstrated a sustained commitment to public transit, as transport policies have historically balanced the need for roads and transit (GTA Task Force, 1996). The Plan maintains that public transit should be universally accessible and an attractive choice for travel (Toronto, 2002). Despite persistent concerns over traffic congestion, this Plan has successfully improved accessibility between residential, employment, and other with its efficient, high-quality transit system. The Plan stresses, “we are integrally linked in many ways” (Toronto, 2002, 9) with our neighbours, and provides the proper transport linkages that support live/work relationships. A key objective to Toronto’s prosperity depends on this excellent integrated regional transportation system and inter-regional transit service, along with road and rail networks that provide excellent access to key locations (Toronto, 2002). These investments in Toronto’s transport system not only play a role in “nurturing a healthy and socially stable workforce” (Gertler, 1995, 128), but also foster a “greater reliance on mass transit” (Macionis and Parrillo, 2004, 433). In addition, the Plan is moving towards a more sustainable transportation system by making transit, cycling, and walking increasingly attractive alternatives to using the automobile.

The linking of municipal transit and commuter services has been one of the Plan’s main strengths. As residents live farther from their jobs, and as goods must travel greater distances to reach markets, Toronto’s Plan recognizes that transportation and distribution linkages connecting the GTA are shaped by the unique functions found within the City itself. Therefore, in order to properly co-ordinate the delivery of human services across the GTA (Toronto, 2002), the Plan includes adjacent municipalities in the decision-making process of mutual interest matters like “shared transportation corridors and cross-boundary service provisions” (Toronto, 2002, 11). This creates greater opportunities for social interaction and livability, which promotes a healthy urban environment. Gertler (1995) outlines how investments in social capital leading towards “well-articulated social and network relations” (127), will offer a higher quality of life for Torontonians.

I will now critique the policies that guide decision-making for the City’s human and built environments (Toronto, 2002) as it relates to livability and sustainability goals. The Plan authorizes that land use designations covering three quarters of the city’s geographic area will not accommodate much growth. Instead, the existing character of these neighbourhoods, buildings, roads, and open spaces will be strengthened, revitalized, and preserved, while most of the new growth over the next thirty years will occur in the remaining quarter of the city, targeted as the areas of real opportunity (Toronto, 2002). Given the needs and intricacies of Toronto’s evolving communities, these are suitable goals for a livable, sustainable city, effectively balancing the availability of land use with conservation of the natural and built environments. Toronto has also identified water management and waste disposal policies as priorities in developing an inclusive, dynamic system to meet its regional needs. The goals of enhancing residents’ livability involve the proper management of water and wastewater services, which are important foundations for growth in the City, along with maintaining the quality of life in “mature growth areas” (Toronto, 2002, 12). By developing a stable ecosystem approach in planning Toronto’s watershed and bioregion, the Plan targets a sustainable “balance between human society and nature” (Hodge and Robinson, 2004, 331) for achieving better water quality through water conservation (Ie: metropolitan and industrial conservation / allocation limits), along with wastewater and storm water management based on “watershed principles” (Toronto, 2002, 10). The Plan’s salient concern of restoring water quality to its major watersheds, along with its trunkwater and waste water lines (Toronto, 2002), enables Toronto to provide a better water and sewage treatment infrastructure, incorporate inter-generational equity for the future, and develop a cleaner, safer environment for its residents.

Another critique of Toronto’s quality of life involves housing. The Plan pledges adequate and affordable housing as a “basic requirement for everyone” (Toronto, 2002, 48). With Toronto’s ever increasing population, along with rising housing demand due to migration from Canada and abroad, a full range of housing choices across the City and within neighbourhoods will be provided and maintained to meet the current and future needs of residents (Toronto, 2002). The Plan intends to respond to the City’s unmet housing needs by striking a healthier balance among high rise ownership housing and affordable low-rise housing for large and multi-family households, along with mid-range and affordable rental housing (Toronto, 2002). These initiatives demonstrate that local and regional governments have recognized the priority in housing affordability, tenure, and form to meet the City’s population needs. In addition to enhancing social well-being, potential benefits to housing intensification also involve the reduction of homelessness, range of choices in residential location, and greater opportunity for community vitality.

The Plan then proposes a redevelopment of “social housing properties” (Toronto, 2002, 50), outlined by the strong commitment to sharing social costs in the region, with the “distribution of social housing across Toronto” (GTA Task Force, 1996, 32). Socially assisted housing will provide for decent family housing in healthier communities, and aid in the housing crisis that resulted from government cutbacks and capitalist restructuring. The Plan also promotes the goal of working in sustainable partnership with other levels of government, as well as the private and non-profit sectors, so as to “preserve what we have” (Toronto, 2002, 49). This ensures that any new housing developments will be consistent with the existing character, heritage, and natural features of the area. As well, these policy initiatives not only minimize unnecessary land use and consumption, but promote the “equitable development of housing across the City” (Hanna et al, 2004, 43) (Ie: the distribution of housing at a reasonable proximity to work and school), along with providing housing opportunities at densities that support a transit system, in order to meet the social and livability needs of its residents.

Finally, I will critique the Plan’s contribution to quality of life issues regarding community services and facilities. The Plan advocates a strategic investment in social infrastructure in order to encourage greater levels of equity, access, and social cohesion within communities across the City (Toronto, 2002). These initiatives include “keeping surplus schools, [as well as] developing and sharing the use of multi-service facilities and schools, parks, and public open space” (Toronto, 2002, 52). This is an excellent social planning model that is inclusive and facilitates shared responsibility in “making the best of what we have” (Toronto, 2002, 52). Toronto’s ability to grow wisely depends on how it responds to demands for new or additional services and facilities as the population grows. Donald (2002) asserts that the diverse needs of Toronto’s multicultural society have always been considered, as the government understood the advantages and support that “diversity gives to improving the quality of place” (130). By developing participative demographic profiles of area residents (Ie: targeting ethnic enclaves) and identifying gaps in services (Toronto, 2002) among areas that are inadequately serviced or experiencing major growth or change, the Plan has employed different ways to engage its communities based on culture and geographies. Therefore, communities will get the sense that they are truly part of Toronto’s planning system, and that this system is accountable to them.

iii. Conclusion

In this essay, I have examined and critiqued the reasons for and against Toronto’s Plan relating to various social, livability, and quality of life issues. Despite the concerns surrounding the Plan as outlined in the first part of this paper, I believe that ultimately Toronto recognizes the barriers towards an inclusive, equitable planning process and will find ways in fulfilling its goals of strengthening the social infrastructure, livability, and quality of life for its residents. Solutions utilizing New Urbanism and Smart Growth principles have been incorporated into many of the Plan’s initiatives, which will assist in curtailing urban sprawl, improving transportation while reducing automobile dependence, providing adequate and affordable housing, strengthening social and community ties, and protecting Toronto’s “natural and human-made heritage” (Toronto, 2002, 41). Bunce (2004) also discusses the City’s plan of “ecological modernization” (187) in revitalizing its existing urban areas to create a more “pedestrian-friendly, livable, and compact city” (188) for its diverse, multicultural population. Most importantly, urban regional planning in Toronto must facilitate public participation and account for the diverse needs within communities, the City, and the region itself. If these criterions in planning for Toronto’s future are met, with the principles of equity, sustainability, diversity, responsibility, and social inclusion entrenched in planners’ decision-making processes, then Toronto will be well on its way towards the standard of ‘a city that works’.

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

admin on December 8th, 2009 | File Under Area & Country Studies | -