Have you ever wondered why all the new development in Toronto is located downtown? Apart from the obvious reason that downtown real estate is more valuable, what is the major disincentive for developers to take their cranes east of the subway line, or further west for that matter? Surely there must be some socially responsible private developers in Toronto who aim at revitalizing and regenerating older communities in order to create new, vibrant, cohesive communities.

The truth of the matter is that there are indeed socially responsible developers in the city of Toronto, but it is our municipal and provincial policies that are partially responsible for stifling these companies from exploring development options away from the sea of glass towers. While it is great that Toronto has more “cranes in the sky” than any other North American city, one must ask themselves: are more one bedroom, 400 square foot condominiums really needed? What ever happened to life-cycle housing? Or affordable housing for that matter? Both public and academic rhetoric now highlights the income polarization, uneven development and burgeoning social, economic and political issues apparent in Toronto, which are creating a divided city. Urban revitalization is key to palliating many of these issues. Matters of affordable housing, disconnectivity, aging infrastructure, single-use zoning and a whole swath of social issues can be tackled through economically, socially and environmentally responsible and sustainable urban revitalization throughout the city of Toronto. Large pockets of the ‘post-war’, inner suburbs of Toronto are perfect candidates for this type of revitalization, but yet little development is taking place.

Development fees, Section 37, and the “100% replacement rate” are prime culprits for this reality. Unlike most metropolitan areas in North America, Toronto has a flat fee for development charges. Meaning that regardless if a developer decides to build on a parcel of land in the downtown core, or in an outer suburb of Scarborough, they are forced to pay the same development charge. This is economically illogical. Building in an area that is likely to return less on investment, while having the same expenses is not exactly an incentive for profit-driven companies.

In the same vein, have you ever wondered why all of the great amenities tend to be centered in downtown? Yes, every area needs amenities, services, and community centers, but shouldn’t we distribute some of the goods? Outer suburbs are faced with poor transit, lacking social services, a dearth of public, green space and community facilities, yet these areas continue to decline. This is largely connected to the development fees policy in place.

However, coupled with this is the infamous Section 37. Section 37 is essentially provincial policy that stipulates that in return for greater height or density, developers can provide extra funds to compensate for the increased ‘strain’ the development will place on resources and services in the area. These Section 37 negotiations can result in various amounts of extra money, and can land neighborhoods anything from public pools to more bus shelters. This sounds pretty good to most people, and it is to a certain extent; however Section 37 stipulates that these extra funds must be geographically connected or contiguous to the development. Meaning that these funds cannot be dispersed around the city, hence the problem. Purportedly, if we were able to disperse these funds to areas of the city in need to regeneration, we may realize a much more egalitarian city, not typified by stark dichotomies.

As one of the only Westernized countries in the world that does not have a national housing strategy, the “100% replacement rate” seems like a good strategy to maintain affordable housing. After all, this law outlines the need for developers to maintain the same number of affordable rental units pre-development as post-development. The aim is obviously to protect the limited affordable housing left in the city, while trying not to increase the 10-year wait for affordable housing. Unfortunately, this presents another disincentive for developers to build in certain areas, namely those inner suburbs. In order for developers to get a return on investment, the new rental units would have to come in at cost, which is highly unlikely when considering this type of massive upgrade. This is not usually plausible without increasing density and height further, which is often opposed by local communities or not permitted under other provincial and municipal framework. Similarly, while it is important for developers to be socially responsible, and without private-public partnerships the current state of the city would be much more dire, one needs to rethink the question. Shouldn’t we as a community, city, province, and country be tackling the covert and overt issues leading to a dearth of affordable housing and increasing income polarization rather than placing this responsibility on the backs’ of developers?

photo by Loozrboy

Kayla is an urban studies student at the University of Toronto