Kelly Egan, a journalist with the Ottawa Citizen recently wrote an opinion article giving support to the Salvation Army’s proposed shelter on Montreal Road. I did post a response to the article but kept it fairly short. I decided to write a longer response here.

Dear Mr. Egan

Your emphatic yes to the question if the current complex can be built at the Montreal Road location is questionable – why does the proposal require an Official Plan and Zoning Bylaw amendment then if that is the case.

Similarly, your yes to the question, if it fits into the existing plan for Montreal Road (the Montreal Road District Secondary Plan), is also incorrect. Emergency shelters are not permitted in Main Streets and the planning report does not explain how the proposal complements and improves upon the positive qualities of the existing character of the District. In fact, the planning report stumbles when it tries to explain why shelters are excluded in Traditional Mainstreets. The report states that “as there was no specific application at the time [of the 2008 Interim Control Study on shelter locations] there was no desire to visit the historic silence to Mainstreets in the Generally Permitted Uses” – that’s the reason? The report, however, does not mention that there was a desire on the part of City Council when it approved the motion in 2008 to review the prohibition of shelters on Mainstreets as part of the Official Plan Review. Since the Official Plan Review has long been completed and the new Official Plan has been approved, it can be assumed that the mainstreet review was never undertaken.

The essence of your conclusions and the planners’ rationale seems to be that the Salvation Army’s proposal must only be considered from a land use perspective and that zoning cannot regulate people’s behaviour or actions. The planning report notes that zoning cannot regulate behaviour, pointing out that the same statement was made in 2008. Therefore, issues around community safety, property values, economic impacts, demographics of shelter clients cannot be considered as part of the planning review of the Official Plan and Zoning amendments. While the 2008 Interim Control Study did make that same point it also added that zoning can regulate land uses where these acts [behaviour] often occur in proximity to where [drug] traffickers attract those at risk … these acts result in negative impacts, worsening the health and safety of both the homeless and at­risk, as well as increased safety concerns amongst the residents, particularly in communal areas, such as streets, sidewalks, stores, parks and schools. Why then, is the planners’ interpretation and implementation of zoning regulations different in 2017 compared to 2008 when the limit of 4 shelters in Ward 12 was approved even though the two reports deal with the same fundamental issues around the concentration of services?

Even in the City’s own definitions of the responsibilities of Planning Committee, it states that Planning Committee shall “ensure the proper investigation and survey of the physical, social, economic and environmental conditions [my emphasis] in relation to the development and redevelopment of land within the urban boundary”. The Committee’s role also includes providing “direction to staff for the implementation of the planning and development goals and policies as outlined in the City’s Official Plan document“. One of the strategic directions contained in the Official Plan is Creating Livable Communities.

The reason for the 2008 Interim Control Study originated from the community concerns over the negative impacts that have resulted from the concentration of social services within Ward 12. The planning report notes that the Salvation Army proposed centre on Montreal Road represents a relocation of its existing shelter on George Street in the Byward Market. Therefore, the new shelter is compliant with the City’s limit of 4 shelters in Ward 12 as stated in the 2008 Bylaw. However, the new shelter will provide 350 beds compared to 198 beds at the existing Booth Centre. There are approximately 58 shelters in the City of Toronto. The proposed Montreal Road shelter is only surpassed by one shelter in terms of size – the 543-bed Seaton House. The largest Salvation Army shelter in Toronto is the Maxwell Meighan Centre with 288 beds.

The Seaton House, managed by the City of Toronto, is planned for demolition to be replaced with a new facility with 100 emergency beds, 378 long-term care beds for elderly residents, 130 assisted living permanent apartment units and 21 affordable (non-assisted) units. The existing shelter is described as follows: “though it’s mere minutes away from the glitz of the Eaton Centre and more affluent neighbourhoods like Cabbagetown, this area of the downtown east is known more for graffiti-splattered walls, piles of trash and high levels of crime”. The number of transitional housing (emergency beds) is to be reduced from 543 to 100. The City of Toronto’s development model seems to be more progressive than the Salvation Army’s proposal on Montreal Road in terms of addressing community needs and providing for a mix of housing types. The scale of the new project is also more in line with the much larger population in Toronto compared to Ottawa.

It is also interesting to note that in 2017, according to the planners’ report, the concentration of social services in Vanier can be complementary to the new shelter which can benefit from close proximity to these facilities according. This is very different to the 2008 planning view that the concentration of services was detrimental to the surrounding community.

The issue then is not that an emergency shelter is relocating to Montreal Road but that it will result in a much larger concentration of social services in one community along with all the spillover problems as described in the 2008 Study. To think that such a large mega-centre will not be a setback to the future revitalization of Montreal Road and the surrounding residential neighbourhood is simply wrong.

Inadvertently, you may have identified the real reason for supporting the Salvation Army move in your article. You point out that the existing shelter on George Street is in a “grubby” location and by moving it, it will “dilute” the number of shelters in the Byward Market and open up the site for redevelopment. By coincidence (?), Claridge Homes, a pioneer developer of condominium buildings in the downtown core recently received planning approvals from City Council to build a new 22-storey 282-unit condominium tower and to convert the existing Union of Canada building into a hotel with an additional 3-stories. The site is located immediately adjacent to the Salvation Army Booth Centre.

Richard Florida, one of most quoted urbanist and well known for his thinking about the rise of the “creative class”, has recently written about the New Urban Crisis whereby the urban revival of the last two decades fueled by innovation and growth in high technology industries combined with skilled talent moving back to the central city from the suburbs has led to increased inequality or segregation across neighbourhoods. The struggle between Vanier and the City of Ottawa / Salvation Army mirrors to some degree, Florida’s thinking. The increasing attractiveness of living downtown by the more affluent is pushing out the less desirable occupants and land uses to more disadvantaged neighbourhoods. Vanier has historically been viewed as the poor cousin of urban Ottawa. However, you will not find this reason in the planners’ rationale for supporting the Salvation Army proposal.

Yours truly