When us 905ers think about waterfront development, we consider downtown Toronto an example of what not to do (recent improvements notwithstanding). The criticisms centre on three things:
- Big buildings that block lakeviews;
- Some butt-ugly buildings that distract from the nicer ones; and
- Lack of continuous public access. The waterfront trail along much of our lake is more like the Waterfront Tease — now you see it, now you don’t.
The 905 could be learning from these mistakes, but instead our municipalities along the water seem destined to repeat them.
Last week Burlington staff unveiled planning options for a key stretch of land on the waterfront east of Spencer Smith Park.
The land is home to 11 heritage properties, including Emma’s Back Porch, a two-storey GTA landmark that draws visitors from all over. I came to Emma’s when I lived in Toronto for the privilege of sipping a cold one on their lakefront patio, the nicest “view with a brew” you can get, shy of owning property.
Now imagine trying to find Emma’s amid four towers, ranging from eight to 15 storeys high. Now add five more towers planned elsewhere in the downtown, ranging from 14 to 21 storeys. Then imagine trying to see the lake from the soon-to-be-oxymoronic-in-name Lakeshore Road.
How the city got here is a case study in the failings of community planning and engagement I’ve seen and heard about from 905 residents:
1. Poor notice of community meetings.
I subscribe to my city’s e-mail service, so I get lots of notices in my inbox. But I almost missed this meeting, because I had to click through several pages on the website and read a two-page document to accidentally stumble across it. There’s got to be a better way of communicating with residents, especially with online technology.
2. Public consultation that feels more like public “dictation.”
The meeting was billed as an opportunity for the public to comment on draft urban design guidelines for the area in question. Most of us understand the word “draft” to mean “subject to change.” Not, apparently, when city staff and politicians use the word.
Instead, residents were told the eight to 15-storey heights mentioned in the “draft” were non-negotiable. So the public is reduced to picking plants and paint colours — go “dress up” a building that maybe shouldn’t be there in the first place. But even that doesn’t count for much. See Item 3
3. Design guidelines that don’t have any teeth.
Developers can ignore them — and resident’s suggestions. The city says it can’t compel compliance — but they could by passing an appropriate by-law.
The city says it has to consider property rights. But property rights aren’t absolute, and there’s often a stricter standard for homeowners than developers. At least six Burlington families, for example, may have their properties expropriated to build a highway to accommodate new homes in Waterdown. It seems property rights flow to those with the deepest pockets.
4. Building maximums become minimums.
Already, the draft guidelines are under attack in three cases, with one developer asking for more than the proposed eight-storey limit.
5. No explanation of why growth is necessary or even advisable.
Municipalities hide behind the province’s Places to Grow legislation, claiming Dalton made them do it. The legislation limits growth to urban boundaries, and in some areas sets a target of 200 people per hectare. Have we reached it? The city doesn’t say.
ALREADY OVERBURDENED
And how are we going to accommodate the new population in our already overburdened hospitals, schools, roads, parks and community centres? The city doesn’t say that, either.
Truth is growth doesn’t pay for itself, which is why Halton Regional Chair Gary Carr recently refused water hookups unless developers, along with upper levels of government, provide more cash to pay for the infrastructure needed.
Residents deserve better. Community consultations need to focus on community rights (and responsibilities), not just those of developers.
We need to build and preserve neighbourhoods, not simply build towers.
