Urban place-making centred on equity and social justice
REVITALIZING ST. JAMES TOWN: THE CONTROVERSY OF WELLESLEY-PARLIAMENT SQUARE
Over the past three decades, Toronto has experienced a rise in poverty and income gap that has contributed to growing social inequity and declining housing affordability. Through various policies, the City of Toronto envisions rental housing revitalization to provide new housing in entirely new complete neighbourhoods that are healthy, socially inclusive, and affordable.
The proposed Wellesley-Parliament Square development is one of such revitalization projects, aiming to add more rental housing, redesign the streetscape, and provide better public spaces at the heart of St. James Town. In this paper, I review the socioeconomic conditions of St. James Town to situate this development proposal. Then, I review relevant provincial and municipal policies to assess whether the development represents good planning. Finally, I analyze the project from stakeholder perspectives to explore its various social dimensions and highlight the importance of local socioeconomic context in planning decisions. Although rental housing provision is crucial to Toronto’s future growth, its execution must be sensitive to the needs of local residents and fit with other objectives of municipal planning.
Introduction
As Toronto is a major economic engine for Canada, affordable housing is crucial for its success. However, over the past three decades, Toronto has experienced a rise in poverty and income gap that has contributed to growing social inequity and declining housing affordability (Housing Opportunities Toronto [HOT], 2009). To combat this problem, the Toronto Housing Charter policy has identified the “fair access to a full range of housing [as] fundamental to strengthening Toronto’s economy, its environmental efforts, and the health and social well-being of its residents and communities” (HOT, 2009).
One of the most important avenues for housing affordability is rental housing, which has proven to be particularly important for lower-income and immigrant newcomers in Toronto (HOT 2009). In addition to ensuring that existing rental housing is property maintained, the Affordable Housing Action Plan 2010-2020 also calls for rental community revitalization, which could provide the opportunity to replace aging buildings with new mixed-income neighbourhoods that takes advantage of potential surplus property (HOT, 2009). Through these policies, the City of Toronto envisions revitalization to provide new housing in entirely new complete neighbourhoods that are healthy, socially inclusive, and affordable.
The proposed Wellesley-Parliament Square development is one of such revitalization projects, aiming to add more rental housing, redesign the streetscape, and provide better public spaces at the heart of St. James Town. In this paper, I review the socioeconomic conditions of St. James Town to situate this development proposal. Then, I review relevant provincial and municipal policies to assess whether the development represents good planning. Finally, I analyze the project from stakeholder perspectives to explore its various social dimensions and highlight the importance of local socioeconomic context in planning decisions. Although rental housing provision is crucial to Toronto’s future growth, its execution must be sensitive to the needs of local residents and fit with other objectives of municipal planning.
Background on St. James Town
St. James Town is the result of urban renewal in the 1960s with the goal to create new housing options for younger, middle class professionals in Downtown Toronto (Quesada, 2018). Nestled between Parliament, Sherbourne, Wellesley, and Bloor St., St. James Town was developed in the 1950s after Le Corbusier’s “Towers in the Park” design where high-rise towers are surrounded by open space. However, the development is severely lacking in amenities. Despite being designed for young, middle class professionals, St. James Town eventually became home to lower and moderate-income families (Zemljic, 2014).
Today, St. James Town is one of the densest neighbourhoods in Toronto, with a population density of 64,636 people/km², as compared to 886 people/km² in the rest of Toronto (Toronto City Mission, 2018). This density has led to severe overcrowding in apartment units (Zemljic, 2014). At the same time, the average income in the community is among the lowest in Toronto (Zemljic, 2014). Over 40% of the families are under the poverty line, and 64% of residents are new immigrants to Canada (Toronto City Mission, 2018; Barnes, 2011). The socioeconomic conditions in St. James Town are also correlated with poor maintenance. Many of the 18 aging high-rise rental apartment buildings are lacking basic hygienic utilities like exhaust fans, and all of them require major repairs (Barnes, 2011). As a result, residents in St. James Town are faced with systemic and physical barriers to good health and wellbeing.
Importantly, St. James Town is lacking in physical and social resources for the current demographic. As the development had been previously designed for middle-income young professionals, amenities such as playgrounds for children and clinics for residents are missing (Lieberman, 2018). There are also few green and open spaces to facilitate social integration among residents and facilities for people to engage in physical activities (Lieberman, 2018). Furthermore, TTC bus services and schools are already at capacity (Lieberman, 2018). Overall, St. James Town is a highly vulnerable and impoverished community that is in need of social revitalization. Currently, the City of Toronto has implemented the St. James Town Community Improvement Plan and St. James Town Public Realm and Open Space Plan to revitalize the neighbourhood (Greatwise, 2018).
Wellesley-Parliament Square development proposal
Greatwise Developments proposed the Wellesley-Parliament Square complex at the heart of St. James Town, covering from 238 to 280 Wellesley St. E. and 650 Parliament St. With input from the community, the development aims to achieve three main goals: 1) Provide Privately-Owned-Publicly-accessible-Spaces (POPS); 2) Achieve street connectivity that allows for pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicles to navigate the neighbourhood; and to 3) Improve the built form through new building design, and commercial provision (Quesada, 2018).
In terms of the public realm, the site is currently asphalt heavy and catered to automobiles, and the sidewalks are very narrow for pedestrians (Quesada, 2018). The lack of connectivity often forces pedestrians to jaywalk to travel through the site, thus leading to dangerous road-usage. The developer attributes this problem to the lacking sense of “place”and propose to provide a series of interconnected parks, open spaces, plazas, and POPS on the site to reinvigorate the social space (Quesada, 2018). Additionally, infill for the public realm expects to bring retail activities to improve the sense of place.
To improve connectivity, the development will widen walking paths and bicycle lanes, and connect them to the roads that bound the site (Greatwise, 2018). Additionally, surface parking and waste enclosures will be moved to sub-surface levels to improve walkability. The development will be adding 29 parking spaces to the existing 1,555 that are both above and below-grade (City of Toronto, 2018). There are also a number of newly proposed streets such as a new north-south public right-of-way, as well as a new private road running east-west between Parliament St. and the Rose Ave. extension (City of Toronto, 2018).
Finally, the development will transform the built form. The mixed-use development proposes to increase the FSI from 3.711 to 5.49, provide 887 new dwelling units in addition to the 2,227 existing rental dwelling units, and renovate 9,685 m2 of non-residential space (City of Toronto, 2018). The development includes several built components. For the 51-storey mixed-use condo tower, a base building ranging from 4-10 storeys will be incorporated into the existing base building; the existing super market there will be replaced by a larger retail space that would house another super market and smaller retail units on the ground floor, as well as a fitness centre above the retail space (City of Toronto, 2018). The developer also proposes a 10-storey residential mid-rise rental building and four 3-storey townhouse blocks (City of Toronto, 2018). Finally, the developer proposes a 5-storey non-residential building attached to the existing residential building to include retail, office, and community spaces (City of Toronto, 2018).
Overall, the development aims to construct a “new, more diverse housing options with a range of building and forms, along with new community-based retail, as well as a new public park and additional open green space” (Lieberman, 2018). Ultimately, it strives for a vibrant mixed-use community that would provide housing and retail services, as well as a connected spaced that would integrate the community with the broader cityscape.
The controversy
Given St. James Town’s disenfranchised socioeconomic condition, the Wellesley-Parliament Square development is controversial for several reasons. On the one hand, the proposal will accommodate for Toronto’s projected population growth and provide relatively affordable rental units for lower-income and newcomer immigrant families. The development also addresses several existing problems such as a lack of green space and exercise facilities by providing POPS and gym facilities. On the other hand, local residents are quite concerned about new condominium developments. As St. James Town is already one of the densest neighbourhoods in Toronto and existing infrastructural services are already struggling to keep up, residents are worried that adding more units would simply worsen the situation (Lieberman, 2018). Furthermore, the 51-storey proposal can also be quite disruptive to the local landscape as most high-rises in the area are between 20-32 storeys, and the additional density will not fix existing problems of inadequate maintenance and lack of services (Vincent, 2018; Zemljic, 2014). As residents have voiced, any extra space should be used to provide social services or develop resources for the neighbourhood rather than retail activities (Lieberman, 2018).
Relevant planning policies
PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT
The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) provides policy objectives at the provincial level to guide land use planning and development for municipalities. Importantly, Section 1.4, Housing, mandates municipalities to promote complete communities characterized by a mix of housing, recreation, parks and open space, and transportation choices in development residential areas. Overall, municipalities must establish development standards for residential intensification, redevelopment, and new development to minimize the cost of housing and facilitate compact form, while maintaining appropriate levels of public health and safety.
GROWTH PLAN FOR THE GREATER GOLDEN HORSESHOE
The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Growth Plan) builds on the PPS’ policy foundation to provide more specific land use planning policies. In terms of housing, Section 2.2.6 of the Growth Plan mandates the City to set minimum density targets within settlement areas and related policies to direct municipalities to make more efficient use of land, resources, and infrastructure. Ultimately, the goal is to reduce sprawl, promote compact built form, and provide better designed communities with a vibrant public realm. In terms of public service facilities, Section 3.2.8 indicates that priority should be given to maintaining and adapting existing public service facilities and spaces as community hubs to meet the needs of the community and optimize the long-term viability of public investments.
TORONTO OFFICIAL PLAN
Guided by provincial planning policies, the Official Plan (OP) sets out the specific planning guidelines and requirements at the municipal level to direct all development projects within Toronto’s municipal boundaries. The land use of all sites in Toronto are categorized in the Urban Structure Map, Land Use Plan, and Zoning bylaws to strategize their development.
On the Urban Structure Map, the proposed Wellesley-Parliament Square development site is located within the “Downtown” category. While Downtown is expected to grow and accommodate growth, growth will not be spread uniformly across the entire Downtown. There are many residential areas that may not and should not experience any physical change. Specific growth strategies for the Downtown is detailed in Section 2.2.1 of the OP, which suggests that investment in the Downtown environment should maintain and improve the public realm. As Downtown increasingly becomes an important space for people to live, development should also improve social, health, community service, and local institutions. Additionally, housing opportunities will be encouraged through residential intensification in Mixed Use Areas and Regeneration Areas, while Apartment Neighbourhoods are to grow through sensitive infill.
Map 18 of the Land Use Plan indicates that the site is designated as “Apartment Neighbourhoods”, meaning that intensification on the site should be through “sensitive infill”. Despite being primarily residential areas with buildings greater than 4 storeys, Apartment Neighbourhoods can include parks, institutions, cultural and recreational facilities, and small-scale retail services that serve the needs of local residents.
Several sections of the OP applies to this site. First, Policy 4.2 suggests that Apartment Neighbourhoods generally do not anticipate intensive growth. As a result, development in Apartment Neighbourhoods should contribute to the quality of life of local residents by providing appropriate massing to transition between different development intensities, include sufficient parking for residents, and provide recreation space.
Additionally, Policy 3.1 details guidelines to build a successful public realm. In addition to providing connectivity and built for guidelines, Section 3.1.3 specifically designates larger civic responsibilities and obligations for tall buildings to abide by the goals and objectives of the OP and provide high quality publicly accessible open spaces.
Furthermore, Policy 3.2 delineates policies to encourage mixed housing in terms of form, tenure, and affordability, as well as the protection of rental housing. New development on sites with six or more rental units must protect existing rental units and may secure any needed improvements and renovations to the existing rental housing without passing on costs to tenant. Any development that results in the loss of six or more rental units must secure rental units to replace the lost ones, as well as implement acceptable tenant relocation and assistance plans.
These policies indicate that the City has an interest in securing new rental housing, particularly affordable ones. Therefore, large residential developments especially should provide an opportunity to achieve a mix of housing in terms of form and affordability. In accordance with Section 5.1.1 of the OP, if the development seeks an increase in height or density, the first priority community benefit will be to designate 20% of the additional residential units as affordable housing, either on site or the conveyance of land in the development to the City for the purpose of affordable housing.
As the development proposes substantial changes to the Apartment Neighbourhood land that is not generally intended for significant growth, the proposed development requires an Official Plan Amendment.
OTHER MUNICIPAL BY-LAWS
Zoning - The site is zoned “Residential (R (d1.0) (x888)) by the city-wide Zoning By-law 569-2013. This zone permits a range of housing options from apartment buildings to townhouses. Additionally, certain retail stores, municipal, and institutional uses are also permitted to suit residential uses. The maximum height for the site is 10 m; the maximum FSI is 3.5 with a maximum building lot coverage of 50%. Given these zoning restrictions, the development also requires a Zoning By-law Amendment to accommodate for significant addition to height, density, and other zoning-related requirements.
Rental Housing Demolition and Conversion - Section 111 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 authorizes City Council to regulate demolition and conversion of residential rental units in the City. The bylaw prohibits the demolition or conversion of rental housing units in buildings containing six or more residential units without a city permit. The development has already submitted a Rental Housing Demolition application to demolish and replace 18 existing rental dwelling units on the ground floor of 238-240 Wellesley St. E.
Analysis
The Wellesley-Parliament Square proposal has accounted for several important planning policy objectives and community concerns, but the current proposal may be insufficient at bringing improvement to the site. The project proposal reflects the perceived need for intensification and provision of rental housing for the lower-income community at St. James Town. It also abides by provincial and municipal planning objectives for mixed housing, complete communities, and intensification by promoting additional rental and ownership, apartment and town houses, as well as retail opportunities. The developer has also accounted for several local concerns, including the lack of open green space and commercial retail services. The executive director at Cabbagetown BIA expresses that the Wellesley-Parliament Square project and other revitalization developments have great potential for visual improvement and retail revitalization for the community (interview). Furthermore, the developer appears to be conscious of the undesirable built form design and has put forth a plan to reconnect the streets and provide community facilities (Greatwise, 2018). However, these considerations may be insufficient at addressing the needs of the community, and be overshadowed by the fact that intensification and growth is not necessarily desirable.
Policy wise, the site is designated as Apartment Neighbourhood, meaning that it is not intended for further intensification unless there is a good justification. However, St. James Town is already one of the densest and most disenfranchised communities in Toronto, and local community members experience a lack of services to accommodate the overcrowded neighbourhood (Lieberman, 2018). Currently, long line-ups at TTC bus stations, overflowing supermarkets in the evenings, and over-capacity in local schools all indicate that there is a lack of adequate services to ensure local residents’ quality of life at St. James Town (Vincent, 2018).
Additionally, Hannah Goodbrand (2018), a Steering Committee member of the St. James Town Community Corner, remarks that existing housing units, communal spaces, fitness rooms, and pools are deteriorating and becoming less accessible due to the lack of maintenance. Overall, the current development may actually increase residents and decrease amenities like the parking lot behind Food Basics and the basketball court and swimming pool in front of 650 Parliament (Goodbrand, 2018). As both provincial and municipal planning policies advocate for a better quality of life, social services, public institutions, and public realm, increasing density on this site may run counter to these policy objectives.
There is also debate about the effectiveness of green space provision in the Wellesley-Parliament Square proposal. Although St. James Town does not have a lot of formally designated green space, Goodbrand (2018) reveals that there are actually a number of informal public, open, and green spaces that are actively used by St. James Town residents. She believes that the development proposal is spinning the project as adding park space to St. James Town, but will actually removing publicly-accessible open space to create more privately-owned ones. These changes may in turn reduce the local residents’ access to open space. Therefore, although Greatwise has followed planning guidelines in its park space design, it may not suit local needs.
Furthermore, August and Walks (2018) document a new “rental-tenure” form of gentrification that is characterized by replacing poorer renters with higher-income tenants. Considering the sensitive local socioeconomic context, the redevelopment and revitalization of St. James Town may contribute to the displacement of vulnerable residents on the site in several ways. First, the developer plans to replace the existing Food Basics discount grocery store with an unspecified supermarket, and residents have expressed the fear that the new one would be a “high-scale” store that is beyond their purchasing power (Vincent, 2018). The Cabbagetown BIA also expects the development to improve retail activity in the area, but did not specify who the retail activities would benefit (interview).
Moreover, Goodbrand (2018) is concerned that the development does not have sufficient rental units to fit local residents’ needs, and the increase in condo units may change the demographic of the neighbourhood to be higher-income. She argues that developers must facilitate this transition to ensure that current residents are not pushed out of the community. However, there is no indication in the plan of how many rental and ownership units will be affordable in the current development plan. In accordance with the Affordable Housing Action Plan 2010-2020, it is not enough to have a supply of rental housing units, but their affordability must be ensured as well (HOT, 2009). As condo prices have increased by 14% and semi/detached homes have increased by 58% since 2017 in the St. James Town area, affordability is a significant concern for the disenfranchised community (DH Toronto Staff, 2018).
Given these community concerns, it is evident that what St. James Town needs is not additional density or rental housing provision, but improvements to public services and maintenance of facilities. However, despite municipal policies related to these services being highly relevant to the currently underserved St. James Town community, they are largely missing in official documents and media discussions related to the development. As outlined in Section 3.2.2 of the OP, the City encourages adequate and equitable access to community service and local institutions by providing, preserving, improving, and expanding local community service facilities and local institutions for neighbourhoods that are poorly serviced. Furthermore, the City also encourages the inclusion of community service facilities for all significant private sector development. The planning process for this development has already put forth measures such as demanding health and safety audits of existing towers to secure necessary improvements to the building as condition of development (Vincent, 2018). However, more negotiation and discussion related to services need to be done from a planning policy perspective to ensure the social inclusion of residents of St. James Town.
Conclusion: Emphasis on community engagement in affordable housing planning process
As the Wellesley-Parliament Square development is still in its formulation phase, it is difficult to determine the impact of the development. However, given its conflict with municipal intensification and service provision objectives, lack of affordable rental unit plans, and potential to alienate local residents, the development must ensure an adequate provision of community benefits on site to justify itself as good planning. As St. James Town is a socioeconomically vulnerable community that has had a history of disenfranchisement, urban planning for the area should pay additional sensitivity to the voices of community members to respond to their needs.
As is the case with St. James Town, intensification and provision of rental housing are not the necessary improvements to the community. Instead, the maintenance of existing units and amenities, as well as the provision of social services, facilities, and infrastructure, are more important for the community’s wellbeing. However, the community is also in need of maintenance and vitalization activities that would be impossible without partnership with developers (Goodbrand, 2018). Given the site context and relevant planning policies, the Wellesley-Parliament Square development should, in partnership with the community, propose more explicit plans for the provision of affordable rental housing, maintenance of existing units and amenities, prevention of displacement in order to justify the increased density in St. James Town. This case study also demonstrates that although rental housing provision is crucial to Toronto’s future growth, it must be done in a way that is sensitive to the needs of local residents and work together with other objectives of municipal planning.