GBC East Bayfront: Propelling Ontario to “Have-More” Status

Officially announced today was one of the East Bayfront’s worst kept secrets: a campus of George Brown College on the waterfront between Lower Sherbourne and Lower Jarvis Streets, south of Queens Quay East. It was no secret that Waterfront Toronto was wooing an education campus, and the health sciences program seems to be a perfect fit for the desired “creative-class” professionals to create a balance to the 10,000 or so residential units that will be buit in East Bayfront. More interesting are the details: not only will there be classrooms, but a student residence and a recreation centre as well, adding to a diverse mix that will be vital to the area’s success. The province will be kicking in $61.5-million, and the City/TTC will speed up construction of the East Bayfront LRT, which will run down Queens Quay East into the Portlands. The campus is anticipated to open in 2011.

More interesting though were the quotables from Dalton McGuinty, who echoed my thoughts on the so-called souring of Ontario’s economy. From Posted Toronto:

Dalton McGuinty said that at a time of an economic slow down, the George Brown investment builds on the “single greatest strength” in Ontario: a skilled and educated labour force.

“We’ve faced slow downs before and we’re surely face them again,” the premier said at the site of the future campus, which is set to break ground in January.

“While we can’t control the high dollar, the price of oil or the sluggish U.S. economy, we are hardly helpless.”

I stated awhile back that while Ontario’s manufacturing is going down the drain, we have a strength that makes the GGH well positioned for continued growth, and that is our very well educated, creative-class workforce. And say what you may about the growth in the Prairies, but the 21st Century economy - the Creative economy - is, at the moment, more attracted to places like Toronto and Montreal and Vancouver. Although Calgary, and Edmonton in particular, has made great strides in diversifying their economies, the core and current impetus of their growth is still the 20th Century industries of oil and gas. So as much as Harper, the west, and Flaherty want to give Ontario flack these days for becoming “have not”, we actually “have more” of what will propel us in the decades to come, once this transitional phase is over. And investments like the ones made today, will add further depth to our workforce and prepare us for the new knowledge based economy.

Bike Racks Aren’t Scooter Racks

Toronto’s Ring-and-Post bike racks are as ubiquitous to the city as a heart attack to a Big Mac. Since 1984, they have been lining our streets, now numbering in the thousands, providing a convenient and plentiful solution to parking and securing bicycles (except when they failed by whacking of a two-by-four). Despite becoming an increasingly popular mode of travel, the City has been slow in establishing more dedicated bike lanes and off road trails, however, the Ring-and-Post seems to be one thing it’s excelled at. You simply fill out a form and the City will install, free-of-charge, a post-and-ring on the sidewalk in front of your business or residence (provided it passes the road safety and demand test).

This morning though, just outside my office, someone decided to park a Vespa Scooter at one of the ring-and-post bike racks, making it impossible for a bike to be locked up on it. The street is short on bike parking space as it is, and here is Mr. (or Ms.) Scooterperson taking up two valuable bike spots.

Does this person not know that on-street scooter/motorcycle parking is free? Clearly they knew that they could park on the sidewalk. Why did they decide to park at a bike ring, when there were plenty of bike-rack-free spots on the sidewalk and a Green P parking lot around the corner?

So here’s a question: should Parking Enforcement ticket scooters that park and block bike racks? There’s provisions in the bylaw for their vehicles already for free parking on street - so why not ticket them for taking away a cyclist’s right to lock up at a ring-and-post?

LINK:
Bylaw 0928-2005 - Allowing Motorcycles/Scooters to Park Free-of-Charge On Street
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/bylaws/2005/law0928.pdf

It’s Toronto, there’s Traffic, Stupid

There were two articles in The Star today that immediately caught my eye - both involving transportation and development.

The first is the absurd one, entitled Gridlock warnings urged for condo buyers. It appears that North York Community Council voted yesterday in favour of posting signs up near new condo sites to warn potential condo buyers not to purchase there if they want to leave their homes in the rush hour. (Apparently, there’s traffic congestion in Toronto. Who knew?) It almost seems to me like this is a veiled attempt at NIMBYism, and residents of the North York Centre area think that it would be more effective at scaring away buyers with the big Traffic Monster than to actually constructively work with developers to get the best development for their neighbourhood. This motion by NYCC is utterly absurd on many levels. This is a region of 6-million people and a city of 2.5-million. There’s going to be traffic. Should we be posting these signs on every single road in the city? Yes, congestion is a bad thing, but it’s part of life, especially when you choose to drive your car to work. And that leads me to my second point. Yonge and Sheppard is not in the middle of suburbia far away from any higher order transit. There are not only one, but two subway lines converging onto this intersection, express bus services to link to Downsview (and the future Spadina extension), GO Buses down to York Mills and up to York Region, and two future LRT lines (Finch West and Sheppard East) easily accessible from the area with a short hop on the subway. The main driver of all the development in the community is the fact that it is so close to all these transit options and driving is not a necessity — not because it’s near the IKEA at Sheppard and Leslie. We should be doing all we can in encouraging more development in this area, not scaring potential residents away with unfounded fears. I really hope City Council will scrap this idea when it comes before them.

The second article is closely linked to this first one, talking about the positive impacts on land values that will result from all the transit investment that is being made in the region. The lands surrounding the Spadina Subway extension from Downsview to Vaughan Corporate Centre at Jane and Highway 7 stands to benefit the most and without a doubt will face intense redevelopment pressures once the subway is complete by 2014 2016. There is no doubt that in the coming years, transit will increasingly be the only way to get around in the region. Thus, if you’re looking to get into the real estate market, read up on MoveOntario 2020, Transit City, and the Metrolinx Regional Transportation Plan, if you really want some oomph in your investment. And then hope that stupidity doesn’t put “don’t buy here” signs on your front lawn.

An Alternative Planning Process for Toronto

Source: Joshua Sherurcij

Fixing Toronto’s “broken” and “dysfunctional” planning process was the subject of a panel discussion yesterday at the Munk Centre at the University of Toronto, hosted by the Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance (link). It was one of the more insightful and positive panel discussions I have attended lately and there are some good ideas coming out of it, but also some pressing questions. Sadly, there was only time for three questions and I left without being able to ask mine; however, I will be emailing Councillor Adam Vaughan to pose it, and hopefully have an answer on here later on.

There were three speakers on the panel, the first being Howard Cohen, a partner at Context Developments, probably my favourite developer in Toronto, behind such projects as Radio City, Sp!re, and the recently announced Market Wharf (incidentally, Market Wharf is at 18 Lower Jarvis Street, the site I had chosen in my 4th year Land Development Planning course). The second speaker was Dina Graser, who is part of People Plan Toronto, a collection of community and ratepayer groups and interested individuals who are advocating for an improved planning process in Toronto. And finally, Councillor Adam Vaughan (Ward 20 - Trinity Spadina), who has been proactively engaging his constituents on the large number of new developments in his ward.

Each speaker began with their evaluation of the current planning process in the City and several recurring themes emerged. The first was that the Planning Department is chronically understaffed and underfunded, and even worse, demoralized. The department is taking on too much with insufficient resources and seeing their work opposed by citizens and politicians. Which leads to the second theme - the Ontario Municipal Board. Ms. Graser called for the outright abolishment of the OMB, while Councillor Vaughan’s new process would lead to the OMB’s natural demise. Mr. Cohen remained mum on the issue, though I did not sense he had a feeling either way. It was clear though from all three speakers that the OMB was a major obstacle to effective city planning.

The third theme was the need to give community groups the resources and ability to be involved in the process in a positive and constructive way. Public participation too often occurs too late in the planning process and when it does, is often a collection of NIMBYs and BANANAs. Educating the public and involving them early in the process would create a more amicable and productive dialogue.

Finally, there was a call for a change in the political process. “The ward councillor reigns supreme” was probably the quote of the day from Mr. Cohen, and was echoed by both Ms. Graser and Councillor Vaughan. Not to mention that all planning matters, from a large condo to a new fence, end up before the community councils with little pre-evaluation and useful feedback. Mr. Cohen called for the creation of a Planning Committee to vet development applications and provide recommendations - and therefore giving councillors a backbone to back developments that are good city building, but bad politicially.

The main act of the panel discussion was clearly Councillor Vaughan’s proactive planning process he was elected on and has effectively implemented since taking office. I have to give Councillor Vaughan a lot of credit - few politicians at City Hall take planning as seriously as he does, and even fewer are as dedicated to the cause. He has taken a “no one is privileged” approach to development information - quickly disseminating information to his community as soon as it reaches his office and encouraging the public to be immediately involved. This involvement is realized through countless consultation sessions which allows developers and residents to work together to resolve the issues before it reaches the statutory process. He claims that since putting this approach into place, applications reach the statutory phase with all issues already resolved, therefore ‘fast-tracking’ approval - saving the developers money and removing the threat of litigation in front of the OMB. It is quite possibly a win-win-win situation.

Another part of Councillor Vaughan’s approach is to engage the community in voicing their needs, concerns, and desires for their neighbourhoods through mental mapping (a project conducted with the assistance of Ryerson planning students - cheap labour!). The result will be a website where residents and developers can better understand the community and be aware of its sensitivities. This in itself would help developments ‘fit’ into its context and developers would not be blindsided by unexpected issues. Furthermore, this project would form the basis of an ‘scoring sheet’ on which all developments would be evaluated. The advantage of this type of method is in consistent expectations - again, no one would be surprised, and everyone knows what is expected.

I have to commend Councillor Vaughan for this alternative process, as it clearly brings planners in a more facilitative role and allows the community and the developers to work out the issues on their own. There seems to be payoffs to all parties - residents are heard and get more acceptable developments in their communities; developers have less resistance, save time and money (i.e. more profit); and planners are not the ones making the ‘tough decisions’ that often antagonize them. I hope that this process does spread and is adopted by more wards in the City.

However, this leads to my concern and the question I was unable to forward to the panel. The three panelists are perhaps blessed with ‘luck’ of being in the central city (i.e. the Former City of Toronto). Ms. Graser has the benefit of well established and connected community groups to back her advocacy group. Mr. Cohen mainly develops in the central city, where his type of development is better received. And finally, Councillor Vaughan represents a ward that is very urban and sensitive to the issues surrounding it. Thus, my concern rests in how applicable this alternative process would be in a suburban setting. We have to remember Toronto includes areas like Scarborough, North York, and outer Etobicoke - all areas that were built in the suburban era where cookie cutter homes and car dependence have created a completely different way of living and way of community. So when you have less attachment to the community and no organization - and not to mention a much lower standard of development - how would this process work? How can you bring these areas in the fold?

So that is the question I will send forward to Councillor Vaughan’s office - I don’t have the answer myself and I don’t know what the answer will be. However, it is one that needs to be closely examined, for I fear we will end up with a two-tier planning system - one for the city, and one for the suburbs.

This Sounds Familiar…

So in today’s paper, our dear Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty (whom I have never hidden my distaste for) has stated that he will not hesitate to cut programs should the country’s budget fall into deficit as a result of the softening economy. He will not consider increasing taxes or reversing his illogical GST cuts over the past two years. (Link to story in The Star)

How come this sounds familiar? Who else in recent memory has cut taxes, despite budgetary pressures, and increased spending (particularly on national defence)? Oh yes… George W. Bush. And where is the United States budget these days? Oh yes… a trillion-dollar deficit. I have to give Flaherty some consolation in the fact that I don’t think he could be as idiotic as Bush is — but then again, he’s the one who proposed a commuter rail line to Peterborough in this past budget. Although that’s been scaled back to a ‘feasibility study’ (notice how quietly that happened), the ‘cut taxes and spend more money’ mentality is going to hurt this country’s finances worse than anyone can imagine. Remember, this is the man who left Ontario with a $5.6-billion deficit upon being defeated by Dalton McGuinty - and this was during a period of extremely strong growth.

My fear is that Ontario’s leading the way in dragging the economy down. I’m a realist, and I’m not going to be surprised if we do experience a few quarters of flat, or negative, growth in Ontario’s economy in the coming year. But this is all happening due to changes in the global economy that we have absolutely no control over, like the strong dollar, increased oil prices, and the comatose American economy. That being said, if there’s something that we do have control over, it is Flaherty. His dire predictions and fear mongering of a worsened Ontario economy is only going to lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy: people aren’t going to spend their money if they constantly hear about how the economy is going to tank.

My biggest fear is that here in Southern Ontario, where growth is driven by sectors such as services and construction, the consumer will begin to heed his apocalyptic warnings. Housing starts already decreased slightly in March, and retail spending increased only a measly 1.6% in January (month-over-month) (despite the much ballyhooed GST cut). If a psychologically driven trend begins, we will be in a no-growth situation, and the Federal coffers will be worse off because of it. All thanks to Mr. Flaherty.

Museum Station’s New Clothes

So $5-million later, this is what we get. The first in “Station Renaissance” projects, Museum Station has been turned into a display case of various ‘artifacts’ from our history. The idea is good, but I have never been a big fan of any changes to the original TTC subway architecture, particularly the tiles of the Bloor-Danforth Subway. Museum Station was even more important, as it was the prototype of the design that would later stretch from Keele Station in the west to Woodbine Station in the east in a systematic and symmetrical fashion.

So perversion of historical architecture aside, the station is definitely unique now, from the repeating four styles of columns to the giant “MUSEUM” lettering on the wall with Egyptian hieroglyphics etched within the letters. My main beef is how horrid the roof looks, which was not the original design that called for a new panelled roof to be put in. Supposedly, the TTC pooh-pooh’ed the idea after they were worried about maintenance.. I personally believe they just ran out of money. My other beef is how horribly the platform level now interfaces with the staircase and the concourse level, which retain the original cream tiles and architecture. It literally looks like a half assed job. And that’s the root of it - these two issues seem to drown out any good that came from the redesign, and generally, I’m disappointed.

Oh, one more thing too - with this station makeover, the TTC has introduced yet another style of signage into its system (I’ve lost count of how many styles now exist in the system.. but at this station alone, there are four now). The “Next Station” signs on the wall now sport a new look with the requisite Yonge-University-Spadina Subway yellow stripe and faux-Helvetica. Go signage standards!

More photos after the jump…

LINK: Facebook Album - Museum Station’s New Clothes

Yet Another New Style of Signage

Psst… I think she’s been waiting a helluva long time for this train, no?

“They can get the information off the Internet!”

Image from CityNews.ca

In a Toronto Sun article (link) today, Rob Ford is on another tirade against the TTC and its Commissioners for planning to travel to Edmonton, San Francisco, or Austin for annual CUTA (Canadian Urban Transit Association) and APTA (American Public Transit Association) conferences and trade shows. He is questioning the rationale of spending the money to send our professionals and commissioners to these conferences “at a time when they put through a 3.75% tax increase!”. He goes further and claims:

“It’s a racket. We are the customer. We don’t need to go to them.
“If someone has a bus to sell, they can come to us.”

Of course, this is the Toronto Sun, so I’m not surprised they are being sympathetic to Ford’s tirade about any council expenditure… if it was up to him, Councillors would be doing business underneath the Gardiner. But then to bring Bob Kinnear, our dear leader of the TTC Operators union, to have his two cents? Of course he’s going to be negative to management staff going off to conferences when he’s in labour negotiations as he is right now.

All that aside, the CUTA and APTA conferences are large scale trade shows that bring together transit companies from around the continent to discuss common issues and solutions and see the latest in transit technologies. It is similar to what any professional organization would hold annually, but with shiny buses and LRVs to boot. Why, when Toronto is on the cusp on reinvesting in our own system, should we not attend this conference to make sure our money is going to the best possible solutions? Why, when the TTC is experiencing some major challenges and issues, should we not attend this conference to see what other agencies have done to handle common problems, and for them to learn from us?

Ford claims that the TTC “can get information off the Internet”. I don’t know about him, but I wouldn’t want the Commission to make billion-dollar decisions based on what they read on the internet. How do you know how a vehicle feels when it is running or what an interior layout really feels like just from looking at an engineering graphic? Do you buy a car based solely on the marketing booklet PDF you can download off the internet? Hells no. It’s the same as looking at an architectural rendering of a new condo tower in Mississauga with people walking and smiling in front of it. It’s a false reality, and until you’re on the ground and see and feel it yourself, you won’t get the true picture for your investment.

So until the day we get full virtual reality, we’re going to have to continue going to these conferences. Because like they say, you should always go for a test drive.