Guest Blogger – More Questions on Planning

~ Guest Bloggers can submit posts to this site. The opinions of the authors are theirs alone and do not necessarily reflect the position of the City of Toronto, Civic Engagement Toronto or Toronto Civics 101. ~

Toronto Civics 101 participant Bill Gaw writes: During the Local Planning session we ran out of question time before I could raise these items with Paul or Jane. If there is space and time available perhaps they could comment through the blog spot.

Paul Bain and Jane Welsh of Toronto's City Planning Division respond to Bill’s questions below.

Question 1.

Bill asks: The Toronto Official Plan indicates that we want to reduce the need for automobile trips and increase cycling and walking as replacements. With that goal in mind, why do planners concentrate employment areas in segregated places instead of integrating them with other roles, similar to the way we integrate residential and commercial roles into mixed-use zones.

Paul answers: The Official Plan does call for reducing auto dependency. A majority of jobs in Toronto are actually in 'Mixed Use Areas' such as Downtown and the Centres that allow both commercial and residential uses. We are finding condominiums going up on the same block as office buildings downtown and in the Centres allowing people to walk to work. The Employment Districts, although they have about a third of Toronto's jobs, are different because they allow a fairly full range of industrial uses which are not a good idea to mix with residential because of truck traffic, noise, odours etc.

Question 2.

Bill asks: There appears to be an inherent conflict between the policies to protect neighbourhoods versus policies to increase residential density and blend residential, commercial and employment functions into walk-able communities. Do planners have a policy for an acceptable rate of change that would allow neighbourhoods to grow upward and integrate functions over a reasonably quick period of time?

Paul answers: The City wants to protect the existing physical character of existing low-rise residential neighbourhoods. There is more than enough development potential in Downtown/Waterfront, the Avenues, the Centres to accommodate the growth in population the Province foresees for Toronto. The City's planners and the Official Plan try to maintain neighbourhood character and not introduce higher-scale development.

Question 3.

Bill asks: At one point Paul said that when we walk out the door, the road we see is all that we can have; that we are not going to disassemble existing buildings to widen our roads. Do we have approved planning policies that prohibit stacking traffic - either elevated roadways or tunnels - that could easily double the capacity of existing traffic corridors without creating a wider footprint?

Paul answers: There are no specific policies I can think of that prohibit stacking traffic in elevated roadways or underground in tunnels. That type of construction is expensive and would be difficult given the width of most rights of way and the construction of buildings to their front property line.

Question 4.

Bill asks: The Official Plan speaks about evolving toward a walk-able city. Are there approved planning policies or strategies to enable that by promoting significant underground pedestrian, cycling, and retail corridors, similar to the underground Path system that currently serves only a few blocks downtown? Underground and covered at-grade or elevated walkways enable year-round pedestrian and cycle travel.

Paul answers: Underground pedestrian corridors are there to complement the street, but not replace it as the main place for pedestrians. Where there are great concentrations of workers and residents and limited sidewalks, underground corridors such as the downtown PATH system make a lot of sense, and the City supports the connection of major new downtown developments. In most of the City, the sidewalks suffice and there is no economic or design basis for underground corridors.

Question 5.

Bill asks: Jane's presentation spoke about policies and tactics for green design for new buildings. We have a much larger inventory of old buildings than new. To accelerate a green city are planners working on in-place conversion policies that would make it profitable for companies and individuals to retrofit old stock?

Jane answers: You are correct - to tackle reducing green house gas emissions we need to address energy efficiency in existing buildings. The City does offer an incentive program to help improve energy efficiency in existing buildings (Better Buildings Partnership). There is also a new Energy Plan going forward to Executive Committee in November, which will help to address this issue.