{"id":65664,"date":"2022-07-21T10:00:04","date_gmt":"2022-07-21T14:00:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/spacing.ca\/toronto\/?p=65664"},"modified":"2022-07-21T10:30:26","modified_gmt":"2022-07-21T14:30:26","slug":"urban-planning-is-not-a-science","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/spacing.ca\/toronto\/2022\/07\/21\/urban-planning-is-not-a-science\/","title":{"rendered":"Urban planning is not a science"},"content":{"rendered":"

Urban planning is not a science. For as long as planning has been a profession, however, we\u2019ve tried to make it one. I\u2019ve been a planner for over 15 years, and I worked at the City of Toronto for 13 of those years. Nothing I\u2019m about to say below will be new to anyone who has worked at the City, as I said it many times in internal meetings while working there.<\/p>\n

Quantifiable details have the appearance of neutrality. In Ontario, the desire for quantifiable planning standards is at least partially attributable to the Ontario Land Tribunal (n\u00e9e the Ontario Municipal Board). The Tribunal is like a planning court. Planners and other professionals give sworn evidence on why a development is supportable (or not), and then the Tribunal decides the development\u2019s fate based on this evidence.<\/p>\n

This evidence, interpreting the City\u2019s planning policies and guidelines, is really a set of moral choices that have often been wrapped in “performance standards” to make these choices quantifiable and give them the appearance of being agnostic.<\/p>\n

The reality of any policy, however, is that it can never be neutral.<\/p>\n

Policy is what we value and put into action, and the action part is a critical component. Without actions, it\u2019s not really policy. Saying we value road safety, but then voting against bike lanes, shows that our policy is hollow, and our stated values aren\u2019t true.<\/p>\n

What we value in Toronto, as implemented by our housing and growth policies, is also revealing \u2014 we value the quality of life of people living in low rise housing more than anything else. In short, we value privilege and, due to the nature of systemic racism, and the economic outcomes it produces. In other words, we\u2019re mostly valuing white privilege.<\/p>\n

There are many examples of values-based planning policies and guidelines but the one I\u2019ll use here is the infamous \u201cangular plane.\u201d The angular plane originated when the City of Toronto commissioned a study from U of T and Berkeley that proposed optimizing the amount of sunlight on public space. There were many different standards, but, overtime and with remarkable scope creep, the angles were shorthanded to 45 degrees and the 45-degree angular plane became the default performance standard applied to new buildings as a means of minimizing shadows on public space, controlling height, limiting overlook, and creating `transition.’ The perfect `neutral’ tool had been found.<\/p>\n

There\u2019s an anecdote about the author of the first unified Italian cookbook, who nicknamed the local nosy priest \u201cDon Pomodoro,\u201d (Father Tomato) because, like the tomato in Italian cooking, it got into everything. There is perhaps no better Toronto planning equivalent than the angular plane.<\/p>\n

Angular planes are no more neutral than any policy, however. We even apply angular planes when it wouldn\u2019t improve shadows. In Ontario, if your building is to the north of something, your shadow impact to the south will be minimal to non-existent. And still angular planes are used to protect privacy and provide building height transition.<\/p>\n

Even if a building terraced like a ziggurat was better at delivering these benefits, which is subjective, what does that say about our values? It says that we value the enjoyment of a private amenity by a few, relatively privileged people more than we value housing potentially hundreds of people. In a housing crisis.<\/p>\n

Despite protestations to the contrary, we are in a crisis. I don\u2019t think there\u2019s more than one answer to this crisis and I\u2019m skeptical about the private sector\u2019s ability to deliver affordable housing. But the reality is that we need attainable housing as much as we need affordable housing.<\/p>\n

Nothing would make me happier than for the Government of Canada to simply buy up condo projects and turn them into co-ops or create a national developer that forms partnerships to deliver affordable housing. But we also need to make it easier to build market housing in this city and applying pseudo-scientific performance standards, including angular planes around the few areas where we plan for growth is not the correct choice.<\/p>\n

If we are in crisis, we need to act like it, so I\u2019m suggesting a simpler planning framework:<\/p>\n