TorontoRealtyBlog

Let’s say you’re very wealthy.  Like, super-wealthy.

Whether you paid your way through university while working two jobs and are a self-made individual at 49-years-old, or whether you simply inherited your parents’ wealth, isn’t important.

But let’s say that you spend $10 Million on a house in an extremely upscale area of the city.

Should you have an expectation that the 90 x 200 foot lot next door to your 90 x 200 foot lot isn’t the site of, oh, I dunno, say, the next safe injection site in Toronto?

Forget expectations.  What about the right?  Should you have the right to demand that after paying $10 Million for your home, the property next door shouldn’t be rebuilt as a homeless shelter?

What if your property was “only” $2.5 Million?

And what if the proposal for the property next door wasn’t a soup kitchen, but simply a 6-plex?

My point is this: when do you become a NIMBY?

There’s a line, right?

I mean, I think an overwhelming majority of us would agree that ‘if’ we paid $10 Million for a house in Forest Hill, we wouldn’t expect that the property next door turns into one of the cliche, less-than-desired examples noted above.

Who among us wants to say that aloud to ourselves, let alone in a group of people?  I don’t know.  You guys have the cloak of anonymity to post in the comments, so do so freely, if you want.

But I’m wondering where the line is drawn between “realistic expectations” and NIMBY’ism because I think there’s a massive grey area.

There has always been NIMBY’ism in Toronto.

The best and oldest example, which I’m hoping some of the old(er) readers can provide some first-hand-insight about, is the failed “Spadina Expressway.”

For those not familiar, consider Highway 401 for a moment and just how crucial that piece of infrastructure is in our city.  Now imagine if it were connected to the downtown core?  No, not via the DVP or the 427, but rather directly to the downtown core, through the heart of the city.

That was the plan back in the 1940’s when the planning department tried to get ahead of population growth and account for urban sprawl.  Planning continued through the 1940’s and into the 1950’s (seems it was just as slow back then as it is now…), but it wasn’t until December 12th, 1961 that the Metro Council approved the “Spadina Expressway” and planned for construction to take place from 1967 to 1970.

The 401 would connect to the downtown core via an expressway, and the city’s long-term growth plan would be put into action!  Great planning starts fifty years in advance!

Opposition began immediately.

Residents of Cedarvale, Forest Hill, Lawrence Heights, York Township, and other areas all opposed the project and fought it from the very start.

Construction began, but it seemed like it was never going to be finished.

Opposition groups at one point actually formed a corporation, called “The Spadina Review Corporation” and hired the country’s best and most infamous lawyer of the day to represent them in their fight against the city.

It took years, but in the end, they successfully fought to kill the Spadina Expressway.

The project died on June 3rd, 1971.

What we have left is known today as Allen Road, which many people dub, “The road to nowhere.”

You could write an entire book about the failed Spadina Expressway and have room left over for a sequel.

The story is either about the power of the people to defeat bad planning, poor government, and leaders who don’t lead in the way that they were elected, or, it’s about NIMBY’sim at its absolute finest.

On February 2nd, 2022, Toronto’s city council gave the green light to Garden Suites after many years of lobbying by Torontonians.

In a city that is, and has been for a long time, mired in a true “housing crisis,” it seems that almost any idea that would lead to an increase in the number of dwellings in the city is one that should be explored, potentially encouraged, and if it’s warranted, approved.

Upon approving Garden suites, the city had this to say:

The introduction of garden suites across the city adds a new form of housing to the range of housing permitted across Toronto’s neighbourhoods, increasing both the variety and type of housing available in these areas for residents. Increasing the number and variety of housing in the city is critical to addressing Toronto’s housing needs, providing more housing options for people at different ages, household structures, and incomes, for people to move within their current neighbourhood to support generational housing turnover, and for new residents to find a home.

While many lots in the city may accommodate a garden suite, not every property is suitable for one. Various factors will influence whether a property can accommodate a garden suite, such as lot width or depth, location and depth of the main house, adequate emergency access, and the location of protected trees. The regulations have been designed so that the size and setbacks of a garden suite are relative to the scale of the property and the size and location of the main house.

The Garden Suites project is one of several initiatives led by the City through its Expanding Housing Options in Neighbourhoods (EHON) initiative. The EHON initiative is working to facilitate more low-rise housing in residential neighbourhoods to meet the needs of our growing city. The City continues to expand housing forms in Toronto, ranging from laneway and garden suites to duplexes, triplexes, and low-rise walk-up apartments. The initiative is one solution among a range of City initiatives necessary to increase housing choice and access, and create a more equitable, sustainable city.

This was a win for Toronto, right?

This was a win for the housing market?

Sure, in theory.

But it didn’t take very long for some Torontonians to oppose the idea and challenge it in court.

“Homeowners Seeking Appeal Of Toronto’s Decision To Allow Garden Suites”
City News
March 16th, 2022

From the article:

The Building Better Neighbourhoods alliance, which includes resident associations from across Toronto, claims city council “clearly over-reached provincial regulations that limit garden suites to single-detached, semi-detached, and townhouses.”

They add there is no legal authority to allow garden suites in zoning for multiplexes and low-rise apartments without developing appropriate standards.

They also argue that while they support garden suites, the bylaw should be “tailored to the different circumstances of neighbourhoods and implemented with appropriate policies and standards.”

Is this NIMBY’ism?

Or is this a fair challenge?

A spokesperson for the group said: “We aren’t against affordable housing, but we do feel that the overreach that has been exhibited by approval of this policy is not in the best interest of any of those mandates that the city or the province has done.”

Sure, why not?

The irony is, the cost of the appeal is merely around $400, so with the way the current rules exist, an individual could potentially tie up the Garden Suites project for years by only outlaying a few hundred bucks.  That was one of the items noted in the provincial government’s “Task Force Report” back in February.

The City of Toronto has put forth a motion to dismiss this appeal, and that decision will be made on June 2nd, 2022 at the Ontario Land Tribunal.

If the appeal is dismissed, that likely won’t be the end of it.  I do believe that the Garden Suites project will move forward, but it’s the opposition that is noteworthy as we discuss “NIMBY’ism” in Toronto.

Last week, I wrote about the last two phases of the revitalization in Regent Park, and blog reader Keith had this to say:

Keith could be completely right on this.  Or, completely wrong.

How do you define “liveable?”

I think Keith is right in that if every single condo built in the GTA included 30% non-market housing, we could potentially solve Toronto’s housing crisis, or at least make the largest dent thus far.  But would that mean “market price” properties cost more as a result, to make up for the developers’ lost profits?  Maybe.  Then perhaps we’re back to the same problem.

Another might argue, “Do we want people who can pay $1,000,000 for a condo to live next door to people that rent for $400/month?”

That’s where the conversation can get extremely sensitive.

What’s “liveable” to one isn’t liveable to another.  I think we all know that there are people in society who would thumb their nose at living across the hall from people who would otherwise be living in poverty.  But as Keith points out, this is the way to solve the housing crisis.

So would opponents of this idea by NIMBY’s?  Would they be jerks or would they be wholely justified?

Look south of the border where these “Cancel Student Debt” protests are gaining enough traction that Joe Biden has tabled the idea of foriving up to $10,000 in debt.  Opponents of this idea are saying things like, “They never canceled my debt” to “What does this teach future generations about responsibilities?”

Is there a parallel here to the idea of including low-income housing units on the same floor as market-price units?  Or are we simply taking care of the most unfortunte members of our society?

I’m often reminded of that famous quote, “A civilization is measured by how it treats its weakest members,” which is actually one of the most famous misquotations of all-time, but I digress.  When it comes to including the have-nots with the haves, doesn’t this logic apply?

Now, if we really want to explore NIMBY’ism at its finest in Toronto on a current level, think back to the March blog post, “Just How Dense Should our ‘Densification’ Be?”

This was a blog post about the proposed development at Bayview Avenue & Broadway Avenue which would see five residential, 2-storey dwellings torn down and be replaced by a 25-storey condo.

Here’s the site:

–

In response to the blog post, there were a good number of comments.

Let’s look at two comments that take opposing views.

Here’s one that’s cleary in favour of the project and believes those in opposed to be entitled NIMBY’s:

Here’s one that doesn’t directly oppose the development but rather notes the larger issues to be discussed:

As you might expect, the owners on Bessborough Drive are not pleased with the proposed development at 1837 – 1845 Bayview Avenue.

In fact, every single house on that block has a bright yellow sign that reads, “SAY NO TO BAD PLANNING.”

I was shocked at how quickly this story was acted upon in the media.

I never expected to find myself on TVO.org, but here I was, reading this:

“Keeping New Families Out Of A Nice Neighbourhood? That’s Bad Planning.”
TVO Today
April 21st, 2022

I don’t know the author, and I suspect from the way he wrote the article that he doesn’t live in Leaside proper.

But that doesn’t mean he can’t offer an opinion, and it doesn’t undermine his view, in comparison to the owners on Bessborough Drive, that this proposal is actually “good planning.”

From the article:

It’s the slogan that jumped out at me. “Bad planning.” Bad planning is exactly what brought us here.

The Leaside neighbourhood where I live is exactly where the city should be increasing density. It, like all midtown neighbourhoods, has good access to downtown and excellent access to local commerce and amenities. It’s also precisely where the soon-to-be-completed Eglinton Crosstown will suddenly provide much more mass transit than has traditionally been available. The entire Eglinton corridor is ripe for an influx of new residents, and good planning would account for that and set in place conditions that would permit those new residents to move in — by the many tens of thousands. 

That would be saying yes to good planning, right? Mid-rise condo towers along every suitable avenue, with floor space set aside for community amenities where needed? Missing-middle housing approvals for low-rise apartments and multiplexes where only detached single-family homes are now? Gradual improvements to local infrastructure — including parks, schools, and community centres — to better serve a more populated local community?

While I recognize that I grew up in Leaside, have roots in the community, know people in and around the area where the yellow signs are displayed, and could come to have this blog post thrown in my face down the line when myself or my team looks for a foothold in the real estate community, I can’t help but suggest that the opposition to the project has less to do with “bad planning” and more to do with the fact that a giant condo is being built in these peoples’ backyards.

If the objection is that there are too many 1-bedroom condos being built and that the project should have a diverse range of sizes, layouts, and prices, to attract a good number of individuals, groups, and families, then I agree with opposing “bad planning.”

But if the objection is, “I don’t want this built in my backyard,” then I don’t agree.

Maybe not 25-storeys, or maybe not the shape or size of the artist’s rendering.  But should we be looking for density near subway stops?  Absolutely.  That’s good planning.

So at the risk of name-calling, are these folks NIMBY’s?

What would you do if you owned a home in this location?

Would you be a NIMBY or a YIMBY?

Garden suites is but one example.  The Broadway/Bayview tower is also but one example.

However, if you put them together, you have two.  Add another, and, well, you can do the math.

How many are necessary to label Toronto a “city of NIMBY’s” and where does it end?

Where?

More like if…

The post Welcome To Toronto: The City Of NIMBY’s appeared first on Toronto Realty Blog.