Development = $Transit

When Toronto's planning established its re-urbanisation strategy it called the practice 'intensification'... meaning to increase magnitude, to make a quantum leap.

Other cities addressing re-urbanisation - London, Paris, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Sydney, Melbourne - called it 'consolidation'... meaning to merge things together, to view matters comprehensively considering balances and equilibriums.

Over the past decade Toronto has approved development projects justified by their intensity without duly focusing on how these work in concert with each other and their urban context, nor how such development trends play out over time.

Intensification has abetted short-sighted thinking, for instance, intensification at subway stops have proceeded as if by some noble right, and in the process sidestepping financial support for transit.

The added-value transit invests upon these projects is simply pocketed. As one developer put it to the OMB... 'First In, Best Dressed!' implying timeliness over veracity, blindsideding recognition of the equilibrium between development and transit. Development = Transit

THE TALK ABOUT 'TOWN'

In this past week the interlacing of urban development and transit has been at the forefront of Canadian Urban Institute talks:

• Rob Adams, Director of City Design, City of Melbourne, referred to Australians' regard that land originates from the public realm at large, and then land rights are conveyed in part to the private sector. When additional densities are prescribed these are referred to as a 'release' -- recognising there is a ligament running back to the public realm.

• Leslie Woo, Vice President of Policy and Planning, Metrolinx, stated that Provincial funding would never be enough and that additional avenues for transit funding need to be found... that more than one transit strategy should be advanced as not all initiatives come to fruition, whilst others gain momentum over time.

• Gary Wright, Chief Planner and Executive Director at the City of Toronto, reflected on the City's need to look to its own resources to solve its problems... that the City should consider leveraging land value... that the Province and the Federal governments were contributing less today into Toronto's affairs... AND that Toronto should consider re-describing its Avenues with as-of-right zoning.

In addition the Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance sponsored a talk by Greg Clark, international advisor to cities on economic development and investment strategy. He talked about creating urban opportunities by leveraging land value... utilising value capture strategies... advantageously applying land use planning... AND how cities can catalyse their transformations.

Only a few weeks earlier in October Torontonians asserted at the polls a preference for subways over the current transit strategy of LRT solutions.

Then new mayor Rob Ford confirmed his intent to redirect transit development towards subways.

• It presumes the Province will switch its funding commitment to this new direction. Furthermore, substantially more funds will be required if the broad geographical benefit is to result, or else it will be drawn-in adding robust service to just a few areas with extentions to the Sheppard Line east and west and the Danforth Line to the Scarborough Town Centre.

• The Eglinton Transit Corridor is likely to be mothballed, a recurrence that can be traced back through Eglinton's rail history commencing in the 1880s.

• In response to Ford's pronouncements Metrolinx, City Planning and others intransigently comment, 'If you call the play... Finish it.' (which should be tempered by Woo's remark to the contrary as mentioned above: more than one transit strategy should be advanced as not all initiatives come to fruition, whilst others gain momentum over time.

• Ultimately Ford will have to carry his bags to accomplish his plan.

The difficulty resides in the persistent question... who pays for transit's development?

FUNDING STRATEGY Development = $Transit

The talk about town supports building the Eglinton Transit Corridor by means of a straight forward funding strategy that:

• recognises the interlocking of transit construction and the build-out of development over time

• introduces transit levies as part of the 'release' of additional densities

• describes development as-of-right as the precipitate of a comprehensive planning exercise

• raises the transit construction funds from the markets not unlike REIT practices, and in so doing

• converts the Province's current role of cash-cow to one of guarantor.

COMPARING LRT's TO SUBWAYS

LRT's and subways are distinctly different systems; they are not to be considered as interchangeable.

• LRT's are a medium-lifting system that work over a medium-distance. It reconfigures an existing artery providing additional capacity to carry population. In so doing it borrows away from the thoroughfare's prior automotive capacity and functionality.

• In contrast subways are a heavy-lifting system providing long-haul capability to move a large number of people great distances.

  The argument that LRT's are less expensive than subways conveniently blurs over the the fact that building a subway provides a new conduit and so augments the existing transportation network with the knock-on effect of relieving congestion within the existing transportation network... whereas LRTs only reconfigure an existing route.

Ultimately it comes down to the onerous overall cost involved in building a transportation network commensurate with the future growth of the city.

ANTICIPATING POPULATION DISTRIBUTION

Toronto's future population distribution falls into physical segments of opportunity with quantifiable footprints. Capacity models can be created by applying multipliers of new density over top of existing development, and similarly applying presumptions about the percentage of build-out over time. Through a process of 'rocking' back and forth truthing a diversity of models against sample sites, a resonance emerges about where density can and will be achieved over the next 30-40 years, as follows:

• 8-12% AT SUBWAY NODES: No matter how persuasive the arguments expressing as imperative to intensify around subway stations, accommodating growth here is limited... too few in number... too small in footprint. To push this to 15% would require that within a walkable radius of 500-metres an additional 6-times coverage be achievable 20% of the time. Meanwhile, many stations are already built-out, others have highly-constrained footprints. Nonetheless development will naturally occur at these locations because they are recognisably desirable and lucrative settings. But they are not essential in the big picture... except as a ready source of funds supporting transit construction, which is currently ignored.

• 55% ALONGSIDE TRANSIT ROUTES: This is where the focus on growth rightfully belongs.

  The bulwark of population will be situated alongside surface transit routes, simply because they are so extensive and the locales are suited to modest to mid-range intensification. Toronto's road matrix is comprised of a remarkable 1200-kilometres of arterial roads with existing transit; with an additional 700-kilometres of sub-arterials and streets again with existing transit.

  Growth here is achievable with only 2-times additional coverage generally distributed over 35% of main road frontages and 1-times coverage at 10% frequency along secondary road frontages. Within this vast road matrix are recognisable optimal areas, then great expanses of moderate opportunity, and still others that are highly constrained.

  Growth here can connect with the existing community assets in the immediate vicinity -- and in return deliver locally recognisable improvements and benefits.

  It's a broad diverse marketplace to be developed by a diversity of developer-builders. The use of as-of-right development controls and levies is appropriate to this developer-builder profile delivering low and mid-scale solutions.

• 25% OTHER APARTMENT TYPOLOGIES: There remains substantial opportunities for growth spread amongst: apartment neighbourhoods, transitional and brownfield areas, and specific spot opportunities of varying degrees of densification build-out over time. These again surpass the potential of subway nodes.

• 5% HOUSE-FORM RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBOURHOODS: Within residential neighbourhoods there are spot-opportunities for additional density. This work is undertaken by a different, more-diverse industry of small developer-builders. Greater absorption can be achieved by redefining these neighbourhoods, however their current 'houses in parks' morphology provides a valuable offset to the arising imbalance between the percentage of open space and population which naturally results with intensification.

• UNQUANTIFIED: Unquantified is the transit-saving of actually accommodating people where they naturally need to be, placing services within their immediate local sphere of access.

INTENSIFICATION OF THE PUBLIC REALM: TRANSIT

Toronto's re-urbanisation ambition is reliant upon public transit AND sustainable funding for that public transit.

Toronto should be continuously busy building its transit infrastructure, delivering a stream of improvement to keep up with its growth, and putting certainty into Toronto's big-picture of growth and change.

It shifts the focus of attention to drill-down on the work at hand. It ensures a knowledgeable, experienced management and workforce is in place, which can be relied upon without surprises rather than experiencing such things as St. Clair's cost overrun.

What follows is how development and building transit infrastructure can be linked together hand-in-hand to fund itself through loans repaid by the build-out of development.

1 - FUNDING TRANSIT INFRASTRUCTURE

Toronto has a history of devolving into transit debates... prone to falter, prone to failure... contributing to our current shortfall in public transit.

Recently, a variety of transit-funding strategies have been considered, none of which have connected transit-development with property-intensification along transit corridors. Instead these funding proposals have targeted transportation segments: road tolls, gas taxes and increased transit-user fees; whilst others have been broad-based tax proposals: raising city taxes and calling upon provincial and federal tax resources. However, all these funding proposals fail to acknowledge that Toronto's 'urban growth and transit' are integrally, intimately, and reflexively intertwined. AND property-development continues to go on independently, ignoring transit reciprocity.

The provision of assured, sustainable, transit funding lies within the 'intensification-dividend'. It requires no rocket-surgeon to appreciate that introducing a transit corridor creates increased property values throughout its traverse. This transit stimulates intensification initiatives pushing up densities. Rather than unwittingly gifting away the intensification-dividend, as if satisfying some urban-imperative, we need to apply a funding-formula linking transit-development with property-development intensification.

The solution involves prescribing a blanket of densification ranging between 1, 2, 3 and in some points more, additional coverage based upon local circumstances, and subject to conditions. Then as development intensifies transit-funding levies come into effect. Establishing what is effectively an 'intensification-bank' dispenses with the elusive, broad quandaries about transit funding. It moves the focus along to managing the practicalities of bridge-financing; and in so doing ensures that intensification automatically provides for transit infrastructure.

2 - INTENSIFICATION COMES ABOUT AS PART OF CONSOLIDATION

City-building is not about intensification for the sake of intensification, nor simply perpetuating super-sized 'more-of-the-same' urban productions. The paramount objective of re-urbanisation is consolidation; and to treat it otherwise is to put 'the cart before the horse' with all its consequences... more rightly a cart without a horse!

Over the past decade we have experienced super-sized developments, over-concentrating rather than diversifying and distributing density blended into the existing urban fabric. In many instances these are predilective developments that have chosen to clog-up vital locations in the emerging transit matrix. Furthermore, they have avoided contributing funds for the very same transit infrastructure upon which their market-strategies rely.

To be fair, they have failed to exercise good consolidation principles because there is no planning framework in place to set out, define, orchestrate and inform these city-builders of preferred and comprehensive outcomes.

As a result of this current state of affairs Toronto endures lost opportunities. Meanwhile the city's population continues to intensify within its finite bounds with its finite community facilities and finite (and, ahem, dwindling) public resources.

In truth it's an unsustainable urban development practice, which left to its own, undermines the city's ambition and the very veracity of the city's expectation of successfully bringing about consolidated growth.

3 - TRANSIT CORRIDOR PLANNING

To date transit corridors, such as along Eglinton, have been described in terms of the core-conduit or 'pipe'... track-alignments, transit-stations, the confluences with intersecting transit routes, and pedestrian access-ways or gateways to the surrounding environment. There remains to be described, in a similar fashion, the broader corridor of potential intensification surrounding the transit-pipe, articulating the elements of this urban structure.

A transit-corridor structure-plan will identify and clarify the diversity of local circumstances, and articulate appropriate development- morphologies throughout the corridor including: mainstreet-typologies of varying heights commensurate with their surrounds, point-loading tower opportunities, areas of high-rise, mid-rise and low-form development. The planning corridor should extend 500-meters back on each side of the transit-pipe equivalent to a five-minute walking distance.

Within this context can be reasoned the extent, character and new-order configuration of intensification, and articulating the integration with adjacent neighbourhoods maximising benefits and minimising impacts.

4 - EGLINTON TRANSIT CORRIDOR

Thr Transit infrastructure along Eglinton is estimated to cost $4.6 billion over its 33-kilometre traverse. To fund this through development levies will require 85,000 dwelling units be built over time in a variety of configurations satisfying local conditions along this corridor. Applying the simplest rule-of-thumb-averaging produces a homogeneous measure of 2.6 dwellings per linear metre.

Development will in fact be varied, reflective of local circumstances extending from the obvious non-developable park-environ of Jane and Eglinton to the enterprise Centre of Yonge Eglinton. Accounting for this, and allowing for 50% of sites coming to fruition, preliminary analysis suggests that 35% of the transit corridor's intensification can be achieved through mainstreet-typologies, 20% in high-rise and mid-rise configurations, 40% in low-form developments, and 5% in neighbouring infill.

Besides satisfying immediate considerations, preparing a structure-plan enables a broad array of community considerations to be brought into play including strategies for accommodating the on-going changing demographics of ageing population, the inclusion of affordable housing, and the inclusion of local community infrastructures (services, facilities, amenities and open space provisions).

5 - LOCAL PLANNING

Planning is provided to ensure orderly growth.

Informed by the overarching structure-plan, Local Planning can then articulate and in turn inform city-builders how best to attain beneficial results. Local Planning is needed to describe in urban characteristics the realms of street-level, below-grade, immediately above-grade and over top... the residential and work-place silos. By declaring these features, just as Metrolinx describes its pipe, Local Planning can establish frameworks that on-going property intensification can then materialise incrementally, project by project, over time.

Such a planned approach ensures that all this takes place in a comprehensive, astute and cooperative manner; whereas, without an expressed framework development tends to proceed in an unplanned self-serving manner that fails to fulfil city interests.

In the current practice neighbourhoods are confronted with un-bridled development, and they challenge these propositions lest undue impacts bear-down upon them. On the other hand, when it can be demonstrated that neighbourhoods are accommodating a proportioned share and in so doing acquiring beneficial transit - neighbourhoods will positively embrace and get on with the matter at hand. This has been demonstrated in the adoption of a Local Planning Framework for the TTC Block at Yonge Eglinton.

6 - CONCLUSION

For Toronto to accomplish its transit-based re-urbanisation it requires transit corridor planning supported by an established, sustainable funding practice that harnesses the intensification-dividend to perfect the necessary transit infrastructure.

Failing which... when the intensification-train leaves the station... urban objectives, cost-burdens and lost-opportunities will be left standing on the platform.

Terry Mills
B.ARCH RPP MCIP

- combined Dec/2010

download as pdf file