Mega Project: Toronto - Research Paper Example

Mega project: Toronto, Canada (6 Lloyd Avenue a) History and context The site under study is located in the York of Etobicoke. It is located at 6 Lloyd Avenue corner Mulock Avenue. It was used as a paint manufacturing facility, a portion classified as industrial property, further zoned as an Employment District. It was formerly occupied by Benjamin Moore paint facility. It is a 3-storey building with a floor area of 2.28 acres or about 7,248 square meters. The area can be accessed through a pedestrian staircase located at the north end of Mulock Avenue. It belonged to the southeastern quadrant of the former Old Stockyards Industrial District which is a mix of industrial, commercial and low rise residential uses (Lintern, 2006). Historically, employment activity is conducted in the area being part of a larger precinct. It is along rail corridors designated as Employment areas in the City of Toronto Official Plan and Zoning By-law No. 438-86. Section 2 a) Redevelopment Proposals Who initially proposed the redevelopment of the site? The proponent of the redevelopment plan is Stephen Armstrong of the Armstrong Hunter & Associates When did this take place, and why? The proponent submitted the application to amend the City of Toronto Official Plan to convert the industrial property in question into a residential property in June 28, 2005. The applicant asked the City Council to amend the former City of Toronto Zoning By-law No. 438-86 in order to convert the industrial property into residential. It argued that it is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement related to employment areas and permission for conversion of lands within the designation as long as a proposal provides a comprehensive review that there is a need for conversion. What vision did proponents of redevelopment have for the future of the site? The proponent provided the following details in the proposal: Table 1 Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Source: Lintern, 2006 What arguments did they make in favour of redevelopment? The proposal argued that the “existing uses have coexisted with nearby residential uses for decades,” (Lintern, p 7). The proposal was supported in part by residents who attended a community meeting in October 24, 2005. It also proposed that the amendment will contribute to the City’s housing supply. Were there people who disagreed with the redevelopment plans? The Office of the Director for Community Planning in Etobicoke York District disagreed and recommended for the refusal of the said proposal. Others who opposed the proposal include local industries Canada Bread, NRI Industries, St. Mary’s Cement, and Topper Linen Supply Limited. What arguments did they put forward? The industries mentioned argued about the possible impacts to their operations about the proposed amendment of the property into a residential one. Aside from the proposal’s failure to pass the two tests necessary as part of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) which should justify that the land will no longer have a role for employment purposes in the long term as well as provide enough ground for the need t convert the area into a residential one. In addition, the following were provided by the Director of the City Planning as reasons for refusal to approve the proposed amendment: Failure of the proponent to indicate the role of the site in the market Failure of the proposal to convince that there is substantial role of the proposed residential property in the employment balance in the area Failure to provide impact or precedent that the residential area may create within the existing employment uses in the area, and Failure to justify continued viability of the site for employment use (Lintern, 7-8). How did they put these visions forward (ie through legal proceedings? protests? the media?)? The visions were presented as proposed plan in illustrations and proposal to the City Council. It went for consideration as far as merit a community meeting and consultation. The subject of “gentrification” was also brought up. Gentrification is a process that displaces peoples and cultures in favour of urban developments brought upon by increased or renewed built environment for those who can afford it (Sassen, 39). Whose vision was successful? As of August 2007, the proposal of turning the 6 Lloyd Avenue into a residential from industrial are has been recommended for refusal. Why? The proposal was refused because there was not sufficient reason or need for conversion. It also failed to comply with the PPS employment policies, and the Employment Area Policies of the Official Plan. Conversion was seen to destabilize the existing employment area. It is also seen to disregard the existing low density area as it proposes to introduce a high rise residential building does, creating distortion in harmony into the existing plan. Odour and noise, safety and lack of contribution for a strong, liveable and healthy community were also cited. What role did developers play? In this discussion, the developers are the proponents for change. Usually, developers are seen as instigators for gentrification as supported by governments (Blackwell, 29). In the proposal, the proponent is Stephen Armstrong or the Armstrong Hunter & Associates backed by the Graziani & Corazza Architects, Inc. It was suggested that the lack of government support in Canada has catapulted developments of downtowns through the hands of foreign capitalists like Vancouver’s False Creek and Toronto’s City Place which were funded by Concord Adex, a Hong-Kong-based Cheung Kong. In addition, Olympia and York of Toronto also spearheaded gentrification in New York’s Battery Park City and London’s Canary Wharf. In the process of introducing cosmopolitanism in an area, land costs rise, then rents and commodities go up with it making low-income dwellers seeks out more affordable areas, thereby creating new neighbourhoods as more affluent ones move in (Blackwell, 31-32). Developers in this case proposed to amend a city mandate in order to change the classification of an industrial zone reclassified as employment area. It opts to change an old paint facilities building into a high rise one with two other adjacent buildings into a mixed use area to meet PPS requirements but basically catering to residents or prospected new residents. The developers not only tried to convince the city council of its plan but also lobby their plan towards approval in order to attain their vision for the area. Were residents involved in the planning process? City planners? Local businesses? Environmentalists and other activist groups? Politicians? Other actors? It was not clear whether the residents were involved in the planning process. Historically, Etobicoke was a settlement of First Nations peoples specifically the Algonquins. It was soon established they occupied the area at one time (Willoughby, P 1). In the present time and in consideration of the case, the residents were called on a meeting regarding the proposed amendment on 6 Lloyd Avenue. They were in favour of turning the area into a residential zone but the PPS requirements were not met by the proposal, thereby, recommended for refusal by the Director of City Planning in Etobicoke York District. Other actors include industrialists or corporations/ companies near the area: CN Railway, Canada Bread, and National Robber Technologies. The City Planning Division has recommended to the City Council to instruct the City Solicitor as well as the City staff and their consultants to attend any future Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) hearing in order to oppose the proposal. The OMB is another major actor in the case. b) Neighbourhood change The zoning reclassification / amendment proposal was initiated in 2005. So far, it has been refused until 2007. Significant changes with regards to the possible redevelopment are only estimation at best because the redevelopment has not been approved and implemented yet. The 2006 social profile of Etobicoke West Mall as compared to the rest of Toronto in average is as follows: Table 2 Source: Statistics Canada Census 2006 Table 3 Table 4 Majority of the Etobicoke West Mall residents own their homes or houses at 57%. Only 43% rent their dwellings. Majority also have their regular maintenance at 64%, with 27% needing minor repair and major repairs for 9%. Table 5 Table 6 Among those who rent, the average rental is $995, whereas the average value of dwelling is estimated at $284,294. Table 6 provides an overview of incidence of low income between 2001 and 2006. Table 7 Migration trend determines impact of redevelopment. While case in point have not materialised yet, there has been a continuing migrants in Toronto and this is also reflected in Etobicoke indicating same rate with the Toronto average. Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Source: Statistics Canada Census 2006 Trend in immigration is indicated in Table 9 showing same number of European and Southern Asian immigrants for 2006. They are followed by Eastern Asians, West and Middle East Asians, and Southeast Asians. Section 3 Analysis Etobicoke is basically considered an industrial area. Developments, however, include the expansion and modernization of the Sherway Gardens shopping centre, the old residential neighbourhood Markland Wood together with the St. George’s Golf and Country Club, the affluent neighbourhood of the Kingsway, New Toronto which has seen the exit and return of industries, commuter town Mimico, and the transitioning Long Branch. The growth of the service sector in Etobicoke when applying to 6 Lloyd Avenue provides a post-industrial urbanism since the area has seen laggard movement after the industrial heydays. One of the reasons why the proponent requested to amend a re-classification into a mixed use area is to intensify traffic and growth in the area. The area has been maintained as low density. Based on previous studies, low-density development patterns had higher associated costs using linear infrastructure (Vojnovic, 301). The authors of the Urban Structures Concept Study also suggested that there is direct link between low-density developments and increased consumption of capital energy, operating energy, and use of land (Vojnovic, 302). It should be considered that Etobicoke was previously a postal village that grew with the roads and railways and became part of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto in 1954 before merging with three other municipalities to form the Borough of Etobicoke. As is, Etobicoke is a product of the Toronto sprawl with much of its lands classified as industrial. Migration has been consistent with the rate of Toronto in general. Those who were able to afford relocation sought the outer skirts of the city to be known as suburban development that is pushed further by decentralisation of manufacturing employment (Williams, 14). However, these were seen to create “resource-intensive and environmentally unfriendly land-use and activity patterns,” (Vojnovic, 303). In addition, cities are re-arranged to “improve the degree of congruence between levels of administration and scales of human activity, whilst reducing their negative environmental impacts,” (Williams, 21). The problem with the proposal and the refusal of the City Planning Office to recommend it is technical in nature. As observed by both Williams and Vojnovic, city planning has become problematic due to the complexity that governance needs to maintain in an ever-changing context and expansion. The proponent failed to justify for the need to convert the industrial / employment area into a residential one and the planner cannot in their power recommend anything less than what had been earlier agreed upon, which is the PPS. All stakeholders could do is wait and see how the property in question could evolve into something that will turn out useful for the residents whilst those in power (developers and policy-makers) lobby against one another until their bottom lines meet. Works Cited: Blackwell, Adrian. The gentrification of gentrification and other strategies of Toronto’s creative class. Fuse 29, 1. ___ Lintern, Gregg. Refusal Report. Toronto Staff Report. August 28, 2006. Sassen, Saskia. The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton University Press. 2001. Statistics Canada. Etobicoke West Mall neighbourhood profile. 2006. Accessed from http://www.toronto.ca/demographics/cns_profiles/cns13.htm Vojnovic, Igor. An Assessment of Canadian Cities. Cities 16, o. 5, 301-313, 1999. Williams, Gwyndaf. “Metropolitan governance and strategic planning: a review of experience in Manchester, Melbourne and Toronto. Progress in Planning 52, 1-100. 1999. Willoughby, Paul. A BRIEF HISTORY OF ETOBICOKE. Kingsway Rate Payers. Accessed November 2010 from http://www.kingswayratepayers.com/histetobicoke.htm Read More