Thread by @alexbozikovic

Ontario’s government is forcing cities to put density near transit. But Toronto planning is pushing back. This week they explain why density targets aren’t feasible in 11 station areas, including this one 1/ toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2… #topoli #onpoli

The city calls for 85 jobs and people per hectare, 45% of the province’s target, because this area has too much green space 2/

In fact the area looks like this. There’s a parking lot across the street owned by a developer. The city and local councillor @JayeRobinson are actively fighting a development there. 3/

Just to the north is a city-owned golf course with a big parking lot on high ground. 4/

To the west, a low-density house neighbourhood that is being McMansionized. (All this is within the station-area boundaries the city has drawn.) 5/

Read the report, and it’s clear what’s happening: they are saying the intensification is impossible *within the existing city regulations*. In other words, city policy trumps provincial policy. Very curious to see what the minister will do with that. 6/

Yellowbelt agitator speaks:

https://twitter.com/PlannerSean/status/1447966507930210311

Would it make more sense to intensify heavily downtown? Yes. But the city opposes that too, and aims to lock down house neighbourhoods within a block of subway stations.

Which means this tiny development (which has prompted a ridiculous year-long litigation) would still be illegal.

https://twitter.com/alexbozikovic/status/1359961445409181700

Response from the city’s chief planner

https://twitter.com/GreggLintern/status/1448064982789378054

Another one: Long Branch GO station. This area is represented by one of the best organized and most aggressively anti-development neighbourhood groups in the city. Quite the coincidence.

“These areas have a built form that does not support high density”