How should we build new housing in the Golden Horseshoe?
By Sam R on Nov 18, 2015
As home to more than a quarter of Canada’s population and generator of about the same proportion of the country’s GDP, the importance of the Greater Golden Horseshoe to the province can hardly be overstated.
It’s estimated that by 2041, the region’s population will grow from about 9 million to more than 13.5 million, with employment expected to rise by 2 million jobs. With an eye on the future, the provincial government is undertaking a coordinated review of the Growth Plan, the Greenbelt Plan, the Niagara Escarpment Plan and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan.
In the first tier of their two-stage approach, the government early in 2015 asked stakeholders including the municipalities, builders, environmental and professional groups, industry and agricultural groups, to provide feedback on how the plans can help achieve goals in protecting agricultural land, water and natural areas.
The goal is to keep people and goods moving, and build cost-effective infrastructure; fostering healthy, livable and inclusive communities; building communities that attract workers and create jobs; addressing climate change and building resilient communities; and improving implementation and better alignment of the plans.
The second stage, a consultative stage focused on potential amendments to the plans and ultimately updated policy framework, compelled the Ontario Home Builders’ Association (OHBA) to commission the recently released Deloitte Real Estate review and strategic assessment, which aggregates the results of the stakeholder feedback and makes some strategic recommendations.
The report identifies three key issues and impediments to economic and land development in analyzing first-stage results: density and intensification targets, planning for employment, and provincial leadership and commitment.
The province’s densification targets were criticized for the use of a single 40% standard that does not take into account the economic diversity of the whole region, and for taking focus away from city-building objectives to devote to the land budgeting process; the lack of consideration for the shifting face of employment, such as the declining density of the industrial and goods movement sectors, as well as the treatment of major retail and planning for major office development.
Criticism fell too on the “lack of clarity and transparency in the land budgeting process, uncertainty and unpredictability with respect to infrastructure investment priorities and a less than ideal municipal toolbox” for implementing the growth plan’s vision, specifically with regard to the need for significant infrastructure financing.
The report noted the lack of a coordinated and concurrent review of all the plans in play; the lack of administrative and decision-making processes to consider, confirm or correct changes to the Greenbelt Plan designations and boundaries, and no permission for additional uses within the Greenbelt. The nebulous “climate change and building resilient/inclusive communities” was identified as unclear, as were the measurements for success unclear, owing to the divergence of stakeholder points of view.
The province, say stakeholders, hasn’t done the “heavy lifting” required to implement their own policy regime, and lacks visibility and consistency in its approach, including the lack of presence at OMB hearings where implementing provincial policy is a central issue. The province’s failure to locate assets such as hospitals and university campuses in places other than urban growth centres or along major transit corridors was seen as a lack of commitment to implementing its own vision.
With such seemingly simple conclusions — that standardized intensification is unworkable across such a varied region, that process clarity in land budgeting is necessary, that infrastructure development will take money, and that the province needs to lead the charge — it’s a shame the OHBA even had to undertake the expense of the report. Such truths should be self-evident.
The report makes strategic recommendations to address the key issues: the preparation of a real estate asset class-based strategy that addresses each major asset class, e.g. industrial, office, retail, etc.; incentivizing major offices to develop in urban growth centres; the decoupling of the greenfield population and employment density targets; greater clarity for the land budgeting process including standardization of the assumptions of the municipalities regarding exclusions; the addressing of the financial challenges of infrastructure development; and continued monitoring and reporting of the progress.
But one wonders if there will ever be clear results from any of this. The report seems to me pretty unbiased — I saw nothing in it that was particularly weighted favourably for developers — and I’m glad the OHBA has at least undertaken the task of distilling it all.
All the bureaucracy is frustrating, but the future shape of the province could owe a lot to these growth plans, and I’ll bet most Ontarians have no idea what’s in them. Make it a point to find out, and take the time to tell your MPP what you think.
