patricksmyth@rogers.comOctober 11, 2011 10:38 EST

Kyle Rae cracks me up, but he's a great example of the farce that persists on Council. He bemoans the culture of "no", yet he steadfastly voted in favour of closing-in (lost forever) the open space at Yonge and Eglinton as recently as March 2010. He was the same councillor who voted to pave to property line and pushed the TO Planning Department to the very limits of their professionalism. So much for regard for the Public Realm. People like Kyle Rae have no shame!

RonOctober 11, 2011 16:57 EST

For those interested, a petition to revive Transit City has popped up. Maybe it will fail, but we can try: http://www.blogto.com/city/2011/10/online_petition_seeks_to_revive_transit_city/

WOctober 11, 2011 16:57 EST

A wonderful & informative retrospective.

Christopher KingOctober 11, 2011 17:20 EST

At this stage, my feeling is that the only way the Greater Toronto area will be able to address it's problems is if it secedes from Ontario, becoming a city-state with direct access to it's own tax revenues, aside from what it gives at the federal level.
The new city-state would then then be able to work on it's own Toronto-based projects, instead of having taxpayers moneys being used as slush money by some MP trying to score points in his rural riding.
Also, this reality check be essentially a bitch slap to those Toronto-haters, forcing them to them to look for new sources of revenue to screw over like they have done with our city all these years.

Chris CarssOctober 11, 2011 17:21 EST

I think it's unhealthy for a country the size of Canada to be so dependant on the well-being of just one metropolitan area like the GTA, just as I think it's not good to be so dependant on just one other country, the USA. I don't want to see the demise of Toronto, but we need to build up a few other of our big cities like Vancouver and Calgary so that economic power is spread more evenly across the country.

Paul KishimotoOctober 11, 2011 21:47 EST

Tokyo is another example of a city that looms large within its nation—one fifth of the population, almost a quarter of the GDP. Like the Golden report suggested for Toronto, it has a multi-level system of governance (unique within Japan) that lets various kinds of planning and service delivery be (dis)aggregated at scales that make best sense.

The GTA urgently needs to move to something similar. One risk of delay is that election results like last Thursday's might lead people to erroneous belief that Toronto and the 905 municipalities are stuck in some kind of zero-sum fight.

manuel escottOctober 11, 2011 21:47 EST

What took planners, themediaand other Torontothinkers so long to see the disintegration and neglect going onforsolong under their noses? John Lorinc has elegantlyarticulatedall of the reasons why I left Toronto two months ago to settle in Vancouver—Canada's city of today and thefuture,perhaps foronly thosewhocan afford tolive in it.

Eric BabetOctober 11, 2011 23:15 EST

Are the authors of this trying to stir up the Canadian political system's foundation? They make it sound like the rest of Canada owes something to Toronto - hello?, ever read the constitution and how parliment is made up and how the separation of powers between Provincial and Federal governments? - The authors like to compare Toronto to other world cities, but neglects to point out the uniquely - made in Canada political system we live by.

Furthermore - public realms and open spaces cost money. The author further neglects to mention the true costs of those other City's planning, operation and maintenance of these so called 'magnificent' urban infrastructures. Yeah, sure NYC has a great transit system, but Canada and Ontario decided to use tax dollars to fund universal health care instead of public transit. - I'm sure an ill person in NYC likes taking the transit, instead of being able to afford medical treatment.

What this author does tell, is that Toronto can't really decide on doing anything without big brother Ontario or big daddy Canada funding it. - How come the GTA municipalities can work together for mutual growth strategies? And if the GTA has such a powerful economic impact to the country, - why can't they sit down themselves and decide to fund their own transit, waterfront, parks, and whatever else. -Why should someone who is living in Moosenee - with really limited municipal services, and sparse provincial services (like no doctor in town and the closest hospital is 4hr drive) pay for a transit system or a waterfront that isn't any use to them? Why should a Native Aboriginal Canadian living on a reserve in the Yukon want to have the federal government divert its constitutional obligations to pay for the maintenence of substandard 3rd world housing on the reserve, to instead pay for downtown Toronto's social housing?

Reading this article and all its Toronto centric message, only validates why there is contempt for Toronto outside its borders. Toronto is no different than the southern European countries that are now facing bankruptcy, because they perpetuated this notion of living beyond their means. When is Toronto going to implement their austerity measures, to come back to spend what the collect in revenues. (Oh yeah, I forgot, they want to be treated like a level of government and have equal powers and have their own taxation - well like I said in my opening statement - pick up a copy of the constitution and go through the process and change it. - While you're at it, see if you can convince Quebec to join and do a favour for the Western provinces and give them their elected senate while your at it.

Paul Christie October 11, 2011 23:35 EST

Let's have a seventeen-member GTA council, elected at the time of the 2014 Ontario municipal elections, with a mandate to deal with regional
infrastrucure - transit, arterial roads, water and sewage, waste disposal, etc. Give it the taxation authority and headroom to make it work. Seven members from the City of Toronto, three from Peel, three from York, two each from Durham and Halton. In 1997, many members of Metro Council (I was one) said that the moment Metro Council was abolished it would be time to create a new one. We need to get on with it.

WesOctober 12, 2011 11:38 EST

This is an excellent article, though I don't necessarily believe we should spend a dime of the federal budget on a Toronto transit system. It seems like a great idea to just focus on developing other cities to take much of the burden off of Toronto, though this is not realistic. Calgary, for example, cannot currently find enough employees for all the jobs they have to offer. It has limited access to much of the country, and is not a desirable place to live (conservatively speaking) at least 6 months of the year. I spent 5 years in Edmonton and certainly do not miss the weather. A city like Vancouver, is suffering far greater growing pains than Toronto despite their claim of a functional transit system. It is impossible to make it anywhere off of the major transit lines in a reasonable amount of time, and the housing market is so reliant on foreign investment to keep the forward momentum. The Toronto real-estate bubble has nothing on the Vancouver's.

I do believe that provincial funding should be used alongside municipal funding for the Toronto transit systems. I understand that it does not by any means help people who live in small communities and towns far from Toronto to "pay for the transit systems", but our provincial funding is designed to support the best interests of our province. I'm sorry to say, but without a successful Toronto, there's not going to be jobs abound in smaller towns. And Toronto needs a whole heck of a lot of help at the moment. Drive the 401 Westbound any day of the week (even Saturday and Sunday now) and tell me it's no big deal. Having millions of people every day spending an hour or more on a "normally" 20 minute drive is a major problem, and the tax dollars from the 5.5 million GTA'ers should be used to fix it.

Brendan October 12, 2011 11:39 EST

This article is in search of an editor. It's simply a laundry list of complaints, without much critical exploration. Each of the issues mentioned by the author deserves its own article. Instead the author leads us to many dead ends. Disappointing - going for word count doesn't make for good journalism.

Canadian SkeezixOctober 12, 2011 11:39 EST

Blaming the OMB for bad planning decisions in Toronto is like blaming the cows for wandering away when the farmer leaves the barn doors open. In fact, some of Toronto's best developments are the result of the OMB acting as a check on Council's knee-jerk tendency of pandering to the NIMBY crowd and ignoring even its own Official Plan policies.

To the extent some developments do not function well at street level, it is almost always the result of a planning system that favours good politics over good planning, where good design is sacrificed for safe and unoffensive design.

It's remarkable that Councillor Vaughan has all but rendered the OMB irrelevant in his ward, as he has taken a different approach to development projects and seeks to engage the developers and the community differently. He has given up the opportunity to use these proposals to grandstand, and in seeking compromise he inevitably pisses off some members of the community who do not like any change, but at the end of the day few projects in his ward end up at the OMB. Many other Councillors, however, continue to see the planning process as a means of scoring political points, rather than city building, and all but admit that they let the OMB make the hard decisions so they do not have to.

If there is a problem in the planning system, the OMB is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. Abolishing the OMB, without first significantly reforming the planning process at the City, would simply exacerbate the problem.

It's always disappointing, therefore, when writers take uninformed swipes at the OMB, or use it as a scapegoat. It distracts from the real issues.

DavidOctober 12, 2011 11:39 EST

I visited Chicago recently, observing they have a Ferris wheel in operation and at the Chicago Architecture Foundation an interesting display revisioning the urban areas around some subway stations, one of which included a monorail (http://caf.architecture.org/designontheedge). How can it be that such things are good in Chicago but bad in Toronto? Perhaps we should elevate our civic discussion to assess the merits, not the source, of civic initiatives.

Also, I might say that the bridge to Fort York might well have been a significant public project and historical reminder had it proceeded. Possibly a better investment than the revitalization of City Hall square. However, even for myself, a moderately informed Torontonian, I didn’t know we were to get such a bridge. This suggests the proponents of such projects need to fully engage the larger public for support, not just those who read fine posts such as Mr. Lorinc`s.

Steve KochOctober 12, 2011 12:25 EST

To Mr. Babet,

There is a relationship between an Aboriginal on a reserve and Toronto because Toronto taxpayers actually contribute to the Provincial and Federal coffers. (Back about 2004, Toronto was sending over $9-billion of tax revenue more into Ontario and Canada than it received in services. And, yes, Alberta was receiving a share of that.)

Also, I understand that Toronto is the only major metropolis in North America that receives (or back then received) no transit funding from any state, provincial or federal sources. The fact remains we are interconnected. Every day, in fact, when commuters leave their homes in the surrounding suburbs and come to work in our cities.

Your point about the article—or at least Toronto being contemptible—as it is "Toronto-centric" is absurd. The subject is Toronto. Please explain what the story should be about.

Finally, it's "you're" not "your".

MatthewOctober 12, 2011 14:00 EST

Well written, clear, with a collection of facts so sobering I feel like crying over the city I grew up in and the city I love. At the risk of hyperbole, I have worried for a while that Toronto is permanently damaged, to say nothing of the heartbreaking development in the 905. We can't seem to build transit, but we do an excellent job at building thousands of sprawling homes on top of our country's greatest farmland. It's exceptionally depressing.

IanOctober 12, 2011 16:18 EST

What Brendan calls "a laundry list of complaints, without much critical exploration" is actually a rare piece that ties together many different streams of thinking together to make a greater, more abstract point. Exactly what Toronto-area debates are missing, in my opinion.

This is a great piece that very few people have the knowledge and experience to write. Kudos to The Walrus for being the ones to publish it.

Brendan's sort of thoughtless barb masquerading as critique is, on the other hand, all-too-common in Canada's mediocre commentary circles.

AdamOctober 12, 2011 16:19 EST

This is a well-written and thoughtful piece, but it falters towards the end when it treats "Toronto" as a monolith of similar-thinking people when in fact there are plainly two factions with very different goals and mindsets.

there are really two Torontos; One of perhaps 800,000 to a million people, who, roughly speaking, live in the areas that voted for Smitherman for mayor last year, and another Toronto, of 4+ million people who live in the inner suburbs and the 905.

One city is great, the other depressingly not. That's the crux of the confusion about Toronto. It's two places at once. Toronto consists of a Manhattan/Brooklyn/Chicago-esque (but more laid-back) core, wrapped in a dull suburban ocean of [insert boring North American metropolis here].

If Toronto is "an excellent place to be gay, get sick, eat out, go to school, work as an artist, see live theatre" etc., etc. it stands to reason that for some people, it already *is* a great city. That's the life you get if you live in the inner parts of it — yes, you put up with crummy transit but otherwise, what a place! The most exciting in Canada, offering more sheer novelty — more things to do (and eat) per square metre than anywhere else in the country.

(Argue if you please, but it's true. As a former arts journalist I'm going to humbly but confidently submit that in the realm of culture, to give one example, Toronto has more going on than the rest of the country *combined*.)

If you want to shuttle between work and your couch and PVR at the house with the private backyard you just *had* to have, Toronto is like anywhere else on the continent, only possibly worse, due to house prices and traffic. But if that's what you want, why live here? You're doing the big city thing all wrong.

To be frank, the people in the suburbs get the Toronto they deserve. The majority, at any rate, cling to the narrow-minded notion that taxes should be as low as conceivably possible, instead of reflecting what the city actually needs. The people who voted for Mike Harris and Rob Ford and, yes, Dalton McGuinty deserved all three. They need to look in the mirror. They are the reason a person can only win Toronto's mayorship by promising to freeze Toronto's already ridiculously low property taxes (a point John Lorinc could have underlined more — Toronto's property taxes aren't just lower than ones in the 905, they're lower than NYC, Chicago, Vancouver, St. John's — take your pick). These are the people holding Canada's largest city back.

Most of the downtown pinko types, bless them/us, would gladly pony up more of our own money for the right mayor, the right premier and the right plans. Too bad we never get the chance.

So there's a fight between two Torontos. And even if the inner Toronto can never win, it can at least find a way to survive on its own terms. (Like adopting the bicycle, for example — when did you ever see someone on a bike in TO a decade ago?)

Please forgive the rant. In short, this is a thoughtful article but one that kind of ignores the schism that defines the city and will continue to do so until more residents in the outer areas smarten up and learn what a city is for.

Eric H.October 12, 2011 19:00 EST

In response to Eric Babet's post:

"ever read the constitution and how parliment is made up and how the separation of powers between Provincial and Federal governments? - The authors like to compare Toronto to other world cities, but neglects to point out the uniquely - made in Canada political system we live by."

Made in Canada is exactly the problem - the constitution's regard for cities is a relic of 1800s Canada - a time when the country the country was mostly rural and our biggest cities were no more than small towns, and as such, were subservient to the province. It does not reflect our modern reality of large cities with their own unique needs, nor that they are now the engines of our economy.


"Toronto is no different than the southern European countries that are now facing bankruptcy, because they perpetuated this notion of living beyond their means. "

Nice analogy, but its rural Canada that is the "Southern Europe" equivalent. The GTA constitutes 17% of the Canadian population, but accounts for ~24% of its GDP. Its without question a contributer to the country's economy and tax base.


"Why should someone who is living in Moosenee - pay for a transit system or a waterfront that isn't any use to them?"

And why should a Torontonian pay for services in Moosonee that aren't of any use to them? (and remember that Torontonians contribute a hell of a lot more tax revenue per capita than those in Moosonee) Because thats what living in a "society" entails. Collective tax revenue being redistributed to benefit everyone.

JohnOctober 12, 2011 22:14 EST

Toronto is worth fighting for!

Pat TOctober 12, 2011 23:30 EST

Toronto has a dangerous amnesia. So many people move in every year, replacing those many fleeing to the 905 suburbs. Such a transient city. Like an international border town. Why stick up for Toronto when we just got here?

Andrew C.October 13, 2011 01:17 EST

Such a great article.

In my reading of it, I was reminded of the historically interesting episodes in Toronto's public infrastructure investments. Here I am thinking about the TTC, the network of parkland along the river valleys and waterfront, policing, waste management infrastructure and water services. The dual regional/ local government structure which guided the 50's to 90's were, in retrospect, the halcyon days of thoughtfully guided and responsible public services management. Or look to an earlier era, when the Bloor Viaduct (quite controversial at the time) and the RC Harris Filtration plant were constructed.

I was not so much for or against amalgamation at the time... but I do full square blame the failure to transform the newly created City of Toronto government on politicians. En masse, they have proven not up to the task.

And maybe, this is the reason that the regional/ local split of responsibilities worked so well. I don't really buy the 'downtown vs. suburbs' argument either... but understand that each section of the city has differing residential interests and needs.

There is a clear — and different — need to address local versus regional/ long-term planning matters. And I would suspect that in the not-too-distant future more regional planning will be pulled from the City of Toronto. It's contributions in the past decade stand as some of the most ill-advised efforts of our 100+ year history. For instance
- the TTC couldn't get their heads around a regional pay system nor can it catch up w/ current payment technologies such as debit cards
- a $2.50 commuter toll at the gates of the city's boundaries (with a pay-reader system) would fix all financial problems the City spends way to much time and effort dealing
- the failure to transport via 'rail' Toronto's unrecyclable garbage to eagerly interested northern-Ontario municipalities resulted in HUNDREDS of trash truck each week driving on highways to Michigan State

I could go on..

Nor do I 'blame' Rob Ford for these 40 years of cumulative urban growth problems. You don't have to like him personally... but what kicks me (and no, I didn't vote for him) is the recoil at every word the Mayor of your city utters. Frankly, I am embarrassed by the gutter journalism of, say, NOW Magazine (quite the oxymoron) and the short-sightedness of our local elected officials.

One should spend an evening w/ a beer or bottle of wine and watch the televised Council meetings for proof of the quality of management people voted for. It is surreal.

So, I think the problem may be even larger than our author suggests. There is no harmony, clarity of purpose and 'City Building' vision these days. You couldn't propose a good idea that would stand a chance of the micro-scrutiny that occurs.

I came across a good quote today:

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
? Albert Einstein

I am convinced that our politicians, media and combined self-interest makes us look a lot like those people judging fish.

Luckily, the sun will rise again tomorrow.

NICOLEOctober 13, 2011 10:01 EST

What a great article. A few thoughts to share:

RETHINK BUSINESS MODELS:
Reduce reliance on transportation in general by incentivizing businesses (tax breaks?) to enable knowledge workers to work from home. If communications technology can enable knowledge work to be done overseas, then we are certainly capable of developing simple checks and balances to evaluate productivity of someone living in "905" who can work from home, for an employer located in "416".

COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY CAN REDUCE THE NEED TO TRAVEL
With solutions such as webinars, web meetings, skype, ftp transfers for large files,email and instant messaging, intranet, cloud computing, high speed internet, and flat rate long distance, all the components already exist (except the willingness) to trust employees to be productive when not under your nose

NORMALIZING WORKING FROM HOME
Additional benefit to normalizing working from home will allow thousands of people with disabilities who want to work instead of being dependent on poverty level disability support payments, to participate in employment opportunities by eliminating the barrier of inadequate transportation services. Furthermore as our boomer workforce begins to experience disabilities related to aging, working from home will enable them to continue to be productive and valued members of their organizations

LASTLY, WATERFRONT TORONTO
Don't be fooled. The original plan for revitalization of the waterfront as a cultural destination with world class attractions was dead long before Ford. Miller already sold it out when the management of Waterfront Toronto corporation came under leadership of capital land development experts who began to tender the bids out to corporations like Corus Entertainment and George Brown College. The original vision that earned them financial support from three levels of government is gone. The "watch dogs" that were supposed to oversee the spending have done nothing to hold it true to the vision. Miller created city corporations called Build Toronto and Invest Toronto to borrow money against future government funds. The Canadian Environmental Assessment that was done gave them carte blanche to do whatever they want without having to reassess impacts. Ford's greed and ugly vision of retail is no surprise, and not much different that what Miller was up to. Whatever ends up there will only be a matter of who is the highest bidder.

Kent RandallOctober 13, 2011 10:22 EST

I agree with the author that a regional government overseeing the GTA is a smart idea when it comes to revenue and planning. However, he completely went off the rails with his planning examples:

1. \"Sprawl, gridlock’s malign twin, continues virtually unchecked, consuming farmland, stressing commuters, and ratcheting up the cost of municipal services.\"

While the author eventually mentions the Places to Grow Act later in the article, he fails to explain what this legislation has even done, or continues to do. The result of the Act is the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, which is a planning document that municipalities within the Greater Golden Horseshoe are required to follow. While not a perfect document, the Growth Plan does completely prohibit land development and land division within prime agricultural areas, or areas that are designated in Official Plans as agricultural. The Growth Plan also limits development of five lots or more to areas located on EXISTING MUNICIPAL SERVICES and lands that are within identified settlement area boundaries. In other words, infilling is encouraged and development in agricultural and rural areas, particularly \"unchecked sprawl\" is prohibited. The Growth Plan has been backed up numerous times at the Ontario Municipal Board. Municipalities must follow this Plan.

The real problem with the Growth Plan is not how it affects the GTA, but how it affects rural municipalities in the east like the Counties of Peterborough and Northumberland, where growth does not require such restrictions. If the author had actually read the Growth Plan, and read OMB decisions that challenge the Growth Plan, he may not have written such an ignorant sentence as the one written above.

2. \"The result, unique in North America, is that Toronto is surrounded by a ring of large, powerful municipalities — Mississauga, Brampton, Oakville, Richmond Hill, Markham, Vaughan, and Ajax-Pickering — that compete with the city for private and public investment.\"

I can\'t believe I actually read the above statement in an article outlining urban plight. Toronto\'s situation of regional suburban growth with powerful outer municipalities is unique in North America? Has the author been to Los Angeles? New York? Miami? Cleveland? Houston? Chicago? DETROIT? This has been happening in the U.S. since the 1950s. It was one of the major contributors to \"white flight\". Suburban cities and towns in U.S. cities offered cheaper land and taxes and more space. As their tax base and population increased, these suburban cities became more powerful than the main city. This is post-industrial America. Unique in North America? Hardly.

3. \"Despite Harris’s ambition to reduce government, the GTA remains staggeringly over-governed, with 244 municipal office holders, including twenty-five mayors. By comparison, New York, with 8.3 million residents, is governed by fifty-one councillors, five borough presidents, and just one term-limited mayor.\"

This statement is right after the paragraph decrying the amalgamation of the old Metro Toronto Council. I\'m unsure as to whether the author is in favour of adding more councillors, demalgamating the City, or, in contrast, reducing the number of Councillors. In the above statement, the author compares the GTA, an area with twenty-five (25) separate municipalities over an area of 7,124.15 square kilometres, to the City of New York, a single municipality with five (5) boroughs covering an area 1,214.4 square kilometres. I understand that he is trying to show that a regional government may be more efficient. However, don\'t hint that the problems in Toronto Council are the result of amalgamation, then turn around and point out that an area of 7,124 sq km is over-governed, especially when you include all of the Toronto Councillors in those numbers.

There are other egregious statements in this article, but I just don\'t have time to rifle through them. I agree that a regional government is a possible solution to the growth and planning problems that the GTA is faced with. But making apple/orange arguments while ignoring important details regarding planning history and current planning documents is sloppy.

Ross October 13, 2011 16:57 EST

These incessant and often petty comments directed at this well-meaning and thoughtful retrospective article aptly illustrate the pervasive partison agendas driving Toronto into the ground.

RoyMarvelous.comOctober 13, 2011 19:48 EST

No wonder so many people are moving to BC.

Tristan RidleyOctober 13, 2011 23:12 EST

The map is out of date. Newmarket is fully urbanized as are many supposedly green areas. Expansion has crossed over the supposed Green Belt too. The newest growth areas in the north are E Gwillumbury, Georgina and Bradford - both of which are expected to more than triple in the next decade or two.

BaldrickOctober 14, 2011 12:12 EST

When did Toronto ever have a 'Groove'? It's little more than a seedy motel on Canada's road to nowhere.

SaraOctober 14, 2011 12:12 EST

I don't see the problem with increasing taxes and paying for the infrastructure we need. There are many European cities doing great, look north...

I was recently in a European city when a tram passed by. Unlike Toronto's derelict system, I noticed no vibrations as the tram passed by. I really have to wonder... Why are we building substandard systems? Are we so cheap that we don't want to pay for the basics of society?

JackieOctober 16, 2011 22:41 EST

We cannot keep increasing property taxes to pay for things. Toronto\'s demographics show the population cannot afford it and it\'s getting worse.
45% of households in Toronto have an income of less than $40,000. This is from 2006 census and is anticipated to be much higher now. The majority of these households are located in the inner suburbs of Toronto. Coincidentally, ownership of homes is higher in inner suburbs, greater than 50%. Renters are greater than 50% in the downtown core. Downtown core residents, which have higher median income will be disproportionally unaffected by higher property taxes. Old proper city of Toronto (pre-amalgamation) used to pay it\'s bills with higher business property taxes. This legacy still lives on in new amalgamated Toronto. Downtown Toronto now holds only 1/6 of the total jobs in the GTA.

Previous taxation policies have driven jobs and businesses out of the city while the lower income demographic is the fastest growing demographic in Toronto, middle class is shrinking. Middle class demographic is growing faster in GTA outside of Toronto.

User fees or some type of resident tax would be the best way to pay for additional services and infrastructure.

Chris October 16, 2011 22:42 EST

Great article!

I like the fact that it provides history and context to the issue.

Unfortunatley, I do not have much hope in the short term due to lack of vision with the current City council and the fact that the provincial government does not have much money to send our way.

It seems at times that nothing gets done until a crisis hits and the transportation crisis is about to hit home and I rhink that the sooner the better in the long run.

Having said all this, I believe that things will get sorted out in the end. Or maybe it is wishfull thinking on my part because I live in the city and love our city.

Maria LOctober 16, 2011 22:42 EST

This is a greatly written, well thought out article. It says a lot of things that needed to be said. Thank you John Lorinc for saying them - and hopefully this is just the beginning of a productive conversation that will help bring our entire city towards a better and more sustainable future.

To Adam: I am a downtown resident who works downtown and my commute is almost an hour each way because of the service the TTC is unable to provide me for many of the reasons outlined in this article. I don't have a backyard or a pvr. In fact I don't even have cable. The congestion hurts me just as much as it hurts people that drive to work.

In previous jobs, I've had to commute out to the suburbs from downtown to work - and I have to say I do wish there was more public transit out there so I'm not waiting for a commuter bus on an abandoned road in the middle of a blizzard. And there's people that do it everyday - I work with a woman who has to take 4 buses to work (which takes her about 2-2 1/2 hours each day).

Although I will always be a downtown person at heart, I think it's a little arrogant to dismiss the suburban residents as people who 'just had to have their private backyard'. There are many reasons that people choose not to stay in the downtown core, and sometimes they are not excessively greedy ones. It may be a question of it being too expensive for them to raise kids in the right neighbourhood downtown, or other limitations. Not everyone that commutes in lives in a massive bungalow or has a PVR.

Since we are all part of the same amalgamated Toronto, it's more productive to focus on how those of us who live downtown and those who live to the suburbs can stop working against each other and find a way to make our city better together. That means that they stop looking down on us and we stop looking down on them. They are people too - and in the end - thanks to amalgamation - for better or worse we are all in this together. If we can all agree on common goals and we can learn to see each other with respect and not suspicion, we may find that it's easier to find common ground.

AndrewOctober 17, 2011 12:08 EST

The problem with sprawl in Toronto is commercial sprawl, not residential sprawl. Far too many businesses have moved out of downtown into "business parks", mostly in the 905, which are designed for cars only, have little or no public transit and which are far from downtown. Also there are far too many pedestrian-unfriendly "big box stores" in the suburbs. These types of developments need to be heavily regulated or banned, and major office buildings should be required by law to be located in areas with good transit (not necessarily downtown, just near a subway station, GO train station or major bus terminal, in either Toronto or the 905). Also there needs to be a push to cut outrageously high commercial taxes to bring more jobs in Toronto (largely by raising outrageously low residential taxes). However I think that residential sprawl, with limitations, is necessary to some extent to provide affordable housing. High-rise condos are expensive to build, so reasonably priced units are rarely larger than 1000sq ft which is uncomfortably small for families with children. Consequently the Places to Grow/Greenbelt Act has led to big increases in GTA housing prices, and the effect of greenbelt laws is even more pronounced in cities which have had strict greenbelts for a long time (such as London, Paris, Vancouver, etc., all of which have extremely high housing prices). Low rise housing is much cheaper to build, so limited residential sprawl should be allowed but should be required to be medium density (mostly composed of townhouses and low rise apartment buildings rather than detached houses), should be pedestrian friendly and well served by transit, and should have shopping and other amenities within walking distance.

Toronto needs to heavily invest in its commuter rail system, by running trains all day 7 days a week and increasing train frequencies on existing GO train lines, sort of similar to the "CityRail" system in Sydney or other commuter train systems around the world. Improved commuter rail will drastically decrease commute times from the suburbs to downtown Toronto, and potentially secondary city centres such as the "Mississauga Centre" area (near Cooksville GO station) where employment growth should be concentrated, and reduce traffic congestion on the highway system. It is much cheaper to build than subways and much more effective than "Transit City" light rail. Toronto also needs to improve its local bus service, particularly local bus service in the "905" suburbs.

loosethoughtsOctober 20, 2011 10:54 EST

Jeez, what are we doing to our cities. I find the picture with the swan worth a thousand disturbing words. Although I live in Mississauga, I have noticed a decline in wildlife everywhere. Once there were foxes, deer, rabbit, even certain birds; now they are all but wiped out. Haven't seen some of them in years. If you do enjoy a viewing every now and then, how long before it disappears on you too?

Our governments are more concerned about covering up scandal than protecting the rights of citizens everywhere. Keep in mind the first citizens of this great country is it's animals. It is they that rely on Canada's natural well being, and they alone must anguish for it (we merely have to move over to another land and spoil that too).

Chris NeumanOctober 20, 2011 17:04 EST

I'm an Edmontonian born and raised, who spent two incredible years living in central Toronto and two more years in Chicago before returning to my hometown. I loved my time living in Toronto and reading articles like this one saddens me. I hope that long-standing structural problems can be fixed, and as a fellow Canadian I am willing to help out.

However, I'm left wondering two things. First, why are the woes of Toronto and the GTA mine to fix? Yes, I hear the argument about Toronto being the economic engine of the country. I get that a wholescale Detroit-like collapse of Hogtown would be an economic blow to the country. But I would be very interested to know the numbers these days. I think many of the beliefs about Toronto's central importance to the Canadian economy are based on old data and older ideas. The Calgary-Edmonton-Ft McMurray corridor is also an economic powerhouse and I think the balance has, slowly but surely, changed in Canada. Ontario's recent change to "have-not" status in federal equalization payments is one sign of this broader shift.

Most of the current woes befalling the GTA, the ones that are causing the "suburbanites" mild annoyance and the "urbanites" howling despair, are the result of years or decades of local groups getting it wrong. Whether it was the cities, Metro, the 905's regional municipalities, or Queen's Park, people were allowed to get away with (figurative) murder. The federal government had its hand in it too, but the feds have the unique ability to spread misery across the country. For every federal cutback on the shores of Lake Ontario, you had better believe the same pain befell those on the shores of Burrard Inlet, the North Saskatchewan, or the St Lawrence.

So now the only solution seems to be that we — Canadians all — should contribute in some way to fix Toronto's issues. This brings me to my second question - what would you have me/us do? I don't live in the GTA, but here in Edmonton the local real estate market is on a hot streak. We have one of the most sprawling cities in the country, and an unending appetite for more land. There is a split between rural and urban, a split between city and suburbs, a split between blue collar and white collar. Regional planning was a swear word until recently in this neck of the woods, and we have many of the same issues as the GTA albeit on a smaller scale. So what did we do? Got the provincial government to spend on transit, a chunk of which Edmonton is using to bring its transit system from the 1970s to now (TWO lines, not just 1!). The city got the bright idea to link land use planning with transportation planning, so a sensible policy that both encourages density and discourages large-scale spending on roads has a chance of succeeding. And a regional body has had some initial successes on things that have strangled regional development and civility for years, including transportation and economic development. Maybe it won't all work, but there is at least some optimism and progress.

I don't hold Edmonton out as some shining example of how to make things work. But what is stopping a committed group of people in the GTA from setting the (bicycle, transit) wheels in motion? Why can't/shouldn't the problems of the GTA be solved by those who live there and benefit most? Why does the answer seem to be, more often than not, civics writers and "416"ers exploiting the national reach of the Toronto media market to deliver to me a version of an article I have read time and time again, in The Walrus and Toronto Life, in the Globe and Mail and on the Spacing blog, which spreads the blame around and explains the failures of the past without ever talking of what to do about it?

Again - tell me how I can help. Until then, I'll be over here in my hometown working to make in my own insignificant little way, and with my paltry experience living in "greater" cities like Toronto and Chicago under my belt, trying to make my own city great.

actuallyOctober 21, 2011 10:40 EST

Re: Eric Babet comment

There are no reserves in the Yukon.

PJOctober 27, 2011 11:15 EST

Strange.
A few weeks ago I drove by the mentioned area where the building of the bridge is claimed to be 'scrapped' in this article... Yet, the bridge was near completion.

SIMHA MENDELSOHNOctober 28, 2011 16:27 EST

It reminds me a client (in the Transportation business) that believed more in having the best systems to support the Transportation Sales and Accounting departments. Only after, they paid attention to resources deployed for Customer Service, and Infrastructure to provide the best possible service.

Today they are not in business any longer. Why ? My Guess is that Managers only cared about benefits, vacations, time entertaining clients, and pay cheques......... Forget Customer Service, Give the best possible Transportation Rates. That was the Business Motivation

That Transportation company amalgamated with another Carrier with similar business philosophy. The number of Managers and Sales people didn't decrease. The service became more expensive, less regular, more damaged freight....THEY INCREASED THEIR FREIGHT RATES they charged to customers.....Guess What. They went belly up!

What can we learn from this outcome the "excellent presentation" by John Lorinc ?

How do we move forward ? Toronto is one of the best places in the world to be entrepreneurs. What Toronto needs is way LESS "ELECTED MANAGERS" and way more MOTIVATED PEOPLE TO IMPROVE CURRENT STATUS By putting themselves in the Front Line with their skills and abilities. Risk takers, with social responsibility can improve the current situation.

I am convinced that A City Managed by ENTITLEMENTS will not move forward easily in this 21st Century

Michael KalerOctober 31, 2011 16:04 EST

Great, great article. My one issue is just to point out that Rob Ford is supported by considerably less than half the population of Toronto - estimates vary, but it could well be in 20-30% range.

So when speaking of recent foolish moves, we need to keep in mind that they aren't attributable to the people of Toronto generally, but rather to the mayor (and his sidekick brother), who won the election because people responded to simplistic campaign promises that he hasn't kept, and who has somehow managed to convince many councillors that they are obliged to support his crazy ideas.

Polling stats indicate that most of Ford's supporters now regret supporting him, and with good reason. Once Toronto's councillors realize how their constituents feel (and they are starting to do this), there may be some push-back that will help bring sanity back to Toronto's civic planning.

We can hope, anyway.

Brian GOctober 31, 2011 16:05 EST

Many of the problems Toronto is currently facing can be traced back to one key trend - population growth. In addition, in a country which is increasing moving away from manufacturing and back towards resource exports, Toronto and southern Ontario are no longer the economic engines driving the country.

Population growth requires infrastructure to at least keep pace with population, if not actually grow at a faster pace because, as road capacity in the already developed areas is essentially fixed, any increase in transit needs all have to be handled by public transit. Hence the congestion from allowing low density development in the 905 and from a lack of new transit throughout the gta, or poor choices, like the sheppard subway.

Poverty is also a key result of the population growing faster than the economy - extra people do create extra demand for labour, but in a globalised world, extra people does not necessarily mean extra exports and much of what people consume is imported - so in the short and medium run supply of labour exceeds the demand for labour.

High housing prices are also a byproduct of rapid population growth - made worse by the fact that the extra people being added generally are not skilled in the construction trades.

In the City of Toronto itself, it is increasingly becomes extremes of rich and poor - only the rich can afford a house, and the old apartment buildings are where the poor live - the condos are a mix of wealthy immigrants, young single creative class workers who rent from investors. meanwhile the shrinking middle class in the gta is mostly to be found in the 905.

Population growth is mainly driven by immigration and by young people moving here from other parts of the country - emigration is mostly over 50s - people cashing out and leaving for someplace cheaper or warmer of less congested. You cannot stop people moving within the country, but the federal and provincial government do control immigration - a massive cut to immigration combined with seeing a greater number of immigrants directed to where unemployment is low, is the solution - that and the governments doing a better job of choosing immigrants whose skills are actually in demand by the market as opposed to the current points system which measures years of education and work experience.

What I am saying is not immigrant bashing or the cliched view of immigrants stealing our jobs - it is simple supply and demand - a surplus of labour means lower wages and/or higher unemployment, affecting both the people already here and the newcomers as well.

MarcOctober 31, 2011 16:06 EST

@PJ - The Fort York bridge has been cancelled , possibly awaiting a redesign. I think the bridge that you saw was the yellow bridge connecting Cityplace to Front Street. The Fort York bridge was supposed to be west of this.

RICHARD REINERTNovember 02, 2011 12:45 EST

To John Lorinc,
Thank you!
As a relatively recent newcomer to Toronto, having arrived about 10 years ago from the States. Wherever I live, I try to involve myself in community activities. I have contributed my expertise in fundraising to several cultural organizations and I have often ushered at Toronto theatres.
I also found myself on the governing boards of a few comunity and cultural organizations. I was asked by one to represent them on a community/political action/overseer committee where I couldn't understand most of what was going on, particularly because I didn't know what had been going on in Toronto for the last 15-20 years.
I didn't even know the meaning of most acronyms, not to mention their importance!
I tried to catch up by going to the Urban Affairs Library (before it was closed by the Mayor), and which I asked (in writing) the Mayor to spare.
Until your article was published in The Walrus, I had very little idea of how Toronto had grown and why it was now slipping into Lake Ontario.
I suppose you know the great reputation Toronto has internationally. I wonder how long it will take for that to start evaporating or lose to Montreal.
I'm sure that there were many items that you or the the Walrus editors kept from appearing in ink on the pages. If you so inclined, I would like to learn more. Please feel free to contact me.
To the editors: Walrus gets better every month! Please keep it up! I promise to donate a portion of any lottery money I will win.
Sincerely,
Richard

DavidNovember 11, 2011 12:37 EST

An excellent analysis of the reasons of what could have been and why it didn't happen. However, there is still hope for a awakening of civic action as demonstrated by the outrage against the Ford's proposal in using the Portlands for a mega ferris wheel and luxury malls. Toronto indeed does have a history of short changing itself and either being ignored or stiffed by senior level of governments. It has been noted that out of every dollar in taxes sent to Ottawa, six cents is given back in expenditures. The other 94 cents is spent on other places in Canada like Moosenee, Moose Jaw and Montreal. Perhaps it is time to increase this by four cents. Buddy can you spare a dime.

RickWNovember 20, 2011 17:17 EST

As was noted, Torontonians elected Rob Ford. How could we in TROC NOT "cheer":
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2011/10/27/rob-ford-911-call.html

Frank VetereNovember 29, 2011 14:14 EST

I moved to Toronto from Montreal in 1988, lured by a more buoyant job market and the prospect of living in a new and dynamic city, I have witnessed the deterioration of the city, and now feel it will soon be a place to escape from. It`s a sad tale. I love the cosmopolitanism of the city and all the activities it offers, but it is becoming unlivable and unaffordable for the average person. Great if everyone has a million bucks in their pockets, but that just isn't realistic, is it?

EMDecember 13, 2011 10:16 EST

Julie Speed. Go ahead, google her. She lives and creates in Austin-Texas.

Now what is Austin-Texas? Well, relative to New York City, it is probably like Saskatoon is relative to Toronto. Relative in size, relative in distance … and relative in culture.

Cowboy-chic; both Saskatoon and Austin have that crazy, edge-of-seat Westerness, couched in the intense intellectual fireball that comes from having a major university in a moderate-sized city … and having it way out in the hinterland.

But how can Julie Speed produce such compelling art out in Austin? Far from the ‘madding crowd’. Far from the heart of American intelligentsia. Far from New York.

Well that’s precisely how: by BEING far from New York. She said it herself; being in New York – even if she weren’t an artist – would make it impossible for her to avoid the massive and overwhelming influence of that megalopolitan art scene. It would, effectively, stifle her.

I say the same thing about Toronto. I think we are moving to a creative future in Canada where being AWAY from Toronto is better than being in it.

And AWAY from London, in England. AWAY from Paris, in France. AWAY from Shanghai, in China.

Away, in fact … out in the Saskatoons of the world.

We aren’t going to see metropoles disappear; but we are going to see the rest of their respective countries blossom.

Christopher BallJanuary 02, 2012 22:00 EST

I grew up just outside of Toronto (in what is now the 905 region when it was productive farmland) and I could see these problems coming 20 years ago. In fact, I wrote extensive letters back then about the lack of proper planning and lack of "investment-in-the-future" spending. The City of Vaughan is a classic example of horrible planning which will bite back hard in the future as the car-centric approach to planning becomes intolerably expensive, (and when Ontario has eaten up its most valuable food producing land). When I left the Toronto region in the mid 90's the political system was rife with hidden corruption, controlled by developers, and was engaging is the worst type of rampant urban sprawl planning. I don't see much change now when I come back for a visit. There were some good developments back then, GO transit being one of the few "shining stars" of good development projects, but they were few and far between. It is sad but, like much of Canada, Toronto had great potential that is being eaten away by "short term political gain" policy decisions. Rob Ford is a classic example of this (as is Stephen Harper in Ottawa). Canada could have been a world leader in sustainable development, but that possibility is quickly being eroded. In the case of Toronto, it's been eroding for 20 plus years.

JohnJanuary 04, 2012 14:43 EST

Argh! You called LRT streetcars. Ford and his supporters always call it "streetcars" so people think LRT is like Queen St. trams. Or to remember St. Clair construction.

mJanuary 26, 2012 11:02 EST

I was born and raised in the suburban 905 belt. Living here for the past 20+ years, I do see that there is massive hidden corruption, especially in 905 municipalities, Mike Harris, Stephen Harper and recently Rob Ford. Everyday I'm frustrated with the poor decision making of these politicians. I also blame the NIMBY activists for their part in decline of Toronto. I'm currently in college studying accounting, once I finish, and earn some extra money, I plan to emigrate out of the GTA and move to either Singapore, Hong Kong, or Seoul, cities where there is better prospect for the future. Toronto and rest of Canada (i'm sorry to say, but its true) have no future