Could Toronto be missing the chance of realizing its ambitious plan of building Villiers Island?
Rarely does Toronto get the opportunity to build neighbourhoods from scratch.
That’s why the plan for what’s currently known as Villiers Island, a future mixed-use neighbourhood by the eastern waterfront, has been under a microscope by the public, experts and city planners. It’s a blank slate to build housing and a unique opportunity to be as ambitious as possible.
The new community will be built on a flood plain in the Port Lands, a formerly derelict industrial area south-east of downtown. To prevent flooding, the city has created a valley to extend the Don River, effectively creating the island.
The sprawling, 39.6-hectare neighbourhood will, according to current plans, include new roads, public spaces, parks, services, facilities and at least 15 towers ranging from 19 to 49 storeys offering about 9,000 homes and 2,900 jobs.
It’s a project over a decade in the making, with the latest plan — which more than doubles the original density — approved by city council last week.
While the city and tri-government organization Waterfront Toronto say their plans are ambitious compared to Toronto’s past projects, balancing density with livability and drawing new life to the waterfront, experts say their aspirations don’t go far enough in the midst of an affordability crisis.
The one thing everybody agrees on? The stakes are too high to get this wrong.
“We really want to make sure we are juicing the public benefit that we can get out of it,” said Alex Beheshti, an urban planner and land economist with Altus Group, who’s not involved with the project. “Public planning is not a line of profession where later you can say, ‘whoopsie-daisy.’”
Homes for today or tomorrow?
City staff’s draft in 2017 for Villiers had planned about 4,000 units on the portion of land that’s publicly owned, which is 80 per cent. The updated plan increases that number to 8,500 to 9,000 units, which is on 8.5 hectares, and translates to about 15,000 residents.
The rest of the 39.6-hectare island is dedicated to public right-of-ways, roads, wetlands or parklands.
The tallest towers, at 35 to 46 storeys, will be in the west, while the eastern towers will be 24 to 32 storeys. A couple of 19-storey towers are planned to the north.
“It’s high density,” said Carly Bowman, director of community planning for the Toronto and East York districts, comparing it to CityPlace and Downsview per hectare, which have about 7,500 units over 18 hectares and 63,000 units over 210 hectares, respectively.
The tendency in Toronto is to add more density over time, she continued, noting that’s what happened elsewhere like Regent Park and CityPlace. Planners say they are leaving some flexibility for that in the design.
“We think this is ambitious for today, but future generations of planners may be even more ambitious,” Bowman said.
However, experts say more homes should be worked into the plan now as once roads are put down, planners will be limited as to what they can add or adjust.
They should be thinking like private developers and overplan for density instead of restricting it in early stages, said Mark Richardson, a member of volunteer advocacy group HousingNowTO.
The 20 per cent of developable land that’s privately owned currently has applications for a few towers ranging from 27 to 49 storeys, potentially adding about 1,900 units.
Blair Scorgie, a managing principal at Scorgie Planning who is not involved with the project, said Toronto’s plans have historically been timid compared to the private sector.
In the West Don Lands, for example, Richardson said planners envisioned mid- or lowrise buildings in the early 2000s but have since rezoned most blocks to increase density. Today, most of the buildings are double or triple what was originally planned.
“It would have saved us all a lot of time, trouble, paperwork and discussions with neighbours if we’d have said building this neighbourhood would be up to 40 storeys,” Richardson said.
But local Coun. Paula Fletcher said they carefully increased density in certain locations because, in previous years, the public “scolded” the city “very hard for all of the Harbourfront, where you’re blocked completely” from feeling like you’re by the water.
Villiers is “the front door” of the waterfront, she emphasized. “They don’t make any more. This is it.”
‘We’re growing a marsh’
The city says the heights and space between towers were chosen to also regulate wind and the impact of the buildings on the public realm, while ensuring lake, landscape or landmark views, and enough sunlight for public spaces and sensitive natural habitats.
The vision for this community is to make it a destination spot with lively public spaces and walkable roads. This isn’t just for residents but also visitors to spend time there, Fletcher said.
Too much shadow from buildings can make the public realm “less inviting,” said Bowman, adding sunlight is also needed since “we’re growing a marsh” and “regionally significant environmental areas” to flood-proof the Port Lands.
However, Beheshti argues this is “absurd” considering “we are going to see more extreme heat waves” so both the environment and humans will look for relief from sunlight and enduring heat effects.
Since these green areas are mainly south of the development, Scorgie says it wouldn’t be impacted by shadows. Others are situated to the east and west, and “significantly buffered” by parks and open space.
However, if building higher is not an option, Beheshti and Scorgie question why changes can’t be made to design of the buildings, which plans currently show as podiums with thinner towers on top.
Scorgie said the minimum 40-metre space between the towers’ upper storeys is “generous” considering the city’s guidelines suggest spacing slender towers 25 metres apart. They could tighten up the tower separation distances or move toward something that is “more linear and slablike, or a hybrid combination” to reduce building heights while improving density and providing diverse unit layouts.
Fletcher noted there’s still time to make these types of changes. “Nobody has designed any buildings yet,” she said. “Just the blocks. Once you get down to detailed design, lots of things are possible.”
Doing the math on affordable housing
Currently, the city plan calls for 2,700 moderately affordable residential units on public land or roughly 30 per cent, an increase of 10 percentage points from the 2017 plan. (The city’s revised definition of affordable is 30 per cent of the pre-tax monthly household income.)
But experts say the city being timid with density means it’s not maximizing the number of affordable units it can provide.
Richardson believes the city should build 12,000 units to ensure 30 per cent affordable housing, given rising construction costs and interest rates have in the past put that target in jeopardy.
However, Noah Slater, the city’s director of housing development, said the current number is a “pretty ambitious and appropriate target.”
To achieve even 2,700 affordable units, Slater noted the delicate math at hand: combining various funding and incentives from various governments with expected revenue from the market-priced units.
Adding more affordable units means cutting away at budgets at a time when builders are also contending with rising costs for loans as well as construction materials and land. “If there’s a chance to go deeper, we will always go deeper,” Slater said.
Coun. Brad Bradford, an urban planner, said the plan could do more “heavy lifting” in an affordability crisis. He noted at council it is “better than what it was,” but compared it to the fact that a 100 per cent increase to $1 is only $2.
“I don’t think anybody’s saying we don’t want to try. But let’s (acknowledge) we’ve moved the needle incredibly far,” said Fletcher in an interview, whose amendment at council asked staff to consider how they can relocate heritage silos “taking up quite a bit of space that could be used for housing.”
The path not taken
Villiers Island is also being dreamt as a transit-friendly community. A street network yet to be finalized envisions a future Waterfront LRT, walkable roads, cycling infrastructure and some space for cars.
Despite a long-standing vision for a vibrant public realm, another main criticism is that some of the public right-of-ways, which include roads and boulevards, are too wide, leaving less space for development.
While New Cherry and Commissioners streets already exist, the current layout for the rest shows a grid made of several north-to-south streets and three west-to-east streets, forming 10 development blocks, including one street across the neighbourhood that prioritizes pedestrians.
The development blocks will be separated by 19 to 40 metres — the latter of which is larger than Sheppard Avenue — to accommodate all road users.
“It’s too much asphalt and concrete,” Scorgie said, adding it reflects more of a suburban design than downtown.
Waterfront Toronto says they’ll be doing a “full public process” to rightsize wider right-of-ways where possible.
“There isn’t a (roadway) proposed that is more than one lane of travel in each direction, 6.6 metres,” said Pina Mallozzi, Waterfront Toronto’s senior vice-president of design.
The wide right-of-ways were also in response to the idea of complete streets to prioritize pedestrians, cyclists and transit users, said Jed Kilbourn, Waterfront Toronto’s director of development planning.
The wide swaths of public realm also include green infrastructure “that can absorb stormwater so you don’t overtax the municipal sewer system,” Kilbourn said.
Overall, Bowman says the city is confident in its decisions, which she says are supported by evidence, consultations and due diligence.
“We are mindful of trying to do our best work,” she said. “But we’re on a continuum, where intensification and more thinking will come over time.”
It’s an unenviable tension, Scorgie acknowledges. “They kind of have an impossible task,” he said.
This article was first reported by The Star
