Deep fault lines divide the older, downtown part of the city and the more recently built, suburban areas. The split is not new but is increasingly damaging.Carlos Osorio/Reuters
In the grand scheme of Toronto’s $19-billion budget, $10-million might seem like chump change. But that sum of money is still enough to recruit, train and outfit 100 police officers, to fund the opening of all library branches on Sundays or to fill more than 300,000 potholes.
Which is to say that it’s not trivial that the federal government, earlier this month, clawed back $10-million of its housing grant to Toronto because some councillors insisted on blocking more multi-unit homes in suburban neighbourhoods. And beyond just the lost money, the council decision that prompted this grant being reduced is indicative of a worrying schism within Canada’s biggest city.
Deep fault lines divide the older, downtown part of the city and the more recently built, suburban areas. The split is not new but is increasingly damaging. The older areas are carrying the weight of change while suburban residents enjoy the upsides of city life without bearing their share of the burden.
They get to live in the city without being part of the city.
This cannot continue. The great benefits of city living – proximity to jobs and culture, entertainment and mass transit – are possible because of urban density. These people must have somewhere to live. It’s fundamentally unjust that only some neighbourhoods have to help meet that need.
Editorial: Edmonton’s clear blueprint for density
This is also a warning to other cities. Toronto’s split makes it harder to build enough homes in desirable areas, pushing up high real estate costs and hurting the long-term viability of one of the country’s economic engines.
In economics terms, areas that refuse new housing are urban free riders. The federal government’s move to revoke Toronto’s money highlights how unfair it is that the whole city must pay because suburban councillors don’t want change.
The money in question is part of the federal housing accelerator fund, which is designed to reward pro-growth behaviour by cities. In the case of Toronto, council made a long list of promises in order to get hundreds of millions in funding. When push came to shove, many councillors decided that they hadn’t really meant it.
The biggest sticking point was Toronto’s promise to allow six-unit residential buildings in every part of the city. These types of buildings are designed to replace a single house and are a subtle way to increase density in an existing area.
However, to some suburban councillors they would have ruined property values and destroyed neighbourhoods. In the end, the best council could manage last summer was to approve sixplexes in the older parts of the city, as well as in one suburban ward with a forward-looking councillor.
These limits in turn led to the city getting part of its grant revoked by Ottawa, appropriately so. But the situation is made worse by the fact that this continues a pattern of local decisions.
Also last year, council divided in a similar way over the possibility of allowing corner stores in residential neighbourhoods. Suburban councillors raised concerns and, in the end, these stores were approved only in the older parts of town.
Another issue that reflected this trend was whether to allow legal rooming houses city-wide. For decades these were permitted in the older parts of Toronto but operated illegally elsewhere. Bringing them into the legal framework would have allowed inspections for fire safety and other hazards. It would also have acknowledged that housing is needed everywhere. However, suburban councillors balked repeatedly.
Editorial: Development charges rest on a shaky foundation
When the rules were finally changed, in December, 2022, they included different standards for the suburbs. In those areas, rooming houses were limited to fewer occupants and had to include parking, making them more expensive to build and thus less viable.
Still, the rooming-house issue points to possible progress. The fact that former mayor John Tory was able to get it through council shortly after being elected to his third term is telling. Fresh off a campaign and armed with a pro-housing mandate, he had the clout to stare down unhappy councillors. It wasn’t a good deal but it was a start.
Of course, a few months later Mr. Tory resigned and he was replaced in a by-election by Olivia Chow. Later this year Torontonians go to the polls again.
The campaign must focus on a vision for the whole city, one that celebrates building homes, and the value of urban density. Whoever wins, the next mayor can use such a mandate to start stitching together the two solitudes of Toronto, turning it into the city it could be.