Public space is unequally enjoyed

When I was a teen growing up in White Rock, BC, the hip place to hang out was the McDonalds. Or, more specifically, the bit of public space in between the McDs and the Subway. Until the building owner installed speakers facing into the space that played classical music all day long. Either this was a misguided attempt to culturally indoctrinate the local teenage population with a love of classical music or, more likely, it was to repel them. It worked.

Public space is not equally enjoyed. We design public spaces to enable and encourage use, but we can also wield design to prevent and discourage use by “undesirables.” Design is not neutral. It can send a clear message: this space is not for you. Move along, please.

This past week someone noticed a speaker installed on the side of a building next to McGill Parkette–a small sliver of green space nestled between buildings east of Yonge Street near to Covenant House, a youth shelter. It was posted on Reddit and confirmed by @Matttomic on Twitter.

The speaker emits a frequency audible to young people under the age of 30 (which, sadly, is not me). In an interview with a Toronto Star reporter, a building representative said the device was not aimed at young people, but then provided a link to the Mosquito Device (a self-described anti-loitering device) that emits an annoying high-pitched frequency heard only by young people.

(And oh, look, if you want you upgrade you can get the Music Mosquito, “a complete music system that will relay Royalty free Classical or Chill-out music that would keep the teenagers away to some extent.” Thanks a lot, Music Mosquito.)

The local councillor, Kristyn Wong-Tam, expressed concern and said her office was looking into it. “I think it’s very disconcerting that there are certain types of people that are viewed as undesirable,” she told the Toronto Star reporter.

A visit to McGill Parkette myself on Friday afternoon revealed the speaker had already been removed. But it also revealed a park that is highly surveilled (I counted at least four cameras). The anti-loitering speaker is only a very egregious and obvious example of the practice of creating defensive spaces that are meant to protect against use by people, not encourage it. While McGill Parkette still has benches (someone was asleep on one), two other nearby parkettes were recently redesigned to contain absolutely no seating whatsoever. The message? Walk through here, but for god’s sake please don’t loiter.

IMG_2665.jpg

Loitering is an interesting word in relation to parks. Don’t we want people to loiter? Isn’t that the exact purpose of a public park? But that word is only aimed at certain park users. I have the privilege of being able to use public spaces without fear of anyone asking me to move along. I can hang out in a park for hours, take a nap on a bench, crack a beer in Trinity Bellwoods without worry. Loitering refers to, you know, undesirables.

The building rep said that the park had become “a high risk area for crime.” To be sure, creating safe spaces is important. The park is narrow, fenced in, and very enclosed, with an entrance only on one side. I can see how it could create an intimidating environment. Good lighting, additional entry points, and clear sight-lines could go a long way towards creating a space that is safer without preventing its use by people.

In fact, the City is hoping to redesign the park, but since it leases the space from the building it needs the building owners approval to do so–approval they have not given because it seems they want to turn the space into a loading area. The plot thickens.

At any rate, the answer to creating safe public spaces is not to design out certain users. And certainly not for a private entity to install something that inhibits the use of a public space by young people. Or to design public spaces with no seating, for that matter.

When we design our public spaces in this way, we all lose. But those who are already at a disadvantage lose even more. People experiencing homelessness or those who are at-risk need public spaces even more than the rest of us. If you don’t have a living room or a place to hang out then the local park becomes one. If you don’t have a bed, then that bench becomes your afternoon nap spot. This isn’t loitering, it’s living.

 

 

 

Understanding the intersection of parks, mental health, and equity

When I feel stressed at work, I get outside and walk to the nearest park. I lie on my back and watch the clouds go by or sit against the trunk of a tree and read. Breathe in, breathe out. Sometimes I’m only out there for 10 or 15 minutes, but I always feel better.

This past Wednesday was Bell’s annual Let’s Talk campaign to reduce the stigma around mental health issues, and so it seems an appropriate time to write a little something about the link between parks and mental health in cities. Do parks really make us feel better? If so, how? And, crucially, are those benefits available to all in a city?

There is a lot of research into these questions. In fact, if you printed out all the articles and scientific studies and stacked them on top of each other it would reach to the top of the CN Tower. (I don’t know if that’s true, but I always like when people write things like that).

CityLab compiled a pretty comprehensive list about the influence of parks on health, including mental health, which you can read here. But as a run-down, parks have been shown to reduce stress levels, improve mood and focus, and reduce depression and anxiety. Parks may also help us not to die. These links have been studied both for short-term exposure to green space—going for my 10 minute visit during a work break—and for long-term exposure—moving to a neighbourhood with more trees and parks nearby.

But these benefits are not distributed evenly in our city as they depend on things like access to green space (can you walk to a park?) and access to high-quality green spaces (when you get to that park is it full of garbage and broken benches?). This is where parks, mental health, and equity intersect.

It is a complicated area to tease out, which is why recently published work by Toronto-based researcher Nadha Hassen out of the Wellesley Institute is so important.

The two papers—a scoping review and a theoretical framework—consist of a review of academic literature related to the association between green space and mental health and a good discussion of how this intersects with neighbourhood-based inequities.

One of the most interesting findings from Nadha’s research was the emphasis on the quality of green space as a factor for positively influencing well-being. Often these studies look at access or quantity of green space, either by measuring distance between homes and parks or using satellite imagery to determine how much green space is in a neighbourhood. But it’s the more subjective, and harder to measure, quality of parks that really have an important influence on our well-being.

Quality measurements that Nadha found were things like: is the area species-rich and biodiverse? Is it aesthetically pleasing, clean, and well-maintained? Is it quiet, peaceful, and well-lit? Are there facilities and amenities that are useful? Are there water features and reflecting pools? Is it safe?

Additionally, social interactions in parks were also found to increase the positive impacts of parks on well-being—something that I also found when researching Sparking Change, a report Park People is releasing in February on the social impacts of parks in underserved neighbourhoods.

The reason Nadha’s research is important and worth emphasizing is that park maintenance is often first on the table in cities that find their operating budgets constrained and look year to year for areas to make cuts. In fact, just this year Toronto’s proposed 2017 operating budget included a reduction in maintenance for parks in high-use times and for gardens—something we spoke out strongly against. Luckily this cut has been reversed, but the final decision still must be made by City Council in February.

Investments in park quality are particularly important in our underserved neighbourhoods—those 31 areas that the City of Toronto has identified as Neighbourhood Improvement Areas. If well-maintained, clean, attractive, safe, and well-programmed parks can positively impact mental health and well-being, then investments in gardens, grass-cutting, park programming, and amenities like playgrounds and pathways should be made through the lens of public health and equity as much as through park operations and maintenance.

As Nadha writes: “To strive towards creating mental health-promoting green spaces, we need to ensure access to good quality green spaces that meet the needs of diverse populations. In urban settings, neighbourhoods with low-income, newcomer, and racialized populations tend to have lower access to available, good quality green spaces compared to other groups that are higher income and white.”

Having data to make these decisions about where to invest would be great. Which is why, as Nadha suggests, we should develop tools to evaluate park quality—using some of the indicators that Nadha uncovered like cleanliness, amenities, programming, natural environment, and safety—as a measure for public health and equity. It would be great to see this data collected with community members themselves—kind of like neighbourhood safety audit walks do currently.

This information would help us prioritize investments to ensure everyone has a beautiful, clean, and welcoming park nearby when they need to sit under a tree and de-stress.

Toronto’s Green Line takes a huge leap towards reality

Big news for the Green Line, a project that I’ve been involved with at my work, Park People, since 2014.

The Green Line is a vision to transform a hydro corridor into a 5km linear park and trail, connecting multiple communities along its length and providing new green spaces for areas that are lacking in parks. We actually just released a video (above) showcasing the potential of the hydro corridor as a linear park and outlined some of the challenges and opportunities for making it a reality.

GL Logo Map WEB.png

The project has received a lot of community and political support over the past few years, but one of the key things we’ve been pushing has been a City-initiated master plan for the Green Line. This master plan would, as we saw it, create a path forward for the project by outlining necessary improvements, connections needed, amenities, and potential new green spaces. The master plan would be a key document for changing what is now dealt with as a series of disconnected parks into a connected linear park with a common threaded identity. You can read more here.

That’s why it’s such big news that the City has hired a team of consultants to engage with communities along the route and create this plan in 2017. Called the Green Line Implementation Plan, it will outline the steps needed to make this a reality. There’s also over $1 million already in the capital budget for the next three years to implement portions of the plan. We’re excited at Park People to be a partner with the City on initiating this study.

With all the coming residential development along Dupont Street, new green spaces are going to be needed. There are already a number of applications for new mid- and high-rise buildings along Dupont and not many opportunities to create new green spaces. The Green Line is going to be an important park space and pedestrian route that serves both these new residents and existing residents along its length.

Linear parks are also very good bang for your buck in terms of park space. Because they are stretched out and thread their way through multiple neighbourhoods, they actually serve more people within a five minute walk than a similar sized park in a more traditional square shape. They also create opportunities for active transportation, providing a safe and pleasant place to walk, ride, and roll. And they’re not just good for people: linear parks provide much-needed corridors for wildlife, like pollinators, which we need more of in our city.

I hope one day in the next few years, I’ll be able to lace up my runners and take a jog along the Green Line.

 

 

Our city is growing — our parks budget must grow, too

This year was an exciting one for public spaces in Toronto. There was the announcement of the Under Gardiner (now The Bentway), Rail Deck Park, a renewed Grange Park, a “super park” in the Lower Don Valley, and strong support for The Green Line.

Toronto is booming in population and we are finally beginning to match that boom by seeding some much-needed investment in new and renewed parks in neighbourhoods across the city. But we risk falling behind if we don’t ensure that our budget to maintain those parks keeps pace. Despite all of this growth, the proposed budget would actually cut maintenance funding in our parks this year—and during their busiest use times.

As an independent charity that builds stronger communities by animating and improving parks in all corners of Toronto, Park People, where I work, believes strong public funding is crucial for a great park system.

This year the proposed operating budget for Parks, Forestry, and Recreation includes a cut of 0.3% from last year. This may seem like a small number, but included within that reduction is maintenance, horticulture, and urban agriculture funds—totalling $636,000—that were approved in the 2016 budget. The maintenance funds specifically went towards enhanced weekend and evening maintenance in high-use times like summer.

Cutting these from the budget also means we are reversing the first investments the City made towards operating initiatives in the City’s Parks Plan, which was a five-year plan that was meant to take us to 2017. While improvements like new social gathering spaces have been funded from the Plan, City staff note: “funding for operating has been a challenge.” It’s more than a shame to reach the end of the Parks Plan’s lifespan by reversing some of its vital initiatives.

The price of maintaining parkland is rising, too. More people using parks, more activities, and more complex designs means steadily higher costs. In the last three years the cost of maintaining parks has risen about $600 per hectare. By 2019, it will have increased $1,000 per hectare since 2014. All of this makes a 2017 budget that proposes to reduce, or even flat line our investment in parks maintenance, concerning.

This year also saw positive interest from philanthropy in our parks. There was the $25 million gift to the City from Judy and Wil Matthews for The Bentway and a number of other gifts to projects like the Lower Don Valley “super park.” Since it was launched in early 2013, the Weston Family Parks Challenge, which Park People administers, has invested nearly $4.5 million in projects around Toronto—almost all outside the downtown.

But let’s be clear: while private donations towards public space can be an important and welcome component of creating a great park system—just like donations to hospitals or public libraries—it is no substitute for a strong base of public funding. Philanthropy should add, not replace. Philanthropy is also not likely to step up and fund such critical core services such as grass-cutting and gardening. Nor should it. If parks are our common grounds, then we must invest in them as such—together.

Since there are no service levels mandated by the Province, the parks operating budget often feels the squeeze come budget time. Cutting funding for maintenance and garden renewal is also not an immediately visible cut—no walking to your favourite park only to find it closed because of budget cuts—but the effect it has on our city is just as real.

Well-maintained, beautiful parks are not a frill, but a crucial component of the social and environmental infrastructure of our city. Research has shown that attractive, clean parks encourage more people to use them and instill a sense of neighbourhood pride, bringing both health and social benefits—benefits that are particularly important in our more underserved neighbourhoods and support the City’s Poverty Reduction Strategy.

We are excited and invigorated by the renewed focus on parks and public spaces in Toronto, by the announcements from Mayor John Tory, and the support from City Councillors across the city. If we are to build a liveable, resilient, and socially connected city as we continue to grow in population and density, then we must invest in our parks—and not just by building new parks, but in the money and City staff to keep them as beautiful as the day the ribbon was cut.

Originally posted on Park People‘s website. 

 

Vancouver vs. Toronto: A tale of two 21-acre parks

It’s not often that a dense, city centre gets to create a new 21-acre park that provides new green space in an area that needs it, but also reconnects neighbourhoods disconnected by an infrastructure corridor.

No, not that 21-acre park.

Not to be outdone by Toronto’s plan to create a 21-acre park by decking over a rail corridor downtown, my old hometown Vancouver has released more details about its plan to create a new 21-acre waterfront park, replacing what is now a mostly derelict area of parking lots and elevated roadways.

Last year, Vancouver’s City Council approved a staff recommendation to remove the Georgia and Dunsmuir viaducts–recently featured in the opening bloodbath scene in Deadpool–in order to unlock more waterfront land at the edge of the downtown core. The city will create a new at-grade boulevard for cars while opening up more land for development and parks (sound familiar, Toronto?)

Screen Shot 2016-12-02 at 2.19.13 PM.png

The viaducts are really Vancouver’s hangover from a highway that never materialized that would have run down Georgia Street through the heart of the downtown. That highway plan was thankfully stopped, but not before these two “on-ramps” were constructed (demolishing Hogan’s Alley, a largely black neighbourhood, in the process).

Removing these viaducts—which carry far less traffic than they were originally designed for—was a smart, forward-thinking move by the city. The images below show what you can do with the viaducts in place and what you can do if you remove them. You get more park, sure, but you also get to connect the neighbourhoods to the north, like Chinatown and the Downtown Eastside, better to False Creek.

Screen Shot 2016-12-02 at 2.19.57 PM.png

It’s the kind of bold decision that we could have made in Toronto when options were laid out for the Gardiner East. Instead, our City Council voted to essentially repair and rebuild the elevated highway, nudging it a bit to create a different alignment at a massive cost–the so-called hybrid option.

Recently we’ve learned that the cost of rebuilding this section of the Gardiner has ballooned by more than $1 billion, which is, in a kind of twisted hilarity you only seem to find in Toronto municipal politics, what Rail Deck Park is likely to cost.

In another little funny, ironic twist, Vancouver has secured James Corner, the designer of the little-known High Line in New York, as the landscape architect for its new 21-acre park. I say ironic because before the decision to demolish the viaducts, there were some who advocated for turning them into Vancouver’s own High Line-style kind of elevated park. I absolutely hated that idea for many reasons—some of which I outlined in this post from my old blog back in 2012—but the gist is that they’re ugly, expensive, and too short to become a High Line.

Anyway, now we can blow them up and create a beautiful on-the-ground park, which is, in my opinion, where parks belong.

So, Toronto: let this be a lesson.

If we want to be the progressive, big-thinking, bold city we say we are, we can start by taking a page out of Vancouver’s book. We should tear down the Gardiner East and replace it with a boulevard, new neighbourhoods, and waterfront parks. And, hey, that $1 billion we save? I know about this little project over a rail corridor…

rdeck.jpg.size.custom.crop.1086x703.jpg

All images from vancouver city staff reports. The title image is not the final plan for the park, which hasn’t been released yet, but just a concept idea. 

Ryerson University public space plan leads the way for safer, people-focused streets

One of my favourite little islands of quiet green space in downtown Toronto is a hidden grassy field a one-minute brisk walk away from Yonge-Dundas Square. It’s one of those unique moments where you can be right in the thick of thousands of people with video screens screaming ads at you and then quickly melt away into a quiet park surrounded by sleepy classroom buildings and a big open patch of green. This is the aptly named Ryerson Community Park. 

Ryerson’s campus plugs right into the heart of downtown in a way that the University of Toronto—my former campus—doesn’t. It’s streets, green spaces, laneways, sidewalks, and plazas form a network that seamlessly connects into the pulsing city around it.

Public space network.jpg

That’s why we should pay attention when Ryerson proposes a new public space master plan that aims to transform its public space network, including streets, into something that is safer, people-focused, and accessible. It’s not just a redesign that will benefit students, but residents and visitors to downtown. And, if it’s done right, it could act as an important example of what’s possible in other neighbourhoods.

Gould Plaza

At the heart of the master plan, and of the campus itself, is Gould Plaza—one of the City of Toronto’s largest experiments (the largest?) in repurposing road space as public space for people. Closed to traffic as a temporary pilot in 2011, the open space on Gould Street quickly became a magnet for people and activity.

The plan proposes a simple, but important design fix to make the plaza permanent: raising the surface up so it’s flush with the sidewalks around it. Even though the street is closed to all traffic, pedestrians still, out of force of habit perhaps, use the sidewalks that line its edges.

If completed, this would mirror the high-profile pedestrianization of New York’s Times Square, where a similar pilot project to create space for people was made permanent by raising the pavement. It’s amazing what a small change in grade and materials can do for a space to make it more comfortable and inviting–not to mention accessible. Goodbye, curbs!

Laneways

Laneways.jpg

Also included in the plan, are ideas to make the laneways on campus—Victoria and O’Keefe—more inviting and usable for people by including lighting and art features. The plan doesn’t go too deeply into what’s possible in each of these laneways, which is a disappointment, but they could really be used as a template for other laneways downtown if we do them right. I know the City of Toronto and the Downtown Yonge BIA have been actively working on how to transform these laneways for quite some time, so hopefully we’ll see some of that move forward.

Pedestrian-priority streets

Victoria Street.jpg

Finally, the plan proposes creating pedestrian-priority streets on other key streets leading into the campus. While these will still allow car travel, they will be raised up and treated with different paving, signalling to cars that they’ve entered a pedestrian-priority space. This treatment of streets to make them safer and more pleasant for people is a useful lesson beyond the campus that could be implemented in other neighbourhoods. In fact, it’s used at some intersections already in the University of Toronto campus along Huron Street.

I hope the University steps up with the necessary funding to make these improvements a reality because, if implemented, they could lead the way in Toronto to re-imagining the potential of our streets not as simply places to move cars, but places for people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 ways to create a more skateable city

Skateboarding is often something we design out of our cities. We install metal bumps on concrete ledges and extra railings and barriers where they otherwise wouldn’t be needed. We put up signs with big red slashes through them. The message is clear: this space isn’t for you.

But what if we designed our city to be more skateable, not less?

With the City of Toronto’s new Skateboard Strategy, the City is hoping to do just that. The plan was created in close collaboration with skateboarders around the city, including the Toronto Skateboarding Committee—a great group of people advocating for more and better skateboarding infrastructure in the city.

The goal of the strategy is to create more and better skateparks in the city and also better programs to reach those that want to learn. There are currently 14 skateboard parks in Toronto (12 permanent, 2 seasonal), which you can find in every corner of the city. The findings in the strategy will be incorporated into the City’s facilities master plan—a long-term plan for the city’s parks and recreation facilities that’s being worked on right now.

Screen Shot 2016-10-31 at 3.35.23 PM.png

Here’s a few of the highlights from the Skateboard Strategy:

Mobile skateparks

 This idea stems from a pilot the City ran this past summer where a van stuffed with skatepark supplies like obstacles, ramps, and skateboards drove to areas of the city that were underserved by skateparks in order to build a quick, temporary space. It would be great to see this program expanded. But I also love the idea of just a “mobile games van” in general, which delivers a recreation staff member and soccer balls, toys, etc., to parks that don’t easy access to these otherwise. So many parks, particularly outside the downtown, are simply grass and maybe a bench. This would really help liven them up and provide play opportunities.

Skate dots

This idea recognizes that sometimes you don’t need to build a big, expensive skatepark, but instead can create small skateable locations in existing parks—what the city is called skate dots. These could be a single railing or ramp built into a park or pathway that allows people to practice. “They provide an introductory skateboarding experience for local users,” the Strategy says. “And can function as social gathering spaces.”

Skateable art

This is an idea I really love and kind of follows from the “skate dots” idea—creating public art pieces that are actually designed for people to skateboard on. It reminds me a little bit of the opposite of what the wave decks down along Queen’s Quay have become. The wave decks would be great for skateboarding if the City hadn’t put up weird, awkward railings so they couldn’t be used.

 Permits

Permits: the perennial headache. Turns out you actually can’t get a permit for skateparks currently and so this limits the ability to host events and competitions since only the City can put an event on at a skatepark. Any permitting process would, of course, have to balance the needs of all users and ensure that skateparks weren’t being taken over for events too often. But how great would it be for groups to be able to host local competitions and events in their skatepark?

 A skatepark at Nathan Phillips Square?

This wasn’t in the strategy, but at committee where the strategy was being discussed, Councillors voted to have staff look at creating a skatepark on the currently empty space on the west corner of Nathan Phillips Square. I love the idea of a visible skatepark right in the heart of downtown.

Making a place for people in the heart of Vancouver’s Davie Village

I lived in Vancouver’s West End for three years just a few blocks from Davie Street, which runs through the centre of the city’s gay village. While the street was billed as the “heart” of the village, it was more like an artery in search of a heart.

There was nowhere along the strip to hang out, chat with people, host community events and watch the bustle of the street. There was nearby Nelson Park, which got a nice facelift during my time there, but what the street lacked–and what many neighbourhoods in Vancouver lack–was a public space or plaza that acted as a central gathering spot right on the street.

A few years ago the City decided to change that. The result, the newly opened Jim Deva Plaza, is a great example of both why pilot projects matter and why programming is so important to public spaces.

Screen Shot 2016-09-27 at 3.02.20 PM.png

Test ideas with pilots to gain support before making expensive permanent changes

The City opened up a portion of a Bute Street, which intersects with Davie, by removing car access and creating a quick and cheap public space to test the idea. Tables and chairs were put out, and small community events, like games nights, were encouraged.

jpg.jpeg

The pilot was so successful that when the City surveyed the community about whether they wanted to make the plaza permanent, over 80% said yes.

This September I went back to Vancouver to attend Placemaking Week, and got to check out the now permanent Jim Deva Plaza, named after a local community activist around gay rights and free speech who died tragically a few years ago in an accident. The giant megaphone structure seen in the title picture acts both as a statement about Deva’s advocacy and provides a place for people to perform.

IMG_1202.jpg

Don’t just provide a space, provide something for people to do

The plaza seems to be working as a spot to mix and mingle. On a somewhat cool, but sunny day I sat in the plaza on one of the moveable chairs left out for people. A man with a guitar sang songs and intermittently chatted with a woman from Australia who sat nearby. A group of skateboarders stopped to play over-sized Jenga, which turned into a huge magnet for people walking by. I counted 12 people stopping to watch and talk to the guys in 10 minutes, including lots of older adults.

IMG_1211.JPG

Successful public plazas are ones that provide opportunities for people to do things. Whether that’s play guitar, sit with friends, or interact in some low-key game. Too often we simply provide the space and then walk away thinking that’s the end of it. But it’s the activities in these spaces that really draw people, keep them there, and provide an opportunity to chat with people they don’t know and may not have interacted with otherwise.

IMG_1209.jpg

When the Jenga blocks finally fell over, there were smiles from everyone in the plaza, and then they started all over again.

all photos are mine except the pre-designed space, which is from the Vancouver Courier

5 important points about Rail Deck Park

At Executive Committee on September 22, Rail Deck Park went through its first vote (they grow up so fast, don’t they?). Before the committee was a request for $2.4 million to do the prep work necessary to understand how to move the park forward. It passed easily and will head to council next.

You can read the staff recommendations here, but below are a few key points that emerged from the meeting about an idea to create this much-needed new 21-acre park over the rail corridor in downtown Toronto.

Rail Deck Park will likely be built in phases

It wasn’t explicitly articulated this way, but the message was clear: this park will be expensive and long-term, but it can also be built in a smaller set of phases rather than all at once. The report outlines certain partial-builds of the park and their high-level costs. Expect to hear more about this in future implementation plans. Here’s how the City broke down the different ways Rail Deck Park could be built over time:

IMG_1264.JPG

Partnerships will make this happen

Included in the report, and specifically highlighted by Deputy City Manager John Livey, was the importance that partnerships—with residents, community groups, businesses, and non-profits—will have in the construction, operation, and programming of Rail Deck Park.

We “need a new model” for this park, Livey said, mentioning the conservancy model specifically. There are a range of park partnership models, however, with a straight-up conservancy (basically a partnership between a City and a non-profit organization dedicated to the park) being on one end of the scale and local “friends of” groups on the other.

It will be interesting to see where Rail Deck Park ultimately ends up on that scale. City Council recently approved a new non-profit to manage The Bentway (formerly the Under Gardiner), so it’s not uncharted territory for Toronto. But one thing was clear: the City can’t do this alone.

There are dedicated funding streams for parks

People have pointed out that there’s no money set aside for Rail Deck Park. That’s true–sort of. There is no account right now with money sitting in it for the park; however, as the staff report outlined, and John Livey stressed, there are already several dedicated funding sources available. These funding sources are also growth-related, which is a jargony way of saying that new developments help pay for services/amenities that the new people living in those developments need. Growth pays for growth.

These are:

  • Section 37 (density bonus funds generated from tall, dense developments—aka pretty much every development in the downtown)
  • Section 42 (park levy funds generated from every development)
  • Development Charges (fees every development must pay per unit for a range of services, with Rail Deck Park to be included after the next DC review).

So it’s inaccurate to say there’s no money for this project or no one has thought of a way to pay for it. We do have funding mechanisms. And money collected for parks under Section 42 and through Development Charges can only be used for parks.

That’s important: they can only be used for parks. They can’t be used for housing or transit, by law. This is why these funding streams were created: so we’d have dedicated money for park improvements and acquisition as we grew (and grew and grew and grew).

Our park acquisition policies don’t work for downtown

This is a key point that John Livey talked about in his presentation. The way that we collect park levies from new developments downtown is largely through the Alternate Parkland Dedication Rate (Toronto’s is 0.4 hectares of land collected for every 300 units built). Often the City accepts cash in lieu of parkland from developers because the land provided would be such a small space given that downtown developments are largely tall buildings on tiny postage stamps of land. So we get money. Yay!

But: Toronto caps the amount that developers pay in park levies, which means that at a certain point in a high-density building, the City essentially stops collecting park levies. For a brief primer on why caps are used, head to the middle of this post. Here’s how that works out:

Screen Shot 2016-09-22 at 2.51.43 PM.png

Most developments in downtown would be under 1 hectare of land. So basically once the alternate rate (0.4 ha per 300 units) results in a land dedication of 10% of the development site, the City stops collecting park levies.

This may have been okay when our buildings were 30-storeys on average, Livey said, but now that we’re seeing 50, 60, and even 80 storey buildings on tiny pieces of land as the new normal, we need to revisit this cap because it’s not generating enough parkland/money to meet the needs of all those new residents. Reviewing these policies is long overdo.

Part of the hesitation around reviewing these policies stemmed from the fact that they could be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board. But a recent court decision related to Richmond Hill (you can read about that here) has helped clarify municipalities power to set parkland policies. Take that OMB!

Getting more in park levies from downtown developments helps the whole city

Councillor Joe Cressy, whose ward contains Rail Deck Park, pointed out that increasing the cap on park levies would net more money for parks downtown, but also for the entire city. This is because of the way park levy money is divided up. A good chunk of the money generated for parks from downtown developments goes into a citywide account. Here’s the breakdown for all you nerds out there:

Screen Shot 2016-09-22 at 2.51.14 PM.png

Increasing the amount of funds collected in downtown then would also increase the amount of funds that goes citywide. You are essentially creating a bigger pie, so we all get bigger slices. This is good news for people who like pie, but also for neighbourhoods that don’t see a lot of development who rely on these citywide reserve funds for their park improvement needs.

Stay tuned for what I’m sure will be an interesting debate over this project when this item goes to City Council on October 5 and 6 (and, who are we kidding, probably 7 too).

You can read more here about the challenges of buying parkland downtown. The charts were taken from this 2013 City of Toronto staff report

Court overturns OMB ruling on Richmond Hill’s park by-law

Okay, this news is a bit old, but I’m guessing not many people are exactly following OMB parkland dedication court cases with the same close eye that they would, oh say the split of Hollywood couples (RIP Brangelina).

A few months back I wrote about an OMB decision that essentially said that the Town of Richmond Hill did not have the ability to set its own level of parkland dedication, as the Planning Act allows.

Earlier this month (while I was on vacation in Vancouver), the court overturned that OMB decision.

In short, Richmond Hill had approved their park levy at the highest that is allowable under the Planning Act. This wasn’t done willy-nilly, but after analyzing the future park needs of the Town and compiling all of that in their 2013 Parks Plan. The OMB then ruled it was too high and imposed a cap. The court ultimately ruled the OMB “exceeded its mandate.”

This decision is a big one because it will have ramifications for other municipalities that are experiencing intensification (like Vaughan and Markham), who are re-tooling how they collect park levies from those new developments to pay for the parks that residents living in high-density neighbourhoods need.

Here’s the press release:

Screen Shot 2016-09-20 at 1.34.49 PM.png

Both the Toronto Star and Torontoist have written articles on the decision.