Here are some older things - I will update this soon with more recent coverage of things such as my 2016 work on a petition for new Ward Boundaries in Toronto (which went to the OMB), but please check out these items:
Brian Graff to run for City Council in Ward 32 (Beaches-EastYork)
Media Press Release
For Immediate Distribution
Brian Graff to run for City Council in Ward 32 (Beaches-EastYork)
Toronto, July 22, 2014 --On Monday July 21, Brian Graff, a prominent member of The Beach community, filed his nomination papers to become the next Councillor in Toronto’s Ward 32.
Since 2011, Graff has been a leader in the fight against several controversial local condo projects, including the “Lick’s” redevelopment at 1960 Queen Street.
He was also instrumental in having a private member’s Bill introduced at Queen’s Park that would have reduced or delayed developer appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), because current rules do not give City Council time to vote on the project before a developer can appeal. He was also selected to testify at Queen’s Park before a Committee about removing Toronto from the OMB. “The OMB continuously ignores the concerns of residents and consistently takes the side of the developer, choosing the opinions of the developer’s experts over the testimony of those affected.”
Graff is concerned about the lack of meaningful community consultation, particularly on projects like proposed changes to Kew Gardens.
He holds degrees in Architecture and Environmental Studies, as well as an MBA in Finance. He operates a small consulting firm and has worked in commercial real estate for 15 years, including six years spent working for Paul Reichmann as a Financial Analyst.
Councillor McMahon is running for a second term, and she has announced that this will be her final term in office. “Ward 32 cannot afford to have a lame-duck Councillor at City Hall for the next four years,” says Graff. "We need a Councillor who is focused on standing up for citizens and getting the job done.”
“The needs and concerns of the community must come first. We cannot afford a lightweight Councillor, who meekly follows the opinions of bureaucrats, and buckles under to the demands of condo developers. She seems completely incapable of protecting the character of the Beach and Danforth communities, creating open season for developers to build any monstrosity they wish, often with her support.”
He has promised to return any donations from developers, and challenged McMahon to do the same.
Apart from bringing his business, urban planning and design expertise to Council, Graff will also champion the idea of a large Chicago-style “transformative park” on the Toronto Waterfront. He also wants to increase the amount of money the City spends on acquiring parkland elsewhere.
“The city is doing a terrible job of dealing with population growth. Many residents are concerned that condo development will make traffic and parking issues worse, and that schools and infrastructure are insufficient. Meanwhile, Danforth needs revitalisation, and instead of generic condos, it needs a unique amenity like the YMCA to attract shoppers. Plus, the Y should be near the subway, instead of somewhere that is hard to get to by transit.”
A self-declared “progressive,” Brian Graff is a creative thinker and problem-solver who likes to challenge the conventional wisdom and develop innovative alternative solutions toToronto’s major challenges, such as traffic congestion and transit.
Source: Brian Graff Campaign.
For further information, please contact 416-510-8141 or email briangraff2014@gmail.com
You can also visit www.BrianGraff.com
For Immediate Distribution
Brian Graff to run for City Council in Ward 32 (Beaches-EastYork)
Toronto, July 22, 2014 --On Monday July 21, Brian Graff, a prominent member of The Beach community, filed his nomination papers to become the next Councillor in Toronto’s Ward 32.
Since 2011, Graff has been a leader in the fight against several controversial local condo projects, including the “Lick’s” redevelopment at 1960 Queen Street.
He was also instrumental in having a private member’s Bill introduced at Queen’s Park that would have reduced or delayed developer appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), because current rules do not give City Council time to vote on the project before a developer can appeal. He was also selected to testify at Queen’s Park before a Committee about removing Toronto from the OMB. “The OMB continuously ignores the concerns of residents and consistently takes the side of the developer, choosing the opinions of the developer’s experts over the testimony of those affected.”
Graff is concerned about the lack of meaningful community consultation, particularly on projects like proposed changes to Kew Gardens.
He holds degrees in Architecture and Environmental Studies, as well as an MBA in Finance. He operates a small consulting firm and has worked in commercial real estate for 15 years, including six years spent working for Paul Reichmann as a Financial Analyst.
Councillor McMahon is running for a second term, and she has announced that this will be her final term in office. “Ward 32 cannot afford to have a lame-duck Councillor at City Hall for the next four years,” says Graff. "We need a Councillor who is focused on standing up for citizens and getting the job done.”
“The needs and concerns of the community must come first. We cannot afford a lightweight Councillor, who meekly follows the opinions of bureaucrats, and buckles under to the demands of condo developers. She seems completely incapable of protecting the character of the Beach and Danforth communities, creating open season for developers to build any monstrosity they wish, often with her support.”
He has promised to return any donations from developers, and challenged McMahon to do the same.
Apart from bringing his business, urban planning and design expertise to Council, Graff will also champion the idea of a large Chicago-style “transformative park” on the Toronto Waterfront. He also wants to increase the amount of money the City spends on acquiring parkland elsewhere.
“The city is doing a terrible job of dealing with population growth. Many residents are concerned that condo development will make traffic and parking issues worse, and that schools and infrastructure are insufficient. Meanwhile, Danforth needs revitalisation, and instead of generic condos, it needs a unique amenity like the YMCA to attract shoppers. Plus, the Y should be near the subway, instead of somewhere that is hard to get to by transit.”
A self-declared “progressive,” Brian Graff is a creative thinker and problem-solver who likes to challenge the conventional wisdom and develop innovative alternative solutions toToronto’s major challenges, such as traffic congestion and transit.
Source: Brian Graff Campaign.
For further information, please contact 416-510-8141 or email briangraff2014@gmail.com
You can also visit www.BrianGraff.com
Slow down population growth in the GTA: Brian Graff’s Big Idea (Toronto star, April 3, 2014)
Name: Brian Graff
Issue: Work/Economy: How Toronto can be a place to find good jobs and financial security
What’s the big idea: What if we slowed down the population growth of the GTA?
How will the big idea work: It is the conventional wisdom that the GTA will continue to have massive growth in population, and that this is a good thing. Toronto and surrounding areas have not been able to keep up with population growth — this is why congestion is bad and we are faced with figuring out how to find the billions of dollars necessary to fix this. Toronto has also had a huge increase in poverty and greater inequality over the last 30 years.
The next 30 years will likely bring a revolution in robotics — immigrants with PhDs won’t even be able to find jobs driving cabs if we have driverless taxis, and other jobs will be lost. Globalization means that much of what immigrants buy is imported, while adding people to the economy might not necessarily increase exports, and certainly not immediately.
How much will your big idea cost, and how would it be funded: This will actually save us money because we can stop or reduce the increases in congestion, and spread out the costs of building infrastructure over a longer period. Raising taxes to build all of the infrastructure we need with 100,000 people per year being added will harm our economy.
As Haroon Siddiqui has also come to believe, high immigration merely helps to drive down wages and drive up unemployment by creating a pool of labour larger than we can absorb. A shortage of labour drives up wages and actually means less need for income redistribution to create more fairness and to reduce inequality.
How will you implement your big idea: Immigration is largely a federal and provincial matter, and Canada takes in nearly twice as many immigrants per capita as the U.S. We can still have a generous immigration policy even if we reduce it to be proportionate with the U.S. About 40 per cent of Canadians want immigration reduced. The unemployment rate in the four western provinces is below the national average, while in Ontario and eastern provinces, it is higher than the average. More people apply for immigration each year than the 250,000 we process. Raise the number of points for immigrants to be admitted and make other more fundamental changes to immigration policy to see that immigrants go where the labour market is tightest.
Do you have an idea on how to make the GTA a better place to live? Submit it here to participate in our year-long project.
Issue: Work/Economy: How Toronto can be a place to find good jobs and financial security
What’s the big idea: What if we slowed down the population growth of the GTA?
How will the big idea work: It is the conventional wisdom that the GTA will continue to have massive growth in population, and that this is a good thing. Toronto and surrounding areas have not been able to keep up with population growth — this is why congestion is bad and we are faced with figuring out how to find the billions of dollars necessary to fix this. Toronto has also had a huge increase in poverty and greater inequality over the last 30 years.
The next 30 years will likely bring a revolution in robotics — immigrants with PhDs won’t even be able to find jobs driving cabs if we have driverless taxis, and other jobs will be lost. Globalization means that much of what immigrants buy is imported, while adding people to the economy might not necessarily increase exports, and certainly not immediately.
How much will your big idea cost, and how would it be funded: This will actually save us money because we can stop or reduce the increases in congestion, and spread out the costs of building infrastructure over a longer period. Raising taxes to build all of the infrastructure we need with 100,000 people per year being added will harm our economy.
As Haroon Siddiqui has also come to believe, high immigration merely helps to drive down wages and drive up unemployment by creating a pool of labour larger than we can absorb. A shortage of labour drives up wages and actually means less need for income redistribution to create more fairness and to reduce inequality.
How will you implement your big idea: Immigration is largely a federal and provincial matter, and Canada takes in nearly twice as many immigrants per capita as the U.S. We can still have a generous immigration policy even if we reduce it to be proportionate with the U.S. About 40 per cent of Canadians want immigration reduced. The unemployment rate in the four western provinces is below the national average, while in Ontario and eastern provinces, it is higher than the average. More people apply for immigration each year than the 250,000 we process. Raise the number of points for immigrants to be admitted and make other more fundamental changes to immigration policy to see that immigrants go where the labour market is tightest.
Do you have an idea on how to make the GTA a better place to live? Submit it here to participate in our year-long project.
Time to consider ranked ballots (toronto star, feb. 28, 2014)
Re: The political party as an exclusive club, Feb. 22
Susan Delacourt makes references to a “political class,” but this term is misleading. Who exactly is a member of this “class”? Where is the line?
She may feel she could never join the partisans who put stuffed toys on their head, but a lot of us who are not avid sports fans cannot see ourselves as painting the team logo on our faces. Passion makes people willing to loosen their inhibitions, so what?
Party membership is inexpensive and open to anyone; it does not make one part of some elite “class.” I have volunteered and been a member of a political party off and on for 30 years and I have never had any real influence (or patronage perks), and often disagreed with my party’s policies and unsuccessfully tried to change or improve some of them – but did this make me part of some exclusive club?
Anyone can join a party of their choice. The Liberal Party has shown a great willingness to reach out to Canadians by creating a new “supporter” category, whereby people can vote for the leader without even paying for a membership.
It is not the Liberal Party, or even the NDP or Green parties that have a “black and white” attitude, but the Harper government that has been the real culprit that should be the target of her criticisms.
In both Canada and the U.S. the left has become more centrist. It is the far right that has a Manichean view of good vs evil, and so opponents are subject to the vile, demeaning personal attack ads that turn people off political involvement of any kind. The mudslinging brings the entire democratic process into disrepute, and doesn’t just harm the targets.
It is true that our society has become less democratic over the last decades, because most parties are led from the top down rather than from the bottom up – power is centralized around the party leader, particularly if that leader also happens to become the PM or Premier. People don’t join parties because they are smart enough to know that party members have little influence, power or other benefits from being involved in a local riding association.
Even the Reform Party, which began out of a desire to buck the top-down trend by empowering party members and MPs, eventually fell victim to the usual top-down pattern.
Fixing the current malaise of political apathy and other problems with our democracy will not be easy. But the one thing that would lessen it would be for all three levels of government to move to an Australian style “ranked ballot,” which would force parties, leaders and candidates to reach out beyond their core supporters and to court voters whose first choice is one of their opponents.
Brian Graff, Toronto
Susan Delacourt makes references to a “political class,” but this term is misleading. Who exactly is a member of this “class”? Where is the line?
She may feel she could never join the partisans who put stuffed toys on their head, but a lot of us who are not avid sports fans cannot see ourselves as painting the team logo on our faces. Passion makes people willing to loosen their inhibitions, so what?
Party membership is inexpensive and open to anyone; it does not make one part of some elite “class.” I have volunteered and been a member of a political party off and on for 30 years and I have never had any real influence (or patronage perks), and often disagreed with my party’s policies and unsuccessfully tried to change or improve some of them – but did this make me part of some exclusive club?
Anyone can join a party of their choice. The Liberal Party has shown a great willingness to reach out to Canadians by creating a new “supporter” category, whereby people can vote for the leader without even paying for a membership.
It is not the Liberal Party, or even the NDP or Green parties that have a “black and white” attitude, but the Harper government that has been the real culprit that should be the target of her criticisms.
In both Canada and the U.S. the left has become more centrist. It is the far right that has a Manichean view of good vs evil, and so opponents are subject to the vile, demeaning personal attack ads that turn people off political involvement of any kind. The mudslinging brings the entire democratic process into disrepute, and doesn’t just harm the targets.
It is true that our society has become less democratic over the last decades, because most parties are led from the top down rather than from the bottom up – power is centralized around the party leader, particularly if that leader also happens to become the PM or Premier. People don’t join parties because they are smart enough to know that party members have little influence, power or other benefits from being involved in a local riding association.
Even the Reform Party, which began out of a desire to buck the top-down trend by empowering party members and MPs, eventually fell victim to the usual top-down pattern.
Fixing the current malaise of political apathy and other problems with our democracy will not be easy. But the one thing that would lessen it would be for all three levels of government to move to an Australian style “ranked ballot,” which would force parties, leaders and candidates to reach out beyond their core supporters and to court voters whose first choice is one of their opponents.
Brian Graff, Toronto
LeTter Published in the beach Metro - March 18, 2014
More to the story of Queen Street condo
Re: Deal struck for Queen/Woodbine condo [Beach Metro News, March 4, 2014]
The article on the settlement for 1880 Queen St. E. is disappointing.
First, because the settlement is a huge victory for the developer, and secondly, because it only included the views of people who supported the settlement, making the deal sound far better than it is.
Where was the voice of anyone independent of this backroom deal?
In effect, the developer got nearly everything in his application.
The deal essentially moves the building (inside and out), by about 1.2 m north – very little internal floor space is lost. The parking garage now extends under the laneway. The building is now more imposing on the north side, where the impact is greater on residential areas.
Had the developer lost, or not gained the specific concessions he won, he would have had to totally redesign the floor plans and re-sell all the condos he already sold. He took a big gamble in pre-selling condos without the zoning approved, and he won big-time!
The Greater Beach Neighbourhood Association and Councillor McMahon want to paint a big happy face on this settlement, but the article didn’t look at their past positions.
McMahon saying it now “almost meets all the guidelines” is absurd – the building is still six storeys straight up on the main corner, without any setbacks. The 0.9 m setback is only 5 m long and applies on the fifth floor, on just the south side.
The building now violates the rear angular planes of the Beach Urban Design Guidelines even more than the original proposal.
She botched things on Queen Street from the beginning, starting with Lick’s [1960-1962 Queen St. E., formerly a Lick’s restaurant, now the planned site of Lakehouse Beach Residences - ed.] and her failure to pass an Interim Control Bylaw, which would have stopped both condos at Woodbine. The “hold” on development she trumpeted was useless. It was the Lick’s OMB approval that undermined the appeal on the Shell site, and thus on 1880 Queen St. E. too.
She says proposed Official Plan Amendment will still give us protection that is “pretty darn strong” – what ever happened to the guidelines alone being the “Beach Bible?”
Brian Graff
Re: Deal struck for Queen/Woodbine condo [Beach Metro News, March 4, 2014]
The article on the settlement for 1880 Queen St. E. is disappointing.
First, because the settlement is a huge victory for the developer, and secondly, because it only included the views of people who supported the settlement, making the deal sound far better than it is.
Where was the voice of anyone independent of this backroom deal?
In effect, the developer got nearly everything in his application.
The deal essentially moves the building (inside and out), by about 1.2 m north – very little internal floor space is lost. The parking garage now extends under the laneway. The building is now more imposing on the north side, where the impact is greater on residential areas.
Had the developer lost, or not gained the specific concessions he won, he would have had to totally redesign the floor plans and re-sell all the condos he already sold. He took a big gamble in pre-selling condos without the zoning approved, and he won big-time!
The Greater Beach Neighbourhood Association and Councillor McMahon want to paint a big happy face on this settlement, but the article didn’t look at their past positions.
McMahon saying it now “almost meets all the guidelines” is absurd – the building is still six storeys straight up on the main corner, without any setbacks. The 0.9 m setback is only 5 m long and applies on the fifth floor, on just the south side.
The building now violates the rear angular planes of the Beach Urban Design Guidelines even more than the original proposal.
She botched things on Queen Street from the beginning, starting with Lick’s [1960-1962 Queen St. E., formerly a Lick’s restaurant, now the planned site of Lakehouse Beach Residences - ed.] and her failure to pass an Interim Control Bylaw, which would have stopped both condos at Woodbine. The “hold” on development she trumpeted was useless. It was the Lick’s OMB approval that undermined the appeal on the Shell site, and thus on 1880 Queen St. E. too.
She says proposed Official Plan Amendment will still give us protection that is “pretty darn strong” – what ever happened to the guidelines alone being the “Beach Bible?”
Brian Graff
Council, not planners, are the ‘decider’ (Toronto star, feb. 5, 2014)
Re: In the condos' shadow, Feb. 2
I was at the OMB hearing for the 47-storey condo tower approved for 333 King, west of the Kit Kat restaurant. What your story didn’t mention was why those developers were persuaded to buy 321 King St. The planning department was worried that there would not be enough “tower separation distance” with a potential office tower now proposed to be built on the heritage properties to the east — the ones that Adam Vaughan vows are protected.
Heritage as a low priority for city planning staff, who are happy to support projects that only preserve facades and nothing more. Their bias is towards facilitating development and intensification. The views of the local community and of councillors mean little to the arrogant “experts” in planning who think that they know better than the people they are supposed to serve.
Council ultimately has control over policy and the planning department — but rarely do we here any criticism of the planners. If the City’s planners are in favour of something, council has to hire outside planners for an OMB hearing, the chances of the OMB refusing a condo development are even slimmer. Council, the planners, is supposed to the “decider.”
Councillors rightly complain about the OMB, but the OMB is only half the problem. Planning is not a science and planners are not licensed, like “real” professions. What is good planning or appropriate or will make a beautiful city is all highly subjective.
It is time that the planning department undergo a major reform and change in their culture and attitude toward us non-planners, particularly the ones we elect.
Brian Graff, Toronto
I was at the OMB hearing for the 47-storey condo tower approved for 333 King, west of the Kit Kat restaurant. What your story didn’t mention was why those developers were persuaded to buy 321 King St. The planning department was worried that there would not be enough “tower separation distance” with a potential office tower now proposed to be built on the heritage properties to the east — the ones that Adam Vaughan vows are protected.
Heritage as a low priority for city planning staff, who are happy to support projects that only preserve facades and nothing more. Their bias is towards facilitating development and intensification. The views of the local community and of councillors mean little to the arrogant “experts” in planning who think that they know better than the people they are supposed to serve.
Council ultimately has control over policy and the planning department — but rarely do we here any criticism of the planners. If the City’s planners are in favour of something, council has to hire outside planners for an OMB hearing, the chances of the OMB refusing a condo development are even slimmer. Council, the planners, is supposed to the “decider.”
Councillors rightly complain about the OMB, but the OMB is only half the problem. Planning is not a science and planners are not licensed, like “real” professions. What is good planning or appropriate or will make a beautiful city is all highly subjective.
It is time that the planning department undergo a major reform and change in their culture and attitude toward us non-planners, particularly the ones we elect.
Brian Graff, Toronto
Other hard truths about transit (oct. 24, 2013)
Re: Accept transit “hard truths” and get on with planning, Royson James says, Oct. 24
One of the hard truths is that “Subways are not the only good form of transit,” but this should be amended to “Subways and LRTs are not the only good forms of transit.” The truth is that buses are, and will continue to be, the cheapest and most flexible form of public transit.
But scant attention has been paid to how to improve bus service through the use of more express routes, as well as using double-decker buses or minibuses to increase capacity or reduce costs. In addition, maybe we need to look at allowing private operators to offer transit in areas of low density sprawl where the public sector fails to provide adequate service.
As for subways, if the truth is that having jobs along a route drives transit, then the big problem with the Sheppard line was that it was too short and did not extend to Consumers Rd. — an area of employment lands with many jobs that is served by two 400-series highways. Yet, the potential for more jobs there has already been reduced, as condos are being built on Sheppard instead of more office space, and one office building was demolished to make way for these condos. The additional density going in there is all residential.
Meanwhile, although Scarborough Town Centre does have office towers and will get a subway line, it will be at a far greater cost than doing the LRT. Even with the subway the town centre is not connected to GO Transit other than through transfers at Eglinton and Kennedy (with no link to the main GO rail line running east) and it is only a transit node because it has a bus station.
The real problem we face has been that, even in Mel Lastman's North York, jobs outside the downtown area have gone to the 905 rather than in the areas within the 416 that have better transit — and no remedy to this had been identified.
Brian Graff, Toronto
One of the hard truths is that “Subways are not the only good form of transit,” but this should be amended to “Subways and LRTs are not the only good forms of transit.” The truth is that buses are, and will continue to be, the cheapest and most flexible form of public transit.
But scant attention has been paid to how to improve bus service through the use of more express routes, as well as using double-decker buses or minibuses to increase capacity or reduce costs. In addition, maybe we need to look at allowing private operators to offer transit in areas of low density sprawl where the public sector fails to provide adequate service.
As for subways, if the truth is that having jobs along a route drives transit, then the big problem with the Sheppard line was that it was too short and did not extend to Consumers Rd. — an area of employment lands with many jobs that is served by two 400-series highways. Yet, the potential for more jobs there has already been reduced, as condos are being built on Sheppard instead of more office space, and one office building was demolished to make way for these condos. The additional density going in there is all residential.
Meanwhile, although Scarborough Town Centre does have office towers and will get a subway line, it will be at a far greater cost than doing the LRT. Even with the subway the town centre is not connected to GO Transit other than through transfers at Eglinton and Kennedy (with no link to the main GO rail line running east) and it is only a transit node because it has a bus station.
The real problem we face has been that, even in Mel Lastman's North York, jobs outside the downtown area have gone to the 905 rather than in the areas within the 416 that have better transit — and no remedy to this had been identified.
Brian Graff, Toronto
What to do with the Gardiner (toronto star, jan. 31, 2014)
Re: City’s growth demands Gardiner must go, Jan. 24
Re: No excuse for inaction on crumbling Gardiner, Opinion Jan. 28
City’s growth demands Gardiner must go, Jan. 24
Christopher Hume wrote, “The best reason for removing the expressway . . . is that it would free up a vast swath of land for redevelopment, thus increasing property taxes and generating wealth.”
First off, this city is seriously lacking in park space — where is our equivalent of Central Park or Chicago’s Waterfront parks? If we are going to spend a billion dollars, let’s at least get a major amenity that all Torontonians will enjoy instead of just another neighbourhood full of forgettable condos.
And, like anyone else who lives in the Beach, if I am going anywhere west of the DVP, then the Gardiner is vital. We cannot look at transportation needs just in terms of rush hour but in how roads and transit serve the entire city as a network.
But if we are undertaking this project of demolishing or burying the Gardiner to free up land for economic reasons, then the project should at least pay for itself, and it is unlikely that the value of the land freed up by any of the four options under current consideration would do so. Merely patching it up would cost the least.
The real problem with Hume’s idea is this: land freed up would not generate any “net” gain in taxes or wealth for the City or the GTA as a whole. Ontario’s population grows by about 120,000 per year, of which the GTA grows by roughly 100,000 people. The City of Toronto is projected to grow by about 15,000 people per year, which is roughly 15,000 units of housing.
Freeing up land under the Gardiner is a case of “robbing Peter to pay Paul” — and condos or taxes or wealth would almost certainly mean that development on other land doesn’t happen, or is delayed, elsewhere in the city or in the 905.
There is no shortage of land in the GTA, though the Greenbelt does limit “Greenfield” development. There are plenty of places on the suburban “avenues” where the City wants development to occur, particularly along the Crosstown LRT or other proposed transit lines. This is our real problem — development is going where the market for condos is most profitable for developers, whereas we need policies that will see development occurring where it makes the most sense from a public policy perspective.
Ontario (and Canada) has a long history of expensive infrastructure projects that actually might have hindered our economic development. Expensive canal projects, more transcontinental railroad lines than were justified, unreliable nuclear power plants, and costly wind and solar power are all examples we should be remembering.
Rather than spending billions on infrastructure projects like burying the Gardiner or on The Portlands, it makes far more sense to encourage the intensification of low-density lands in the “inner suburbs” — where the “Big Move” transit lines need the development to happen for these lines to make sense. The Sheppard Subway is the perfect example of our problem — it has been a costly white elephant and only now, 20 years after it was built, is the adjacent land being intensified.
Redevelopment of Downsview, for example, should go ahead, but The Portlands, waterfront and replacing the Gardiner can wait.
Before tackling expensive new projects, the best thing we could do is to revamp the Official Plan (and other planning policies) so that we will cap or delay development in areas that require expensive infrastructure projects, and ensure that density is directed to the low-density areas where there is, or will be, the capacity to sustain it without requiring new spending.
Ottawa and other cities have Official Plans that set out how much the population or density of each neighbourhood, and the maximums for each area, and how that should change over time. Toronto’s Official Plan makes no specific effort to “phase” or direct growth by area. This would require tools that would allow planners to refusing rezonings in areas that are not a priority for growth.
Brian Graff, Toronto
Re: No excuse for inaction on crumbling Gardiner, Opinion Jan. 28
City’s growth demands Gardiner must go, Jan. 24
Christopher Hume wrote, “The best reason for removing the expressway . . . is that it would free up a vast swath of land for redevelopment, thus increasing property taxes and generating wealth.”
First off, this city is seriously lacking in park space — where is our equivalent of Central Park or Chicago’s Waterfront parks? If we are going to spend a billion dollars, let’s at least get a major amenity that all Torontonians will enjoy instead of just another neighbourhood full of forgettable condos.
And, like anyone else who lives in the Beach, if I am going anywhere west of the DVP, then the Gardiner is vital. We cannot look at transportation needs just in terms of rush hour but in how roads and transit serve the entire city as a network.
But if we are undertaking this project of demolishing or burying the Gardiner to free up land for economic reasons, then the project should at least pay for itself, and it is unlikely that the value of the land freed up by any of the four options under current consideration would do so. Merely patching it up would cost the least.
The real problem with Hume’s idea is this: land freed up would not generate any “net” gain in taxes or wealth for the City or the GTA as a whole. Ontario’s population grows by about 120,000 per year, of which the GTA grows by roughly 100,000 people. The City of Toronto is projected to grow by about 15,000 people per year, which is roughly 15,000 units of housing.
Freeing up land under the Gardiner is a case of “robbing Peter to pay Paul” — and condos or taxes or wealth would almost certainly mean that development on other land doesn’t happen, or is delayed, elsewhere in the city or in the 905.
There is no shortage of land in the GTA, though the Greenbelt does limit “Greenfield” development. There are plenty of places on the suburban “avenues” where the City wants development to occur, particularly along the Crosstown LRT or other proposed transit lines. This is our real problem — development is going where the market for condos is most profitable for developers, whereas we need policies that will see development occurring where it makes the most sense from a public policy perspective.
Ontario (and Canada) has a long history of expensive infrastructure projects that actually might have hindered our economic development. Expensive canal projects, more transcontinental railroad lines than were justified, unreliable nuclear power plants, and costly wind and solar power are all examples we should be remembering.
Rather than spending billions on infrastructure projects like burying the Gardiner or on The Portlands, it makes far more sense to encourage the intensification of low-density lands in the “inner suburbs” — where the “Big Move” transit lines need the development to happen for these lines to make sense. The Sheppard Subway is the perfect example of our problem — it has been a costly white elephant and only now, 20 years after it was built, is the adjacent land being intensified.
Redevelopment of Downsview, for example, should go ahead, but The Portlands, waterfront and replacing the Gardiner can wait.
Before tackling expensive new projects, the best thing we could do is to revamp the Official Plan (and other planning policies) so that we will cap or delay development in areas that require expensive infrastructure projects, and ensure that density is directed to the low-density areas where there is, or will be, the capacity to sustain it without requiring new spending.
Ottawa and other cities have Official Plans that set out how much the population or density of each neighbourhood, and the maximums for each area, and how that should change over time. Toronto’s Official Plan makes no specific effort to “phase” or direct growth by area. This would require tools that would allow planners to refusing rezonings in areas that are not a priority for growth.
Brian Graff, Toronto
Transformative waterfront park: Brian Graff’s Big Idea
(Toronto star, march 12, 2014)
This is one of a series where The Star asked for people to send in their ideas.
Click HERE for the actual Toronto Star page.
Name: Brian Graff
Issue: Public spaces: How to make Toronto a city designed for people
What’s the big idea: What if Toronto had a big park downtown, on the waterfront, instead of more blocks and blocks of condos?
How will the big idea work: New York has Central Park, Vancouver has Stanley Park, Montreal has Mount Royal, London has the Royal Parks, Chicago has Millennium Park, Grant Park and an incredible waterfront that puts ours to shame. Going back as far as the early ’70s, we were promised a huge waterfront park in what is now Harbourfront.
New York can have huge public concerts in Central Park, London can have concerts in Hyde Park and while Toronto Island has hosted events, it is removed from the city and you have to pay for the ferry.
Too often we see a piece of land and think of it only as a site for a condo or some other building and we keep selling off land to pay for other things. Toronto is a city of commerce and Vancouverites look down upon us because all we think about is work. We need a place to play or escape to.
Even parts of Ontario Place might be sold off for condos.
A hundred years from now, when the city has grown from 2.8 million to 4 or 5 million people, people will wonder why we were so stingy and cheap and didn’t set aside enough land for the future. Other than filling in the harbour entirely with landfill, the opportunity will be lost.
How much will your big idea cost, and how would it be funded: By not incurring a lot of the costs to make the Portlands capable of supporting thousands of people — roads, sewers transit, etc. It is probably cheaper for new housing and development to be built elsewhere in the city where the infrastructure already exists, or where new transit is planned, than to transform the Portlands into blocks and blocks of condos. I do not know how much of a “profit” we will get from selling off the land, after we have incurred the costs of making it all suitable for redevelopment.
Toronto has enough land for condos — our population is slated to grow by 300,000 over the next 20 years — but there are more than 100,000 condos in the pipeline now — equal to more than 200,000 people. Plus parts of Downsview Park are being sold off (10,000 people) and we need development along the new transit lines to make them viable. There are too many places where we plan or expect development. We can’t develop all of these sites over the next 20-40 years. If you build a condo in one place, it just means one doesn’t get built somewhere else because our population growth each year is finite.
Click HERE for the actual Toronto Star page.
Name: Brian Graff
Issue: Public spaces: How to make Toronto a city designed for people
What’s the big idea: What if Toronto had a big park downtown, on the waterfront, instead of more blocks and blocks of condos?
How will the big idea work: New York has Central Park, Vancouver has Stanley Park, Montreal has Mount Royal, London has the Royal Parks, Chicago has Millennium Park, Grant Park and an incredible waterfront that puts ours to shame. Going back as far as the early ’70s, we were promised a huge waterfront park in what is now Harbourfront.
New York can have huge public concerts in Central Park, London can have concerts in Hyde Park and while Toronto Island has hosted events, it is removed from the city and you have to pay for the ferry.
Too often we see a piece of land and think of it only as a site for a condo or some other building and we keep selling off land to pay for other things. Toronto is a city of commerce and Vancouverites look down upon us because all we think about is work. We need a place to play or escape to.
Even parts of Ontario Place might be sold off for condos.
A hundred years from now, when the city has grown from 2.8 million to 4 or 5 million people, people will wonder why we were so stingy and cheap and didn’t set aside enough land for the future. Other than filling in the harbour entirely with landfill, the opportunity will be lost.
How much will your big idea cost, and how would it be funded: By not incurring a lot of the costs to make the Portlands capable of supporting thousands of people — roads, sewers transit, etc. It is probably cheaper for new housing and development to be built elsewhere in the city where the infrastructure already exists, or where new transit is planned, than to transform the Portlands into blocks and blocks of condos. I do not know how much of a “profit” we will get from selling off the land, after we have incurred the costs of making it all suitable for redevelopment.
Toronto has enough land for condos — our population is slated to grow by 300,000 over the next 20 years — but there are more than 100,000 condos in the pipeline now — equal to more than 200,000 people. Plus parts of Downsview Park are being sold off (10,000 people) and we need development along the new transit lines to make them viable. There are too many places where we plan or expect development. We can’t develop all of these sites over the next 20-40 years. If you build a condo in one place, it just means one doesn’t get built somewhere else because our population growth each year is finite.
Airport named after wrong Billy
(Letter to the editor, Toronto star, aug. 22, 2014)
Re: Flying ace, Aug. 16
It has always seemed wrong to me that our waterfront airport was named after Billy Bishop. My discomfort is not out of any disrespect to Mr. Bishop, as I was fascinated by his exploits when I was a child (thanks in part to Charles Shultz and Snoopy leading me to investigate our own World War I flying aces).
Billy Bishop was born in Owen Sound, and that city’s airport is already named after him. Bishop was married in Toronto, but he didn’t have many deep connections to this city.
In contrast, as the Star’s feature pointed out, William “Billy” Barker was the most decorated war hero in our history, and he was the first president of the Maple Leafs, plus he is buried here. Our airport is named after the wrong Billy.
We should let Owen Sound have the sole honour of an airport named after their native son, while celebrating Mr. Barker, a hero equal to that of Mr. Bishop and more decorated, and whose name would otherwise get little attention in future.
In addition to it ending the confusion of two airports in this province with the same name, I bet all Leafs fans in this city would support making this change.
Brian Graff, Toronto
It has always seemed wrong to me that our waterfront airport was named after Billy Bishop. My discomfort is not out of any disrespect to Mr. Bishop, as I was fascinated by his exploits when I was a child (thanks in part to Charles Shultz and Snoopy leading me to investigate our own World War I flying aces).
Billy Bishop was born in Owen Sound, and that city’s airport is already named after him. Bishop was married in Toronto, but he didn’t have many deep connections to this city.
In contrast, as the Star’s feature pointed out, William “Billy” Barker was the most decorated war hero in our history, and he was the first president of the Maple Leafs, plus he is buried here. Our airport is named after the wrong Billy.
We should let Owen Sound have the sole honour of an airport named after their native son, while celebrating Mr. Barker, a hero equal to that of Mr. Bishop and more decorated, and whose name would otherwise get little attention in future.
In addition to it ending the confusion of two airports in this province with the same name, I bet all Leafs fans in this city would support making this change.
Brian Graff, Toronto
Honourable Mentions...
To highlight some of the work I have been doing, here are a few things where I have been mentioned:
Micahel Prue MPP's Blog - (Dec 3, 2013) - MPP Michael Prue Introduces Bill to give municipalities more time to make proper zoning decisions - HERE
Toronto Star (Sept. 26, 2013) Sandra Bussin, trounced in the 2010 election, plans to run for council again - HERE
Torontoist (May 24, 2012) - Beach Residents Face Off Against Condo Developers - HERE
National Post (June 2, 2012) - Development ahead: Queen Street is experiencing growing pains in both the east and west ends - HERE
InsideToronto - (2, 2012) - Beach residents association fighting Lick’s development at OMB - HERE
Toronto Star (Sept. 26, 2013) Sandra Bussin, trounced in the 2010 election, plans to run for council again - HERE
Torontoist (May 24, 2012) - Beach Residents Face Off Against Condo Developers - HERE
National Post (June 2, 2012) - Development ahead: Queen Street is experiencing growing pains in both the east and west ends - HERE
InsideToronto - (2, 2012) - Beach residents association fighting Lick’s development at OMB - HERE