What? Me have an opinion? ... Just one?!

The Context

I live in the downtown core of one of the oldest cities in North America. Our 120 year old Victorian home is one of five in this row and located in a Heritage district. Being in a heritage district means that aspects of our street scape and buildings are protected to preserve the heritage of this uniquely old city. Of course, being right downtown, the parking lots across the street are zoned for mixed development and are a prime building lots for a developer. In fact, in the coming weeks our City Council will be considering an application to build five stories of condominiums on top of a five story parking garage.

Now I am not opposed to urban development, even in a heritage district in an old city. And we purchased our house knowing full well that that site was ripe for development. But we took solace in the fact that, regardless of what was developed, there was a municipal By-Law in this city that would prohibit any building from being taller than 15 meters. Or so we thought.

The Issue
This recent proposal requests a variance of this By-Law, and our City Council is considering it. To be clear, the developer can, without any variance, build this development to 15m and start tomorrow. So we have to ask why this developer is claiming that they need the variance.

The developer claims (pg. 11 of the Land Use Assessment Report, or LUAR) that this project will “… not only satisfy a need in the City’s Downtown for parking and housing, but will also rejuvenate an area of the City …”. These points appear to be the basis for their argument that the variance is necessary. The other argument for the variance is that by not permitting the developer to build to the 18m height they would have to completely re-work their proposal. I am now going to unpack and deconstruct these arguments, because they are hollow.

The Claims
First, despite the fact that this development will include 215 parking spots for public use (as stated in the LUAR); the truth is that the net gain of parking spots provided by this development will be less than 215. I do not dispute the claim that there is more parking needed in the downtown core [Ignoring the fact that progressive public policy would discourage personal/private vehicle usage and encourage and promote carpooling and the use of public transit]. But the elimination of the existing public parking lots and some undisclosed amount of on-street parking around this development leaves the net gain of downtown parking spaces less than 215. So claiming that this development will “… satisfy a need … for parking …” by providing 215 public spaces is disingenuous. This development even at 15m would help to address some of the need, and at 18m, it would provide a little bit more (~70 spaces according to the developer), but it does not satisfy the current need and it is not 215 more spaces.

Second, while it is undeniable that our city has a dire need for new housing, our need is for affordable housing. In fact, a Conference Board of Canada Report from this past summer commented that housing is one of issues that need to be address by our City Council; but this report clearly specifies affordable housing. In fact, this city needs more moderate income and small family housing. Thus, while pretty downtown condos are attractive to those who can afford them, this development does not address the need for more affordable housing. So whether this development is 15m or 18m makes absolutely no difference in how much it does not satisfy the need for affordable housing.

Third, the developer suggests that this development will help rejuvenate the Downtown core. How to "rejuvenate" an urban centre is not an exact science and the verdict on the benefits of gentrification is not without dispute. In fact, rejuvenating, without balance, a city core can have unintended and deleterious consequences to both property value and the social fabric of a community. Thus, while there is little doubt that the presence of this building will have some impact on the downtown core, arguing that this developer has to be granted a variance in order to help rejuvenate the city, is baseless.

Fourth, the developer is now on record claiming that if they do not receive the variance, they will be forced to return to the drawing board and re-examine this development, as they do not have all the necessary materials in order to move forward at the 15m mark. This comment is either stunning or brazen. I shudder at the idea that a developer would proceed with drawings and financials for only option ‘B’ of a development (option ‘A’ being what they could build now, 15m, without the variance). And I have to question the business sense of anyone who puts all their eggs in one basket and proceeds with a proposal for a development that requires a variance, rather than planning something they could do now, while hoping for something they cannot do yet. Of course, the other possibility is that the developer opted to save some money and not bother acquiring drawings and financials for the 15m (no variance needed) proposal, because they harboured no doubt that City Council would grant the variance. In that case it would not be an unwise decision to save some money when you fully expect there would be no need to even consider the 15m development.

The Truth
So, when you reduce the whole proposal down to its basis, what you are left with is a request to grant a variance so that the developer can build an extra story, which would be a 5th floor in the parking garage that would increase the number of spots available for the public (these facts are by their own admission). Without the variance, the condo development itself could still proceed, thereby not affecting the (suspect) claims that this development will satisfy the housing needs and rejuvenate a part of our city. So the whole question of whether or not to grant the variance is reducible to just one floor of public parking. But in order to obscure this point, the developer is suggesting a whole lot more, including the possibility that if you do not grant the variance, the whole deal may be off the table. The difference to the developer, between the 15m and 18m, height is the rate of return on the investment that would be affected by not having revenue from the extra floor of parking. This is not a question of the overall profitability of the development, but rather how much profit and how fast.

But I am not opposed to development. What I am opposed to is public officials making a decision based on weak and unfounded arguments. When our City Council considers this request, the question of granting this variance must be based on the facts ... the real facts, and not the myriad of pseudo facts and red herrings that have been floated around. As it stand now, the arguments in favour of the variance, as presented, are that;

a) Not granting it would require the developer to go back to the drawing board, and thus may end the proposal,
b) That this development will satisfy the parking needs,
c) That this development will satisfy the housing needs, and
d) That this development will rejuvenate a part of the downtown.

But the real basis for this variance of the By-Law is that with 70 more public parking spots the developer can expect to have more profit at the 10 and 25 year marks.

The Problem
So I have a problem with our City Council granting a variance of our By-Laws in order to create 70 more parking spots and increasing the project’s profitability for a private developer. If our elected officials disagree with this By-Law, as it is currently written, then can move to amend it and allow the people to voice their opinions on the matter. But until they do that, I strongly suggest that they adhere with, and stop breaking, our By-Laws, especially those that have been designed to protect our heritage centre.

QG