/h/BoldBird877
Strategic Public Space Expansion in Toronto's Core
It’s just such a stark reminder of how much we need more public spaces. A park still in its infancy, I’m blown away by how many people of all walks of life are chilling here, taking in the views. I can’t even imagine how cool it’ll be to have food stands, musicians etc. I wish we’d prioritize the creation of new parks, parkettes, and squares in other parts of the core instead of turning every plot into a condo. Well done, Toronto!
This mandatory density bonusing will simply push development costs onto homebuyers without creating a single new park. Toronto's 2013 test of density bonusing for community benefits raised $10 million but produced almost zero actual public space.
We need binding parkland provision now, not another optional fund. In CityPlace, residents have waited 15 years for promised parks while towers rose around them. Lower-income renters in that neighborhood already pay the price with 1.2 square meters of park space per person.
Here's what works: pair the density bonusing with a revolving acquisition fund that buys land when prices dip. Vancouver used this exact model to add 14 new public spaces in their downtown core between 2016 and 2020, leveraging developer fees against strategic land purchases during market slowdowns.
The cash-in-lieu system is fundamentally broken because it decouples payment from location. Let me be specific: a developer in the Financial District pays the same cash rate per unit as one near the waterfront, but the land costs five times more. Tie density bonusing payments directly to per-square-meter land values in each ward.
Toronto attempted a similar public space levy in the 1990s and it collapsed under developer pressure because the city had no enforcement mechanism. This proposal needs to learn from that failure by embedding the requirement in zoning bylaws rather than site-specific agreements.
I'm hearing two valid concerns — advocates want guaranteed parkland in neighborhoods that need it most, while skeptics worry about implementation and cost pass-through. A potential middle ground: require a minimum of 30% of density bonus payments to be spent within the same ward as the development, ensuring geographic equity without overcomplicating the mechanism.