This article will be the first of a three part series and will take a look at the Jane-Finch community from a land use perspective. Shannon Holness, MES(Pl.) is an urban planner from the Jane-Finch community and her lived experience informs her approach to the practice.
There are so many changes being introduced to the built environment of the Jane-Finch community. The Finch West LRT will spur intensification along the Finch Avenue West corridor and have a direct impact on neighbourhoods within kilometers of the new transit system. Current development proposals include a 12-storey condo development at Yorkwoods Gate which is just a few blocks south of Finch Avenue West on Jane Street, the revitalization of Firgrove which is a Toronto Community Housing site adjacent the Huron-Wendat urban trail, and three multi-residential buildings in the Keele Finch area.
There is also an overall Jane-Finch Initiative to update the planning policy framework that guides development in the community. These developments are going to be some of the first in the community in the past 40-plus years, which is significant. The legacy of uneven urban development is turning tides—however, urban planning policy has a literacy problem that needs to be addressed in order to ensure that the community is being developed in an equitable manner.
Now more than ever, there is an opportunity to engage a community that has been historically under-engaged in the planning process simply because land development was not something that they had to interface with. Many residents who are concerned about the impact of development are concerned that the legacy of underinvestment will be maintained as the social realities go unaddressed. It is important for residents and for those who will facilitate the planning process to understand how the concerns of residents intersect with the planning process.
One the ground realities of Jane-Finch Community members include: safe, affordable and appropriate housing, access to education, food security, access to culturally relevant health care, social programs and services for all ages, affordable housing, animation of green spaces, community-based responses to gun violence and a decrease in over-surveillance by police. These concerns are not always adequately captured within the planning process.
The aims of the planning process are to ensure that the interest of individual property owners are balanced with the wider needs and objectives of the community, ensuring that the proposed development does not have a significant effect on the community’s quality of life. The rubric by which the notion of ‘significant effect’ is evaluated is a demonstration of how the development proposal best meets the objectives of the Planning Act, Provincial Policy Statement, A Place to Grow Act, the municipal Official Plan and the implementing Zoning By-law.
Urban planners must demonstrate regard for the Planning Act, various planning policies and the zoning by-law to justify any proposed development. However, that understanding and approach is not explicitly conveyed when presenting a proposal to the community. A typical mandated public consultation meeting includes an overview of the policy context but stops short of informing residents about the basis on which the application will be evaluated. It is seen as more matter of fact than negotiable.
Herein lies the literacy problem within urban planning policy. In order for residents to articulate their issues with any proposed development in the community, they have to understand the priorities of urban planning policy which not many residents do. While most residents grapple with urbanism issues in a sophisticated manner and have organized around and addressed issues stemming from uneven development, their concerns are rarely taken seriously unless they are able to quote and rely on policy or zoning by-laws.
One has to wonder when community members will have the opportunity to meaningfully demonstrate the impact that a development will have on ongoing efforts to address food insecurity, develop community-based responses to gun violence, or raise concerns related to gentrification. In this regard, the onus of the literacy gap in urban planning policy is not on residents but a matter for planners to consider. The reality is that the residents of Jane-Finch know all too well the challenges that a community endures in the wake of land use planning that does not adequately respond to the concerns that they bring to public consultations.
