-A A +A

April 17, 2018 – Ontario should scrap arbitrary and opaque density bonusing deals between municipalities and developers, according to a new report from the C.D. Howe Institute. In Buildings with Benefits: The Defect of Density Bonusing author Aaron Moore finds that density bonusing – a practice where developers can break zoning rules in exchange for public amenities – is based on weak rationales for its use.

While under section 37 of Ontario’s Planning Act, municipalities can implement density bonusing, the Act contains no guidelines on how city councillors should employ this tool. As a result, density bonusing agreements are usually negotiated on an ad hoc basis behind closed doors, leading to a lack of coordination in determining what benefits to secure from developers. In the absence of provincial guidelines, municipalities have interpreted and implemented section 37 as they see fit.

“Neither Toronto nor Ottawa implement a transparent approach to section 37,” Moore says. “This reflects the vague nature of density bonusing.”

In the light of Ontario’s drive to address the flaws in its planning regime, it should at a minimum rewrite the legislation governing density bonusing to ensure a more transparent process. Alternatively, the province could repeal section 37 altogether, as even the most structured and transparent implementation of density bonusing continues to rely on weak rationales for its use in urban planning.

The deals often result in amenities that do not address the neighbourhood’s concerns about density or transit capacity. Examples include the Scarborough Walk of Fame, and, albeit aborted, the world’s tallest flag pole in Emery Village.

“None of the traditional rationales behind density bonusing provides an adequate argument for its use in place of other, fairer and more transparent planning tools without the level of complexity inherent in density bonusing,” says Moore.

The province of Ontario, and other jurisdictions in Canada, should consider tools that achieve more useful and equable outcomes in place of density bonusing, the author concludes.

Click here for the full report

***

The C.D. Howe Institute is an independent not-for-profit research institute whose mission is to raise living standards by fostering economically sound public policies. Widely considered to be Canada's most influential think tank, the Institute is a trusted source of essential policy intelligence, distinguished by research that is nonpartisan, evidence-based and subject to definitive expert review.

For more information, contact: Aaron Moore, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Winnipeg; Fellow, Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance, University of Toronto; and Adjunct Professor, Department of City Planning, University of Manitoba or Maria Mikey, Communications Coordinator at the C.D. Howe Institute, at 416-865-1904 or mmikey@cdhowe.org.