When we started planning large areas of our cities in a homogeneous way, we have also invented regulations ending the possibility of any further organic growth in these areas.   In trying to freeze those master-planned creations in their time, believing that they are the best solution, we have failed to recognize and understand that change is inevitable, at all times.  A City is a living organism which has great adaptability to its inhabitants’ needs. We forget that we should encourage creative change and embrace the fact that we might not know exactly what the end result will be.
 

Settlements within physical boundaries feature significantly more thoughtful planning and design solutions than ones with vast lands available for expansion. The formation of the Greenbelt in the Greater Toronto Area prompted an anticipation that the creation of a physical barrier to the sprawl would provide an opportunity to create strong, sustainable communities within.  I had hoped that we would thoughtfully intensify our sprawling cities and strongly focus on excellence in design, as the many cities confined by built or natural barriers have done.
 

It seemed deceptively easy. We could adjust maximum density measure to support transportation and local services and decrease energy consumption. We could allow for a variety of housing types and for a wide range of uses, as long as the development achieves expected low levels of pollution, vibration, noise nuisance, etc. We could eliminate much of the extreme over-regulation found in current zoning by-laws and leave only simple measures such as height, which could also be implemented in a more innovative and flexible way, based on surrounding context. We could permit parking on streets, use money from the infill development to fund infrastructure revitalization and provide more amenities for the neighbourhoods. We could create stronger and more resilient communities.
 

Unfortunately, today, quite the opposite is the reality. Historically, zoning was invented to segregate offending uses from the residential ones. In today’s zonings, the segregation is brought to a very different level causing not just use exclusion, but also isolation from people perceived as socially unacceptable. More and more controls to protect the low-density neighbourhoods are employed by cities, even the large ones (for example, Toronto’s recent Official Plan Amendment 320), many in the name of protecting the ‘neighbourhood character’. Although these words are used often, you are unlikely to find many people who can explain what neighbourhood character means to them. Sometimes it is something as palpable as the mature trees lining the street, but most often, the conversation about character quickly progresses to disliked housing form, larger and of different styles which don’t “fit” well with the existing homes. Change is not something that was expected, wanted or dreamt of at the time of home purchase. People mistrust change and draw specific lines around themselves about personal tolerances based on habit and perception. Furthermore, change in our neighbourhood is perceived as a threat to the dream of stability, as the danger of losing something tangible anchoring us in this fast-moving world. The home we own, the one stronghold of our solitude.
 

And likely of similar importance, many homeowners fear that with change will come a decrease in the value of their property. Our home is thought of as a commodity, an investment, and not as a human right. More people moving into the neighbourhood is perceived as a serious threat to that investment. Moreover, lower income people are not welcomed as it is almost a social norm to believe that they would bring an increase in crime.

We live in a strange paradigm of mandatory public consultation on almost all planning-related matters. We as professional urbanists often do not understand all of the complexities and forces of the living creature that the city is; yet we trust that its inhabitants do.  
 

Very few people are willing to spend time participating in public consultation which results in a lack of meaningful feedback. To make things worse, there is no education through the elementary or secondary schools which would prepare the general public for any well-informed conversations. Yet, we still involve the few people who do show up for these consultations into the future decision making, based only on their personal likes and dislikes (almost always the later). It is obvious that 4-year term politicians listen very carefully to their constituents and that they base their decisions on those opinions rather than on opinions of professionals who are not their voters. Planning is a long-haul exercise which does not fall within the politicians’ short-term lifespan.