Greenbelt makes GTA more, not less, liveable

A 10-year anniversary is usually cause for celebration. That should certainly be the case with Ontario’s Greenbelt, the 1.8 million acres of protected farmland, wetlands, watersheds and green spaces that surround our region. The Greenbelt has helped to reduce sprawl, protect our natural environment and provide food for our growing urban region.

Now that we have a decade of experience to consider, the province is formally reviewing its two marquee planning policies: the Greenbelt Act and the Places to Grow Act. Some critics are using this opportunity to suggest that the Greenbelt and provincial land-use rules are making homes less affordable in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). However, that argument doesn’t hold water.

Our region is not running out of land to build houses. Far from it: there are more than 1,500 square kilometres of undeveloped land in the Greater Golden Horseshoe. We could build five more Mississaugas, or 11 more Oakvilles, without bumping up against the Greenbelt, if we wanted to.

There’s also no reason to believe we need that much space, since the rate at which our region uses land is slowing down. From 1991 to 2001, the urban footprint of Greater Toronto and Hamilton expanded by 26 per cent to accommodate roughly one million new residents. The following decade provides a sharp contrast: the region added another million residents from 2001 to 2011, yet its urban footprint only expanded by 10 per cent.

We could build five more Mississaugas, or 11 more Oakvilles, without bumping up against the Greenbelt, if we wanted to.

In keeping with smart growth polices espoused the world over, our region is starting to better use existing infrastructure by intensifying underdeveloped areas. Based on municipal projections, 81 per cent of the “greenfield” land that is available for development in the GTA will still be unused by 2031.

The regional realities of our housing market are another critical consideration when considering the impact of the Greenbelt on housing affordability. We are not faced with an overall shortage of affordable homes in the GTA. The real shortage is specific to transit-accessible and central locations, where the housing demand is highest.

In 2012 — the base year for all the figures cited below — the average detached house in Toronto cost about $800,000. The average price in the 905 was just under $600,000. But only looking at regional averages is misleading, because homes in central locations are significantly more expensive. In the transit-rich, walkable core of Toronto, for example, the average price was about $1.4 million — that’s approaching double the city-wide average. Interestingly, this same trend applies to centres in the 905, like Markham and Vaughan.

You can still buy a family home for under $500,000 in much of the GTA. In Oshawa and Brock, the average detached house sold for between $250,000 and $275,000 in 2012. In Brampton, the price was well under $450,000. If scarcity were driving up prices, homes on the suburban fringes would be much more expensive. In reality, they’re the most lowest-priced options — because the majority of homebuyers want to buy in more urban neighbourhoods.

Recent polling from RBC and the Pembina Institute reinforces this point. More than 80 per cent of GTA homebuyers say they prefer homes in transit-accessible and walkable neighbourhoods where they won’t have long commutes. These are the homes in short supply, and it’s the bidding wars for them that drive up the region’s average house prices.

Better planning is needed to increase the supply of affordable, family-friendly homes in those preferred locations. In particular, we need to use land more efficiently and provide more infill housing in our most urban neighbourhoods. Otherwise families seeking homes will be forced to “drive until they qualify” for a mortgage in a car-dependant area, or go to extreme lengths to buy into transit-connected suburbs.

And urban intensification doesn’t just benefit homebuyers. Building in and up makes use of existing roads, sewers, parks and schools, rather than requiring municipalities to build new infrastructure. We know that higher densities drive down municipal operating costs on a per-capita basis. In addition, when cities hit the sweet spot with respect to neighbourhood density, it becomes possible to provide high-frequency transit. That shortens commutes and cuts wasted time in traffic while also reducing our environmental impact — things that benefit us all.

The Greenbelt’s first decade is cause for celebration. We should consider ways to enhance it and keep improving the long-term liveability of our region. If protecting our drinking water, accessing local food, preserving our natural heritage and providing better homes for families matter, then so does our Greenbelt.

Jennifer Keesmaat is the Chief Planner and Executive Director of the City Planning Division at the City of Toronto.