An Optimist's Approach to the Planning Challenges of 2025

I have a nagging feeling that 2025 will be a difficult year for the Planning profession. It is not hard to find references to urban planners as “gatekeepers”, a deliberately pejorative term describing people impeding the building of new housing needed to address a housing crisis driven by growing populations in Canada, the United States, and other western countries.[1]? This criticism is not levelled against one community, it is becoming widespread, and it weighs on our entire profession whether we work in the public or private sectors.

The cost of living, and in particular the cost of housing has escalated to a mainstream political issue at all levels of government. For a $500,000 home (something that is unheard of in our largest urban centres), it would take an annual household income of approximately $130,000 (which is only about 5% of Canadian households). It is common to hear late Generation Y and early Generation Z people despair that they will never be able to afford to own their own accommodation. With more elections coming at multiple levels of government in 2025, we will hear more from our aspiring elected representatives.

I am reminded of a time earlier in my career when political cycles shifted and planning was on the outs, and this could be a year that resembles that time. The Ontario government of the late 1990s won the hearts of voters with a Common Sense Revolution emphasizing fiscal austerity, tax cuts, and reduced government spending. I was early in my career, and I lived the cuts to provincial staffing levels, deregulation, and devolution of responsibilities, so I remember wondering why our profession was not appreciated.

I recently had breakfast with a long-time friend and mentor, and I was comparing the political language we are hearing now with that time. My friend keenly observed that it was partially the same but partially different, since there is a whole new political wave sweeping across the western world of political disruptors. Political disruptors thrive in environments where the public feels disconnected from traditional politics. Frustration with the current system fuels the appetite for drastic reform. In many ways, they represent a reaction to the perceived inadequacies of mainstream politics and offer a path toward a different, more direct form of governance. These disruptors are finding support from disaffected citizens who have lost trust in government institutions and who feel the institutions are working for themselves and not for the greater public good.

As I have discussed in prior articles, the housing crisis is a complex issue driven by several interconnected factors, including supply shortages from insufficient construction, restrictive zoning and long-approval processes; rising demand from population growth and/or migration; slow income growth compared to growth in cost of housing and income disparities; speculation; rising construction prices and fees and charges on new housing; interest rates; and a mismatch between the types of units already approved and what purchasers want to be buying. Housing construction has not kept pace with population growth.

Admittedly, I bristle at being lumped in with “gatekeepers”. While urban planners are crucial for creating well-functioning, sustainable cities, this tension arises when political imperatives for speed and economic growth clash with planners' professional obligations to ensure thoughtful, equitable urban development. I have worked in both the public and private sectors, and I have always felt that I and all of my colleagues in each organization have worked in the public interest and committed to our profession’s Statement of Values.? I had a hand in creating a multitude of policy and procedures, so I share the frustration of my colleagues who feel the labelling is unfair.

But political acuity demands that we be open to the criticism and understand where it is coming from.

I think we as a profession need to accept a few realities, and commit ourselves to working collaboratively to take on five top issues in 2025 and beyond:

1.????? The process for approvals is taking longer. David Amborski of Toronto Metropolitan University has discussed this in detail, as has CMHC and the Ontario Association of Architects.? Taking longer creates economic and social costs. We have had unprecedented improvements in the last few years by allowing more types of housing as of right. In time, this will prove to be a very fundamental change to the way our cities function and the mix of housing offerings. But we need to continue to hack this issue.

2.????? The process seems opaque and unpredictable to many outsiders. We are in an economy where investment is very skittish, and unpredictability is a barrier to housing investment.

3.????? Our leading urban thinkers are questioning whether the process, policies and standards are getting good outcomes. I was fascinated to follow a discussion on LinkedIn by architectural critic by architectural critic Alex Bozikovic and architect and urban planner Naama Blonder including the chain of comments about how current standards impede what is widely accepted as quality urbanism.

4.????? My architect and engineer friends often tell me that there is too much variation in standards between jurisdictions, and the owners and appliers of those policies do not fully understand what the policies are trying to achieve, and how they came to be.

5.????? Planning is sluggish, and slow to respond to a world that is changing ever more so quickly. We need nimble ways to update plans to changing circumstances.

Our profession found its way out of the era when we were not valued through the inspiring and effective communication of leaders in our profession. Our most prominent names of the time directly spoke to urban dwellers with clear concepts about what makes a great city and how planning can help. They made “urbanism” accessible and valued. That is our lighthouse.

I am toying with the idea of a follow-up article where I will take these five top issues and provide some ideas. I want to provoke a debate in the profession. I aspire to fostering more constructive dialogue, questioning our current norms, and proactively proposing solutions. I hope that students in our universities and colleges will research one of these themes and help us. Our profession will foster more trust by championing solutions.

But it is worth remembering what Albert Einstein said, “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking when we created them.”? I am optimistic that we can respond to the challenge of the housing crisis with openness to doing things differently, and by welcoming collaboration from political leaders, other professions and the public on how to do it.? ?In doing so, we must continue to communicate the advantages of urbanism.

[1] A gatekeeper controls access to something, they have the power to allow or restrict entry, and they exercise this control through control. In our profession, the perception is that gatekeepers deciding who or what can pass through to the next stage or by controlling the approval or rejection of policies, plans, or projects, impacting what gets developed or implemented.