My point is that social sustainability (affordable housing) and cultural sustainability (the creative character of this neighbourhood and its significant role in the city’s culture) are both legitimate dimensions to bring to planning.

My number one concern is that the city, its planning powers and structures, together with the OMB process are fatally flawed in addressing these issues in any way other than quasi-judicial processes removed from the community context. We need a reformed governance structure.

This is a critical issue in the process of building a world-class city we can all be proud of, one that is socially inclusive, culturally vibrant and a magnet for creativity in all aspects of life.

The plans for the development to replace 48 Abell call for 199 affordable housing units; by the account given by Active 18, those 199 units will replace the 80 now in the building. The developer plans to create the affordable units in cooperation with St. Clare’s Multi-faith Housing, an organization that has provided low-income housing since the government got out of the business and most private landlords abandoned the poor.

As this report points out, adding floors or otherwise expanding or refitting 48 Abell will not work. At this point, it appears that the planners had to choose between keeping 48 Abell in its present form and adding another hundred units of affordable housing.

I regard decent housing as a right, and as with all rights, you do not need artistic talent, or even an interest in the arts, to claim it. Anyone with 46 chromosomes and a pulse has the right to a warm clean place to lie down.

None of this means that we should not regret the passing of 48 Abell, or the inability of the city and the neighbourhood to come to a compromise with the developers which would have permitted affordable housing in a different type of development. But I do not consider it acceptable to put ideas of “cultural sustainability” ahead of the needs of people who may not sustain their lives much longer if they do not find a place to live. Nor do I consider it acceptable to ignore the people working to build housing for the poor.

I’m no planning expert, but the bits of the OMB documents I read seemed to pretty much spell out ‘we’re an out of touch bureaucracy’. In one part the OMB gave lip service to the creative work that had been done by the City and Active 18. Then in the very next section they said, but it’s not the OMB’s job to deal with creative solutions, so here’s our standard cart blanche for development totally out of step with a liveable and sustainable city (I paraphrase). Grrr.