Toronto’s community consultations feel meaningless

Eric Dietterle –

Across many neighbourhoods, City of Toronto “Development Application Notice” signs have become a familiar sight. One of the first public steps after a sign appears is a community consul­tation meeting for residents to learn what is proposed and to share feedback.

Some residents attending are concerned about height. Oth­ers worry about construction, shadows or traffic. Many sup­port new housing but question whether the proposal makes sense for the site. What people often share is a sense that the process feels unclear and that key decisions may already be out of their hands.

Community consultations are meant to give residents a voice, but in practice feel more like a box-checking exercise. I under­stand that frustration. I live here and attend these meetings not just as a realtor, but as a neigh­bour.

By the time a project reaches consultation, core parameters such as height, density, and built form have been set by planning frameworks. Adjustments can occur based on city planning feedback. However, the range of outcomes residents imagine is often wider than what the pro­cess realistically allows.

This gap between expectation and reality contributes to frus­tration. Residents believe they are deciding what gets built, while planners are assessing how a proposal fits within es­tablished policy.

I have attended consultations where the disconnect was im­possible to ignore. At one recent meeting, no presentation was delivered. At two others, To­ronto Centre Councillor Chris Moise stumbled over the loca­tions of the proposed develop­ments, misstating the intersec­tions where the sites are located. Both times the room erupted in heckling, with residents accus­ing him of not caring and even suggesting he was in the devel­oper’s pockets.

That loss of trust reflects a deeper problem. When even elected representatives appear unprepared, residents question whether the system is function­ing.

Confusion is further com­pounded by how city policies are applied. Toronto’s Tall Building Design Guidelines, for example, recommend 25 metres between residential towers. Yet many approved and proposed projects provide closer to 20 metres.

When residents raise these discrepancies at consultations, they are typically told the guidelines are flexible or only one consideration among many. This can make city rules seem meaningless.

The result is a system that leaves nearly everyone dissat­isfied. Residents feel unheard. The city blames provincial pol­icies. Developers receive little constructive feedback. And planning staff sit through tense meetings with limited ability to explain what is within munici­pal control.

This disconnect extends to in­frastructure planning. Schools, parks, transit capacity, and community facilities are rarely aligned with the scale or timing of proposed growth. When de­velopment is disconnected from services, trust erodes.

Toronto remains a highly de­sirable place to live, yet afforda­bility pressures are pushing res­idents out. While the city has added significant housing sup­ply, a slower market has some projects being reconsidered. This suggests a deeper issue: building more units alone is not enough. What gets built, and where and how it fits into neigh­bourhoods matters just as much.

This makes consultation meet­ings important, but they have become outlets for broader frus­tration about growth, affordabil­ity and change. Residents direct anger at the project before them, sometimes for valid planning reasons but at other times from expectations far beyond what the proposal can realistically address.

General opposition to devel­opment or complaints about lost views rarely influence out­comes.

The most effective feedback focuses on specific planning issues within city influence. Ask how the tower conforms to tall building design guidelines. Question how infrastructure ca­pacity is addressed. Raise con­cerns about shadows on public spaces and which policies the project departs from.

If consultations are to feel meaningful, residents need clarity about what aspects of a proposal are truly open to input and what falls outside municipal control. Meetings should begin by explaining scope: what can change, what cannot, and how feedback can influence out­comes.

Residents should understand who ultimately decides height and density, whether city guide­lines function as firm standards or flexible targets, and how in­frastructure planning is coordi­nated with development.

Growth and good planning should not be opposing forces. Until the roles and limits within Toronto’s planning system are more transparent, community consultations will continue to feel like theatre.

I recently explored these themes on my YouTube channel, Eric D Realtor, breaking down local proposals and what they reveal about the system. But this conversation should not be con­fined to social media. It belongs in our neighbourhoods and in the processes that shape them.