{Urban planning 101}
residential intensification = more people
living in the same space
What is the 40% factor and where did it
come from? (a constantly evolving page/topic - created
2006 &updated Nov. 30/08)
#1. "The draft growth plan proposes that by
2015, a minimum of 40 per cent of new residential development occurs on land
within the built boundary, which will allow up to 60 per cent of development to
continue to occur on undeveloped lands designated for future development."
#2. "Intensification is the development of a property or site at
a higher density than currently exists. Intensification can occur through a
re-development of older or abandoned sites, the development of vacant properties
within a built-up area, and the expansion or conversion of existing buildings or
sites." (Feb 16, 2005 Draft Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe
About Intensification, Ontario Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal) It is
now a document called "Places to Grow".
More about this blueprint for urban growth in later pages.
It is that simple, the what and the why. However, after several years of
watching the 40% process unfold here in Cambridge, I am reminded of the saying
that "suggest some things flow downhill". There can be no doubt that the 40% and
P2G effects are flowing downhill, and possible to your neighbourhood. It has
already arrived in mine. Again, more about this later
But there has been serious criticism
of this high level or big picture planning process. At the June 2005
Reurbanization Conference in Kitchener, Mark L. Dorman, F.C.I.P., R.R.P., a
highly respect planner presented the following observations:
'What's wrong with this big picture
There has not been a real community debate about
intensification and redevelopment
The policy wonks, the politicians, the municipal planners and
private development interests have been talking among
themselves with the community observing
The public doesn't take these provincial and municipal
policies seriously since the communities have not been involved
in the real debate at this high level.
The January 8, 2006 version of the annual housing staging report P-06-06 to
Cambridge Council contained the following statements related to intensification:
1. "...it also highlights the need to
promote and encourage intensification and redevelopment in existing areas ..."
(p.1)
2. "Over the past 12 months, 40 percent of
all new residential units have been created by infill and redevelopment
projects." (p.2)
3. "In Waterloo Region, the promotion of
intensification is complementary to the Regional Growth Management Strategy
and proposed light rail transit
initiative." (p. 8)
So you see, it is already here. Cambridge Council has discussed and accepted
the report. But notice that intensification is not always described as Smart
Growth.
But in any case, as Mark Dorfman stated in 2005, we the neighbourhood residents
and tax payers have not been included in the discussion. But you can be very
certain that your local Ward Councillor will market intensification as a good
thing for you.
You see, it is flowing downhill ..... and guess who is at the bottom of the
hill. Or, if that vision is unacceptable, it could also be called the "mushroom
approach" to neighbourhood planning.
ASSIGNMENT: walk around your neighbourhood and look
for abandoned industrial lands, deserted factories or derelict fields. Map
the locations. Finding any of these features puts you on the fast track to a
re-urbanization infill project.
[1] If a rapid transit or light rail system is constructed in Waterloo County, it will be located near Hespeler Road, the unofficial but functional business and commercial centre of Cambridge. Why then is a major potential intensification zone not located adjacent to the rapid transit corridor. Instead of looking at King Street with its ever worsening traffic congestion, why did the planners not identify a zone near Hespeler Road ..... remember their 10 minute guidelines. Can you have Smart Growth intensification without rapid transit?
[2] Seems to me that over the years I have watched Cambridge Council deny 'intensification' applications on the basis of neighbours demanding that their neighbourhood remain "single family" housing.
BUT, in the new reality of 40% and P2G, it seems that all areas of the
city should be open to intensification?
Specifically, intensification projects should not be biased by
socio-economic factors.
Why let policy wonks discriminate again "core" areas. Cambridge Council should not effectively 'retrofit' certain neighbourhoodsand exclude others from retroactive zoning changes. New provincial intensification rules seem to reduce the exclusivity of single family zoned areas ..... just ask the residents near the Margaret Street infill project. But also remember the Dunbar Rd. application.