What is the reality of SMART GROWTH and re-urbanization for the average resident?
OR, lets cut through the BABBLEGAB and deal with reality in plain language.

Do not be misled or lulled by the use of jargon and bafflegab to extol the benefits of residential intensification.
What are the REALITIES and consequences of any intensification project?

   *  providing housing choice, protecting natural areas,
   *  creating community, protecting cultural heritage,
   *  providing transportation alternatives,
   *  integrates transportation policies with land use decisions

Sorry, but the above wording is bafflegab. For example, in the photos below, select the factors enhanced by intensification:

      
               King & Eagle high rise intensification                        Margaret Street residential infill and intensification

As currently applied in my neighbourhood, SMART GROWTH has a single goal: residential intensification, that is more people in the same geographic area. The population density is increasing, however, city staff do not share such data with residents. The photos show only 2 of the 3 approved projects. More will be said about 2 of the projects in later pages.

Lets evaluate these Cambridge Mills intensification (Smart Growth) projects against a checklist to determine if political decisions are consistent with Smart Growth principles. Simply stated, do the projects satisfy critical Smart Growth guidelines:

1. Located within a 10 minute walk to rapid transit? No. Not yet constructed, probably not in my life span.

2. Located within a 10 minute walk of shopping? No. Nearest significant food stores, etc are 4.5 km away.

3. Will the developments increase transportation choices? No. All 3 developments are auto dependent.

4. Will the higher density make better use of existing infrastructure and reduce demands for new road? No. The higher density projects have added at least 500 new autos to an already congested road system.

5. Does the higher density respect the community character, design and historic features?  No.

6. Have politicians from either Cambridge or the Region of Waterloo outlined the "big picture" planning for residents? NO. We are only told that such projects cannot be stopped or modified because of P2G and Regional policies, and that "it could be worse".

7. Have these projects been used by politicians as examples of Smart Growth projects that meet the provincial governments 40% residential  intensification goal?  Do you know anything about the 40% factor and P2G?

You will have to decide. Is it planning according to the basic principles or Smart Growth or bafflegab?
(resource material:  "Smart Growth Development Checklist". 2004, Corporation of the City of New Westminster)

Your RGSM assignment:  Translate the following RGSM statement into ordinary English:

"Area and neighbourhood specific reurbanization studies will be completed to determine the
appropriate interface between development within the corridor and the existing/surrounding
urban form to ensure compatibility." (ROW)