The material on this page was
created in early in 2007, and is historical in nature.
However, it is relevant because it describes early experiences with infill
projects.
One learns by doing, and perhaps my first experience will be useful
information.
Not all residential intensification is smart growth ... it might be merely an increase in residential density!
After reading about a proposed neighbourhood residential infill project, I decided to search for the antonym of SMART. The most appropriate word seems to be STUPID. So, if a project meets the "necessary" criterion or standard, then it could be labeled Smart Growth. However, If an intensification project does not satisfy the necessary criterion for Smart Growth, then it seems obvious that it might be nothing more than an example of Stupid Growth. Seems logical to me.
1. There was one informal public neighbourhood meeting at
which the developer presented a preliminary overview of the project.
But remember, any design or environmental
statements made at this meeting were "unofficial" and subject to change!
2. The project process has started with the formal submission of
a rezoning request by Reid's Heritage Homes to Cambridge
Council. It is File #: R8/07/EB for 633
Margaret Street. You must be registered with the City to receive project
updates.
3. Get ready folks, the development steam roller has started
moving towards your neighbourhood.
The public part of the formal process starts on May 22,
2007 at Cambridge Council.
[a] Developer proposes 82 townhouses, 118 apartment units and parking for 260 autos (1.3 autos per unit).
[b] Project requires road access to Westminster St., Dover St., and possibly Eagle St N. at the railway tracks.
Stupid or Smart Growth for the
neighbourhood? Consider the following facts:
* two recently constructed high rise apartments = 220 units + autos
* King St & Eagle St intersection designated as one of the most
traffic arterials in the city.
* 500 new autos in the already congested area will produce more
smog.
* this project does not satisfy any one of the Smart Growth
determinants --- intensification pure and simple, with
the developer making a profit - that is why they
develop - pure and simple financial profit
* What are the environmental results of building another 220+
housing units in the neighbourhood:
smog, noise, increased traffic congestion, road safety,
etc
Get ready for a campaign of planning jargon and bafflegab being used to justify support for the development. Here is some background information about the issues and interested parties:
The Social Planning Council of Cambridge published (March 2006) a report titled "Growth Management Concerns in our Community. Creation of the report was partly funded by the Region of Waterloo. The report refers to a Cambridge community research project titled "Moving Forward Together" and the data that it gathered. Here is a quotation from the report: "... the focus of the MFT project was generally on what are considered social services as opposed to physical planning issues. Therefore, few responses made by residents can be DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTED to growth management concerns." Well, let me be a tad more specific because I was a committee Chair in the MFT project! We did not ask one single question about Smart Growth or intensification. Not one. What residents clearly told us was that they liked their neighbourhoods as they currently existed.
But then the report goes on to state that "Strategies are discussed here in order to provide the reader with a framework from which to understand Cambridge residents' perceptions of growth management issues." Who can possibly know the nature of these perceptions about growth management? Nobody had ever asked the residents, neither the Region Council, nor Cambridge Council. MFT data tells us only that Cambridge likes what it already has!
Is there any possible link between the report's funding source and the need to extrapolate from the data in order to strongly suggest that Cambridge residents likely support Smart Growth and intensification? I would suggest that some MFT research data actually supports the possible rejection of some intensification projects because of their neighbourhood impacts. To put it mildly, the MFT data is fuzzy on the issue.
But the SPC 2006 report clearly presents a rosy picture of Smart Growth and suggests that policies will "build vibrant urban places." (RGMS, p.8)
November 2008: This page has present my first thoughts and
reactions from as early as 2005.
Now it is time to look at how Cambridge Council has reacted to
intensification and smart growth related projects.
One can always benefit from
a hindsight, because we are involved in an ever involving process.