News   Mar 28, 2024
 120     0 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 182     0 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 251     0 

Ontario Liberals undermined own plan to control sprawl: Walkom

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
19,228
Reaction score
22,371
http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2013/11/08/ontario_liberals_undermined_own_plan_to_control_sprawl_walkom.html

Seven years ago, the Ontario Liberal government trumpeted its new law to curb urban sprawl as bold and visionary.
“People want to see action,” David Caplan, the province’s then infrastructure minister, said after announcing the province’s fully fleshed-out Places to Grow Act in 2006.
Acting in tandem with the Liberal plan to create a green belt, Places to Grow was designed to protect farmland in southern Ontario’s so-called Golden Horseshoe.
Unless something drastic was done, an earlier government study had warned, rampant urban development would result in an additional 1,000 square kilometres of mainly agricultural land — an area twice as big as the entire City of Toronto — being paved over by the year 2031.
Caplan called the new law Ontario’s “last chance to build the future we want.”
The Liberals were lionized for the new scheme by both press and public. The government even won a prestigious U.S. planning award.
But seven years later, it is as if nothing had ever happened.
A new study by the Neptis Foundation, an urban think tank, calculates that the amount of prime farmland slated for urban development by 2031 has in fact increased since the government uttered its first, dire warning.

This is unsurprising, it isn't a failure of the liberals so much as it is a failure of the municipalities. The liberals set out anti-sprawl goals, and certain municipalities have risen to the challenge as the article states such as Toronto and Waterloo. In the other ones, NIMBYism and improper planning create issues where councils won't approve infill condo projects, and rubber stamp greenfield developments. This is because nobody shows up for meetings for a new subdivision on the edge of town, but if someone wants to build a 10 floor condo in your area, you bet there will be several hundred angry neighbours there screaming bullcrap about traffic and shadows. you can see this play out on an almost daily basis across the GTA, and is a major issue for sprawl reduction. Everyone wants there to be no more sprawl, but nobody is willing to move into condos, or live with one in their backyard.
 
Yes, in such a complex policy arena it is impossible for the provincial government to micromanage the entire area of southern Ontario, some of which does not need dense neighbourhoods per se. The municipalities have to implement development charges that reflect the true costs of sprawl, which suburbs prefer to pay years after the utilities have been built. It is a shame because all this sprawl is really hamstringing efforts to build regional transit in the gtha - how can rapid transit pay for itself when it crosses kilometres of low density housing? Not to mention the loss of farmland and attendant pollution from car dependant neighbourhoods. Why can't our urban planners come up with innovative solutions that give people what many want - ie that house with a backyard- while also integrating dense elements within the same development that might allow for efficiencies? Are there good models out there? I know that redevelopment of a lot of plazas into more walkable retail areas is going well even in the us.
 
The reality is that in a democratic society there will always be challengers to any major project. Putting the greenbelt boundary around the GTA was a great idea and I think we'll start reaping the benefits from it sooner rather than later. York and Peel region have already seen major intensification projects associated with not having anymore land to build on. Halton is still mostly rural (in terms of area), and historically conservative voters, so I don't foresee too much intensification happening there except for the downtown Burlington area, which is slowly developing its own skyline of sorts.

For all this talk of sprawl, our cities really aren't that sprawled out. If you go on Google Earth wnd look at the peripharies of American cities you'll see what truly bad sprawl looks like. Huge yards, long driveways, curving roads that limit efficient property design all leading to suburbs that are not dense at all. Comparatively, here our urban areas end with a sharp contrast between rural and urban.
 
Toronto has a huge urban area, regardless of "how bad it is in the US", and it badly needs to be densified and turned into a real city so to speak. Ideally we should fit another 2 million people into our current boundaries before moving outwards. New subdivisions like Seaton are restricting out ability to do so however.
 
Toronto has a huge urban area, regardless of "how bad it is in the US", and it badly needs to be densified and turned into a real city so to speak. Ideally we should fit another 2 million people into our current boundaries before moving outwards. New subdivisions like Seaton are restricting out ability to do so however.

Etobicoke, NY, and Scarborough need to densify around their cores.
 
Hamilton recently rejected a motion to increase density in the downtown core to a goal of 400people/hectare because it would undermine the city's plan for sprawl out by the Hamilton Airport and Binbrook area.
 
Hamilton recently rejected a motion to increase density in the downtown core to a goal of 400people/hectare because it would undermine the city's plan for sprawl out by the Hamilton Airport and Binbrook area.
The Urban Growth Centre target is only 200/ha with 195/ha as of 2001. It could certainly use more density though so it's unfortunate to hear that. Are they still expecting to get funding for their LRT with this suburban focus?

As for SCC, it does have some recently built condos, but there are no high-rises u/c or planned currently, compared to 5 in ECC, 19 in Y&E and 20 in NYCC. It's also smaller to start with (at least it was in 2001) so it looks like it's being left behind by Toronto's 3 other centres.
 
The Urban Growth Centre target is only 200/ha with 195/ha as of 2001. It could certainly use more density though so it's unfortunate to hear that. Are they still expecting to get funding for their LRT with this suburban focus?

As for SCC, it does have some recently built condos, but there are no high-rises u/c or planned currently, compared to 5 in ECC, 19 in Y&E and 20 in NYCC. It's also smaller to start with (at least it was in 2001) so it looks like it's being left behind by Toronto's 3 other centres.


Thanks Memph. So the subway is just too late to do anything. Not a lot of office activity in SCC either.
 
The Urban Growth Centre target is only 200/ha with 195/ha as of 2001. It could certainly use more density though so it's unfortunate to hear that. Are they still expecting to get funding for their LRT with this suburban focus?

Yes, I understand that the province will be paying for 100% of the LRT that runs along main street, which is good because the city probably wouldn't put any money towards it if they had to and just maintain the status quo.
 

Back
Top