News   Mar 28, 2024
 662     0 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 462     1 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 782     0 

Ontario announces "Places to Grow" plan

A

ahrvojic

Guest
Ontario announces "Places to Grow" plan

Article

More of us, living better
Jun. 16, 2006. 05:16 AM
KERRY GILLESPIE
QUEEN'S PARK BUREAU

Say goodbye to sprawling suburban lots with two-car garages and hello to denser and more tightly packed neighbourhoods where you can walk to the corner store for milk and kids can take a bus to their summer job.
Today, the province will announce its plan to make sure population growth doesn't mean endless kilometres of traffic-clogged roads and urban sprawl housing taking the place of precious farmland.
Nearly 4 million more people are expected to make southern Ontario their home in the next 25 years, bringing with them 2 million new jobs.
Without action now, the government will argue, that growth would lead to dire results, including further commuter hell, unacceptable loss of farmland and an increase in smog.
The "Places to Grow" plan sets out lofty goals and specific targets for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, an area that stretches from Niagara through the Greater Toronto Area to Peterborough and north as far as Collingwood.
Among the key goals:
To protect farmland, 40 per cent of all new growth must be contained within existing built-up areas by 2015.
The growth that will still occur on undeveloped land must meet minimum targets  about twice as dense as traditional sprawl.
To better use existing infrastructure, like roads and water lines, minimum densities have been set for 25 city centres, effective in 2031.
Cities must promote more compact living and build "complete communities" where people can live, work, shop and play without needing a car.
Municipalities and regional governments have three years to amend their official planning documents to show just how they'll do all this.
The province says cities  many of which are already choking on traffic congestion and have discovered how expensive it is to provide services to far-flung housing developments  want to make this work.
The province has a bag full of sticks and carrots just to make sure.
To start with, the province is vowing it will put its infrastructure money  $3 billion to $4 billion a year  only into communities reaching their targets.
"This is the guiding vision for how we're going to live tomorrow," said David Caplan, minister of public infrastructure and renewal, who is responsible for this plan.
"It's about kids having places to play, moms and dads having places to work. It's about building great communities where you can actually get around and you don't have to spend hours and hours in the car. It's about all those things and so much more," Caplan said in an interview.
While that vision sounds good in the abstract, turning it into reality won't be easy. Residents tend to ferociously fight any moves to bring more people, and the cars they bring with them, into their neighbourhoods.
Developers also often oppose government moves to tell them where and what they can build, saying they just build the homes people want to live in.
So what will the region look like in 25 years, with 11.5 million people  up from 7.8 million now  packed more tightly together?
Better, says Caplan.
Bringing more people into an area can turn car-dependent strip malls, like those on Kingston Rd. in Toronto, into lively neighbourhoods like Bloor West Village.
It can revitalize derelict downtowns, like Oshawa's, making them places to live as well as shop and do business.
Future subdivisions won't be just cookie-cutter houses on dead-end roads, but a mix of housing: smaller lots, townhouses and mid-rise condo and apartment buildings.
There will be more high-rise towers on major roads near existing transit lines.
While it's up to cities to decide how to accommodate 40 per cent of the new growth in existing built-up areas, the province has set specific density targets for 25 downtown or central districts, which already have the roads, transit and other infrastructure in place to handle rapid growth.
The five centres in Toronto must meet density targets of 400 people and jobs per hectare. That's the minimum number of people required to support a subway.
The Bay St. corridor from Bloor St. to the lake, by way of comparison, is about 1,000 people and jobs per hectare.
Toronto's popular Annex neighbourhood, with a mix of detached homes, semis, housing above shops and a few high-rise condos and apartments is about 150 people and jobs per hectare. Traditional suburban sprawl is about 30.
The 15 centres in surrounding cities have targets of 200 people and jobs per hectare, which means they'll have enough people to support bus service every 15 minutes and possibly even light rail or bus rapid transit.
The five centres in smaller communities have targets of 150 people and jobs per hectare, which can also support bus service every 15 minutes.
And to make sure that new suburban developments don't repeat the mistakes of the past, there's a target of 50 people and jobs per hectare for development on greenfields. That's enough to support bus service every 30 minutes.
Many municipal politicians are onside with the overall idea of using their space more efficiently and giving residents options other than the car to get around, but they'll still face battles from residents when specific neighbourhoods are targeted for more growth.
But whether residents  living in neighbourhoods that are perfect just the way they are, thank you very much  want it or not, growth is coming.
The Greater Golden Horseshoe is the third fastest growth region in North America, behind Dallas-Fort Worth, Tex., and greater Atlanta.
"If we continue the way we're going, the estimates are pretty dire," Caplan said.
Commuting times are projected to increase by more than 40 per cent in the GTA. Smog-causing auto emissions would also rise by more than 40 per cent.
More than 1,000 square kilometres of farmland  twice the size of Toronto  would be consumed by new sprawl-style developments in the next 25 years.
These types of statistics aren't new and this is not the first time a government has declared war on sprawl and declared that compact living is good. Yet, developers still buy land on the outskirts of cities, municipalities still let them build single-family detached houses, and people still line up to buy those homes.
Caplan thinks people are finally ready to embrace change.
"People want to see action on sprawl, air quality and traffic congestion," he said.
Trends in housing purchases show people want other options besides surburban sprawl, Caplan said, pointing to Toronto real estate data showing half of new home sales are in high-rise condominiums.
In the two years that the draft version of "Places to Grow" has been in public consultation, Caplan heard one comment often.
"Somebody should have done this 30 years ago. It's about time," Caplan said.
That's what Neil Rodgers, president of the Urban Development Institute, which represents developers and builders, thinks, too.
"We haven't seen super-regional scale provincially led planning in 30 plus years," Rodgers said.
The 400 series highways and other major infrastructure projects, which defined growth in the Greater Toronto Area, were undertaken in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s.
"Those were the dreams and implementation of the John Robarts and Bill Davis eras," Rodgers said. "Those were designed to carry a generation. That generation stopped in 1980 and we've been riding on that infrastructure for the last 20 years. We see the stresses and strains every day when we commute. We've got gridlock, we've got poor air quality, we don't even have a world-class subway system."
Through its plan, the province has the chance to design the infrastructure for current and future generations, he said.
Public transit is key. Without it, there are just more people fighting to drive their cars on the same roads.
"A growth plan that will direct growth to certain areas and direct it away from other areas is great, but if you don't put infrastructure behind it, it's not going to realize its true opportunity," Rodgers said.
Caplan points to the last provincial budget as proof that the province is bringing dollars and not just big dreams to the table.
Transit in the GTA got an $838 million boost in the budget, with money set aside to extend the subway to Vaughan Corporate Centre at Highway 7, and for transit projects in Mississauga, Brampton and York Region.
 
Article

Sprawling suburban life long ago lost its allure
But planners have taken note and are starting to change the way they build these communities
Jun. 16, 2006. 01:00 AM
KERRY GILLESPIE
QUEEN'S PARK BUREAU

Sprawl wasn't always a dirty word.
In the post-World War II period, the suburbs were considered the best of all worlds.
They offered people the option of living close to the jobs and entertainment of the cities, while still owning a large house, on a quiet, clean street, with few neighbours, surrounded by green space.
As incomes rose and car manufacturers produced affordable models, more people discovered the joys of driving in their own car, instead of waiting for a crowded bus.
But the rosy glow of sprawling suburban life has been gone for quite a while.
The more common saying these days goes along these lines: If we don't kill sprawl, it will kill us.
The Greater Toronto area is already experiencing a record number of smog alert days and if the current patterns of development aren't changed, smog-causing auto emissions are projected to increase more than 40 per cent in the next 25 years.
Many people already spend hours in their cars getting to and from work each day and commute times are only going up.
And, with rising gas prices, people aren't so happy about burning a litre of gas to buy a litre of milk.
These factors, along with a shortage of available land, have already led developers to start changing the way they build new communities.
Some subdivisions are already being built across the Greater Toronto area that are meeting the province's new greenfield density target of 50 people per hectare  about twice the density of traditional sprawl made up of single-family detached homes.
Houses are still big compared to city standards, but the lots are getting smaller and more semi-detached homes and townhouses are getting mixed in.
Some developments even include mid-rise apartment or condominium buildings, community centres, stores and parks.
This type of development is often called "new urbanism" and aims to create communities where people can live, work and play without having to get into a car.
"We are building much more smartly than we were in the 1970s. Regulation, consumer attitudes, price are all things that have evolved the industry into that," said Neil Rodgers, president of the Urban Development Institute, which represents developers and builders.
But the province thinks more needs to be done to better manage the growth of nearly 4 million people and 2 million jobs in southern Ontario in the next 25 years.
It's releasing its "Places to Grow" plan today to force 40 per cent of that growth in the Greater Golden Horseshoe into existing built-up areas.
Right now, leaving out Toronto, which is fully built out, only about 20 per cent of new housing is accommodated in existing urban areas in the region stretching from Niagara through the GTA to Peterborough and north as far as Collingwood.
While environmentalists were the first to attack sprawl for eating up precious farmland and putting pollution-causing cars on the roads, by the 1970s the financial costs started to become obvious.
That's when business people, residents and politicians began to rail against it  though not enough to stop it.
That's about to change, said David Caplan, Ontario's minister of public infrastructure and renewal.
"We've seen the negative affects of traffic congestion, of more smog days, of the loss of economic activity and there's a growing realization of the need to correct these measures and I think that's why we have such broad-based support," Caplan said.
More compact development, requiring fewer kilometres of roads, sewer lines and other infrastructure, will save the province $12 billion over the next 25 years, Caplan said.
"I don't know a citizen or a taxpayer in the province of Ontario who doesn't think we can't get value for the investments we're making," he said.
While the province is taking aim at sprawl, it doesn't expect everyone to live in a high-rise either, said Caplan.
"We think it shouldn't just be a choice of a 50-foot lot or a 50-storey condo," he said.
"There is a range of options in between that consumers should have access to and that's why we need a plan like this in order to give those kind of choices," Caplan added.
 
There is also a graphic in the star indicating the location of the growth centres and their desired densities. Interestingly, those in the 416 are set at 400 persons-jobs/ha, whereas most of the growth centres in the outer suburbs are 250 persons-jobs/ha.

AoD

EDIT: Here is the map of the growth centres

www.thestar.com/static/PD...ection.pdf

There are more centres than the last iteration.
 
It'd be interesting to know how many of those areas are at current density. I imagine that downtown Toronto is currently over 400 residents/jobs per hectare (depending, of course, on what they classify as "downtown"). I wonder how many of the others are.

All and all, a good plan. Hopefully we don't run into a situation where some government in the future campaigns on repeling this plan.

Greg
 
The idea is great but they are going to have to back it up with real money. An subway extension to VCC isn't going to make much of a dent on traffic especially with 4 million more people on the way.
 
VCC is identified in the growth plan (section 2.2.4.5) as an urban growth centre and must achieve, by 2031 or earlier, a minimum gross density target of 200 residents and jobs combined per hectare.
 
I still think it was one of the biggest mistakes for not putting Port Credit on that list as it's already one of the densest areas of Mississauga. Considering it already has decent transit and if all the plans go through it will only get better, the extra density would help. Oh well, MCC has more room to grow but oh well, what's done is done.

Btw, from the numbers I have MCC has already passed the 200jobs/persons target which makes this entire plan somewhat pointless from a Mississauga point of view but meh.
 
Remember those numbers are minimums. MCC could grow to 1000 or more if it likes.
 
^ I meant that working towards the goals in this plan (in order to get the infrastructure funding that is hanging over the city's head) is somewhat pointless as the city already "has" it.

Btw, if the targets in the 'Moving Forward Plan' are met then the city would have about 700 ppl/jobs per heactare (gross density). But if the buildings keep getting taller as they seem to be doing then this number may be too low.
 
For those who might not know where to go for all things Places To Grow, this link leads to a page with a number of documents to download.

Overall, the plan is a great improvement over what has existed to this point, which is largely nothing.

Im sure some people (myself included) would say that it doesnt go far enough. My biggest concern is still the lack of attention paid to rail transit in the region. Yes there are pretty lines on the map but I still find the plans rather thin. The Greenbelt still appears to be the most positive outcome of this process.

But these kinds of growth patterns dont change over night and realistically, it might be a decade before its effects are felt in any substantive form. At the very least this serves as a good starting point for more sustainable development and points in a direction that is somewhat positive.
 
Nearly 4 million more people are expected to make southern Ontario their home in the next 25 years, bringing with them 2 million new jobs.

This boggles me everytime I hear it. The GTA could have 10 million people in my lifetime. Imagine what the city will look like in 25 years. Huge! Something tells me the current boom may slow down but certainly won't stop.
 
This boggles me everytime I hear it. The GTA could have 10 million people in my lifetime. Imagine what the city will look like in 25 years. Huge! Something tells me the current boom may slow down but certainly won't stop.

At worst the current rate of growth may plateau for a while, with there being some signs right now that housing starts may be slowing (despite the fact that real estate prices do continue to rise). I would not be surprised if there was a slight cooling off period over the next few years, which would probably be a very healthy event.

What will be interesting is 5 or 10 years down the road when the next boom cycle takes place. If it takes place within the context of $100/barrel oil and a somewhat stronger commitment to sustainable growth, Toronto could be quite an impressive city of cranes.
 
A large majority of that increase in population will be visible minority/immigrant, which will lead to even greater diversity. I wonder how long it'll be before the City hits 60% visible minority.
 
From the Star:

Growth plan will need 'next phase,' critics say
Vision praised, but implementation questioned
Municipal politicians expect many challenges
Jun. 17, 2006. 01:00 AM
KERRY GILLESPIE
QUEEN'S PARK BUREAU

The province says it wants to end car-dependent urban sprawl, but critics question whether the rules they've put in place are strong enough to do it.

Yesterday, the province unveiled its "Places to Grow" plan, which will force 40 per cent of the 4 million new people expected to move to southern Ontario in the next 25 years into existing urban areas, and require more compact designs for new housing on undeveloped land.

Details of the plan were revealed in the Toronto Star yesterday.

The plan faces challenges on many fronts — from developers wanting to provide the bigger and cheaper houses people line up to buy, to the not-in-my-backyard brigade who oppose more development in their neighbourhoods.

And without a lot more public transit all the plan will mean is more people stuck in traffic on the same roads.

Environmental groups and urban planners are on board with the province's vision of a future filled with more tightly packed, mixed-use neighbourhoods, where there are enough people to support public transit. Where they part ways is on implementation.

"The vision is the right vision, the question is: Do we have tools to make it happen?" said Paul Bedford, former head planner for the city of Toronto.

The plan says 40 per cent of new housing and job growth must be contained within existing built-up areas by 2015. The government says that's double what's happening now, but many say it's still too low and will mean countless farmers' fields ploughed under for new housing developments.

"This notion that you have to have raw land to grow is what's at issue here. Toronto's experience totally disproves the need," Bedford said, referring to the city's housing industry, which has continued to boom long after the city ran out of green fields.

The plan calls for the 60 per cent of new growth on undeveloped lands to meet a target of 50 residents and jobs per hectare. The government says this is about double traditional sprawl with single-family detached homes, but developers have already moved away from that. New developments with semis and townhouses mixed in are already at that target.

"If the object of the game is to save farmland ... (50 people per hectare) is not doing the trick," said John Stillich, general manager of the Sustainable Urban Development Association.

Developments of 100 or more people and jobs per hectare — double the government's target — can still provide the ground-level front door and backyard that people want, Stillich said.

"There is progress here, but for the true sustainability, there will have to be a next phase" to the plan, he said.

Another problem is that a lot of low-density sprawl developments have been approved and are in the pipeline.

David Caplan, minister of public infrastructure and renewal, who is responsible for the plan, said the government can't turn back the clock.

"You don't want to gum the works up and say everything will stop. We have to make sure we're continuing to support residential and employment growth."

That means the plan may not have a dramatic effect on the density and design of new developments for years to come, said Mark Winfield, of the Pembina Institute, an independent environmental policy research group.

"It started out quite bold and quite visionary. ... It got mushier and mushier and closer to an affirmation of business as usual," Winfield said.

Municipal politicians are bracing for a fight with residents to make the plan happen.

"Any development is difficult, even low-rise, because people don't like change," said Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion.

It's up to municipal politicians to educate residents about the benefits of more compact living and the dangers of sprawl, including smog-producing traffic congestion and higher property taxes to pay for the extra kilometres of roads and sewers, she said.

"(More density) is not going to negatively impact the quality of life. It's going to improve it. ... That's what has to be sold to the citizen," she said.

"I only wish there had been this growth plan before all the development took place in Mississauga."

AoD
 

Back
Top