News   Apr 26, 2024
 2.5K     4 
News   Apr 26, 2024
 643     0 
News   Apr 26, 2024
 1.3K     1 

Ontario announces "Places to Grow" plan

One thing I hope that gets better addressed is our "avenues." I still don't get how Shopper's Drug Mart can built a 1-floor store at Queen E & Sherbourne or at Dupont & Spadina (as examples). All major streets should have a mandated streetwall of at lesat 3-storeys for any new building. I'm not against SDM, I just don't understand why we still approve single storey buildings on our major streets.
 
Darkstar:

Minimum density zoning is going to be one of the tools available to the City of Toronto with the passage of the new City of Toronto Act, I believe.

AoD
 
I'm not against SDM, I just don't understand why we still approve single storey buildings on our major streets.
Same reason as always: "taxpayers". Biding time until something bigger is built. (That's why they call those long monotonous stretches of the Danforth "taxpayer's strips", y'know.)

Besides, the only real sin of the DupSpa SDM is the red herring of it being "one-storey"--plus the fact that it's SDM at all, all decked out in SDM livery. Otherwise, it actually fits into the streetscape quite well, better than the company norm...
 
Good question. But since visible minorities are made up of several distinct ones, I suppose they would still form a minority vis-a-vis causcasians.
 
Related article form the Star:

Bond Head fears development's changes
Jun. 22, 2006. 05:58 AM
GAIL SWAINSON
STAFF REPORTER

Back in the 1960s, Robert Keffer's family sold their Vaughan dairy farm and headed north to Bond Head to escape the steady march of development.

Keffer's grandfather thought he had moved the family farm operation far enough away so their rural way of life would never again be under threat.

It appears he was wrong.

Now, Keffer and his neighbours in this hamlet near Bradford, just on York Region's northern edge, are bracing for residential development on a grand scale that's coming soon to their community.

The proposal is starting rather small: just 1,600 homes and 4,700 new people in this hamlet of 1,000 residents.

But if the developers get their way — and they usually do — within the next 20 years Bond Head and neighbouring Bradford will be engulfed by a massive subdivision with some 75,000 new residents.

That has many locals worried that along with the tens of thousands of new people crowding in, big city problems such as crime and gridlock will also take up home in their bucolic village.

For Keffer, the fight to maintain the community's rural character has taken on an almost personal note. "There's an attachment to the land that is hard to describe," Keffer said from the comfortable farmhouse kitchen at his spread just north of Greater Toronto.

"This is a good agricultural area here," he added. "Farmland is a finite resource and it's a duty and responsibility of citizens to look after it."

Many locals are puzzled about the sudden push for such titanic, instant expansion, especially since Queen's Park hasn't earmarked the Bradford area for residential growth in its Places to Grow Act, which became law last week.

Development supporters — many of them on the local council — respond that the area needs jobs and the kind of growth that will pay for badly needed infrastructure such as sewage plants.

Bradford West Gwillimbury has 23,000 residents, about 1,000 of these in Bond Head. The town's own official plan projects a total population of 47,000 by 2026.

Last week, Bradford West Gwillimbury council voted 5-3 to amend the town's official plan to allow for the first 1,600 homes phase of the development plan.

However, that is likely just the beginning. Toronto-based builders Geranium Corp. and Metrus Developments are hoping to ultimately develop a project that could add as many as 75,000 people to the town.

Geranium spokesman Jim Maclean said the bigger project has been put on the backburner for now.

"Right now, Geranium's priority is to go ahead with what they have," Maclean said in an interview.

And despite their fears, residents will continue to have input, he said.

"The public consultation process will continue into the months and years ahead," Maclean added. "They will have a voice."

`We have a great fear of losing the character of our community'

David Chambers, resident of Bradford West Gwillimbury

Many locals aren't so sure that two big-city developers will want to listen to what they have to say. More than 100 of them filled the council chambers to voice their concerns when council approved the plan over their objections.

Resident David Chambers told council he fears such monumental growth will forever change the look and feel of his village.

"We have a great fear of losing the character of our community," Chambers said.

But Councillor Doug White says the community is chronically overtaxed and underserviced, something residential development and the employment park will help ease.

White said the town desperately needs the employment lands slated for Highway 400 south of Highway 88 to help offset the municipality's high residential property taxes.

"A lot of people would be comfortable if we stayed the way we already are, but the Bond Head area was designated for growth," White told residents.

Keffer has a 130-hectare mixed farming operation with 45 Holsteins and some wheat, corn and soy as cash crops perched on the northern edge of the Holland Marsh.

The area is quintessential farm country with softly rolling hills and wide-open fields punctuated by dense forests.

Keffer's son Matthew just graduated from agricultural college and is primed to take over the family farm.

But if the town is eventually built out, the gravel road the farm sits on will become a paved overpass off Highway 400 and development will push right into his front yard.

"We'll try and stay as long as we can make a good living farming," Keffer shrugged. "But who knows what will happen."

Phil Trow, a teacher who lives nearby, grabs a sandwich off a plate set out on the farmhouse table by Keffer's wife Jean.

He said area residents could see the writing on the wall two years ago when Geranium celebrated Earth Day by setting out their proposal before town council.

It was then that worried locals asked the province to include the southern half of Simcoe County in the greenbelt in the hopes of halting such massive change. But their pleas went unheard. Bradford West Gwillimbury sits just north of the Oak Ridges Moraine and the greenbelt.

"It's not that we are opposed to growth," said Trow, who is also chair of a citizens' opposition group called Bond Head/BWG Residents for Responsible Development. "We just want something that is measured. 75,000 new people will create a city up here."

Many say this kind of development just north of Greater Toronto was predictable, particularly after the province protected a large swath of land on Toronto's northern border from development under the greenbelt plan.

A recent study by Hemson Consulting shows Simcoe County is a prime area for migration from elsewhere in the province, especially the GTA.

The county's population grew by 14.3 per cent in the most recent census period, the highest in central Ontario outside Greater Toronto. By 2031, the population is expected to grow to 667,000 from 427,000.

AoD
 
It should be illegal to build or develop any farm land. Quebec made this a law IIRC in the 1960s when their independence movement was growing, thus ensuring they could feed their people if the Rest of Canada stopped food shipments to Quebec.

I'm always embarassed when I fly into Toronto/Mississauga and see the dissappeering farms and sprawling housing developments.

Of course I can't blame the farmers for selling their land to developers at massive prices, as their children rarely seem to want to be farmers today, I suppose 24/7 labourious work for inconsistent and low income would be little incentive. IIRC, back in the 1960s, many farmers already sold their land to developers, and then leased it from the new owners, thus keeping the farm going until the owners wanted to start building sprawl.
 
"Good question. But since visible minorities are made up of several distinct ones, I suppose they would still form a minority vis-a-vis causcasians."

Caucasians are more than able to divide themselves into smaller groups.
 
Had a glance through the report. I'm a bit concerned about the conceptual highway between the 400 through the Brampton-Caledon boundary and out to Guelph. There's no easy way to put a highway through Georgetown/Glen Williams and over the escarpment.

The general idea of the report/growth plan is sound - this is one of the things I think the government is trying to do right - but the devil is in the details, especially with the highways.
 
A contrarian article from the Post:

The New Feudalism: The Future of Cities
Ontario's town-cramming urban planning blueprint is undemocratic, unfair to families and bad for the environment

Peter Shawn Taylor, National Post
Published: Friday, June 23, 2006

In the name of now-fashionable New Urbanism planning, the Ontario government last week announced dramatic new controls over where citizens of Toronto and its satellite cities will be able to live in the next 25 years. It is a deliberate strategy to curb suburban growth and force more people into downtown high-rise apartments -- thus frustrating the hopes and dreams of many young potential homebuyers across Southern Ontario.

No doubt everyone gets the government, and the urban planning, they deserve. But at least we should be honest about the terms we use. And New Urbanism really doesn't capture the imperial urges of the McGuinty government. A more accurate term for this planning doctrine would be New Feudalism.

Last Friday, David Caplan, Ontario's Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal, unveiled the Greater Horseshoe Area Growth Plan, the final component in his government's designs for stopping the organic expansion of most cities in Southern Ontario. By 2031, 40% of new residences must be built in existing downtown areas in 25 designated communities ranging from Waterloo to Barrie to Peterborough and all Toronto environs. There are also strict density targets of up to 400 people or jobs per hectare for urban areas, which appear wildly unrealistic. (By comparison, Vancouver's West End has a population density of a bit more than 200 people per hectare, as does Paris.)

Building on previous New Feudalism planning tenets such as the Greenbelt legislation that expropriated the development potential of great swaths of farmland and the construction of massive taxpayer-subsidized public transit monuments, Queen's Park will now dictate where residents can live as well.

New Feudalism is the cure for that age-old government problem of individual choice. King Dalton has issued his proclamation on where everyone in his kingdom shall live and how they shall travel to work. If it happens to conflict with what the serfs want, well too bad. No one's asking them. And his royal fiat now extends to local governments. Any municipality that responds to the wishes of its electorate by emphasizing family-friendly suburbs at the expense of cramming more people downtown will find its official plan rewritten from the Throne Room in Toronto. Perhaps we should just be thankful there's no sumptuary law -- yet.

To get a sense of how government policy conflicts with individual aspirations, consider that an October, 2004, poll for the Greater Toronto Home Builders Association found a detached home in the suburbs was the preferred residence for 65% of Toronto inhabitants. Only 16% wanted to live in a high-rise. And 80% thought that downtown Toronto was already too crowded.

The steep density targets will also result in living spaces that are far less egalitarian, in keeping with our feudal theme. Australian New Urbanism critic and academic Patrick Troy (who coined the term New Feudalism in 1992) has argued convincingly that putting limits on suburban growth and creating higher-density downtowns will create greater income stratification in housing.
_________________________________________________

The author seems to have ignored the suburban "tragedy of the commons" - everyone might want their driveways, backyards, etc - but at the end of the day, these very urges lead to a declining quality of life for everyone if it remains unchecked. Having democratic urges is NOT a valid argument for urban fratricide.

AoD
 
I'm sorry - how is it bad for the environment and where does he back that up?
 
There are a number of errors about the plan in the article. 40% of new growth will be targeted within existing urban areas by 2015 (not 2031 as the article suggested) and the 400 persons and jobs per hectare is only in the UGCs within the City of Toronto (Downtown, Yonge-Eglinton, NYCC, SCC and ECC), the other inner ring UGCs has a 200 residents and jobs per hectare target, while outer ring UGCs has a 150 target. New greenfield development has a target of 50.

Also this plan was not thrust upon the public in a feudal fashion - there has been extensive consultation with stakeholders and the public since the initiative was launched in 2004. Futhermore the initiative was based on the groundwork done by the previous PC Government with the Smart Growth Panels.
 
I'm sorry - how is it bad for the environment and where does he back that up?

I have no idea. I was wondering if the author chose that subtitle for his article or if an editor which didn't bother to read it decided on that. The article doesn't mention the environment even once.
 
Article

Ontario wins U.S. award for urban sprawl plan
Last Updated: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 | 9:35 AM ET
CBC News

Ontario's plan to curb urban sprawl in southern Ontario has won it a prestigious U.S. award.

The American Planning Association announced Tuesday that Ontario's "Places to Grow" plan has been awarded the 2007 Daniel Burham Award, which honours excellence in large-scale planning.

The provincial government is the first non-American recipient of the award.

APA calls the government's plan "groundbreaking" in its effort to establish tightly-packed, mixed-use areas by setting minimum density levels whenever development takes place.

Over the next 25 years, an estimated four million people are expected to move into the Greater Golden Horseshoe, a sprawling area that includes Toronto, its surrounding metropolitan area and more than 100 municipalities.

The area stretches west to the Waterloo Region, north to Barrie and northeast to Peterborough.

Under the plan, about 40 per cent of those moving to the Greater Golden Horseshoe will be forced into existing urban areas.

The plan also involves co-ordinating transportation throughout the region.
 

Back
Top