Ontario announces "Places to Grow" plan

[FutureMayor]

The plan also involves co-ordinating transportation throughout the region

If they are taking about highways, yes. But public transit it a complete lie.

Louroz

 

[TdotTrickyRicky]

I think the central concept of the author's article is flawed. He is suggesting that planning actions are being taken that act contrary to the natural order of urban development as governed by the free will of it's population. I look at it a different way, that the scale of urban development causes changes in human settlement that are then articlated in planning language. Intensification occurs when the conditions require that it occur, not because individuals desire it or planners craft rules to allow it, although regulation and culture have some influence on it's form. A shift towards multi-residential living and greater income disparity are natural trends (for good or bad) associated with the increasing size of a human settlement regardless of what we do.

 

[bizorky]

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 can take you places in Quebec where housing developments are going up on farmland - in the 1960's, 1970's, 1980's and today.

 

[Mark Dowling]

it will be interesting to see what happens to that Mirabel farmland once it's sold to the farmers.

 

[jaycola]

Nearly 6 years in and as we have just received the results of the most recent census figures, maybe it is a good time to revisit the growth plan for the Golden Horseshoe to see whether we have made progress towards the goals of the plan.

I happened upon a recent Blog entry by Kaid Benfield (NRDC Director, Sustainable Communities, Washington, DC) about the plan which described it as "the continent's best land-use plan".

I was reading about objections to the Keystone project by the "National Resource Defence Council" when I came across this unexpectedly.

I was fortunate enough to be invited to participate in some of the planning sessions for Places to Grow, and in 2007 I wrote that it was the best land-use plan I have ever seen. I’m still not sure that I have seen a better one, at least in concept: the plan, if fully implemented, will channel growth to the places within the Horseshoe region where environmental impacts will be reduced compared to an unmanaged scenario, as well as to places, including distressed inner city neighborhoods, that would benefit from more investment, jobs and people.

The Horseshoe region is forecast to grow by 3.7 million people (a 47 percent population increase) and 1.8 million jobs by 2031. It is already home to a quarter of Canada’s population and will soon be the third-largest urban region in North America. Imagine the consequences if development is allowed to spread all over the land, without good planning. Imagine the lost landscape, the additional roads and traffic, the pollution, the lost habitat, the global warming emissions.

Here’s how Places to Grow seeks to prevent that from happening:

By 2015, a minimum of 40 percent of new residential growth in each municipality must occur not on what is now forest or farmland but within existing cities and towns, via such measures as building on vacant parcels, converting brownfields and grayfields to new uses, and redeveloping obsolete properties.
The plan places special emphasis on downtowns, transit corridors, and “major transit station areas.” Downtown areas, in particular, must strive to accommodate about 90 residents and/or jobs per acre by 2031, with highly urban Toronto’s target set at twice that amount.

The plan recognizes that not all growth can occur in existing communities, and municipalities may also go through a process to designate greenfield areas for development. But greenfield development, when it occurs, must create complete communities, with development configurations and streets that support transit services, walking, biking, parks, and a mix of housing and jobs. And it must be built to a scale that makes efficient use of land, accommodating a minimum of about 20 residents and jobs per acre.
All growth areas must accommodate affordable housing.

Development generally may not occur outside of the designated areas. Areas important to natural resources or the environment must be protected, and there are restrictions on development of prime farmland.

To support the plan, the government hopes to provide substantial public transit investments and other necessary infrastructure over five years.

Has the plan, as implemented over the last half dozen years, had the desired effect on development, transportation and environmental protection?

Are the goals of the plan, intensifying development in the locations identified, still desirable or should we refocus this development further on areas where existing transportation can tolerate increased density?

Do we curb development in corridors (Yonge being a prime example) where further development will only add stress to an already heavily stressed asset, encouraging the growth along the western arm of the YUS instead?

A couple notable quotes.

“All 19 upper- and single-tier municipalities with official plans have adopted amendments to conform to the Growth Plan. These are currently in effect or in the approvals process... “Nearly half of the lower-tier municipalities in the Greater Golden Horseshoe have adopted an official plan amendment to conform to the Growth Plan.”

In a scathing 2009 report (three years into the 25-year implementation period) titled Places to Sprawl, the Ontario Greenbelt Alliance charged that four of the 21 upper-tier (basically, county-level) municipalities had "passed, or drafted, official plan amendments that contain growth strategies that directly contradict the intent and spirit of the Places to Grow Act...

In particular, in the five years immediately prior to plan adoption, the share of multifamily and attached housing starts in Toronto, Hamilton, Oshawa and their inner suburbs was 53 percent; in the five years since adoption, the share has increased to 62 percent...

of the 63,000 new residential units that were added to the Greater Golden Horseshoe between June 2009 and June 2010, approximately 44,300 - or 70 percent - were located within the existing development footprint....

...according to data collected by the Canadian Urban Transit Association, the annual number of passenger trips taken by transit in the Greater Golden Horseshoe has grown steadily from 526 million trips in 2004 to 657 million trips in 2009."

 

[innsertnamehere]

not only has this plan worked, its worked better than expected.

 

[jn_12]

The only place it really hasn't worked yet is Niagara which only saw a pop. increase of 4000 people over the last five years. Personally I'm fine with that, but in terms of the province's goals, they're well short of their target there.

 

[Memph]

I don't consider Niagara's lack of growth as a particular serious problem. It's not especially well connected by transit to the rest of the region and it's basically surrounded by highly valuable agricultural land. If it means more growth in the inner Golden Horseshoe, I don't think that's a problem.

I calculated the "percieved" or "weighted" density of Toronto's urban area. Basically, you take all the census tracts in the urban area and weight them by their proportion of the total urban area population. The result is the density of the census tract the average resident of Toronto's urban area lives in.

2006 numbers
Population: 4,753,394
Weighted Density: 5,417/sqkm

2011 numbers
Population: 5,178,773 (+8.9%)
Weighted Density: 5,735/sqkm (+5.9%)

The density increases may very well be stronger in the future though. Many downtown census tracts still have densities of only around 10,000/sqkm while in the future, you will probably have several census tracts in the 40,000-70,000/sqkm range in the Entertainment District, City Place, Fort York, Liberty Village, Waterfront, St Lawrence, Bay St Corridor, Yorkville, Church & Wellesley, etc. You also have several suburbs that will have to intensify in order to continue growing. Mississauga has basically run out of land along with Burlington, Richmond Hill, Newmarket and Aurora have very little left with much of the greenfields protected as part of the Oak Ridges Morraine... they still built out a fair bit from 2006-2011 but I suspect that will slow significantly soon. Ajax, Pickering, Oakville and even Vaughan don't have that much land left that they can sprawl onto.

As for where growth should occur... first of all, I think we should really get moving with the DRL and the GO transit upgrades are going to be a plus too. Once Union Station and the other GO upgrades are complete, it will make sense to have more residential intensification around the GO stations. I think there are about a dozen urban growth centres with GO stations within them, so they will be a major asset. In a lot of cases, these growth centres don't have *that much* other transit aside from maybe a bus terminal. Definitely I think residential intensification should occur around the Spadina line, as well as downtown of course, since people living downtown can walk or bike to work without putting a strain on transit... or they can take transit to certain more outlying parts of the city opposite of peak direction (unless they work in the middle of nowhere).

I really do hope that TOD development in North York won't be hindered by crowded subways though and that improvements to Toronto's transit system. I guess at this point, this means the DRL mostly but GO could provide a short term relief with Oriole Station.

I think another smart way to grow would be to encourage offices in the suburbs to be built in areas that are accessible by transit, like around subway station, GO stations or bus terminals. This would also encourage using GO and the subway in opposite of peak direction. You could also have more employment around Liberty Village. I think virtually no-one uses GO trains to travel to somewhere other than downtown... so I think there is a lot of potential for more trips between other GO stations, or from downtown to the suburbs, but of course you need destinations at other GO stations for that to work.

 

[waterloowarrior]

The extended population and employment forecasts
https://www.placestogrow.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=318&Itemid=14

Proposed Amendment 2 to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe

The Minister of Infrastructure is seeking feedback on Proposed Amendment 2 (2012) to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006. Proposed Amendment 2 contains proposed policies that relate to population and employment forecasts for municipalities in the Greater Golden Horseshoe.

The population and employment forecasts in the Growth Plan help communities across the region plan in a sustainable way. Proposed Amendment 2 includes extended forecasts for upper- and single-tier municipalities to 2041 and outlines proposed policies relating to those forecasts. Updating the Growth Plan’s forecasts will help ensure that we continue to manage growth responsibly.

for reference here are the 2001-2031 projections
https://www.placestogrow.ca/content/ggh/schedule3-e.pdf

 

[Memph]

What's with the sudden jump in growth from 2031 to 2036? Looks like they're expecting Peel and York to be nearing build out by then and for growth to shift to Hamilton, Halton and Durham.