Planned Sprawl in the GTA

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

If I had a full tank of petrol, and later found out I couldn’t get any more, the last thing I’d do is carelessly ‘drive my car on the tank that’s in there’. A tank can only go so far, and it’d “stop dead” pretty quick. If I had any sense, I’d conserve the fuel by storing it in the garage, then plan ahead by looking at other fuel options available. Or see about combining it with non-petroleum based additives such as ethanol (to make it last as long as possible). Only the wayward and clueless would burn everything they have right away. Or cry to ma and pa for a bit more cuz now they're focused on the future, and that this time will be different.

Look, as I've said before, I have issues with how quickly Vaughan opened up its whitebelt lands, but you're still mixing metaphors here.

Land is not petrol (PETROL? Are you British - if you, I've learned something!). We think the Greenbelt makes land finite but of course it's not that simple. Firstly, Places to Grow already left plenty of already-approved greenfield sites that are now being developed and then there's the whitebelt lands which are really "there if needed" but which the development industry regards as unzoned greenfield sites. Moreover, even in an ideal scenario, Places to Grow envisions the majority of development (60% in most municipalities) is still outward expansion. so, the law of the land is "most development can be greenfield development."

I might agree with you, as a matter of principle, that these municipalities should be slamming on the brakes but it's naive to think any of them are just going to pull over to side of the road. Markham and Waterloo were the most aggressive municipalities and they went to 60% so STILL a big chunk of development is on the urban fringe even though new guidelines will make it generally less inherently sprawly than what's come before.

You're stretching the metaphor a bit the ethanol thing but if my typical fill-up is 15% Ethanol, that still pales in comparison to Vaughan where 45% of their new development is infill. (And that 45% is still better than Mississauga and Brampton and, indeed, almost every other municipality in Places to Grow's umbrella, since very few went above the 40% minimum, treating it as a maximum.)

so, I wish developers weren't driving the agenda as hard as they are.
I wish Vaughan's city council wasn't more or less the same today as it was 15 years ago
I wish they were setting near-Langstaff zoning for VMC, since they've been gifted the subway.
I wish they hadn't opened up new whitebelt lands before seeing how much infill density they can get.
I wish the OMB was substantially reformed and I wish we all had jetpacks that allowed us to fly around above traffic, for that matter.

You're still using this singular example to rant about a municipality which, on balance, is doing better than most here, especially within a short timeframe of a planning change that (as I've said before) will take decades to fully materialize. In the meantime, Vaughan is building 30+-story towers and, generally speaking, doing better than they've done in past decades. We all want better but I'm not sure what more you can realistically expect.

No one anywhere has "slammed on the brakes" the way you describe because neither democracy nor urban planning nor development moves at the same speed as a car on the highway. You might as well complain about people still being petroleum-fuelled cars even though we believe global warming is happning or drinking Coca Cola when they know it makes them fat or even, just as an example, that Toronto is actually debating whether it makes sense to tear down the east part of the Gardiner.

When will they learn?
Eventually.

 

[Memph]

I'm not sure if the OMB would allow municipalities to sprawl much less than they are. Don't forget that they ruled against Waterloo Region's growth plan because it didn't allow enough sprawl. I believe they also pushed through with the development of North Oakville.

From my understanding, the 40% infill thing is for the upper tier municipalities/census divisions, not for lower tier municipalities. Places like Georgina and East Gwilimbury (and maybe Stouffville, Aurora and King?) would be getting less than 40% infill since they have more room to sprawl and less demand for infill which means that Markham, Vaughan and Richmond Hill would need more than 40% infill (say 60%) for York Region as a whole to be at 40%. But if Markham were to decide to have 90% of growth be infill... not sure if the OMB would be ok with that. Similarly I'm not sure if the OMB would be ok with Georgina and East Gwilimbury having 50% infill if southern York Region is already at 50-60%.

I suspect it would be similar for the other Regional Municipalities. Mississauga, Oakville and Burlington would get >40% infill while Milton, Brampton, Caledon and Halton Hills would get <40%.

 

[44 North]

Look, as I've said before, I have issues with how quickly Vaughan opened up its whitebelt lands, but you're still mixing metaphors here.

Land is not petrol (PETROL? Are you British - if you, I've learned something!). We think the Greenbelt makes land finite but of course it's not that simple. Firstly, Places to Grow already left plenty of already-approved greenfield sites that are now being developed and then there's the whitebelt lands which are really "there if needed" but which the development industry regards as unzoned greenfield sites. Moreover, even in an ideal scenario, Places to Grow envisions the majority of development (60% in most municipalities) is still outward expansion. so, the law of the land is "most development can be greenfield development."

I might agree with you, as a matter of principle, that these municipalities should be slamming on the brakes but it's naive to think any of them are just going to pull over to side of the road. Markham and Waterloo were the most aggressive municipalities and they went to 60% so STILL a big chunk of development is on the urban fringe even though new guidelines will make it generally less inherently sprawly than what's come before.

You're stretching the metaphor a bit the ethanol thing but if my typical fill-up is 15% Ethanol, that still pales in comparison to Vaughan where 45% of their new development is infill. (And that 45% is still better than Mississauga and Brampton and, indeed, almost every other municipality in Places to Grow's umbrella, since very few went above the 40% minimum, treating it as a maximum.)

so, I wish developers weren't driving the agenda as hard as they are.
I wish Vaughan's city council wasn't more or less the same today as it was 15 years ago
I wish they were setting near-Langstaff zoning for VMC, since they've been gifted the subway.
I wish they hadn't opened up new whitebelt lands before seeing how much infill density they can get.
I wish the OMB was substantially reformed and I wish we all had jetpacks that allowed us to fly around above traffic, for that matter.

You're still using this singular example to rant about a municipality which, on balance, is doing better than most here, especially within a short timeframe of a planning change that (as I've said before) will take decades to fully materialize. In the meantime, Vaughan is building 30+-story towers and, generally speaking, doing better than they've done in past decades. We all want better but I'm not sure what more you can realistically expect.

No one anywhere has "slammed on the brakes" the way you describe because neither democracy nor urban planning nor development moves at the same speed as a car on the highway. You might as well complain about people still being petroleum-fuelled cars even though we believe global warming is happning or drinking Coca Cola when they know it makes them fat or even, just as an example, that Toronto is actually debating whether it makes sense to tear down the east part of the Gardiner.

I don't really know what you're ranting about here. It's as if you didn't even read the article. And I didn't make the metaphor.

 

[44 North]

I'm not sure if there's an etiquette to posting articles, or if it's considered theft to fully copy and paste an article (that's only a few hours old). But whatevs. A few days ago the issue was building subdivisions right up against active farms, now it's this:

York Region feeling pressure from developers on Greenbelt

As 40 developers seek 51 changes across the region, environmentalists warn that municipal endorsement for builders could undermine hard-won protection.

By: Noor Javed News reporter, Published on Wed May 27 2015

Landowners across York Region are asking the province to change the designation of 50 tracts on the protected Greenbelt to allow development, ahead of a provincial review of the legislation.

Environmentalists say that pressure threatens the hard-won protections meant to rein in urban sprawl and preserve the GTA’s green spaces for future generations.

York has included requests from 40 landowners as part of its submissions on the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the Greenbelt Plan and Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, which will be discussed at a special regional council meeting on Thursday.

Many of the landowners, most of them in Vaughan, King Township and Whitchurch-Stoufville, want their lands removed from the Greenbelt Plan area and redesignated as settlement areas for future development.

The region and municipalities say they are not taking a position on these requests, but seeking provincial direction to deal with them.

But environmentalists and local politicians say supporting the developers’ wishes is a slippery slope that will lead to depleting the Greenbelt.

“We read it as the regions are actually advocating for the development interest, they are showing a map where these things are, they talk about wanting a process to consider properties from removal,” said Tim Gray, executive director of Environmental Defence. “Removing these from the Greenbelt actually violates the law,” he said.

“I see this as municipalities using the review period to advocate for fundamental dismantling of the rules around the Greenbelt,” he said.

Building into the Greenbelt is also unnecessary. York Region’s 2015 draft growth scenario, which looked at three scenarios for growth until 2041, found that most of the projected population increase could be accommodated within lands already deemed “whitebelt” — land outside the urban boundary but not in the Greenbelt.

Last week, the City of Vaughan, which is fielding 15 developer requests for redesignation, also passed a motion in council asking the province for direction and to ask them to consider the merits of the requests.

“Ultimately, the city doesn’t make the final decision. It’s the province, and the process is not very clear,” said Vaughan Mayor Maurizio Bevilacqua. “So we are just asking for clarity,” he said.

But at the last moment, deputy mayor Michael Di Biase amended the motion to endorse the redesignation of one particular tract owned by the Milani Group that is within the Greenbelt and the Oak Ridges Moraine.

“The region and province be notified that Vaughan council supports and requests the re-designation from countryside to settlement for the approximately 29 hectares of land located on the property at the northeast corner of Teston Rd. and Dufferin St.,” says his handwritten motion, which was seconded by Councillor Tony Carella and passed in council.

“And that Vaughan council supports and requests that the region and province establish a defined process to permit adjustments to the Greenbelt Plan boundaries …” he writes.

Councillor Marilyn Iafrate, who voted against the motion, said an endorsement of one developer’s proposal, without any public consultation, adequate studies or analysis, sets a dangerous precedent.

“We shouldn’t be advocating for one developer over the other,” she said. “All we have done now is set precedents for everyone to come and ask us for the same consideration. We shouldn’t be doing this.”

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...ng-pressure-from-developers-on-greenbelt.html

 

[howl]

I'm not sure if there's an etiquette to posting articles, or if it's considered theft to fully copy and paste an article (that's only a few hours old). But whatevs. A few days ago the issue was building subdivisions right up against active farms, now it's this:



http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...ng-pressure-from-developers-on-greenbelt.html

This is a result of boundaries of the Greenbelt never being properly established in the field. Much like how Africa was divided up the bureaucrats at Queens Park just sat around a table drew lines on a map. That is fine for conceptual level planning, but what would normally happen in this case is teams of experts and surveyors would go out into into the field and map the actual features in much more detail; or you let people apply to you for amendments to clean up the edges using their own expert data. Since the Province has not spent the money to refine the boundary themselves they have to allow amendments based on developer/landowner supplied data.

 

[wopchop]

I would not be surprised at all if parts of the Greenbelt are removed.

 

[MisterF]

This is a result of boundaries of the Greenbelt never being properly established in the field. Much like how Africa was divided up the bureaucrats at Queens Park just sat around a table drew lines on a map. That is fine for conceptual level planning, but what would normally happen in this case is teams of experts and surveyors would go out into into the field and map the actual features in much more detail; or you let people apply to you for amendments to clean up the edges using their own expert data. Since the Province has not spent the money to refine the boundary themselves they have to allow amendments based on developer/landowner supplied data.

The Greenbelt boundary is very clearly defined. The boundaries are shown in more detail in municipal Official Plans and even more detail in zoning by-laws (down to the level of property lines, roads, ecological features, etc.). And there was a lot more to determining the boundaries than what you think. It was done by experts - both bureaucrats and consultants - and included plenty of field work. The Star article has nothing to do with vague boundaries.

 

[howl]

The Greenbelt boundary is very clearly defined. The boundaries are shown in more detail in municipal Official Plans and even more detail in zoning by-laws (down to the level of property lines, roads, ecological features, etc.). And there was a lot more to determining the boundaries than what you think. It was done by experts - both bureaucrats and consultants - and included plenty of field work. The Star article has nothing to do with vague boundaries.

The boundaries are well-defined, but they weren't well-defined by people in the field. They were well-defined by people in a board room looking at aerial photos and guessing where the appropriate location is. The result is a lot of logically developable land can't be developed because it is just within the greenbelt and a lot of logically protectable land can be developed because it is just outside the greenbelt. The process described in the Star article is the process that should relocate those illogical lines to more logical locations.

 

[44 North]

This is a result of boundaries of the Greenbelt never being properly established in the field. Much like how Africa was divided up the bureaucrats at Queens Park just sat around a table drew lines on a map. That is fine for conceptual level planning, but what would normally happen in this case is teams of experts and surveyors would go out into into the field and map the actual features in much more detail; or you let people apply to you for amendments to clean up the edges using their own expert data. Since the Province has not spent the money to refine the boundary themselves they have to allow amendments based on developer/landowner supplied data.

Haha, people with expert data, cleaning up the edges. Many have predicted this "cleaning" for quite some time. And my guess is that we'll be seeing a lot more of it over the coming years.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Haha, people with expert data, cleaning up the edges. Many have predicted this "cleaning" for quite some time. And my guess is that we'll be seeing a lot more of it over the coming years.

The problem with the "cleaning" is that it's individual developers going to councils and asking for the changes which, based on what I've read, is rather more specific than the kind of info the government is looking for in this review. Luckily they have some pals, like Michael DiBiase, to make sure no good land goes undeveloped.

You've rightly pointed out, on occasion, YR is trying to have it both ways by intensifying and sprawling at the same time. I have said, and do say, it's not a simple binary and you can only ask them to do so much without the appropriate infrastructure.

That said, the motions at the Vaughan and the region described in the Star article are....let's just say, "disconcerting" to say the least.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are slivers here and there that get exchanged as things are "tidied" but it seems clear the province wants to grow, not shrink, the Greenbelt so you'll probably see swaps. I don't doubt that if I had land juuuust on the other side of the line I'd be eagerly pleading for change too but the way developers are clammering makes me rather wary of the notion they might have anyone's interests but their own at heart.

 

[innsertnamehere]

This is a result of boundaries of the Greenbelt never being properly established in the field. Much like how Africa was divided up the bureaucrats at Queens Park just sat around a table drew lines on a map. That is fine for conceptual level planning, but what would normally happen in this case is teams of experts and surveyors would go out into into the field and map the actual features in much more detail; or you let people apply to you for amendments to clean up the edges using their own expert data. Since the Province has not spent the money to refine the boundary themselves they have to allow amendments based on developer/landowner supplied data.

exactly right. A lot of the applications are to remove large stretches of land from the greenbelt flat out as well however. Some of them are boundary changes, some of them are straight removal of entire farms from the greenbelt which clearly wasn't the intention.

 

[howl]

The policy I've heard bandied about is "no net loss". If you want land taken out of the Greenbelt you have to find a similar sized piece of land to put into it.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

The policy I've heard bandied about is "no net loss". If you want land taken out of the Greenbelt you have to find a similar sized piece of land to put into it.

I think that's a given; whatever the province does, they won't be able to spin a net loss, after the first review, as a positive.

It's a fair argument that borders need to be tweaked etc. but - call me cynical - I don't think most of these developers have "legitimate" arguments they're on the wrong side of the line. They're all just on the line and see an opportunity to get back in a position to make money. I get that, at a base level, but it's a dangerous business going back to parcel-by-parcel evaluations and I don't like how they're making all these deputations (e.g. at York Region and Vaughan council) when they know full well it's the province, not the municipality, that will make that call.

Whatever legit concerns some of them might have, don't forget it boils down almost entirely to money.

 

[howl]

I think that's a given; whatever the province does, they won't be able to spin a net loss, after the first review, as a positive.

It's a fair argument that borders need to be tweaked etc. but - call me cynical - I don't think most of these developers have "legitimate" arguments they're on the wrong side of the line. They're all just on the line and see an opportunity to get back in a position to make money. I get that, at a base level, but it's a dangerous business going back to parcel-by-parcel evaluations and I don't like how they're making all these deputations (e.g. at York Region and Vaughan council) when they know full well it's the province, not the municipality, that will make that call.

Whatever legit concerns some of them might have, don't forget it boils down almost entirely to money.

It boils down to money because we live in a capitalist society. The government doesn't build space for the 100,000 people arriving in Ontario every year, the development industry does. If they don't build houses here they will just build them someplace else, perhaps on land that would make more sense to be within the Greenbelt.

Don't get me wrong. I like the idea of the Greenbelt. I think it plays an important role, but it's boundaries need to be logically defined and the government isn't looking at the situation logically - probably because the relevant ministries are either understaffed or staffed by career bureaucrats rather than properly trained experts. It easier for them to say 'no' than to open the can-of-worms that is Greenbelt reform. That might cut into their martini time.

 

[MisterF]

Howl, what exactly do you think that "career bureaucrats" are? They are properly trained experts. Just because someone works for the government that doesn't mean they aren't experts.

The boundaries are well-defined, but they weren't well-defined by people in the field. They were well-defined by people in a board room looking at aerial photos and guessing where the appropriate location is. The result is a lot of logically developable land can't be developed because it is just within the greenbelt and a lot of logically protectable land can be developed because it is just outside the greenbelt. The process described in the Star article is the process that should relocate those illogical lines to more logical locations.

Oh I see, I was just responding to the assertion that the boundaries were never defined in the field. That said, there was and continues to be field work and the people who made the plan are experts in fields like land use and ecology. That said, much of the Greenbelt didn't really need field work. Although the natural heritage system plays a role in the greenbelt, much of those lands are already protected. It was more about growth management and protecting rural land.

I wonder if there's merit in merging the Greenbelt, Oak Ridges Moraine, Places to Grow, and Niagara Escarpment into one plan. It sure would make things more efficient.