Greenbelt

[Disparishun]

There's any sort of life outside the GTA? I'm hard-pressed to find anything in even Vaughan, not to mention as far away as Cobourg or Welland. But then, Vaughan's a special place.

Oh, we're special, but we're still alive. Promise.

 

[SunriseChampion]

Ghost!

Just joshin'.....I just always found the built-up part of Vaughan to be a really bad example of suburban wasteland and grew to resent the place...nothing against the residents

 

[Second_in_pie]

Another thread by me me, rebelliously unsupported by any newspaper article to stir discussion.
This time, I'm curious as to what people see as the future for growth in the GTA and, more broadly, the GGH and perhaps even Southern Ontario as a whole. So this thread is about urban growth. I myself, despite living in Markham for a large portion of my life, now see the boundaries of the GGH pretty well directly set out at the current urban boundaries, give or take some areas. I just can't contemplate any more suburban sprawl development going on. In fact, it took me a trip to California and look at a sea of brand new subdivisions being built to smack me out of the reality that humans have realized we're killing the planet and should change.

So how is growth in the region actually going to come out? The GGH is apparently supposed to go over 10 million by 2030, and I'm guessing that's on the low estimate, as well as notwithstanding any government focus on immigration, which I think very well could come within two decades. I know it's probably quite naive to believe that Toronto is going to be a worldwide beacon for sustainable city building, but I think that it's got a lot of things going for it that could change. The Greenbelt and Places to Grow is a good start, and those are being followed up with quite a unique high density growth throughout the region. I think we can all agree that denser cities are more powerful and more efficient, but is it possible to put our suburban expansion on permanent hold? And more importantly, will it happen?

So feel free to debate things related to urban growth. Whether it be throwing shoes at Vaughan and Durham for creating havens for American suburbanism or shooting stilettos at the government for not tightening the greenbelt and creating a better regional growth plan, your footwear-tossing opinions are welcomed in this thread with open arms. Any discussion about growth opportunities in the form of controlling sprawl with high density or otherwise sustainable development opportunities, is welcome as well.

 

[kettal]

There's still too much unprotected greenfields in Durham and Brampton. I can just hope they are built to a better standard than the rest of our sprawl... but developers still want to get in and run away with cash in hand, without any concerns to what they are doing, so what hope do we have?

In my dreams, new growth will happen on the industrial lands which currently surround the railway tracks.

 

[matix]

nice thread..

the comment on growth on the rails lines is interesting. I've always thought the GO station parking lots and surrounding areas would make great spots for TODs.. some areas, like Port Credit station.. this is happening.

but look at the whitby GO station.. or oakville, bronte, abbleby.
HUGE parking lots.. just cover them up with parking garages and higher density communities.. what a great opportunity these lands hold.

but places to grow and the new provincial policy statement.. with the well intention of preventing coversion of employment land to big box.. screwed this up. sure employment lands will be protected.. great for a tax base.. but what.. they'll be used for a distribution centre.. some 500,000sf building with 8 employees making the going rate of a fork lift driver.. big whip.

so much of the GO stations are in employment areas and can not be converted to residential. and it's not like you could submit an OPA application and justify it by creating transit friendly stuff... you can't amend the provincial plans.. it's a simple no.

hopefully the planned 5 year review might get this right.

 

[doady]

GO prefers industrial areas and empty fields because that way the parking is cheaper. Hence the Barrie South station. They even built a park-and-ride lot at Square One...

What you see at Port Credit is not TOD, at least not TOD oriented around GO. Any TOD there would much more likely be oriented around MT, rather than GO. As I said before, GO promotes sprawl, not intensification.

 

[matix]

hmm i know port credit isn't necessairly a 'true' TOD..
but i always guessed most live there for the go.. but you're probably right.

in terms of affordable land.. they really just went were the tracks are. we all know there haven't been commuter rail lines are being planned.. just borrowing time from CN.

Not totally familiar with south barrie statioin.. but they aren't afraid to spend building parking garages. look at the new one in whitby.

as for supporting sprawl.. not so sure i agree.. it would have happened anyways. countless cities with no regional commuter trains have it.

but regardless... if we're gonna get this right.. the parking lots and low density and low jobs per hectare surrounding surrounding many of our GO stations have so much potential imo
think of the revenue generation by building garages and selling off the surplus land to residential developers.


oh but wait.. converting employment land for high rise residential at mass transit stations is not permitted by the PPS or PtoG
*scratches head*

 

[kettal]

oh but wait.. converting employment land for high rise residential at mass transit stations is not permitted by the PPS or PtoG
*scratches head*

1.3.2 Planning authorities may permit conversion of lands within employment areas to non-employment uses through a comprehensive review, only where it has been demonstrated that the land is not required for employment purposes over the long term and that there is a need for the conversion.

 

[matix]

1.3.2 Planning authorities may permit conversion of lands within employment areas to non-employment uses through a comprehensive review, only where it has been demonstrated that the land is not required for employment purposes over the long term and that there is a need for the conversion.

yeah.. good luck with that.. municipally initiated.. or forget it.. go talk to any director of planning and tell him you want to convert emp lands to high density res.. and let me know what response you get.

section 6 - definitions
Comprehensive review: means
a) for the purposes of policies 1.1.3.9 and 1.3.2, an official plan review which is initiated by a planning authority, or an official plan amendment which is initiated or adopted by a planning authority, which:

1.is based on a review of population and growth projections and which reflect projections and allocations by upper-tier municipalities and provincial plans, where applicable; considers alternative directions for growth; and determines how best to accommodate this growth while protecting provincial interests;
2.utilizes opportunities to accommodate projected growth through intensification and redevelopment;
3.confirms that the lands to be developed do not comprise specialty crop areas in accordance with policy 2.3.2;
4.is integrated with planning for infrastructure and public service facilities; and
5.considers cross-jurisdictional issues.

b) for the purposes of policy 1.1.5, means a review undertaken by a planning authority or comparable body which:
1.addresses long-term population projections, infrastructure requirements and related matters;
2.confirms that the lands to be developed do not comprise specialty crop areas in accordance with policy 2.3.2; and
3.considers cross-jurisdictional issues.

 

[matix]

on a related rant.. i can't even get a facility approved that sells compost to farmers which is located in the green belt.

compost facility needs new building with forced air and a roof to reduce odours.
needs a cert. of approval from MOE.. MOE circulates cert of approval request to municipality.. city says new building needs a zoning amendment. municipality doesn't think use conforms to green belt plan..

*scratches head - again.

 

[Northern Light]

I commented on this issue broadly on the Simcoe Growth thread....

I liked what I said; so I'm copying and pasting it!

****

The 'Places to Grow Act' and the Greenbelt were both relatively weak 1/2 gestures.

Oregon in the USA has has an intensification target for Portland of 60% - 70% for Portland for more than 25 years! One put in place by a Republican Governor no less.

Here we have a mere 40%, which effectively says 60% of all new development can sprawl without restriction; and we can't even seen to enforce that.

This clearly merits a law banning all contributions from businesses (and unions) and limiting individual campaign contributions to $1,000 or less.

After all one can only conclude that influence is being peddled here by those in the development community as this defies rational policy on any side of the political spectrum.

As belated measures, we need to increase the intensity targets to at least 70% and to raise the min. jobs + people per hectare by a good 50% as well.

From there it is time to extend the greenbelt to fully block off sprawl on all sides of Barrie, Guelph and K-W so at to cut leap-frogging to a minimum.

We can easily accommodate another 3,000,000 people in the GTA without the loss of one hectare of farmland. After that we can discuss whether to house or feed the future new population!

 

[Northern Light]

In addition to what I said above:

I would like to see some definitive natural boundaries, by creating 3-4 new Provincial Parks within the Greenbelt and following the ring of hiking trails (Bruce Trail, Oak Ridges Trail and Ganaraska Trail ) as large clearly symbolic walls against growth.

Imagine taking the Conservation Areas of Rattlesnake Point, Crawford Lake, and Kelso along with lands already in public hands north of the 401, could with minimal new acquisitions form 1,200 hectare, 3,000 acre Provincial Park.

That would provide a very visible western boundary that says K-W will not meet Toronto with urban development.

To more fully complete this, I'd like to see a proper wildlife cross of the 401, reconnecting the Niagara Escarpment with a wildlife bridge over the highway (this has been done elsewhere, typically 50M-300M wide, with natural cover of top soil, rock and shrubs and trees.

Another new park could be put in place on the Oak Ridges Moraine locking up all the lands from the East Humber River (Kortright and Boyd Conservation areas) to Highway 404 in the east.

Finally a park that would signal firm end to eastern GTA growth and create a Corridor from the Lake to a point at least 4km north of 401 along the Ganaraska River and Trail corridor.

Each Park should offer camping as this would help create a greater constituency for preserving the land.

And the trail systems should be completed so the you could hike from any park of the GGH to any other part via a natural trail system.

 

[Northern Light]

To finish my stream of consciousness:

Some links

Hiking the GTA/Greenbelt

Bruce Trail Conservancy

http://brucetrail.org/

Oak Ridges Trail Association

http://www.oakridgestrail.org/

Ganaraska Trail Association

http://www.ganaraska-hiking-trail.ca/

Greenbelt Advocacy

http://greenbeltalliance.ca/

Politicians responsible for the Greenbelt (too many to name'em all!)


Minister of Municipal Affairs (greenbelt land use policy, urban growth policy)

Jim Watson

http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page350.aspx

Minister of Natural Resources (Ontario Parks, including new park creation)

Donna Cansfield

http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/ContactUs/index.html

Ontario Realty Corp. (the land manager of the Ontario Gov't owns large chucks of Green and White belt lands)

http://www.ontariorealty.ca/Contact-Us.htm

 

[Second_in_pie]

^^ I like those thoughts. In fact, I'd say that 70% should be cut; the urban mass of Toronto (uninterrupted urbanness) shouldn't grow at all. There should be some allowance for places like Uxbridge, Stouffville, King, Bowmanville, Peterborough, Milton, Georgetown, Bolton, Kitchener-Waterloo, Cambridge, Brantford and the Niagara cities to have a couple new suburban developments. Pickering, Whitby and Oshawa could probably also get some allowances for a bit of sprawl.
But everything should be focused on intensification. Toronto and most of the GTA seems to be pretty good about this, with STC, MTC, MCC, VCC, RHC and NYCC all creating a kind of downtown node. I think that there should be some more focus on corridors, such as Highway 7 and Hurontario though, where there's plenty of room for infill development and redevelopment. Take something like the 407-404 office park. That whole area, from Beaver Creek to Woodbine, should be doubled in density. Make the Beaver Creek area more residential-focused, and do some massive infill development through the businesses. They can keep the same building height, but new buildings should be built on the massive parking lots and strips of rather useless parkland to allow for more jobs in that area, which would hook up with Viva, and either a Go bus up the 404 or LRT up Leslie. This would basically create a high-density avenue all the way from Jane to Kennedy, and this idea of what could easily happen is why I keep going on about a Highway 7 subway.

Those smaller areas like Uxbridge, Stouffville, Bowmanville, King City, Milton, etc. should be focusing on creating small downtown centres that wouldn't have quite the employment areas that places like MTC or VCC would have, but just pedestrian-friendly areas to do local business. Give developers an intersection to build modest 4-storey mixed use buildings, with cheap space for restaurants and stores on the first floor, and good-sized family condos on the 2nd-4th floors. There should also be a huge focus on active transportation in these smaller areas; fully separated bike lanes and good winter maintenance, so people can take 5 minutes to bike downtown, and get whatever they need. Since there's a Go station in basically every one of these smaller towns/villages, they might suddenly be able to go anywhere in the GTA without a car. Just bike to the Go station, and either park your bike there or take it on the train with you.
By encouraging local and pedestrian-friendly downtowns in the towns, you can quite easily allow them to grow while taking out a relatively large demographic of cars from the picture. It may be a small thing, but the small things still need to be focused on. And not to mention, it's low cost and low maintenance. Just make a plan for what you want the towns to do, and give subsidies to developers to build it that way.

More thoughts later...

 

[Marcanadian]

I hate to dig up this old thread, but I figured with Hudak likely winning in the Fall (and with a potential majority), the future of the Greenbelt should be given some attention. I e-mailed Hudak personally and asked him for a firm stance on the Greenbelt. He didn't directly get back to me, but one of his representatives did:

On behalf of Ontario PC Leader Tim Hudak, I would like to thank you for your email regarding the Greenbelt. Tim appreciates you taking the time to share your views on this issue.

As you know, Dalton McGuinty's Greenbelt Act was imposed on many Ontario farmers and landowners who have no right of appeal and have received no compensation for the loss of their land value. We need to start to balance environment protection with the rights of farmers and property owners.

Environmentalists are concerned that the legislation does not contain growth, but merely causes "leapfrogging" over the Greenbelt area. Farmers are concerned about the legislation because it has had a tremendous impact on the value of their property and they had no right to appeal and received no compensation. Municipalities targeted for growth outside the Greenbelt are concerned because there is no additional funding for services provided to help them maintain the growth.

A Tim Hudak government will listen to Ontario families, farmers, businesses and local governments to balance their concerns about the economic impact of the Greenbelt Act with the need to protect a natural environment that is sustainable for future generations. We will change the current approach and on the occasion the government imposes a limitation on what you can do with your property, we will offer fair and reasonable incentives or compensation.

I encourage you to visit www.changebook.ca to read more on how Tim plans to bring real change and relief for Ontario families.

Thanks again for your email.

The sentence I bolded is particularly worrisome. It sounds like he has plans to repeal the Act altogether, and only freeze certain lands rather than what we have now. Any thoughts/insight on this?