Developers are consulted lavishly. Citizens get less than a week to respond, with city services and prime farmland hanging in the balance. What if cities started listening to the public?
Thanks for your important comments, Carolyn. There are definitely multiple levels to this, which is also why it deserves deeper exploration and broader understanding. While I'm far from understanding all the complexity (case in point), I do want to point out a couple of things that might help dive a bit deeper.
London's Official Plan outlines the city's vision for communities, including building up, not out, and preserving farmland - and there are clear guidelines around density (single family homes vs. mid-density or high-density, for example). The London Plan is available online, if you're interested! : https://london.ca/government/council-civic-administration/master-plans-strategies/london-plan-official-plan. When City Council reviews applications for individual developments, they do apply that vision - and before applications are approved, there is a lot of work done by city staff and developers to align to those expectations. There is also an opportunity for neighbouring residents to share their thoughts on specific developments in their communities.
The difference in undertaking a review of the urban growth boundary is that it opens up new swaths of land for development generally, without any specific applications being considered. It means there is more space outside the current "built-up" boundary that will be open for housing, commercial, and industrial developments.
The consultation that has led to the recommendation to expand the urban growth boundary is where public information and input has fallen short. There has been extensive consultation with developers about what they need to get more homes built more quickly, and there has been lots of direction from the province about how to calculate how much land is needed to "accommodate" expected population growth. Recommendations are built on set formula around how much room people need to live, work, and shop. Notably, food sources are not factored into the calculations.
Then, as developers purchase blocks of land in the new space, which is less expensive than land closer to the core, they can submit applications for specific projects, which will be assessed by the city against the expectations set out in the London Plan (as above). Expanding the urban growth boundary means basically that there will be more development in spaces that are currently not open for development. Council will still be able to apply the principles of the London Plan, and developers are clear on what's expected.
Where residents are missing in this process is (a) understanding how it works, and (b) being able to contribute to decisions around where and how they will live in communities. The calculations used to determine "how much land we need" are based pretty much on status quo assumptions and how we have been building neighbourhoods for the past few decades. A decision impacting generations over the next 25-30 years should leave room for different thinking.
Such a long response - I hope something in there is helpful. Thanks for your interest!
So interesting, Carolyn, thanks. I’m in Ottawa, too, and I’ve been seeing and hearing much the same. Including concerns that it’s a lot harder to get approvals for projects that meet the kind of criteria you’re talking about than for the tract housing and urban sprawl that Lella writes about in this post, and that seems to be all the rage in London.
I’m here, not there, but would still guess that the kind of common sense expectations you list here would come to the surface pretty quickly if communities like London just stopped to listen for them. Then developers, as you say, would have the clarity of a clear set of rules, rather than having to guess.
What I can’t answer from a distance is whether a focus on gentle density and urban sustainability is on the agenda for the particular developers who were indeed consulted lavishly before four community members in London had to share 20 minutes of fame in response, on less than a week’s notice.
In Ottawa we have some very educated citizens who take the time to present to Council committees. What the general public might not understand, me included, is the hoops the developers must jump through to get their projects passed. I do not know what you mean by “developers are consulted lavishly”. What I want clearly clarified before a developer even presents a plan is the expectation that all developments must include a certain % of “affordable” units, with a definition of affordable spelled out as not more than 30% of a family's income in rent, and who would be managers of the rental units. The social services committee knows what kind of housing is needed, and where upper levels of government are funding to assure that kind of housing (rentals? for singles? for families? for multigeneration families? for rent only, in perpetuity? for sale? beginner housing? To always include in-unit storage and laundry? To be easily accessible to transit and groceries and other essential services?) Laying out such rules clearly before any developers makes a plan would perhaps stop the long period of adjustments/tweeks in plans presented to the city for permission to build. Clear expectations based on the Official plans would stop too many luxury towers full of amenities when what is needed is low-rise apartments close to schools and parks. Is that possible to set out guidelines like this?
Thanks for your important comments, Carolyn. There are definitely multiple levels to this, which is also why it deserves deeper exploration and broader understanding. While I'm far from understanding all the complexity (case in point), I do want to point out a couple of things that might help dive a bit deeper.
London's Official Plan outlines the city's vision for communities, including building up, not out, and preserving farmland - and there are clear guidelines around density (single family homes vs. mid-density or high-density, for example). The London Plan is available online, if you're interested! : https://london.ca/government/council-civic-administration/master-plans-strategies/london-plan-official-plan. When City Council reviews applications for individual developments, they do apply that vision - and before applications are approved, there is a lot of work done by city staff and developers to align to those expectations. There is also an opportunity for neighbouring residents to share their thoughts on specific developments in their communities.
The difference in undertaking a review of the urban growth boundary is that it opens up new swaths of land for development generally, without any specific applications being considered. It means there is more space outside the current "built-up" boundary that will be open for housing, commercial, and industrial developments.
The consultation that has led to the recommendation to expand the urban growth boundary is where public information and input has fallen short. There has been extensive consultation with developers about what they need to get more homes built more quickly, and there has been lots of direction from the province about how to calculate how much land is needed to "accommodate" expected population growth. Recommendations are built on set formula around how much room people need to live, work, and shop. Notably, food sources are not factored into the calculations.
Then, as developers purchase blocks of land in the new space, which is less expensive than land closer to the core, they can submit applications for specific projects, which will be assessed by the city against the expectations set out in the London Plan (as above). Expanding the urban growth boundary means basically that there will be more development in spaces that are currently not open for development. Council will still be able to apply the principles of the London Plan, and developers are clear on what's expected.
Where residents are missing in this process is (a) understanding how it works, and (b) being able to contribute to decisions around where and how they will live in communities. The calculations used to determine "how much land we need" are based pretty much on status quo assumptions and how we have been building neighbourhoods for the past few decades. A decision impacting generations over the next 25-30 years should leave room for different thinking.
Such a long response - I hope something in there is helpful. Thanks for your interest!
So interesting, Carolyn, thanks. I’m in Ottawa, too, and I’ve been seeing and hearing much the same. Including concerns that it’s a lot harder to get approvals for projects that meet the kind of criteria you’re talking about than for the tract housing and urban sprawl that Lella writes about in this post, and that seems to be all the rage in London.
I’m here, not there, but would still guess that the kind of common sense expectations you list here would come to the surface pretty quickly if communities like London just stopped to listen for them. Then developers, as you say, would have the clarity of a clear set of rules, rather than having to guess.
What I can’t answer from a distance is whether a focus on gentle density and urban sustainability is on the agenda for the particular developers who were indeed consulted lavishly before four community members in London had to share 20 minutes of fame in response, on less than a week’s notice.
In Ottawa we have some very educated citizens who take the time to present to Council committees. What the general public might not understand, me included, is the hoops the developers must jump through to get their projects passed. I do not know what you mean by “developers are consulted lavishly”. What I want clearly clarified before a developer even presents a plan is the expectation that all developments must include a certain % of “affordable” units, with a definition of affordable spelled out as not more than 30% of a family's income in rent, and who would be managers of the rental units. The social services committee knows what kind of housing is needed, and where upper levels of government are funding to assure that kind of housing (rentals? for singles? for families? for multigeneration families? for rent only, in perpetuity? for sale? beginner housing? To always include in-unit storage and laundry? To be easily accessible to transit and groceries and other essential services?) Laying out such rules clearly before any developers makes a plan would perhaps stop the long period of adjustments/tweeks in plans presented to the city for permission to build. Clear expectations based on the Official plans would stop too many luxury towers full of amenities when what is needed is low-rise apartments close to schools and parks. Is that possible to set out guidelines like this?