"This is a city where people make things happen."

Urban Sprawl

Read some of Don's previous blog posts on this topic:


Costs of Business-as-Usual Growth posted May 9th, 2012 in 2010-2013 Term, Smarter Planning, Taxation, Urban Sprawl

The City’s Sustainable Development Department released a working draft of the Growth Coordination Strategy today.

I have not had time to digest the whole thing but the most interesting parts relate to the estimated costs of infrastructure that the City would be expected to provide in new Areas being proposed for growth (specifically in the Green areas on the map to the right).

The thing that caught my attention (and the Edmonton Journal’s) was the $1.2 Billion (with a B) projected bill (in today’s dollars) for City infrastructure that would accompany the growth in these areas. [CLARIFICATION, May 10: $1.2 Billion appears twice in the report, once is the cost for these new areas, the other and additional $1.2 Billion is the unfunded obligations for approvals for 44 neighbourhoods that are under development today in Areas previously approved, e.g Windermere Area Structure Plan in 2004, Heritage Valley in 2001, Ellerslie in 1999, Lewis Farms 1988 and so on.]

An important bit of context: a lot of people think that the City pays for the roads, sewers, water lines, etc when a new area is developed; not so. Developers front end many of those costs and pass them through to the homebuyer. That’s a big part of the cost of any lot – the value of ‘servicing’ it with utilities, local roads, sidewalks, etc. Developers/homebuyers also pay for part of the main roads (we call them ‘arterial’ roads) adjacent to a neighbourhood. Lanes 1&2 are charged to the developer on one side, lanes 3&4 are charged to the other. Lanes 5&6, if needed, fall to the City to fund. Everything thing else downstream (road widening, interchanges, etc) fall to the City.

Developers also provide land for parks, but the City has to fund their development. The City also has to buy land for recreation centres, fire & police stations, libraries and then build them. These are the type of costs that add up to the $1.2 Billion.

The City does get infrastructure grants from the province and sometimes from Ottawa that can cover some of this growth cost, but those grants are also needed to cover the cost of renewing or replacing existing infrastructure (and we are not yet adequately funding renewal in my view).

The analysis is confined to the up-front infrastructure, which is a start, but we also need to get to a full model including the operating costs and lifecycle (repair/replacement) costs of this model of growth. That’s coming, according to the report (p. 33):

Although not included in the analysis at this time, operating and maintenance costs in suburban areas represents a significant operational expenditure to the City. Also a large component of capital spending, rehabilitation and replacement of infrastructure is not included in the analysis presented either. Administration is working towards the inclusion of these expenses into future versions of the Growth Coordination Strategy, but at this time the methodology for the gathering and synthesis of the data required for this is not developed sufficiently.

I’m concerned we may not have this full picture before the next Area Structure Plans (for the North East and South West green patches) come up for debate this fall.

[UPDATED: Forgot to mention, we did get some idea of this in a high-level report last year called "Costs and Revenues for New Areas" which showed that predominantly residential low-density areas do not pay for themselves over a 30-year timeline.]

We need this full costing before Council can responsibly approve planning for these new areas of growth. I think it will help raise the pertinent policy questions, which include, but are not limited to:

  • Should city-wide taxes increase to build this infrastructure because we all benefit from it directly or indirectly, or do we figure out how to match benefits to charges so growth pays for growth, or do we put off building a lot of the needed infrastructure as Edmonton has sometimes done?
  • Should we continue to subsidize low-density residential neighbourhoods (as we do today, both existing and new) with higher taxes on commercial and industrial property and grants?
  • Can we design moderately denser neighbourhoods that make more efficient use of infrastructure and generate more revenue per acre and can financially sustain themselves?
  • And, regionally, what competitive advantages or subsidies are allowing our neighbours to accommodate growth at lower costs and does some price-signal equity need to be introduced with regional cost sharing for regional projects?

Surplus School Sites To Be Developed in Ward 10 [Updated] posted March 27th, 2012 in 2010-2013 Term, Affordable Housing, Community Consultation, Smarter Planning, Urban Sprawl

[Update, April 20, 2012: City Administration sent an email (quoted below) to the Blue Quill Community League yesterday indicating that the Skyrattler site is being put on hold for further review. I continue to press for more community involvement in decisions affecting all these sites, and will demand meaningful community input into the options for developing this site:

"The Skyrattler site included within the City of Edmonton First Place Home Ownership Program is being reviewed.  The review will examine location needs, market potential and potential infrastructure requirements and connections.
 
"While the site was proposed for development in Phase 1, development  will not proceed this year until the review is complete   Once the review has been completed, the City will connect with the Blue Quill community league to discuss next steps.  Development may take place at a later date.
 
"The City will continue its Phase 1 development with the remaining three sites and also continue work on review and preparation of remaining First Place sites. For future program updates watch www.edmonton.ca/firstplace."]

The 'cloud' shows the approximate location of the original Skyrattler school site which will host the First Place townhomes.

 

In 2006 Edmonton Public and Edmonton Catholic declared surplus 20 pieces of land set aside for schools. In many cases residents are unaware that these parcels were not meant to be park in perpetuity and in fact were always intended for development.

That same year City Council decided to zone these 20 sites to allow for townhouses as part of the First Time Homebuyers program, which is now called First Place. Two of the sites were advanced as pilot projects. A comprehensive review was concluded in 2011 and it was decided that the remaining 18 sites would move ahead over the next decade in phases (here is the schedule).

Last year when the pilot review and path ahead were being discussed I proposed a motion to review all 18 sites to see whether a different type of development might be more appropriate. It did not pass. (Minutes of the meeting are here).

The next phase of four developments includes one on Saddleback Road in Skyrattler. It will occupy 1.2 hectares out of the four hectare park, which is the same area the school development would have occupied. It will be developed with approximately 50 townhouses, which is permitted by the zoning Council applied in 2006.

I have heard loud and clear (and share) resident concerns about the process Council used to rezone these sites in 2006 and I do not think there was adequate public consultation about the change from school use to residential use.

However, I do support developing these school sites, and while I think other forms of development (e.g. seniors housing) might be more needed, I believe that the town housing will be built to a high standard.

The original 1978 Skyrattler park development plan (click to enlarge).

Residents of the Ward should be aware that in addition the Skyrattler site, that there are future First Place sites in Blue Quill (25 Ave & 112 St) and Bearspaw (16 Ave & 105 St).

More information can be found at www.edmonton.ca/firstplace.

In 2009 the school boards released another 20 sites. The City is exploring options for development on these sites as well. For Ward 10 these are in Blue Quill (Saddleback and 112 St), Erminskin (25 Ave & 106 St) and Keheewin (105 St and 20 Ave).

I have made it clear that I expect a more open process for decision making about this next round of surplus school sites.

Edmonton Transportation Plan in Lego posted December 24th, 2010 in 2010-2013 Term, Smarter Planning, Transit, Urban Sprawl

[I wrote the piece below for the Edmonton Examiner last month but am just now finally getting around to posting it here. It follows up from a previous post on Lego urban design from last year and a video on transportation choice illustrated with Lego that we did during the last campaign. The City's blog post on all this can be found here. And yes, those are my Mr. Data-like hands assembling the attractive brownstone in the city's promotional video above. The whole display is up for another week and a half so go check it out if you have a chance.]

What influence do our development plans have on our transportation patterns, and what influence do our transportation plans have on our development pattern? These are some of the questions Edmontonians of all ages are asked by a City Display which depicts Council’s vision for development and transportation using Lego.

The large display is set up at the Telus World of Science as part of “Wheels, Wings and Waves: a Lego World of Transportation” exhibit running until January 2.

Engineers and planners from the city have been hard at work (on volunteer time) designing and assembling this sixteen foot by five foot display containing more than 20,000 pieces. It was an incredible feat, as I can attest having helped them build for just a couple of hours.

The layout depicts three distinct areas in the city: downtown, a mature neighbourhood undergoing redevelopment, and a new suburban area. Each of them is linked together by roads, LRT, bike paths and good sidewalks. There is special emphasis on space to move goods, especially by truck, to reflect the needs of commerce.

Of particular note were the intricate rendering of City Hall and Churchill Square, and the lovely medium-density brownstone townhouses and duplexes in the mature neighbourhood, where people can afford to invest in more expensive land and housing because they save money by relying more on transit and walking instead of that second or third car.

To illustrate the point that this is an interactive and ongoing process, ‘lots’ were left vacant within the layout for the public to ‘develop’ through a building contest that was held [in November].

This family-oriented brownstone on the corner in the mature neighbourhood was my contribution.

I had the privilege of judging the winners with Councillors Karen Leibovici and Ben Henderson. We struggled to select from among dozens of very creative entries, but we particularly liked the very colourful multicultural centre and museum for downtown. We also chose the multi-purpose mixed-use library, day care, bike parkade and seasonal lemonade/hot-chocolate stand for the mature neighbourhood. In the suburban area we liked the high-efficiency solar-powered home with the garden and apple tree for food production.

It was encouraging to see that most of the entries reflected Council’s vision for our city’s future.

This is what it looked like all put together.

Schools: Why This Should Be The Education Election posted October 1st, 2010 in 2010 Campaign, Education & Innovation, Smarter Planning, Urban Sprawl

I was very pleased to see Mayor Mandel announce his platform plank calling for a coordinated strategy to keep communities vibrant and viable and, in turn, keep schools open. In my mind schools are the heart of community.

I’ve been trying to do my part on the municipal side of things, working to make infill development and density work for families in these same neighbourhoods:

In knocking on doors throughout Ward 10 these past months I’ve heard real apprehension from the residents of communities just now going through the sector review process. They have last spring’s school closures fresh in mind, and genuine worry with the new suburban schools opening up for students who had been busing in and propping up the enrolment numbers in older neighbourhood schools.

I’ve been monitoring the Edmonton Public School Board sector review process closely and attended their drop-in event last week at McNally school to review the material and provide my own feedback as a parent with a child a few years away from public school.

The framing of the background material and the worksheet and questions makes clear that the Board’s goal is building great schools to serve students, which makes sense on the surface. The exercise has a zero-sum premise, where there are no additional resources available: funding is set by the province ever since school boards lost control over the education property tax. The most common feedback I heard from other parents at the meeting, and on the doorstep, is that more funding is needed so that boards are not as cash strapped – a rejection of the zero-sum premise.

But it struck me after reviewing the material that I’m ok with more good schools rather than fewer great schools. The reason is simple: good schools as the heart of the neighbourhood add so much to the neighbourhood beyond the education of neighbourhood students. The opportunity for community use of school space is very important, and we have work to do to ensure that more of that space is available, not less, whether it’s for sports, day-care or adult education.

Encouragingly, this lines up with a key principle in the recommendations from Minister Hancock’s Inspiring Education project: “Community resources should be fully engaged to support learners, including expertise, facilities, services and learning opportunities. Community resources—whether local, provincial, national or global—should actively participate in the education of learners.” (see page 31 of the Steering Committee Report.

There was a positive meeting between the Board, Council and the Minister of Education this past spring. Unfourtunately I couldn’t attend but it was preliminary. The main thing that came out of the meeting was a commitment to meet again after the election to discuss solutions to keeping more schools viable. One of the possible next steps is a joint task force to delve further. I would be among the first to volunteer.

We need these schools to make living centrally more attractive to families, and we need more families to make these schools viable. So we’re going to need some creativity and collaboration to find a solution. If this whole election for council and the trustees could be about one thing, schools should be it.

Some interesting resources that have stimulated my thinking on this issue:

If you didn’t get a chance to attend the last consultation, there is another for the South Central Sector:

Tuesday, October 5, 2010, 4:00 – 9:00pm

Vimy Ridge Academy, Gym, 8205 – 90 Avenue

Medium density supreme posted March 26th, 2010 in 2007-2010 Term, Environment, Urban Sprawl

I visited the Mill Creek Flexhomes yesterday, which I heard about because it won an Edmonton Urban Design Award. Turns out I used to serve on a condo board with the designers (Arnold Renschler & Chris Buyze) and it was nice to reconnect with them and see what they’ve been up to.


Three units, south facing, in lovely Bonnie Doon, Edmonton.

This project has some really neat elements: the adjoining and parallel exterior walls are straw bale construction, which is good for about R-50, and has a fire rating of more than double the building code requirement. The front and real walls are timber construction because of the windows, but still well insulated. The owner of the end unit reported a $21 gas bill in January. Also, the wood material is FSC certified and much of it is sourced locally. Even the paint is low-VOC (volatile organic compounds – aka the stinky stuff). Many of the materials, like the paint, the recycled paper countertop materials and bamboo flooring, are available through Carbon Boutique here in Edmonton.

Arnold and Chris on the main floor. It's a very warm space.

Needless to say I was excited by this project. As important as the nearby Strathearn Heights project and others like it are to transforming our city, smaller projects may in fact play a much more transformative role over time. The reason is these kinds of projects can fit reasonably into almost any neighbourhood, and may in fact be prove more appealing, affordable and suited to many families. Given recent concern about school closures in mature areas, encouraging this type of development is part of the transition to moderately higher densities that can better support all manner of amenities including schools. Take a walk through Kitsilano in Vancouver and you’ll find lots of this sort of development.

This lovely stairwell is also light well and a cooling tower when you open the windows at the top.

I pushed for more opportunities for precisely this form of development on corner lots when Council was debating the Infill Guidelines last year but faced opposition on a number of fronts since the Guidelines were the result of considerable negotiation with stakeholders, especially the EFCL. ‘Not to worry,’ I was told – we’ll get another crack at this question when we look at expanding opportunities for these kinds of medium-density projects with some of the Transit Oriented Development up-zoning that is supposed to come with new LRT stations. Further, we’ll look at this again at the two-year review of the Infill Guidelines.

I spoke with Arnold and Chris about some of the challenges of doing this project. They hastened to indicate that for the most part the city has been quite good to deal with. However, the big one is that if they were building a duplex or a single detached home the permit gets treated like a single home. Once you cross from two units to three the permit application goes into the ‘multifamily’ category, which takes longer and requires much more (like a detailed lansdcaping plan, even though the yard is the same). I’ve heard the same frustration from the suburban developers who would like to build more of this product but face a real cost/time/hassle barrier in going from duplex to triplex.

In this case the higher multifamily standards entailed tens of thousands in special drainage work, culminating with the installation of a drainage catchment basin in the back yard. Here’s the kicker: they’re putting a green roof on this project which will reduce the roof runoff to substantially less than an equivalent sized single family home or duplex on the same lot without a green roof. You can’t see but I’m still shaking my head. Must fix this. I Will start by emailing the director of planning a link to this post.

Note the offending drainage grate. The landscaping and garage will happen in the spring. I like that they saved this apple tree too.