The Way we Grow Up: Remarks on the MDP
Tonight Council gave second reading approval to our Municipal Development Plan. After considerable debate it’s more or less finished, subject to approval from the Capital Region Board, followed by third reading in May or June.
We debated the restriction on gravel mining in the river valley, which was upheld in a close vote. The Kanata Metis gravel put proposal is still free to come forward on its own merits and will get its day in front of Council.
We also debated growth allocation between suburban and established areas, and density targets, which picks up on a conversation I blogged about previously concerning development trajectory in our city. On this, I proposed a small but significant shift in language that the 25% target for infill vs. suburban growth is now a minimum, not an aspiration, which was approved unanimously.
It came time to speak to the main document and this is more or less what I said tonight:
I sought this seat to be part of this work and I am proud of most of this plan.
I am proud of the entrenchment of the link between planning and transportation; that most crucial link between what we build and where, and how we move about our city.
I am proud that we are so clearly committed to providing meaningful alternatives to car reliance with transit – especially LRT – and with better facilities for active transportation.
I am proud that we’ve (hopefully) put to rest the question of mining and land speculation in our river valley.
I am proud that we’ve joined cities around the world in acknowledging food and urban agriculture as key considerations in our planning.
I’m most proud of the policies we added designed to make medium-density living actually work for families with children. City council has already moved in this direction with the approval of Strathearn Heights rezoning and a smaller development in Pleasantview, each with a significant proportion of units on the ground level with sufficient space and amenities to support families with children. However, I believe that until projects like these, and other smaller land-efficient infill projects like brownstones and stacked townhouses are actually built, most Edmontonians will continue to choose detached homes, large yards and the automobile-dependant lifestyle that accompanies the business-as-usual pattern of development.
So the question is whether this shift toward walkable, mixed-use, medium density, transit-enabled development will occur and, if so, when? In other words: will a market shift occur any time soon? The city, the region, the province, the industry and – ultimately – homebuyers will all shape the answer to these questions.
The trajectory of development may not be entirely within Council’s control, but our challenge for the 10 year life of this plan is to adhere to the best principles embedded within it, such that these next 10 years mark the /transition/ to our vision for that compact city, that efficient city, that vibrant city and that less unsustainable, and hopefully – one day – that sustainable community we envision.
My concern with this plan has always been with the business-as-usual assumptions about growth over the next 30 years.
However, I have a great deal of hope that the shift can occur within the next 10 years – that shift can come with LRT; it can come with a change in our values around the ecological impacts of our lifestyle; it can come with a change in the cost of hydrocarbons and/or the cost of emissions resulting from burning those same hydrocarbons. I just don’t see the business-as-usual assumptions lasting for the 30 years.
Three months ago I called this plan “The Way we Sprawl” but it honestly contains the potential for two outcomes: sprawl is one outcome, yes, but the other possible outcome is a maturity beyond that.
The difference is a question of will.
With diligence in implementation on the part of the city, with innovation from industry, and with the will and cooperation of citizens and homebuyers, this plan can live up to its potential and become known more optimistically as “The Way we Grow Up.”
This attitude does require a measure of faith that our will will be strong, and a measure of faith that change pressures from citizens, from homebuyers, and economic shifts will make change we can respond to resiliently – and not timidly – under this plan, which I will support.
11 thoughts on “The Way we Grow Up: Remarks on the MDP”
Comments are closed.
Thank you for taking the time to write this up after your long day. The issue of support for local sustainable food supply has brought me to this meeting as a teacher of middle school (junior high) students. I have taught for 30 years, mainly English Literature, but the past two years have been fortunate to teach these young people how to cook. They want to learn, but they have no clue how. Most of their parents no longer cook. They buy processed food and heat it up. These students have not been to a garden, or a farm. They do not know where their food comes from, and neither to they value the effort it took to get on their plate – should their plate actually have whole food on it. This is such an important initiative in our city, and I want to say thank you – and I will keep on working as a citizen in this beautiful city to enable it to be a place where out young can experience living in a city that values agriculture as it is the ultimate resource.
Now, I have to get my community moving on the school gardens project I have been trying to initiate for quite some time…
Warmly,
Valerie
Such refreshing optimism! I can’t link to the motion that amended the infill/sprawl ambitions but I hope it did sharpen the teeth of the MDP in that regard. Watch out for holding up the Strathearn Heights steamroller as an example of good infill planning. If it’s ever built (somewhat doubtful) it may be a lovely development. However, the hostile process that got it to approval was deeply flawed and exhibits another facet of Edmonton’s groaning infrastructure deficit – a decade-long void of community planning.
25% minimum is an okay start. Hopefully its not a fight to achieve the minimum, but rather a number that gets amended much higher in the near future. The number should be 100% in the not so distant future.
To achieve that we’ll have to have a greater focus on redevelopment planning of existing neighborhoods. The major sticking points, existing landowners and hostile communities, will require a grass-roots sort of approach to development.
Thanks for your thoughts, Don. In the interests of a balanced and reasoned debate on these issues, I offer you the thoughts of another Edmontonian.
http://tinyurl.com/ye2dsm5
CHANNING, Strathcona says Bring on the infill! P&DD has twelve years of their own bullying and hostility to overcome. However, if they play nice now, I believe they’ll find that residents of mature neighbourhoods are sold on the lifestyle and are eager to share it with many others. Beware though, zoning compliance is essential and our Area Redevelopment Plans must be respected. None of Edmonton’s ARPs are truly obsolete but many of them do suffer from deferred maintenance. And forget about writing 3- and 4-lot DC2 zones, just because the base zones aren’t lucrative enough for some developers. Lastly, bring a real architect to the table. Forget the Disneyland replicas – give us contemporary design that’s at least as carefully crafted as the simplest working class bungalows of the 1920s.
Many of the base zoning is zoned as low density residential or small commercial without the ability to do mixed use developments. One area in particular I am looking at not in Strathcona) is perfect for redevelopment, but will need rezoning to create the urban mixed use density that is required.
Rezonings are fine too, when they’re aligned with the intent of the local ARP. If that vision is lacking – and there are places even in Strathcona where that’s so – then some genuine community consultation is needed. For that, the City should hire a contract planner – maybe arms-length funded by the rezoning applicant – to work directly with the host community. I make that suggestion because P&DD’s own staff have not re-earned the public trust that’s been squandered over the last decade. Edmonton has a pretty good Zoning Bylaw. If our own municipal administrators would adhere to both its letter and spirit, we could achieve ample opportunities for densification of our under-developed city centre.
The original wording of Section 3.1.1.2 read:
“Encourage 25 percent of city-wide housing unit growth to locate in the Downtown and mature neighbourhoods.”
With your amendment the section now reads:
“Encourage a minimum 25 percent of city-wide housing unit growth to locate in the Downtown and mature neighbourhoods.”
I agree that this is a useful amendment insofar as the policy clarifies that more than 25 percent of new housing unit growth can be located in mature neighbourhoods including Downtown.
But the policy as amended is still aspirational. In order for it to prescriptive, the word “encourage” would need to be replaced with a word such as “require.” Perhaps this further amendment could be proposed prior to third and final reading.