Saturday, 30 August 2014

Building up and not building out

Writing another intense opinion on intensification
Rural land is for farms -- the southern Ontario bread basket

By Mark Schadenberg
With Ontario's master plan for municipal 'intensification' (Provincial Policy Statement of 2005 and 2014), I would say the residents of one London neighbourhood should be content that the apartment complex proposed for their backyard is not going to be 12 or more storeys tall.
In some areas in urban centres around Ontario, 'medium density' zonings are going to be applauded and not frowned upon in the future. Everyone would love to live in a 'low density' area of detached homes with a sparse array of townhouses, but the PPS wants developers, builders and cities to build up and not out. The reasons are many, but mostly due to saving farmland and maintaining the costs for servicing hundreds of residential acres and creating roads and infrastructure for a vast area when a 4-storey apartment can satisfy the population growth and fill an economic need for same.
Cities would prefer to purchase fewer buses, snow plows and garbage trucks.
Read the Free Press link below where neighbouring citizens are pulling out their hair due to a total of 147 units (apartments) projected for six separate 4-storey buildings. I can see greenspace, need for an on-site playground and certainly parking as issues, but the builder should receive an ovation for their density suggestion. Compromise.
In Woodstock, low and medium density won the day when proposals and debates occurred on the former hospital site at Riddell and Brant streets.
The same battle was won by residents when a vision for a tall condo building was suggested for the former Beckett Farm Market block, which interestingly is also on Riddell. In the Beckett property case, houses on Melbourne Street would permanently be in the shadow, so that was a good compromise as townhouses are now on the drawing board at that particular locale.
In London, meanwhile, where I'm always surprised to see a sign posting a population figure at the entrance as under 400,000, in my opinion anyway, the sprawling must be slowed. London is a lava of southern Ontario as it slowly flows along (mostly at) ground level. I remember about 30 years ago when Masonville mall was practically in a cornfield and now London – through annexation and growth has expanded north to the doorsteps of Arva and south-westward to Delaware and Komoka, and west through Byron. I'm actually surprised there has been near zero residential growth in the east end near the airport. When I attended Fanshawe College (1985-87), I rented a house from a family living on the north end of Highbury. I know that 25 years have passed, but that area of Highbury is now subdivisions and no longer large country-like lots.
I also scratch my chin when I see farmland still existing in the middle of the city, like at Wonderland and Oxford, but that crop will soon apparently reap a large grocery store and office complex (See second link). My point is that intensification or dense development must take place within the prescribed municipal boundaries before those boundaries are stretched into actual rural well-producing fertile crop lands.
I know . . . I know, I don't reside in London, but we saw the identical idea in Woodstock get smartly swept aside by both the city and county levels of government and its planners. For example, an (clown) outside developer (416 area code) wanted to create a subdivision of more than 100 large 1-acre lots along County Road 17, but there are three problems – the defined land is NOT in the city limits and Woodstock still has quite a significant inventory of residential lots within the current lines . . . lines not blurred (Deemed residential in the Official Plan), by the way. Second problem is that this developer would have expected city services. Also, the lot sizes would not comply with Ontario's PPS. Maybe and probably 10 percent of the land space could have been allocated for luxury homes on large lots, but the rest would most certainly be ear-marked for intensification.
Just some thoughts
My opinion.
And, no I haven't announced that I'm running for city / county council in Woodstock / Oxford.


LINKS:
http://www.lfpress.com/2014/08/29/new-northwest-london-sobeys-store-will-appeal-to-baby-boomer-and-foodies-says-marketing-expert


Mark Schadenberg, Sales Representative
Senior Real Estate Specialist (SRES designation)
Royal LePage Triland Realty
757 Dundas St, Woodstock
www.wesellwoodstock.com
(519) 537-1553, cell or text
Email: mschadenberg@rogers.com
Twitter: markroyallepage
Facebook: Mark Schadenberg, Royal LePage Triland

Discussion . . . Direction . . . Determination . . . Destination

No comments:

Post a Comment