Movin’ on up, to a deluxe apartment in the sky …
- Jefferson’s theme song
Peggy Chapman
The Bay Observer
Ontario’s cities have been working hard to meet provincial standards for growth and the control of urban sprawl. The Ontario policy statement – Places to Grow touts concepts like density and intensification – words often supported by environmentalists within communities who have long argued against the growth of suburbs in exchange for the inward growth of downtowns where infrastructure is already in place. So why then, have many of the same people who despise urban sprawl, been protesting against local developers who are investing in the Places to Grow strategy?
Whether it be on the Hamilton Mountain, Dundas or Burlington, developers of new condominiums are being deterred from projects which would meet the expectations of the province’s growth mantra. Two recent examples are the condo units proposed by the St. Joseph’s Villa site in Dundas, and a townhouse complex in Burlington at Walkers Line and Dundas Street. Both projects were modelled on Places to Grow, yet were met with opposition. Jeff Paikin, of New Horizon Homes is “disgustingly shocked” by the recent rejection of his plans for the Burlington project – for which he had been working hand-inhand with city staff for the last 18 months. “We followed the planning principles for land-use and I feel betrayed by council and at the same time assume city staff must feel frustrated. They are highly regarded professionals and council just ignored their work.” Burlington council, who were desperate to find a use for the brownfield property still voted unanimously against the plan.
Paikin, along with other developers in the province are juggling the province’s goal of building more compact communities while at the same time facing local opposition by those who don’t want to share their neighbourhoods with multi-level multi-family homes.
According to Places to Grow, the term intensification means, … the development of a property, site or area at a higher density than currently exists, through development, redevelopment, infill and expansion or conversion of existing buildings. Each community’s form and level of intensification will differ, based on their specific characteristics such as location, history, community strengths and preferences.
Paikin and Burlington’s city staff, feel his project met the criteria, and more. “This project would allow young families to buy their first home, with a garage, in Burlington for $250,000,” he told the Observer. “This kind of planning will help keep our young professionals here in town instead of losing them to Toronto. This is exactly what our cities are trying to do – to keep our young people here for the future.” After a year of working with city staff, Paikin was confident his project would get the green light from council. The only issue that did not meet the exact criteria was its density. His plan was for 31 townhomes, and the zoning only permitted 22. “The councillor for the ward (Carol D’Amelio) originally supported the plan, and although the city’s zoning was for 22 units, the Places to Grow strategy allows for higher density if the rest of the plan benefits the growth. I say it does and I think staff would agree,” Paikin. concluded. The day he was to go to council for approval, D’Amelio called him to ask if he would decrease the number of units. He declined. “Can you imagine, after a year and a half of working with their staff, that councillors expect me to somehow change the plan –within hours?” Even if Paikin did lower the unit numbers, his plan to make the homes affordable would no longer be possible. “I would have to raise the price per unit well beyond the $350,000 mark. That makes the real estate much less attractive.”
In Hamilton’s suburb of Dundas, multiuse condominiums have been opposed as well. Two proposed condo towers at Ogilivie Street and Governor’s Road would have seen 220 apartments with main level commercial space. Well over 100 residents showed up to Hamilton city council to stop the plan, citing loss of green space, density, and declared the development is not compatible with the surrounding area. Yet, Hamilton’s own growth plan states, “While residential intensification should be compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood, compatibility should not be narrowly interpreted to mean “the same as” or even as “being similar to”. The term “compatible” refers to forms that are mutually tolerant and capable of existing together in harmony within an area.”
Hamilton’s Residential Intensification Study, a major background study for the Official Plan, has identified that citizen’s demand a choice of different housing types within walking distance of shops and transit and states, residential intensification helps to manage the growth of the City’s Urban Area and to protect natural heritage green space features and rural areas from urban expansion.
The study also claims a more efficient use of land results in cost savings, reduces development pressure on farm land and natural areas and increases the housing options within some neighbourhoods. It would also attract new residents to support the revitalization of downtowns and areas in decline while maintaining the population in existing communities to prevent closure of schools and recreational facilities. Most importantly perhaps, it makes more efficient use of roads, sewers and water services. This can result in lower house prices. Hamilton council supported Dundas councillor, Russ Powers in unanimously voting down the condo plan – just as the Burlington councillors did for New Horizon’s project – and asked the developers to bring back plans with lower density and intensification.
Jeff Paikin, who has built homes in both Burlington and Hamilton blames the lack of political leadership for the halting of residential growth in both communities. “My Burlington plan – other than the density issue – was provincially designated and staff approved.” He adds, “Density at a higher level is often approved as long as the development follows planning principles”. Under Places to Grow, brownfields such as the proposed Burlington development must be over-intensified before brought to market. “It’s the lack of political leadership and good policy making that is getting in the way of building better communities,” he added.
As for those who oppose this style of growth and development, Paikin asserts they are the same folks who advocate for public transit and demand more greenspace yet when it comes to intensification in their own neighbourhood – they change their stand. “Even local activists fall for the ‘not in my backyard’ and fear-of- change attitude,” he said. It’s up to politicians to make the right decision for the community as a whole, not just make the easy choice for their political well-being.” peggy@bayobserver.ca
About Tech