Results 1 to 38 of 38

Thread: Growing pains for Capital region.

  1. #1
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,525

    Default Growing pains for Capital region.

    Sherwood Park is making plans to double in size, Edmonton has launched a new annexation bid to the south, and Sturgeon County is proposing a new urban area around the city of St. Albert.

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...880/story.html
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  2. #2

  3. #3
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    32,307

    Default

    I hope the regional board kills Sturgeon County's new urban area on St. Albert's border. That's ridiculous.
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  4. #4
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    11,445

    Default

    Haven't municipalities had enough of missed opportunities because of lack of collaboration?
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  5. #5

    Default

    I thought that St. Albert planned to annex that land from sturgeon county... I didn't think the county wanted to develop it.

    Can anyone confirm?

  6. #6
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,003

    Default

    From reading Sturgeon County's draft MDP, the County plans to develop a new urban area called Neighbourhood G north of St. Albert. See page 102 here: http://mdp.sturgeoncounty.ab.ca/Link...M%3d&tabid=714

    Neighbourhood G would be north and east of some still largely undeveloped land annexed from the County into the City of St. Albert in February 2007. Link: http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...ead.php?t=1920

    The City of Edmonton needs to veto this proposal at the CRB. Otherwise, the Capital Region will end up with leapfrog development.

  7. #7

    Default

    Sad, but Edmonton and St Alberta have zero right to preach, by failing their residents by standing up to sprawl speculators, it isn't surprising politicians in other towns and counties are following the lead. Leave this crap quest for land to Sturgeon and others, their residents will then pay the pain of that future infrastructure cost. St Albert residents should be pleased if Sturgeon box them in, they won't then be paying for all those extra firehouses, police stations, sewers or similar, let the sucker residents in Sturgeon subsidize the sprawl speculators.
    Last edited by moahunter; 12-05-2013 at 08:48 AM.

  8. #8
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    32,307

    Default

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...ns/index.html#

    The county hopes these new neighbourhoods can tie into St. Albert's infrastructure, water and sewer lines, but the city has not yet agreed to provide these services.
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Sad, but Edmonton and St Alberta have zero right to preach, by failing their residents by standing up to sprawl speculators, it isn't surprising politicians in other towns and counties are following the lead. Leave this crap quest for land to Sturgeon and others, their residents will then pay the pain of that future infrastructure cost. St Albert residents should be pleased if Sturgeon box them in, they won't then be paying for all those extra firehouses, police stations, sewers or similar, let the sucker residents in Sturgeon subsidize the sprawl speculators.
    But yet your home town and favorite city Calgary stands up to sprawl right? Calgary preaches to its neighbours all the time.

  10. #10

    Default

    the solution is simple. don't provide the water infrastructure to these new "sprawl towns" no water, end of story. if sturgeon county wants to build a new urban village, then they can build their own water plant, too. no need to leach off the city.

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Sad, but Edmonton and St Alberta have zero right to preach, by failing their residents by standing up to sprawl speculators, it isn't surprising politicians in other towns and counties are following the lead. Leave this crap quest for land to Sturgeon and others, their residents will then pay the pain of that future infrastructure cost. St Albert residents should be pleased if Sturgeon box them in, they won't then be paying for all those extra firehouses, police stations, sewers or similar, let the sucker residents in Sturgeon subsidize the sprawl speculators.
    You don't get it moa we don't live in a Vacuum. We all pay. Be it through taxes to the prov gov't that pays for 100% of the counties infrastructure or the increased concentration of social services offloaded onto the city...

    you simple linear argument isn't how it play out in reality.

    The counties have to go or have to be removed from the Edmonton Urban Area
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  12. #12
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,525

    Default

    I heard that Gov't may merge 21 into 6 and solve the problem for once and for all , I don't know if it is the best answer ??

    I like to see Leduc and Sherwood park merge into Edmonton But for St Albert , I don't think so.
    Last edited by jagators63; 12-05-2013 at 10:24 AM.
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    You don't get it moa we don't live in a Vacuum. We all pay. Be it through taxes to the prov gov't that pays for 100% of the counties infrastructure or the increased concentration of social services offloaded onto the city...
    Social services are the responsibility of the province. I'd rather other cities and towns sprawl than my town, as the burden of most of the cost goes onto those towns / cities. Would I rather there be no sprawl at all? Yes. But leadership has to start somewhere, sucking up vast tracks of land to the airport isn't consistent with that.

  14. #14
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,003

    Default

    The comments by the Sturgeon County planner in the Journal story are telling:

    "As for the urban densities, it's simply following the Capital Region Board's rules, said county planner Kristina Peter. The Capital Region Board designated this land as a priority growth area, which comes with mandated density targets. "The whole point is not to create a new community," said Peter. "But to be in compliance (with the regional plan) we have to put those densities in there."

    Far from curbing sprawl, the regional growth plan is being used as a blueprint for more sprawl and leapfrog development.

  15. #15

    Default

    Annex everything! Lets have a super city! If we built a new ringroad that circles all these outlying communities it would make sense. Lets get it done!
    youtube.com/BrothersGrim
    facebook.com/BrothersGrimMusic

  16. #16
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,525

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Foolworm View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Social services are the responsibility of the province. I'd rather other cities and towns sprawl than my town, as the burden of most of the cost goes onto those towns / cities. Would I rather there be no sprawl at all? Yes. But leadership has to start somewhere, sucking up vast tracks of land to the airport isn't consistent with that.
    That's not the point. Edmonton already bears the legacy cost of maintaining city infrastructure which is (and really, there is no arguing the point here) widely used by the region. The costs of sprawl will not be felt by the other cities and towns because:

    1) they do not inherit the costs of maintaining current infrastructure
    2) They divert industry and taxpayer base which would otherwise pay into maintenence.

    These two phenomena are pretty much killing Detroit right now. If oil were to plummet to post-gulf levels tomorrow, I'm pretty sure history would repeat itself for that reason. It is a classic Davidson Rees-Mogg incentive trap.

    Quote Originally Posted by Komrade View Post
    Annex everything! Lets have a super city! If we built a new ringroad that circles all these outlying communities it would make sense. Lets get it done!
    We don't even have the Henday done yet.


    2 things did not kill Detroit and it was no back up economic plan for the city back in the 60's in case when big 3 auto went downhill . but it did went very slowly when Japanese cars first arrive in America in the late 60's and now it is a total bust for Detroit. 2/3 of land just outside of downtown Detroit is gone.
    Last edited by jagators63; 12-05-2013 at 02:03 PM.
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  17. #17
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    390

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Komrade View Post
    Annex everything! Lets have a super city! If we built a new ringroad that circles all these outlying communities it would make sense. Lets get it done!


    Exactly

    The road is in the planning stage. The Govt in power has to have the balls to pull the trigger on this.

  18. #18
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,666

    Default

    They should just create a new county that contains edmonton and all the surrounding land to the west up to stony plain, to the south to 5km south of leduc, to the east to 10km east of highway 21 and to the north to 10km north of mornville.

    Then all the bickering could stop. Everyone is in the same county working for the same goals.

  19. #19
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    172

    Default

    If Edmonton had annexed St.Albert & Sherwood Park back in the early 80's like they wanted to would we be still be having this problem?

    Yes
    No
    Problem would still be here, but not as bad
    Last edited by Terry; 12-05-2013 at 04:02 PM.

  20. #20
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    32,307

    Default

    ^ For the umpteenth time, yes. Morinville would have replaced St. Albert, Ardrossan would have replaced Sherwood Forest, and the pattern will continue to repeat itself.
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  21. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    You don't get it moa we don't live in a Vacuum. We all pay. Be it through taxes to the prov gov't that pays for 100% of the counties infrastructure or the increased concentration of social services offloaded onto the city...
    Social services are the responsibility of the province. I'd rather other cities and towns sprawl than my town, as the burden of most of the cost goes onto those towns / cities. Would I rather there be no sprawl at all? Yes. But leadership has to start somewhere, sucking up vast tracks of land to the airport isn't consistent with that.
    I don't care what it says on paper Moa the city caries the cost of a lot of social services that the province downloads onto the City. O the province does things like cuts programing for the mentally ill which just pushes problems onto the police or innercity programs.

    So lets get realistic.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  22. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jagators63 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Foolworm View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Social services are the responsibility of the province. I'd rather other cities and towns sprawl than my town, as the burden of most of the cost goes onto those towns / cities. Would I rather there be no sprawl at all? Yes. But leadership has to start somewhere, sucking up vast tracks of land to the airport isn't consistent with that.
    That's not the point. Edmonton already bears the legacy cost of maintaining city infrastructure which is (and really, there is no arguing the point here) widely used by the region. The costs of sprawl will not be felt by the other cities and towns because:

    1) they do not inherit the costs of maintaining current infrastructure
    2) They divert industry and taxpayer base which would otherwise pay into maintenence.

    These two phenomena are pretty much killing Detroit right now. If oil were to plummet to post-gulf levels tomorrow, I'm pretty sure history would repeat itself for that reason. It is a classic Davidson Rees-Mogg incentive trap.

    Quote Originally Posted by Komrade View Post
    Annex everything! Lets have a super city! If we built a new ringroad that circles all these outlying communities it would make sense. Lets get it done!
    We don't even have the Henday done yet.


    2 things did not kill Detroit and it was no back up economic plan for the city back in the 60's in case when big 3 auto went downhill . but it did went very slowly when Japanese cars first arrive in America in the late 60's and now it is a total bust for Detroit. 2/3 of land just outside of downtown Detroit is gone.

    Very few of the Car manufacturing or HQs of the major industry were actually in Detroit. Ford is in Lancing. Chrysler is in Auburn Hills.

    What is happening in Edmonton is a PERFECT example of Detroit. Taxes in Detroit are huge as the city struggles to maintain services the whole region use (like 2 major connections to Canada) Wil next to no industrial tax base and a diminishing property tax base.

    If you are going to speak on an issue please do some research!
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  23. #23
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,525

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jagators63 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Foolworm View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Social services are the responsibility of the province. I'd rather other cities and towns sprawl than my town, as the burden of most of the cost goes onto those towns / cities. Would I rather there be no sprawl at all? Yes. But leadership has to start somewhere, sucking up vast tracks of land to the airport isn't consistent with that.
    That's not the point. Edmonton already bears the legacy cost of maintaining city infrastructure which is (and really, there is no arguing the point here) widely used by the region. The costs of sprawl will not be felt by the other cities and towns because:

    1) they do not inherit the costs of maintaining current infrastructure
    2) They divert industry and taxpayer base which would otherwise pay into maintenence.

    These two phenomena are pretty much killing Detroit right now. If oil were to plummet to post-gulf levels tomorrow, I'm pretty sure history would repeat itself for that reason. It is a classic Davidson Rees-Mogg incentive trap.

    Quote Originally Posted by Komrade View Post
    Annex everything! Lets have a super city! If we built a new ringroad that circles all these outlying communities it would make sense. Lets get it done!
    We don't even have the Henday done yet.


    2 things did not kill Detroit and it was no back up economic plan for the city back in the 60's in case when big 3 auto went downhill . but it did went very slowly when Japanese cars first arrive in America in the late 60's and now it is a total bust for Detroit. 2/3 of land just outside of downtown Detroit is gone.

    Very few of the Car manufacturing or HQs of the major industry were actually in Detroit. Ford is in Lancing. Chrysler is in Auburn Hills.

    What is happening in Edmonton is a PERFECT example of Detroit. Taxes in Detroit are huge as the city struggles to maintain services the whole region use (like 2 major connections to Canada) Wil next to no industrial tax base and a diminishing property tax base.

    If you are going to speak on an issue please do some research!
    Detroit lost 800,000 people in the last 40 yrs. many of them moving out to surburb or out of state.
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  24. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    ^ For the umpteenth time, yes. Morinville would have replaced St. Albert, Ardrossan would have replaced Sherwood Forest, and the pattern will continue to repeat itself.
    Only if you let it. Fix the MGA and make a region wide green belt and agriculture zone, don't allow any urban growth in it, limit development outside of it too...and problem solved. For the umpteenth time
    Last edited by Medwards; 12-05-2013 at 07:11 PM.

  25. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Foolworm View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    Morinville would have replaced St. Albert, Ardrossan would have replaced Sherwood Forest, and the pattern will continue to repeat itself.
    The problem is that this is already happening. Sturgeon's Neighbourhood G 'replaces' St. Albert, and Strathcona's Brenner 'replaces' Sherwood Park. As East McCauley notes, it's called leapfrogging.

    This is why I consider specialized municipalities a bad precedent. They have all the land they could ever need to expand, cut-throat bottom-of-the-barrel attitudes to attracting tax base, and they won't have to consider the revitalization and maintenance costs of existing infrastructure. I wonder what will happen once their existing infrastructure needs renewal.

    Reading the article, I can't help but pity Fort Saskatchewan - they can't negotiate for more land until 2031 and they're already running out of space.
    These are also called EX Burbs. We need to take a good hard look at what is happening to these in the American cities right now..

    They are not healthy viable communities.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  26. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    ^ For the umpteenth time, yes. Morinville would have replaced St. Albert, Ardrossan would have replaced Sherwood Forest, and the pattern will continue to repeat itself.
    Only if you let it. Fix the MGA and make a region wide green belt and agriculture zone, don't allow any urban growth in it, limit development outside of it too...and problem solved. For the umpteenth time
    Ok, and then housing prices would rocket and the city would choke itself off. Then we'll have endless generations of students banging pots because housing isn't affordable, and we'll blame you for the dumb idea.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  27. #27

    Default

    There is no way that Edmonton to 1.5 million+ people and not expand outwards.

    We are going to grow bigger and acting like we wont or making plans to try to prevent that are silly.

    It's HOW we do it that matters..
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  28. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Foolworm View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    These are also called EX Burbs. We need to take a good hard look at what is happening to these in the American cities right now..

    They are not healthy viable communities.
    I think the maps on this site are telling: http://www.radicalcartography.net/in...n-foreclosures.

    Looking south, it looks like a ripple effect is occuring. The first wave of exodus guts the inner city core, which leads to urban decay and blight. Things deteriorate until the rot overflows into the suburbs, leading to a flight to sub-suburbs. Gentrification and revitalization of the inner city core only aids the demise of the suburbs as the less savory elements are pushed outwards anyway. This pretty much sums up the US urban situation of the last half-century or so; I think the subprime crisis was the event that really brought the issue of suburban decay to the forefront.
    I have a little bit of a less dramatic account.

    We have a limited pot of money.. right now a large amount of the pot goes to urban expansion while we struggle to fund urban renewal. BUT if we flip that around and and focus on urban renewal than special interest groups (a la Calgary) start squawking about being hard done buy and land speculators stand to loose millions of dollars. We also have a concern with limited supply, house pricing and losing population increase to other centers

    As for economic conditions.. Ex burbs are not sustainable without a car as they really have no employment node, Not like the core of Edmonton -Very few are situated withing easy non auto commute of industrial areas, and many often have poor transit connections.

    The Exburbs are now becoming the home for poverty. (in the USA)

    “In Atlanta, the poor population in the city held stead between 2000 and 2010 whilethe poor population in the suburbs grew by 122 percent — more than doubling over the course of the decade,” said Elizabeth Kneebone, a fellow with the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution, who was in Atlanta presenting her findings.

    By comparison, among the nation’s 95 largest metro areas, the poor population in the suburbs grew by 53 percent between 2000 and 2010, while the poor population in cities grew by 23 percent, Kneebone added.

    The last decade has been tough for the United States as per capita income has declined.
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 13-05-2013 at 12:19 PM.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  29. #29

    Default

    Something else to ponder.... Taxes.

    I get listings from Chicago and the surrounding area.. Muni Taxes on a 290,000 home in Chi Town... over $5000 / year.

    Taxes across the region have to have a rhyme and a reason. We can't have counties sucking out industrial dollars just to turn around and depend on the province/cities for infrastructure funding/water/sewer all the while giving their residents low taxes on our back.
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 13-05-2013 at 01:47 PM.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  30. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    ^ For the umpteenth time, yes. Morinville would have replaced St. Albert, Ardrossan would have replaced Sherwood Forest, and the pattern will continue to repeat itself.
    Only if you let it. Fix the MGA and make a region wide green belt and agriculture zone, don't allow any urban growth in it, limit development outside of it too...and problem solved. For the umpteenth time
    Ok, and then housing prices would rocket and the city would choke itself off. Then we'll have endless generations of students banging pots because housing isn't affordable, and we'll blame you for the dumb idea.

    It's not a dumb idea and is inplemented in Ottawa an Toronto fairly well. Create enough room for reasonable responsible growth, create a green/agriculture zone beyond that and do not allow urban development in this zone and beyond it.

  31. #31
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,690

    Default

    Where is that greenbelt in Toronto? Burlington? Richmond Hill? Oshawa?

  32. #32

    Default

    I don't believe any of those cities have some hard line that they can't grow past. Any city can grow to its boundaries, and then whatever jurisdiction exists on the other side will simply continue on.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  33. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SP59 View Post
    Where is that greenbelt in Toronto? Burlington? Richmond Hill? Oshawa?
    Here is the answer to your question.
    I think of art, at its most significant, as a Distant Early Warning system that can always be relied on to tell the old culture what is beginning to happen to it. —Marshall McLuhan

  34. #34
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    11,445

    Default

    I think that the Capital Region has to sit down to discuss land use. Sherwood Park is also running out of land, even though Bremner has been approved.

    Edmonton also has approved development in NE Edmonton.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  35. #35
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,525

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Foolworm View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    Morinville would have replaced St. Albert, Ardrossan would have replaced Sherwood Forest, and the pattern will continue to repeat itself.
    The problem is that this is already happening. Sturgeon's Neighbourhood G 'replaces' St. Albert, and Strathcona's Brenner 'replaces' Sherwood Park. As East McCauley notes, it's called leapfrogging.

    This is why I consider specialized municipalities a bad precedent. They have all the land they could ever need to expand, cut-throat bottom-of-the-barrel attitudes to attracting tax base, and they won't have to consider the revitalization and maintenance costs of existing infrastructure. I wonder what will happen once their existing infrastructure needs renewal.

    Reading the article, I can't help but pity Fort Saskatchewan - they can't negotiate for more land until 2031 and they're already running out of space.

    Quote Originally Posted by jagators63 View Post
    Detroit lost 800,000 people in the last 40 years. Many of them moved out to the suburbs or out of state.
    I'm not comparing Edmonton and Detroit as they are currently; I am using Detroit as an example of what Edmonton is trending towards. It would be better to compare Detroit of the fifties to the present Edmonton.

    No backup economic plan for Detroit in the sixties -> No backup economic plan for Edmonton in the teens

    Decline started slowly when Japanese cars entered the market -> Decline starts slowly when new pipelines are blocked and the bitumen bubble occurs

    People move to the suburbs or out-of-state -> People move to the satellites/Calgary/out-of-province

    Detroit goes bust -> Edmonton goes bust

    not just Edmonton but across Canada, Many teens have no jobs
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  36. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SP59 View Post
    Where is that greenbelt in Toronto? Burlington? Richmond Hill? Oshawa?
    http://greenbelt.ca/sites/default/fi...x17__20932.pdf

  37. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SP59 View Post
    Where is that greenbelt in Toronto? Burlington? Richmond Hill? Oshawa?
    http://greenbelt.ca/sites/default/fi...x17__20932.pdf
    Your map looks a lot like the Capital Region Board Map with farmland surrounding the Priority growth areas. You don't need to legislate a green belt surrounding the Priority growth areas because the Capital Region Board will not permit development in these areas.

  38. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Foolworm View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by urbantown View Post
    Your map looks a lot like the Capital Region Board Map with farmland surrounding the Priority growth areas. You don't need to legislate a green belt surrounding the Priority growth areas because the Capital Region Board will not permit development in these areas.
    Superficially, yes. However, the attitudes behind the development of both maps are diametrically opposite. The operating principle behind the Metro Toronto map is to set a hard boundary and prohibit any growth beyond said zone. It is fundamentally a prohibitive strategy, an explicit limit to growth.

    The CRB growth map on the other hand takes the existing growth plans of all the existing municipalities and plots them on a map. In doing so, it legitimizes these plans irregardless of how 'sprawly' they are. It is fundamentally a permissive strategy and an implicit approach.

    The plans are superficially similar because of the regional setup: A central city surrounded by its satellites. Almost all the priority growth areas surrround Edmonton because the entire point is to "service" (or mooch off of) the central city, and those which aren't surround said satellites (i.e. second tier satellites).

    With that said, the distinguishing factor is the size of the growth zone. Note that the 'growth ring' for Metro Toronto map is very narrow relative to the size of the existing development footprint. That pretty much forces the fringe municipalities to grow carefully.

    Conversely, the CRB map has a rather generous 'growth ring' prescribed, again because of the "permissive" approach I describe. Far from forcing careful growth, it encourages municipalities to sprawl within said ring, which was formed from their original growth plans anyway. To re-quote from an earlier post:

    "As for the urban densities, it's simply following the Capital Region Board's rules, said county planner Kristina Peter. The Capital Region Board designated this land as a priority growth area, which comes with mandated density targets. "The whole point is not to create a new community," said Peter. "But to be in compliance (with the regional plan) we have to put those densities in there."
    Pretty telling.

    To summarize the problems with the 'growth ring' in the CRB,

    1) It is too generous, encouraging sprawl instead of limiting it. This is because
    2) It is formed by assembling the current growth plans of the municipalities, which are sprawl-oriented.
    3) It does not actually define a hard limit to expansion. This inevitably brings up the 'but you never said I couldn't' argument. A defined limit offers a far stronger negotiating position should (when) further expansion is proposed.
    I am confused. The priority growth areas have a boundary where development cannot occur outside of. Density targets within the priority growth areas dictate a dense urban form. How is the result different from a defined green area in Ontario?.

    The priority growth areas are perhaps on the large side but development will be kept in check by each municipalities approval process (along with CRB's ability to vetoe a poor plan) which will keep leapfrog development in check ( East Vistas being the obvious exception)

    At present undeveloped land within priority growth areas continues to be farmed. Developers are incented by low taxes to keep the land for agriculture until the timing is right for development. Land outside the priority growth areas will also be farmed

    The communities do not want to have a hard cap on how much they can grow. Saying St. Albert can grow but Beaumont can not will not work. People will live where they want to live and by providing the market with alternative housing options in a number of different growth areas affordability will be enhanced.
    Last edited by urbantown; 15-05-2013 at 11:42 PM. Reason: Diction revised

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •