Ottawa Sun
Published: Wednesday, April 1, 2009

Don't plan on it

This week city councillors are hearing from delegations on amendments to the Official Plan. While it is not attracting the same level of interest as the annual budget debate, it is arguably just as -- if not more -- important in terms of our future quality of life. Just as the budget determines our level of services and consequent tax bill, the Official Plan shapes the face, shape, size and feel of our city and neighbourhoods.

In simple terms, the plan governs the use of all lands within the city and is updated every five years. It designates where suburbs will grow and where they won't, what land will be used for strip malls, office buildings, transit corridors, parks, and so on. The plan is supported by two other important documents: The Transportation Master Plan of which we have heard plenty, and the Infrastructure Master Plan which isn't sexy but is vital as it deals with issues such as sewers, water and the like.

To their credit, the city staff involved have done a tremendous amount of work to consult with community groups, home builders, and commercial developers, just to name a few, over the past two years to incorporate all points of view and place a balanced set of recommendations before council.

One of the challenges for councillors over the next two months is to weigh the competing submissions they are hearing this week and determine if staff have got it right.

The simplistic debate that played out yesterday went along the following lines: Is the city being too ambitious in its "we will build up, not out" smart-growth zeal, or are the developers gobbling up too much land for new suburbs and subdivisions? In planning terms it was intensification targets versus urban boundary expansion. And yes, to be transparent, I have a client interest in the outcome of this debate.

But this need not be an either-or proposition. As the Greater Ottawa homebuilders pointed out yesterday, the trick is in arriving at realistic projections with respect to intensification and then changing the urban boundary to allow the fullest full range of housing choices for all. This way empty nesters or young singles can opt for new product in the city core while young families and new Canadians who aspire to ground-related housing can do so affordably.

The bigger challenge for councillors (and the community) is to actually walk the walk when it comes to intensification and not just talk the talk at OP time. Intensification and more density (read: More houses and people on the same acre of land) only works with community buy-in.

Far too often we have seen proposed developments whether they are stacked townhomes, low-rise apartment buildings or full-fledged highrise condos be opposed, scaled back or outright scuttled by crusading councillors (often big anti-sprawl advocates) or NIMBY-focused community groups. And in fairness, if someone wanted to build a 15-storey apartment in my backyard, I would be upset too.

Homebuyers -- new or resale properties -- should be extremely aware of the current zoning in their neighbourhoods and planned or permissible future uses of the properties around them or the vacant lot down the street.

And finally, if council is going to bow at the altar of a very restrictive and narrow view of growth and vote in favour of curtailing the city's urban boundary, it will need to be consistent on this point and not bow to pressure each time a community opposes intensification in the local neighbourhood.

So will they? As I have written before, don't plan on it.