By Nate Dolha
Published: Oct. 26, 2012
There is a much abused concept trotted out frequently at municipal hall: Smart Growth.
It is a concept that, depending on interpretation, performs a fabulous double duty for our community leadership; it can be the hero, opening doors for the right development proposal.
It can also be the villain; causing irrefutable damage to proposals, and in some cases, that damage ends up being fatal.
In a nutshell, Smart Growth is a collection of land use policies to encourage urban growth that is environmentally, socially, and fiscally sustainable.
These policies rely on prioritizing three modes of growth ahead of Greenfield development: Infill, redevelopment, and densification to use as much of our existing infrastructure as possible.
While this all seems like a no-brainer on paper, this exercise becomes a hard sell when it’s time for tough decisions from our citizens and politicians alike, as Smart Growth is the antithesis to NIMBYism, and the three year election cycle seems to leave little room for controversy or bold vision.
If we are to truly embrace SmartGrowth as a community, there will need to be some major changes to the way we approach all forms of density, because it’s not just about pushing apartment blocks downtown.
All neighborhoods will need to get thicker, but that density can take many forms; apartments, row houses, town homes, duplex, small lot and co-op detached single family.
If we borrow from Vancouver’s proposed density changes, transit routes and the block behind will be allowed to either subdivide the lots into two, or build row housing within the lots original footprint, for example.
By adding density in this fashion we can accomplish many housing types, supporting citizens in different stages of life in any area.
Water, sewer, road, and transit infrastructure become optimized, and we can accommodate growth without having to clear forest to get it done.
Now, the most common refrain I’ve heard against this type of density from citizens and politicians alike is that it will ‘change the character’ of the neighborhood. They are right, and that’s the point!
To be economically sustainable, we cannot continue to push out the boundaries of our community and expect an ever climbing tax rate to support this sprawl.
To be socially sustainable, we should not accept economically segregated communities like we have today. To be environmentally sustainable, we need to focus density around local shops, services, and transit to offer real alternatives to the car.
So yes, let’s stick with Smart Growth. Let’s just do it right.
Find me on Twitter: @natedolha
He can be reached by email at natedolha@gmail.com
Jean says
OK .. I came from Europe.. Why, because there was freedom to create and land in abundance.. that was 45 Years ago. Now the land is still here but the other thing is gone!!!
Rater then Dictate the life style and force services onto the people… why not have Zones of …Developed ,… Highly developed and…. Minimalist land, for people ,that don,t need the services and are happy with what they can create and afford themselves., instead of demanding services to be dictated by the people in power, that nobody can afford . Pretty soon with the economical melt down on the way, young people are lucky if the can afford a tent, and by creating a refuge for those less fortunate, with a lifestyle they can afford without a hand out, that could be an other way of smart growth… maybe the Minimalist Smart Growth. .. might not make the big businesses and the present infrastructure that demands high taxes and creates wealth for few very happy, but remember we have land and lots of it and if it would be opened up like when the first settlers came, not to the Speculators and Flippers, but to those that will use it and make it there home, there could be a whole new economic boom from such a policy and people that don,t demand the services and the modern infrastructure in concrete and stainless steel and are willing to travel on a gravel road first to there home stead, for the peace and afford abilities sake, maybe that could be the “New Smart Growth”
Jean
Nate Dolha says
Hi Jean, thanks for adding your voice to the conversation!
Forgive the delay on responding, but I wanted to take some time to reflect on your comment, particularly the comment around hew homesteads. My wife and I are a young couple, 2 kids, 2 professional jobs in the city, 2 good incomes, and yet we find ourselves living pay cheque to pay cheque… I too worry about the youth who are entering the adult world, and I think we’ll see a shift in what is desired by those people, as their values and expectations are different from the previous generation.
There seems to be a renaissance occurring towards farming and more traditional ways of life, and I can see your idea being attractive to a great number of folks. You are right, we have a great deal of crown land around us, so perhaps it can be put to use rebuilding our traditional food systems and providing an alternative to the hyper consumerism we face today!
Thanks again for adding your voice!
Nate