By Andrew Waldron
The best places to live in the world are human-scaled, pedestrianized, mid-sized and street-focused, with low car use, mixed housing, and varied incomes and ages. This leads to low-carbon, sustainable and engaged communities – just like much of Lowertown.
Ironically, the intensified neighbourhoods that Ontario’s Housing Affordability Task Force wishes for would destroy the 15-minute neighbourhood we enjoy here.
Consider, for example, the Task Force’s recommendations for intensification within existing built-up areas.
Recommendation 2: “intensification within existing built-up areas.” The report compares Tokyo (4,200 people/sq. km) and Toronto (450/sq. km). Ottawa is a suburban city (334 people/sq. km).
You may not know this, but our neighbourhood, Lowertown (6,240 people/sq. km), and Centretown (11,453 people/sq. km) are already intensified. The “intensification” both the Task Force and our city planners are pursuing is directed at already intensified areas.
Current “infill” projects to increase density in neighbourhoods are in the form of alienating high-rises, usually luxury condo towers that replace affordable, sustainable (not demolished) missing-middle housing with a range of economic classes and diversity. The report defines this missing middle, but that is not what developers, or the suburbs, want.
Urban vacant land is an issue. Property owners sit on lots used for paid parking, delaying the creation of successful urban infills on these sites. Dalhousie Street has empty lots ripe for infill. Instead, developers buy properties and push for incompatible infill, often demolishing existing housing. The result is the creation of all that “red tape” that fuels developers’ complaints.
A developer will apply for a variance (rezoning or other exemptions). Consultations with city staff follow to address the developer’s wish to be exempted. Then there is the lobbying, hiring of consultants, council debates and influences, LPAT legal battles with communities — all ‘red tape’ caused by wealthy developers willing to cause huge expenses on all sides to satisfy their own interest.
The neighbourhood where we live is what the task force wishes to achieve, and yet some of their recommendations will undermine our existing intensified urban area. This is already occurring, with luxury condos (unaffordable and perhaps investment properties), loss of services and loss of reasonable housing options.
The report defines a future that will benefit some developers at the expense of existing healthy, livable, historic and vital neighbourhoods. Our goal should be to strengthen the protection of our urban neighbourhood and focus infill and densification where it is needed: in 90 per cent of our suburban sprawl.
Pointing out that stark fact that they have failed to see does not make us NIMBYs.
Andrew Waldron is a heritage conservationist and architectural historian and co-chair of the LCA heritage committee.