Intensification
Movin’ on up, to a deluxe apartment
in the sky …
- Jefferson’s theme song
Reaction intensifying over upward growth across region
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
BACK | NEWS ARCHIVE