Laura Murr commented on my previous post, raising concerns over the financial incentives provided by the municipality for developers to initiate urban intensification.

In my position as a research assistant at the University of Waterloo, where I’ve asked private developers and public bureaucrats in the Greater Golden Horseshoe about their experience to how the Growth Plan is being implemented, I’ve gained some anecdotal inside information to this concern. (Within a couple of years, there will be more analysis on this topic, presented as research papers by Dr Pierre Filion and a doctoral thesis by PhD Candidate Michelle Lee.)

In short, it seems like everyone is upset that the province is mandating a set of policies without providing enough financial tools to assist municipalities with the implementation. For instance, all levels of government generated profit from industrialization (such as found in the Ward), but the municipality is left with sorting out how to clean the sites up and redevelop them.

In Guelph, the municipality offered grants and rebates to attract developers to take on the challenge. The concern thus arises: Will the grants (including development charge rebates etc.) and tax assessment rebates for ten years have negative future impacts on local services and also potential increases in property taxes in order to pay for the proposed 10-year shortfall caused by the property tax rebate?  – L. Murr

In my research, I’ve not focused on the practical “how to do it” aspect. Instead, I’ve looked at the plan-making process. I have therefore not specifically looked for any studies that proved that financial incentives increased city revenues via property taxes in the long term.

However, good management should ensure that the profit generated from urban intensification pays for the up-front incentives investment. This is the same logic that allowed for sprawl to happen, which clearly became popular. There seems to be enough of a demographic (i.e. market) that prefer downtown condominium living at this point in time for developers to invest in urban intensification. (For instance, the below image is from Markham, which incorporates many of the features debated for the Woods site.)

When it comes to calculating costs, that’s truly outside the scope of this research. However, I notice that there is frequent confusion to the local Downtown Secondary Plan numbers, which in this case also influences the calculations.

For instance if we only grant back the $15,000 per apartment unit for each apartment and city is looking at 6,000 apartments downtown in the next 20 years that is $90 million dollars of subsidy. – L. Murr.

The Local Growth Management Study (LGMS)  identified an opportunity to add 2,000 to 3,000 additional residential units downtown Guelph, and the draft Downtown Secondary Plan suggests to reach for the highest number in this respect. The draft Plan numbers reduces the above calculation with 50%; it is still 45 million dollars over 20 years (2.25 million a year), but perhaps less dramatic. Remember, with increased population, you do not have to increase the percentage to gain more revenue.

In any case, more important is the question of how valuable the municipal incentives are to developers?

Not to speak on behalf of all developers, but one developer I spoke with suggested that municipal incentives on brownfield redevelopment were not very important when deciding to initiate a project. Financial incentives signals municipal willingness to attract development, but a developer’s decision for initiating a urban intensification project does not rest on such incentives.

Rather, firm and predictable policies were argued to be much more important. Thus, developers want to buy the land cheep and develop it quickly, without being tied down for too long, because that is where the bulk of their investment and profit lies. A good relationship between the City and Neighbourhood (Associations etc.) is therefore more important to the developer than municipal incentives.

One of my key thesis findings is indeed the importance of a strategic and collaborative plan-making process, in order to generate good stakeholder relations and collective buy-in. Lack of trust and lack of meaningful and widespread public collaboration is however an obstacle to a timely process, which requires special attention.

If municipalities were to invest money in the urban environment, the greatest results are believed to depend upon strategic land purchases (for public enjoyment and connectivity) and knowledge-economy institutional investments (to generate jobs and activity). In Guelph, where developers trust the market enough to proceed with projects, pursuit of generating jobs, education, and social activities in the urban core should be main priorities.

Laura, I hope this addresses some of your concerns. Thank you for commenting, and please follow up on this post if you desire.

I’m not quite there yet, but it is all so very close. I’m writing my concluding chapter this week. In total, the thesis writing has taken a couple of weeks longer than desired, but it is due to my preoccupation with other projects. However, now I have a pretty complete picture of the theory, strategy, policy, development reality, and differing stakeholder perspectives that colours my research on challenges and opportunities to implementing Smart Growth.

In short – without revealing too much – there is some good news and some bad news, depending on the perspective taken; the Downtown Secondary Plan is primarily about facilitating a much larger condofication trend (which likely will have socioeconomic consequences), but it also contains principles that can build more complex and interesting urban areas. I believe however a stronger civic engagement process, both from the top and bottom, is required to generate greater trust and the required compromises down the road.

In my view, the plan-making process was unfortunately more of a traditional conflict management character than genuine collaborative community planning; i.e. it is Smart Growth technically speaking, but not in spirit – mainly because condominium towers are popular, and, be it Smart Growth or not, the growth is today provided by the private market and not idealistic governments or citizens.

Earlier this summer I was told by an insider that local builder Fusion Homes was to purchase the Woods 1 site, and this news was made public last week. That means, perhaps, a greater willingness to be original and collaborative with the community, given this being a larger and newer kind of development for Fusion. (Home builders who want to grow a larger business are aware that intensification and infill must be part of their company strategy, if interested in building homes in the Greater Golden Horseshoe.) In any case, like many local stakeholders are hoping, a ‘Made in Guelph’ proposition might be the market advantage in this case and the Woods 1 site lends itself to some originality.

A public consultation process for the Places to Grow-directed downtown secondary plan started early 2010. The plan’s completion, expected initially being a quick process with limited need for community engagement, is today for many reasons (community engagement being one) pushed towards the end of 2011. My research follows the early stages of this particular plan-making process, taking a comprehensive view and identifying stakeholders’ power structures and influences in the drafting process.

The case study presents an interpretive analysis of the drafting process taking place amidst a variety of dynamic factors: differing stakeholder values and Smart Growth interpretations, past downtown redevelopment experiences, current market pressures, and specific public organization and participation dynamics. The challenge is to understand the likelihood of a successful outcome; to which degree the process enhances the holistic theory of Smart Growth, potentially competing with narrower interests expressed by the plan’s more central and powerful designers, and whether such a plan-making process approach is good or bad, and for whom?

Preliminary findings indicate that the process yields a pragmatic compromise of attracting development through policy predictability, financial incentives, bonusing opportunities, and political support. But there are also requirements to fit community character through contemporary planning and design standards that offer preference to a mid-sized city’s level of urbanism. The planning profession’s function as a democracy-building enterprise is also considered; in Guelph, rational-comprehensive technique and modernistic design expertise is evident, but offering more attention to its education and advocacy role could improve the process.

Guelph is currently drafting their policy that will guide future downtown developments, and the plan-making process is consequently a topic of great interest to a variety of interests including bureaucrats, politicians, citizens, and private developers. To create the policy that will guide future land uses is an emotional, educational, comprehensive, time-consuming, and, most of all, political process.

The opportunity: to create an urban policy that achieves compromise between all stakeholders and generates complete communities.

The challenge: to create an urban policy that favours the most powerful stakeholders and generates fragmented communities.

What’s the big deal?

The exciting part is the return to urban development. This saves land (less sprawl), increases proximity to services (less driving, more walking), can reduce overall energy demands, bring people together (less private, more public), generate healthier communities, and lots more. We can finally build cities again!

The frightening part is the danger of using the same planning rational that guided past suburban sprawl this time around as well, potentially resulting in vertical sprawl. Ute Lehrer at York University calls it suburbanization of the urban. We might end up building something different altogether, which follows a logic less complex and at a larger scale than what constituted cities of the past.

What to do?

Focus on collective values: The plan-making process is a matter of participatory democracy, and citizens must participate to fulfill their rights and responsibility to enjoy such a system. Many believe a representative democracy is sufficient, where citizens trust experts to do the job. However, with environmental and social consequences clearly having unequal impacts on people, the trust in experts is low. Civic society must therefore organize, while being educated and willing to promote collective values.

Seek a balance of power: Planning is a profession that can make use of the policy-drafting process (like drafting a secondary plan) to strengthen the participatory democracy, which in turn is more likely to generate a greater sense of compromise between stakeholders. With a greater willingness to facilitate a plan-making process that seeks compromise, there is less chance of powerful stakeholders (technocratic bureaucrats with professional bias; and large corporate developers, often with deep pockets and without requirements to provide social and environmental services) repeating the past land use logic that guided subdivision sprawl.

Look for creative compromises: This is truly a core strategy for any conflict resolution. Creative compromises will however be the focus of my next post…

…for now, I suggest a great read from Peter Gabor (1997) titled: “Low Impact – High Density Residential Development”.

Due to this lengthy process, my graduate thesis research will not comment on a final product, but rather offer an analysis of the early stages in the plan-making process. Therefore, my study can be considered by the public and the City before the Plan is official, potentially offering insights that can further strengthen the Plan.

It was therefore a great pleasure to be on the radio this week: CFRU 93.9fm – Beyond the Ballot Box – Roundtable on Downtown Development. This was my second one-hour appearance on the radio. Last year I was a guest on the Royal City Rag.

Follow the links below to hear me in full action:

• August 2010: Royal City Rag
• June 2011: Beyond the Ballot Box

Sitting on a roundtable was a nice experience. I had prepared some notes on the issues I wanted to address, but not all of them came up. I therefore provide my notes below:

Issues:

Secondary Plan numbers: By 2031 – 8,500 people [3000 new units/6000 people] and 7,500 jobs [1,500 new]. Achieve 150 people/jobs per hectare in density. [Same as Peterborough, Barrie, Cambridge, Brantford, St. Catharines]

Places to Grow: enacted 2006 for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (southern Ontario, centered on Toronto). Reduce sprawl and accommodate growth. By 2015, at least 40% of annual residential development to occur within the city’s built-up area. The UGC to accommodate major transit infrastructure, high density employment, and population growth.

Smart Growth: based on social values and land use principles; it may be defined as the policies and practices that promote compact forms of development which reduce automobile dependence through higher density, mixing of land uses and greater public and active modes of transportation than present development.

Smart Growth is not mentioned in current documents or debate, but it was an umbrella term for reurbanization, anti-sprawl, public and active transportation, and intensification proponents a decade ago (leading up to the 2006 Growth Plan). Mayor Karen Farbridge was for instance on Ontario’s Smart Growth Network Board, and the 2003 SmartGuelph document was part of the public consultation process preparing people for a new style of city building.

Design: Priority to “beautiful”. [Less focus on functional, cost-efficient, sustainable etc.]. Inspired from past urban designs; avoid past mistakes, like the Danby Site or Matrix buildings…Architects of today are however largely in favour of a typical modernistic and reductionist style, and not particularly exploratory with traditional or innovative styles (i.e. preference for buildings of glass and steel, sometimes on top of existing heritage structures).

Character – The Ward: small scale, stable, financially lower, organic – land use mixed and socially diverse, high density but public, and rich in social capital. There is a fear that development models of today will sterilize character and offer monolithic developments, but the strict policies in the Plan try to avoid this.

Trust: There is a culture in Guelph, due to educated and conscientious citizens with environmentally and socially sensible values critical to exploitation, resulting in a lack of trust between “experts” and “lay” people. This is voiced at “access points” – the public meetings. This was clearly demonstrated in S. Harris Ali’s paper: “Trust, Risk, the Public – The Case of the Guelph Landfill Site”. With high requirements, the city is more likely to get Smart Growth and not just high-density growth.

Market/ consumers: Brownfields require companies with capital for taking on the financial risk. Tower developments require big builders. High density doesn’t need to be towers. It depends on what other land uses there must be on the site (roads, park, setbacks, parking, etc.). Most importantly, the market determines what get built. Downtown is not envisioned for families, and the Central Business District is not a focus for residential intensification but rather preserved for a cultural and traditional use – although liberally zoned for mixed use if the market desires.

Plan-making process: The plan appears to be comprehensive, detailed, and considerate to good contemporary planning theory and market realities. It is therefore pragmatic and technical, aiming to please both developers and citizens.

However, the plan-drafting process is coloured by its reactionary nature; it doesn’t offer itself to be a vehicle for a larger purpose, i.e. generating the social and political re-orientation to a pro-urbanist thinking and preference, likely required for it to become popular and generate a bottom-up, grassroots buy-in.

The result might be a boutique-flavoured upper middle-class plan by and for a narrow segment of the population, which pays less attention to equity and an organic and complex urbanism with limited attention to people of all ages and social interests. The downtown is thus not envisioned as an urban hustling and bustling melting pot, but more of a typical neatly organized and functional salad bowl – truly Canadian.

I will refer back to this data in the final analysis, but a few initial numbers stand out.

• First of all, reversing the trend by attracting residents to reside in the inner core is a vital priority.

• Encouraging a housing model that serves the need of lower-than-average income earners is perhaps a challenge, while attracting more higher-paying jobs being another.

• The provision of and access to social services for the residents who need them the most should clearly be an important element to keep in mind when drafting the downtown secondary plan.

• The low average age can be increased through building an inner city attractive to adult professionals and elderly, as well as families (possible by increasing the family-friendly row-housing percentage).

• Now, while the low-income percentage is higher in the inner core than the for the City average, their close to or above the average employment rate is an asset.

• Finally, a high level of public transportation and walking or biking percentage in the inner core promises good return on investment of higher quality active and public transportation.

I will offer a taste shortly – in a week or so.

Meanwhile, check out this video:

Thanks to Steven Petric for blogging and adding his insightful enthusiasm to the debate.

The CIP Conference 2011

Also, the Canadian Institute of Planners will have their annual national conference July 10th to 13th in St. John’s, Newfoundland. I’ll be there. Guelph is represented in several ways, with staff and consultants eager to show the importance of getting it right. I’ll be there with keen ears and an open mind. It is an exciting time to enter the planning profession, particularly if you’re interested in good urbanism and changing the patterns of the past for new ones more fit for tomorrow. This is exactly why I got into planning in the first place.

In the policy drafting process, there is a chance some voices are brought together while others are left out. Time, money, capacity, organizational structures, ignorance, political decisions, and other factors may cause this to happen.

Power, sometimes apparent while other times structural, comes into play, particularly through ideology, depending on whether episteme (scientific and rational; conformity, legality, fiscal) and techne (art/craft, design) are for instance given preference (yes, this is common, and in that order) to phronesis (ethics, values, judgment of what is good or bad, praxis, for whom?).

Smart Growth is also a conceptual idea. In the Greater Golden Horseshoe, its impact is at regional, municipal and local levels, demanding more personal direct education and positive relations when introduced at the local level, naturally. This is why it is also a concept that requires a high level of sensitivity and public trust when introduced, if to be a celebrated concept with public “buy-in”. This requires a commitment to phronesis, I believe, at the same level of importance to the more classic preferences of episteme and techne. (For more on this, see Bent Flyvbjerg)

My case study seeks to better understand this topic, believing Guelph to be a demonstrative case due to its location and policy obligations, but also due to its liberal culture and politics, strong civic traditions, extensive “Smart Guelph” initiative in 2003, numerous conscientious policies and strategies, and lately the current public Downtown Secondary Plan engagement in 2010-2011.

It think there is a lesson to be learned, but I don’t yet know what Smart Growth will look like for The Ward locally. I do however think that attention to phronesis is important to successfully achieve it, in order to not end up with an idea morphed into something very different, vaguely recognizable.

A number of Ontario’s Urban Growth Centres defined by their low(er) skyline and mid-sized historical and cultural character are today the frontline for developers seeking intensification opportunities. The Places to Grow places density targets in the core of its strategy, but it also require all of the plan’s intentions to be respected as well. This is the difficult part.

This in mind, consider how the subdivision blueprint model for decades has served a major need for modernization and growth. Now the idea however is to aim for at least achieve 40% of new residential development within the existing built-up area by 2015, and specific numbers of people and jobs per hectare in the core (for instance, Guelph: 150, i.e. 3000 new units). The high-density residential requirements in Urban Growth Centers favour taller buildings as a means to achieve this, often in the 12 to 25-story range. There are strong market reasons for this preference, and perhaps even consumer preferences, but there is also another side to the story.

As a point of departure, consider this question: What will be the consequences of applying the high-rise model for residential intensification in mid-sized downtowns?

At a glance…

I recognize that the City of Guelph was, and in many aspects remains, a sprawling mid-sized city within commuter distance to Toronto, on groundwater, with a struggling downtown long under pressure to deindustrialize, but also subject to a history of strong community organizing networks, liberal views, creative artists and activists, and a daring attitude to be different and freely express controversial views…(be it the number of times David Suzuki and other free-minded spirits visit the city or women who demonstrate the right to walk topless in public).

But political Smart Growth values stick deep in Guelph

Other reasons might also have caused me to choose Guelph. For instance, Smart Growth values stick deep in this city. When having a look at the ‘Smart Growth Canada Network’ website, under the Advisory Board – Municipal Executives’ Resource Group Members, it turns out that the City of Guelph’s Mayor, Karen Farbridge, is a member, recognized for having “initiated an extensive community consultation process designed to develop a strategic framework to manage community change. The resulting plan — called SmartGuelph — was based on a set of community-derived principles and adopted a triple bottom line approach to decision making: environmental, economic and social sustainability“.

The Smart Growth Canada Network was founded in 2003, at a time when Guelph was investing a lot of time in putting its urban growth on a new path. Judging by its website, it is less active today than its US equivalent. However, Mayor Farbridge is at this point in time in power, and many of her past supporters still keep fighting ‘the good fight’.

There are however signs of a different atmosphere these days, such as the use of 18-story tower images on the Woods #1 site by Urban Strategies’ in the current City documents that does not reflect the 2007 design charrette model. The Civic League is also less on the stage, one could safely argue. And perhaps more importantly, there are now indeed a number of developers knocking on the City door with hopes of building profitable towers. But the reactions among citizens are also being voiced, although not in all cases yet formally organized or sufficiently collaborative.

In a Planning context

The Places to Grow requires the City to revert from past planning principles towards new ones, which are intended to return to neo-traditional patters, like (from Places to Grow – Size and Location of Urban Growth Centres in the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2008: 2):

• Revitalize downtowns to become vibrant centres;
• Create complete communities that offer more options for living, working, shopping, and playing;
• Provide greater choice in housing types to meet the needs of people at all stages in life;
• Curb sprawl and protect farmland and green spaces; and
• Reduce traffic gridlock by improving access to a greater range of transportation choices.

Local Interpretation

These general guidelines are now being formulated through the Downtown Secondary Plan, which will guide future development in the Urban Growth Centre. A number of other local documents influence the plan, as well as community collaboration. Thus, there is room for a ‘Made in Guelph’ interpretation of what values and preferences to let guide future development pressures, affecting already established neighbourhoods (as opposed to greenfield development).

The question is how this implementation strategy is formulated and what challenges and opportunities one must further address to achieve the publicly supported Smart Growth principles. The direction, or possibly lack of, formulated in this local document is indeed what stands in the middle of the implementation question; this is where the Smart Growth principles, the Growth Plan policies and the local values meet.

At stake is the possibility of intentionally or not letting any kind of intensifying development proposals (based on density numbers and profit margin) triumph other less easily defined values and principles of Smart Growth.

My hopes are nevertheless that a case study of Smart Growth implementation in Guelph has the ability to demonstrate a number of challenges and opportunities requiring particular attention by planners and citizens alike, when looking to implement the Growth Plan but also the intention behind it – namely Smart Growth.