Is Ontario’s anti-sprawl policy really that smart?
A British economist says Smart Growth may be one of the dumbest planning approaches around.

TheStar.com
Oct. 29, 2016
Tess Kalinowski

Paul Cheshire thinks Ontario’s anti-sprawl Smart Growth policies might just be one of the dumbest ideas that Britain ever exported.

The London School of Economics professor is the latest economist to suggest that Smart Growth is pouring fuel on the Toronto region’s overheated housing market by limiting the supply of developable land.

On Friday, he shared his research on Britain’s own land containment policies with a conference at Ryerson University’s Centre for Urban Research and Land Policy.

By limiting how far development can sprawl from critical infrastructure such as transit, Cheshire told the Star, “you try and force people to live in houses they don’t want to live in, in places they don’t want to live and they end up bidding up the prices of those houses that they do want to live in.”

Britain’s policies pre-date Ontario’s 2006 Places to Grow growth plan by decades. The result is that workers are commuting four hours a day by train to London from all over the south of England because they can’t afford a house closer to the city.

Cheshire’s comments come just before Monday’s deadline for feedback on the province’s Co-ordinated Land Use Planning Review, which looks at Places to Grow, the Greenbelt Plan, the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation and Niagara Escarpment plans.

The review is recommending increasing population intensification targets in the Toronto region — from 50 jobs and residents per hectare on greenfields to 80 per hectare on the land approved for development, and from 40 jobs and people per hectare in areas that are already urbanized to 60 per hectare.

Even some municipalities encouraging the complete, transit-supportive communities supported by Smart Growth, say the revised targets may be too ambitious.

For example, implement them before 2031 and Peel could face densities of 140 people and jobs on its outskirts.

“These new communities would be some of the most dense and would lack significant infrastructure, including transit, to support these densities,” said an Oct. 3 report to Peel Region council.

The province has to make sure that any new targets are realistic, said Kevin Eby, Waterloo Region’s former planning director, who calls himself one of the Growth Plan’s biggest supporters.

“If the targets are unrealistic, people will spend more time trying to figure out how to circumvent them than on meeting them,” he said.

There is an alternative to Smart Growth that doesn’t have to result in U.S.-style sprawl, said Cheshire.

U.S. sprawl is encouraged by planning that requires large minimum lot sizes — rules that have been used to discourage poor people from moving into some jurisdictions and by a fiscal system that keeps development taxes in local hands.

“Stand on the Golden Gate Bridge and look north into Marin County, which is about 20 minutes from San Francisco’s downtown, they have minimum lot sizes in many communities of 60 acres,” said Cheshire.

Plus, he adds, “Gas is cheaper than Coca Cola. So if you’re not charging for commuting and you’re insisting people consume much more land than they really want to, you get very low densities.”

It makes more sense to tax energy than regulate land use, said Cheshire, because everyone is affected by those costs.

“If you control new development it only affects the margins which is only about 1 or 2 per cent of the total stock of housing in any year so it would take you 50 years to have any impact on behaviour,” he said.

There is no evidence that Smart Growth even reduces carbon emissions, said Cheshire, who, in reference to Ontario’s Greenbelt protected farmland, notes that industrialized farming is environmentally toxic.

Burkhard Mausberg of the Friends of the Greenbelt Foundation, calls these “desperate arguments trying to bolster an outdated way of building communities; the last gasps of a dreadful approach to planning.”

“Just as the agricultural sector is investing in changing practices to reduce emissions, the development sector should invest in building complete communities that reduce sprawl, support better transit and reduce congestion. It’s not an either/or proposition,” he said.

Home prices are complicated. But York Region chief planner Val Shuttleworth said she doesn’t believe that land policy alone is driving up house prices.

“I’m not even sure if it’s a factor,” she said.

Municipalities are required by the province to have a 10-year supply of land designated for housing. York Region is exceeding that by five to six years. It has four years’ supply of serviced land when the province only requires three, said Shuttleworth.

Bryan Tuckey, CEO of the Building Industry and Land Development Association, says municipalities urging a go-slow approach on higher densities are right because the region doesn’t yet know the full impacts of the first 10 years of Places to Grow. Most of the development that has taken place so far is a result of plans made before 2006.

“It’s only been 10 years. It is a long time,” he said. “But in the span of development of cities and regions it’s a relatively short period of time.”

Tale of two cities

Here are two communities in the GTA that have embraced a denser residential development.

Cornell embraces higher density

It predates Ontario’s growth plan, but Markham’s “new urbanist” Cornell community is still considered one of the Toronto region’s most attractive examples of intensified residential development.

A charming suburban fairy tale, it’s a mix of single-family homes, with garages tucked back in laneways, and shop-fronted apartments built on walkable streets around a bucolic town square.

Bounded by Donald Cousens Parkway, Hwy. 407, Ninth Line and Reesor Rd., Cornell puts the lie to those who believe density has to be ugly. It demonstrates what developers can do if they’re willing to be creative, said York Region chief planner Val Shuttleworth.

More than a decade since the first residents moved in, Cornell still has only about half the 40,000 population that was forecast and there’s no timeline for building out the 10,000 housing units on the books.

But it already comes in at more than 80 jobs and residents per hectare, the upgraded density targets being proposed for a provincial growth plan update expected next year.

Cornell, along with some similarly dense developments in Vaughan, Markham and East Gwillimbury, is flourishing because York foresaw the need for intensification before the province forced it on the region, said Shuttleworth.

“Long before the province brought in the growth plan (in 2006) we were working on intensification, we were working on more compact communities in our urban expansion areas,” she said.

Ultimately, intensification should put people closer to jobs, but Shuttleworth admits that, even in Cornell, employment lags residential development.

“It doesn’t matter what politicians and planners do, the jobs always lag behind the residents. It takes patient money, patient developers to achieve the jobs,” said Shuttleworth.

Land has been reserved along Hwy. 7 for future office and commercial employment. Developers would like municipalities to convert employment lands to residential so they can realize a quicker return. Markham has been subject to several such applications.

There is some small commercial employment and some work attached to the schools and long-term care facilities in Cornell. But the staff at the nearby Markham-Stouffville hospital aren’t included in the 80 jobs and hectares there, because it’s such an atypical land use.

Shuttleworth thinks those jobs won’t come until Viva Rapid Transit runs dedicated bus lanes there and the Pickering Airport is built.

Although a Viva bus terminal is planned for next year at Hwy. 7 and Ninth Line, south of the hospital, the bus lanes have a projected completion date of 2026 and aren’t yet funded.

Burlington’s bets on condos for commuters

It's been named one of Canada's most livable cities, but Burlington is running out of room, with only 600 to 800 single-family housing lots left.

When those run out, any new growth will be accommodated by intensification, says an unapologetic Mayor Rick Goldring.

The 80 per cent of Burlington that makes the city of 180,000 so attractive to families won't change, he said.

But the anticipated growth of 12,000 people over the next 15 years will mean a new kind of mid-rise and high-rise development in the Fairview and Plains roads corridors that connect the city’s three GO stations.

That new development "is going to be walkable, bikeable and it's going to be right on the doorstep of the GO station," said Goldring.

"We're going to build complete streets that have landscaping and street furniture," said Mary Lou Tanner, Burlington’s director of planning and building. There will be height, but the new Burlington is all about what's happening on the street.

"We need to remember how to get the streets and the buildings right at the human scale and then we can figure out how it rises," said Tanner.

There will also be densities that resemble Toronto, exceeding even the proposed 60 (up from 40) jobs and residents per hectare. The province is prescribing densities of 150 jobs and people around its electrified GO trains, which are expected to deliver 15-minute service. Subway stations require 200.

It's already happening, said Tanner, who points to Paradigm, five 18- to 24-storey towers that will put nearly 1,000 condos next door to the Burlington GO station on Fairview Rd. near Brant St.

The average condo will be about 700 square feet with amenities ranging from a concierge and party rooms to basketball courts and an outdoor exercise circuit, says local developer Vince Molinaro.

With GO access and a 15-minute walk to the lakefront through Burlington's downtown, the units will likely appeal to singles, couples and those who are downsizing.

"People in their mid-60s want to do the same things as people in their mid-20s," said Molinaro.

Why would a young professional or couple want to live in Burlington rather than downtown Toronto? Affordability is one factor, he said.

"People can't afford the single-family home any more. They have to drive until they can afford it. They may have to go (much farther) to Inniskillin or Barrie, just to find a reasonably priced home," said Molinaro.

At Paradigm, where the city reduced the parking requirement from 1.25 spaces per condo to one, couples can ditch at least one car thanks to the GO proximity, he said.

But urban-style high-rise development has its own challenges, said Molinaro.

"There's no obvious big lots out there ready to accept a high-rise development. You have to assemble a decent-sized property and then you have to go through all the planning and re-zoning applications to get it approved," he said.

"If it's going to take us two years to get these things approved, that's time and money for us. It's also lost opportunity for the municipality not getting registered units approved to get them to start paying property tax."

Growth factors

400 – The increase in square footage of the average home built in Peel and York Region between 2007 and 2011, from 2,700 to 3,100 sq. ft.

200 – Residents and jobs per hectare around subway stations as prescribed in Ontario’s growth plan.

160 – Residents and jobs per hectare recommended for LRT or bus rapid transit corridors, according to the growth plan

69 – People and jobs per hectare projected density for the 85% of Peel Region’s land approved for development that is already being built or planned.

25% – The cost that land contributes to the total price of a home, according to research quoted by Friends of the Greenbelt Foundation