Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Steve Lafleur

GET UPDATES FROM Steve Lafleur
 

Suburbs: Nowhere to Grow but Up

Posted: 03/15/2012 12:07 pm

Newmarket is one of the fastest growing cities in Ontario. Unfortunately, they've now run out of room to grow. After the provincial government passed the Places to Grow Act (PGA) in 2005, the government quickly created the Greenbelt that put much of the GTA's land out of reach for development. Newmarket, like many other cities, now has no choice but to grow upwards. The trouble is that some local residents are resisting high-density development. What they don't realize is that they don't have a choice in the matter. The provincial government and demographic forces will decide the issue.

The PGA is not only preventing development in the majority of undeveloped GTA land, but it also gives the provincial government the ability to overrule any zoning measure in any Ontario city. The province has already decided to mandate higher density development. Unfortunately, Newmarket residents are being told a different story. To the advantage of local politicians, details of the murky PGA haven't been the focus of much public debate in recent years. Some municipal politicians who vigorously support the current government that implemented the Act are also in favour of introducing a 15-storey height restriction, even though the restriction would contradict the aims of the provincial government. It would also run counter to the platform on which the mayor was recently elected. The motivation behind the proposal is to stop a planned 26-storey development at the city's main intersection. Yet the city recently approved two 17 storey developments elsewhere in the city. Even if the city does implement the restriction, they know it will be struck down by the Ontario Municipal Board. The taxpayers will be stuck with the legal bills for the show trial.

Political hypocrisy aside, there are two main challenges here. First, the community is being forced to comply with a broad mandate imposed by the province. Second, a vigorous Not-in-my-Backyard (NIMBY) campaign is attempting to use the city's community plan to prevent any development that will in any way have any impact whatsoever on their property. Even minor inconveniences such as increased traffic and shade will not be tolerated. These are mistakes.

The challenge with prescriptive land use planning such as the Places to Grow Act is that it assumes that development will proceed exactly as planned. Moreover, it does not contemplate unintended consequences. One such consequence visible in Newmarket has been an extraordinary increase in property values. While it has been a major windfall for long standing property owners, whose home values increased by 77% between 2001 and 2010, it is a significant challenge for young families who wish to move to the city. Not everyone can afford a $428,000 house.

Another unintended consequence of the PGA is that cities and towns around the GTA, such as Newmarket, have become home to what is known as leap-frog development. The goal of the Greenbelt was to reduce urban sprawl and traffic congestion. But people who want to buy single dwelling houses are increasingly forced to buy well outside of Toronto and commute further on a daily basis than if they could have purchased homes in the Greenbelt area.

The irony of the NIMBY movement in Newmarket is that the people fighting against development are the very people who have seen massive property value increases because of the city's growth. They argue that the proposed 26 story development will cast shade on their properties and increase traffic congestion. One would think that the compensation they've received in higher property values would be sufficient to make up for minor inconveniences that don't directly affect the use of their property. But it isn't. It is never enough with NIMBYs, who thrive on fear of change. If anything, the proposed development, which includes a new medical centre, ought to increase their home values. The rental and condo units would be aimed at a different market share than the single dwelling homes with three car garages typical of Newmarket. They might even make it possible for young former Newmarket residents to return to the city, and for young professionals currently living in their parents' basements to gain independence. Attempting to use zoning laws to maintain the property value of existing owners is a misguided goal in comparison to allowing the development of more affordable housing alternatives.

Newmarket is not alone. It is just one of many municipalities in the GTA that has encountered explosive growth. The GTA added 477,000 residents since the 2006 census. Of these, 76.2% settled outside of Toronto. Newcomers will need to live somewhere. As existing municipalities fill out, the only option will to be building upwards. The battle between NIMBYs and the provincial government has just begun. But they are both in the wrong. Each group seeks to build communities in its own image. One wants to mandate high-density development, the other to maintain their "small town feel." Both make the fatal conceit that we can and ought to centrally plan growth. Leapfrog development and rapidly increasing property values in the GTA are logical consequences of prescriptive land use planning. Unless Ontario repeals the Places to Grow Act, planners and NIMBYs will continue to punish prospective home buyers.

 

Follow Steve Lafleur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Steve_Lafleur

 
 
  • Comments
  • 10
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
06:57 PM on 03/21/2012
You have taken your own spin on the Places to Grow Act. First off, Newmarket is a town not a city. The Places to grow act states a min of 200 people/jobs per hectare for Newmarket's urban growth center by 2031. By that time we are to increase population by 13,000. Newmarket's official plan, is for 200-250 people jobs per hectare. The application for the Slessor site, including the 26/29 storey towers represents 832 people/jobs per hectare, which is over 4 times the minimum under the PGA. Do you really wonder why residents are upset??? If you look at the map for the Urban Growth Center you will see that all of Yonge St and most of Davis Drive is slated for intensification, so why put over 1,600 people on one site? Traffic will be a huge issue. This is not NIMBY. This affects all of Newmarket. Check out shrinkslessorsquare.ca. You seem to think that increased property values is a crime. Isn't that the whole idea of making a longterm investment? There are many seniors in the area that will need those property values down the road. I'm not sure how many young families will be able to afford the condos on this site as 45% are expected to be over $400,000. So ridiculous heights and density will only pad the developers pockets. We can conform with the Places to Grow Act and still have reasonable heights. Sorry, but your comments are flawed.

Anna O'Rourke
09:43 AM on 03/21/2012
Forgot to mention... check out the facts at www.shrinkslessorsquare.ca
09:30 AM on 03/21/2012
Steve Lafleur, wants to see the repeal of the Places to Grow Act - which will allow a rash of developments all over the place.

He is against “prescriptive land use planning”. He would unleash a free for all where, presumably, even the Green Belt would not be sacrosanct.

Lafleur pokes us in the ribs by saying Newmarket is full of NIMBY types.

In the UK there are two much lampooned groups. The NIMBY (not-in-my-back-yard) and the NOTE (not-over-there-either).

The Shrink Slessor Square group (aka the Shrinkers) do not fall into either category.

It is perfectly possible to accommodate the projected growth in Newmarket without building giant towers that loom over surrounding neighbourhoods.

We are not against development.

So long as it doesn't turn Newmarket into a pastiche of, hmm, Calgary.
05:44 PM on 03/20/2012
Forgot to mention: despite his characterization of us, the people commenting critically on the Slessor Square development as it presently conceived agree with Mr. Lafleur about the need for densification and affordable homes for people of all generations. The difference is we believe we can have both higher density and an attractive and liveable community to leave to future generations.
05:40 PM on 03/20/2012
You wouldn't know it from Mr. Lafleur's piece, but we're having a nuanced conversation about development in Newmarket. If you have to call people resisting current proposals something, call them SIMBYs (smarter-in-my-backyard). But maybe we can skip the name-calling altogether.
On a related note, Mr. Lafleur (and everyone else concerned about Newmarket's future growth) is invited to a presentation by York U. Professor Robert McDermid. He's talking about the influence of developer campaign contributions on GTA municipal politics. Should be good. It sponsored by Occupy Newmarket, a group dedicated to people-centred planning and policies. 1 p.m., Saturday, March 31 at the Newmarket Library (Park Ave., just west of Main St.).
Robin Wardlaw, member, Occupy Newmarket
05:32 PM on 03/20/2012
part 1
Mr. Lafleur's interpretation is one way to look at local resistance to development in Newmarket. There is another side to the story that he doesn't mention, though. All those who criticized the proposed development at a recent public meeting agreed with densification, just like he does. We, too, want cheaper homes to allow adult children to move home (or out of mom and dad's basement) and for retirees to downsize into. We agree with the vision of lots of population growth along the key transportation corridors to make transit viable. What he fails to note is that we also want a smart approach to urbanization. In other words, this is not NIMBY-ism. Call it 'smarter-in-my-backyard-ism,' or better yet, lets not resort to name-calling at all.
Those of us raising our voices believe many common urbanization mistakes can be avoided with some good planning and design beforehand. Slessor Square as it now conceived, for example, looks like a place not conducive to pedestrians or residents who wish to spend time outdoors. It seems to be over double the hoped-for Places to Grow density of living spaces and jobs.
Robin Wardlaw (member, Occupy Newmarket)
01:19 PM on 03/16/2012
It is NIMBY-ism but is it not okay for one to defend a place or thing that they love because of what it is? Various progressives love to demonize landowners as NIMBY's but heaven forbid the shoe is on the other foot when it comes to development they don't like in area's close to home. I forgot the exact quote but something along the lines of "capitalist want a cabin in the woods, environmentalists already have one". People have a right to defend their property and the whole argument that they should put up and shut up because their property has increased in value is baloney Mr. Lafluer.
10:38 AM on 03/16/2012
Mr. Lafleur: I am the Regional Councillor for Newmarket (John Taylor) who you reference in relation to the 15 story height restriction. I am surprised that you would write a news blog without contacting me (others?) for some of the facts. You have premised your blog and your position on a misunderstanding of the relevant facts related to Newmarket and the Places to Grow Act. Please feel free to contact me at the Town of Newmarket if you would like to discuss this in more detail. I would be happy to provide a balanced perspective on the issue.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cdncommentator
11:44 PM on 03/15/2012
If the province repeals the Places to Grow Act, there will soon be no greenspace at all in South Central Ontario, and everything will be full of ugly, concrete strip malls and cookie cutter suburban houses with lots of highways and even more traffic. The point of the Act is to create denser towns connected by public transit.

If you want to have a quiet suburban home a la 1970, you have to leave the GTA, and soon, Southern Ontario. Winnipeg, Calgary and Halifax are nice for this.
01:20 PM on 03/16/2012
So people have to sell and move? How about all new development happens in the greenbelt but only for ultra-dense public transit communities where no cars are allowed?