How do you curb sprawl when your population is growing like wildfire? That’s the question before residents, politicians and planners in the Golden Horseshoe.
The short answer is to put more people in less space, and build on already developed areas rather than on greenfields. That was the intent of the 2006 Places to Grow — Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The plan sets population and employment density targets cities must achieve to manage growth and curb sprawl — that nasty spread of low-density subdivisions and big-box commercial developments from urban centres onto precious farmland.
The province set a deadline of June 16 this year for Ontario municipalities to change their official plans to show how they will meet these targets and accommodate growth. Halton region alone will almost double in population and employment between now and 2031, from 448,000 people to 780,000, and from 233,000 jobs to 390,000.
Places to Grow mandates that by 2015 and thereafter, 40% of this population and employment growth must occur in built up areas. Those areas include urban growth centres as well as greenfield developments, each with their own density targets.
Urban growth centres must reach 200 people and jobs per hectare by 2031. There are three in Halton: Downtown Burlington (which is halfway to the target, at 107), downtown Milton and midtown Oakville.
Designated greenfield areas must reach 50 people and jobs per hectare.
It should be noted these are “minimum targets.” Municipalities are encouraged to exceed them.
What does this mean for you? Halton Region will vote on Wednesday to adopt Regional Official Plan Amendment (ROPA) 37, which essentially commits the region to meeting the density requirements of Places to Grow — without spelling out how it’s going to do that.
That’s a little like putting the cart before the horse — how can we commit to growing if we don’t know we can without doing serious damage to our communities, both rural and urban?
That question was supposed to be answered by the Sustainable Halton process, launched in 2006 and now in its final stages. That process produced some 40 background reports, which cover such things as protection of natural areas, agriculture, transportation and waste management. Those reports culminated in three options for growth, presented at public meetings last week at regional headquarters. The public has about two weeks to comment before the final option is voted on at committee June 17, and regional council June 24.
It’s widely expected regional council will opt for Option 2, which will see an expansion to the urban boundaries of both Georgetown and Milton into greenfields — something I thought Places to Grow was supposed to prevent. The population growth in each area isn’t yet defined, though Milton could end up as the largest city in Halton when the dust settles.
HELLO TOWER TUNNELS
A lot of thoughtful work has gone into this process. But the bottom line is our urban boundaries are still expanding onto greenspace, our public services are under severe strain, and there’s no plan (yet) for how to deal with this. That will come in the fall, when the chosen option is fleshed out into ROPA 38. (Confused yet? That’s part of the problem with this process.) Residents here are generally prepared to accept some population intensification within city limits in order to protect greenspace. But it’s increasingly looking like we’ll get both more intensification in our downtowns (goodbye waterfront views, hello tower tunnels) and less greenspace, as urban boundaries and so-called “settlement areas” — especially those on greenfields — become as malleable as Jell-O.
Burlington councillor John Taylor told me last week: “Sustainable Halton isn’t a sustainability exercise. It’s a planning exercise to conform to provincial legislation.” An apt description.
Taylor recommends a separate process, including local stakeholders, to really look at sustainability. But by the time we look at whether growth is sustainable, we will have already committed ourselves unconditionally to growing. We’ll be making the best of a situation — rather than making our situation the best it can be.
