LARRY'S CORNER- Hamilton's Former Mayor Speaks

Planning Matters: An Interesting Planning Committee Discussion

By Larry Di Ianni
(posted March 6, 2009)

An interesting discussion occurred at the Planning Committee this week. The Spectator didn’t carry a story on it, I don’t think, because the committee didn’t act. In fact it chose not to act on a recommendation by Councillor Brian McHattie. The paper doesn’t report on ‘non-action’, and so citizens were not able to find out the story behind the manipulations on this issue. The discussion is crucial to the financial and planning health of the city and deserves to be told.

Here is what the issue is about in a nutshell. The province, a few years ago, passed two key legislations, the Greenbelt Act and the Places to Grow Act. The first told communities which lands had to be protected, and the second indicated where communities could grow to accommodate population increases and job requirements. Remember that Hamilton is projected to grow by as many as 250,000 people over the next quarter century. Rather than waiting until it is too late, now is the time to decide where people will live and where they will work.

It is also fair to say that the provincial documents want cities to revitalize their downtowns and curtail sprawl. When I was Mayor we launched a forward-thinking planning process that would accommodate these requirements.

Through a long and detailed analysis and community involvement called GRIDS, the city adopted a ‘nodes and corridors’ plan which was almost unanimously endorsed by the Council of the day. This strategy had Hamilton grow in three ways: the first was to intensify the downtown area of the city. Included in this was a plan to increase the density of people living in an area along the main corridors in the city. As well, because not all of the new growth could be accommodated in these two strategies, Council also adopted a ‘nodes’ strategy. This node was to grow a whole new community in a concentrated area known as the Elfrida lands. We are not talking about immediate growth, but development to come generations into the future in Elfrida. Rather than leaving it up to chance and encourage sprawl, Council adopted a better option in selecting the node mentioned above. Elsewhere in my blog, I have written about the Province’s interference in this planning and the city’s lack of foresight in not challenging the Province.

Even though Councillor McHattie supported the GRIDS strategy at the time, his current motion about increasing downtown density has the effect of undoing the solid recommendations contained in the original plan. I can only guess that the anti-business lobby at city hall (CATCH) is influencing the Councillor’s usual clear thinking on planning matters.

Staff, it should be pointed out, does not support the Councillors intensification targets. Councillor McHattie, a planner himself, should know better, but for inexplicable ideological reasons is ignoring staff’s solid advice. Why is this happening?

In layman’s terms, here is what this intrigue means. Currently, the Places to Grow strategy targets downtown development at 200 people and jobs per hectare. My Council actually bumped that number up to 250 per hectare, wanting to be more aggressive in bringing people downtown than even the province suggested for us. Now Councillor McHattie wants the number to go up to 400 people and jobs per hectare, roughly about the same density as the city of Toronto’s most intense downtown neighbourhoods.

It isn’t that staff has a philosophical disposition against this recommendation; or that staff wants to see ‘sprawl’ as some ideologues are accusing it, it is just that staff doesn’t see this more aggressive number as being realistic. First of all, in practical terms to reach the target Brian McHattie wants, one would almost have to put a high rise development or two in each existing neighbourhood. Can you imagine the reaction of people in the West Harbour, or Durand, or Corktown if that were the case? The neighbourhood revolt would be instantaneous. Secondly, to accommodate this density, the city would have to tear down the entire sewer infrastructure downtown and add greater capacity to account for the additional flow, as well as retrofitting the treatment plant to allow for the additional usage. It isn’t rocket science to see that on the one hand the strategy is politically not doable; on the other it is utterly unaffordable.

Why the Councillor is embarked on this faulty notion given that he is a professional planner and is usually very thoughtful is the million dollar question. The ‘method’ in his ‘madness’ may be his interest in stopping by the back door what he hasn’t been able to do through the front door. That is, he is simply trying to stop the development of the Airport lands as well as preventing growth in other parts of the city. Both positions may be valid ones to take, but the essence of good planning is to be realistic as well as strategic. The Councillor’s suggestion is neither. Good for staff for standing behind its principles; and good for the rest of the committee for seeing through the bad recommendation.

BACK TO LARRY'S CORNER

HOME