By Staff
February 2, 2018
BURLINGTON, ON
During his address to the Burlington business community where he delivered his eight State of the City speech Mayor Rick Goldring said he read in a publication titled “Intensification: what it is and what it promises”. The document was on the Neptis Foundation website.
Mayor explains intensification at a public meeting.
“Intensification is promoted as a way to achieve several benefits.
“First, if population growth can be accommodated at higher densities, or within existing urban areas, or both, less Greenfield land will be required for new housing.
“Second, research shows that when density increases beyond a certain level, automobile use declines in favour of transit, walking and cycling.
“Third, where surplus infrastructure capacity exists in urbanized areas, adding more people to these areas make more efficient use of public urban infrastructure such as water and sewer pipes, as well as soft infrastructures including schools and social services.
“In short, development in already urbanized areas plays to the city’s strengths rather than spreading its resources over an ever-wider territory.”
Is it really that simple?
One of the ideas that came out of the Mayor’s Reverse Town Hall was to have a “character” study done on the downtown core.
Indian Point was a mish mash of different built forms with the community divided on what they wanted the community to look like. They were never able to agree on what should be permitted but the study did show what existed and what was worth saving.
The studies have been done for Roseland and Indian Point. The Roseland study was seen as a success because residents had a lot of input that they felt was listened to and heard.
There is an opportunity for the downtown residents, the Core Group would be ideal, to press the city to have a character study done which would become part of the criteria that developers have to meet.
Waiting for the Planning department to pick this up is not an effective route to take.
Delegate to Council and convince a Council member to put forward a Staff Direction.
The simplistic explanation the Mayor picked up is part of what got the city on the mess it is in.
There has been no mention of where we live and our climate! It isn’t user friendly for cycling 6 months of the year (factoring in bad weather and our winters). New condos are very expensive, therefore, it will be the majority of people well into their careers, or retired, that have the money to own. With no expansion for the job market downtown, I doubt that any worker is going to cycle any distance without a shower available at their work place. Most seniors like vehicles to get around in for convenience and comfort. I don’t believe in 25 years from now that this age of people will be any different than they are today, if not perhaps even a little worse off. Having no track record of successes going in your direction, I would follow with the intelligent views from the public that make more sense on a broader picture, than what has been tunnelled in the minds of those only seeing what is presented to them on paper.
“Second, research shows that when density increases beyond a certain level, automobile use declines in favour of transit, walking and cycling.”
There it is. The first and foremost reason for walling off huge areas in order create overcrowded streets, so the public (not the limousine riding politicians) will get out of their bourgeois cars and onto mass transit. It’s refreshing to see some honesty.
I don’t know where the Mayor got his sense of arithmetic in the claim 2 – “Second, research shows that when density increases beyond a certain level, automobile use declines in favour of transit, walking and cycling.”
This statement means that the Mayor is claiming that the absolute number of cars declines, but this is an error. What might really happen is that the marginal use of cars declines as the population density increases.
That is, in earlier, less dense times, if 100 new people might use 100 cars (to keep it simple), in a later period, 100 new people might use 95 cars.
This still means 95 more cars. Car use does not absolutely decline, and we still have 95 more cars on the road. This can easily be scaled up.
And to get that 5 car reduction per 100 people is very difficult and costly, and will not happen just because of density. Neither will this kind of marginal decline continue indefinitely, without limit.
There has to be an alternative that works to fill the real needs.
The law is that the population incremental use of cars per capita is still higher than the incremental use of other modes.
We will never see an absolute decline in the number of cars with a growing population in Burlington. Why would anyone claim that there would be – confirmation bias?
More people, more cars – that is the law.
I understand the Mayor has a financial advisory company, and he did this actively before entering politics.
I suggest that he brush up on his arithmetic of marginal versus total, and earnings versus losses. Over time, the positive rate of return (cars per 100), might decline, so the return is less, resulting in fewer incremental cars per 100 this time period, but it does not mean that it is a loss of total cars if the rate declines.
Growing investment in population will always earn more cars, so the total value of the cars also grows, and does not shrink.
Watch your math, watch your words, watch the meaning.
He might need it.
Distilling the message to a few short homilies in the hopes of convincing a different audience of the merits of the argument doesn’t necessarily guarantee a different response. On one hand, business people may favour intensification if it results in more customers and revenue. However, when weighed against the prospects of more traffic congestion, the loss of green space, increased assessments and rents, and a deterioration in the quality of life, and suddenly the choice isn’t quite so clear cut.
Rather than talking over the heads of ECoB supporters in the hopes of persuading them of the righteousness of your argument the Mayor might actually want to employ a different tactic…something more akin to engagement.
Pull together a blue ribbon panel comprised of a cross-section of individuals who are in favour of the OP (e.g. Planning officials, developers, some Councillors) and those who are extremely knowledgeable around the OP but who have raised serious doubts or questions (e.g. Greg Woodruff, Lisa Kierans, Penny Hirsch, Gary Scobie, Tom Muir, Joe Gaetan, etc.). Hire a trained facilitator, someone with municipal government or business experience adept at working with different groups and perspectives (e.g. Mark Carr, Ron Foxcroft). Convene a meeting, and try to see if there are adjustments or changes that could be made to the OP or Mobility Hubs proposals that may address some of the concerns and needs of both groups.
At a minimum the facilitator should be able to highlight key similarities and differences, and may be able to propose unique compromises or alternatives that may resolve some differences.
Finally, the Mayor should remember the sage advice of Albert Einstein: “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.”
In the Mayor’s speech he said that it is up to the residents to become knowledgeable about the new draft Official Plan. With that in mind I went to the Grow Bold office on Locust Street today. I asked if they had a precinct map that I could have. I was told they didn’t have any ” that everything was in a state of flux”. They did tell me I could go online. I explained that I didn’t have a colour printer and I was hoping to have something bigger than 8 x 10. They are hoping to have something by next week.
I think it might be a good idea to have the necessary information available before basically accusing the residents of not being informed. Those of us who have been keeping up with what is going on find it almost impossible to understand what is happening. One minute this precinct is okay, then it changes and becomes another precinct with a different name, and a different mandate.
Can someone simply this by changing the precincts to areas with the names of the streets involved?
Burlington’s discussion on intensification is OVER-simplified. The city refuses to have an open and transparent discussion on its merits and pitfalls. They talk about the former – never the latter.
To be sure, there are benefits to intensification. But there are many instances of intensification “gone wild” that have made communities less than what they once were.
Burlington’s OP has to acknowledge intensification’s downsides to adequately mitigate its potentially destructive consequences.
“First, if population growth can be accommodated at higher densities, or within existing urban areas, or both, less Greenfield land will be required for new housing.”
Ignoring quality of life issues – sure. I think everyone can tell you use less land if people are all piled up in 400 square foot apartments. This is also a great rational for having fewer parks, less public areas, less landscaping buffer, less trees, etc. This is why green space goes out the window under this line of thinking.
“Second, research shows that when density increases beyond a certain level, automobile use declines in favour of transit, walking and cycling.
Burlington can never even approach these densities without kicking down the suburbs – which we have said we won’t do. Mostly this occurs in incredibly dense cities where traffic congestion is insane and things like a subway exist. Plus people who want that live style move into these areas.
“Third, where surplus infrastructure capacity exists in urbanized areas, adding more people to these areas make more efficient use of public urban infrastructure such as water and sewer pipes, as well as soft infrastructures including schools and social services.
Certainly piling up portables is cheaper than having kids in a class room. And since in Burlington most of the infrastructure is already been setup for low density. That means replacing it all – which is certainly not cheap.
Fourth, people living in density cities having greater rates of cancer, report more social isolation and greater stress.
Note the quality of life of the people living here now just goes out the window as an irrelevant factor.
I’m all in favor of using increased density to bring things into our communities, which I define as positive intensification. Just not the current patter of getting people, with no infrastructure to support them and driving all our local businesses out.
That’s what is going on in reality.
These talking points are great, but they do not reflect the reality of Burlington as it is.
The incoherence is frustrating. Where to start? What are “density cities”? What does “kicking down suburbs” mean? Fewer public areas? Where is that happening?! How about cancer rates? The highest rates of new cancers in Canada are in Newfoundland/Labrador, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Hardly high density areas. If we’re going to talk about this stuff, let’s stick to facts. Let’s be clear and rational. The hyperbole and visceral responses need to go.
Shannon,
You are being deliberately provocative in your comments. You only add to the incoherence that you complain about. This is frustrating too.
If you are going to criticize, which is all right if it too sticks to facts, and with logical arguments with other facts in rebuttal,
as you demand, then keep your own visceral and hyperbolic responses to yourself.
I don’t think you are clear and rational at all in this comment to Greg.
Most of what he says is pretty clear to intuition if you think about it for a minute. Slangy maybe, but obvious in meaning.
Give us a break from your outbursts of the last week or so.
Give us a break
I’m so very sorry my “outbursts” (which I prefer to call, my “arguments” have bothered you.
I would argue that I have, in fact, stuck to the facts and used logical arguments.
On a factual level, I would like to challenge Mr. Woodruff’s claims about cancer rates in “density cities” (although I’m still not sure what those are). A recent CDC report in the U.S. shows that cancer rates are declining overall (despite population increases). But what’s interesting is that the cancer rate is declining more slowly in rural areas than in urban areas.
My other factual, non-outbursty argument is there is absolutely no evidence in the updated OP that there will be “fewer parks, less public areas, less landscaping buffer, less trees, etc.” so I feel it irresponsible to suggest otherwise. If I am wrong about this, please advise.