Blue Mountain - Birch Cove Lakes is a a paradise: a piece of wilderness the size of the Halifax peninsula, just 10 km from the downtown core. A mere bus ride away, it contains a series of lakes that form a complete canoe loop, and local non-profits are working to develop a trail system in the area. You can literally step into the forest behind the Kent in Bayers Lake, and lose yourself in wilderness. It's like a small piece of Kejimkujik in our backyard, and one of the many things that make Halifax a great place to live.
Most cities would give their right arm for a jewel like this: a near-urban wilderness tract that offers amazing outdoor recreational opportunities. As Tim Bousquet said in his 2009 article about the area, "It's hard to believe this place exists."
Unfortunately, this place may not exist as is much longer. Private landowners/developers are pushing to open up a significant portion of the Birch Cove Lakes to development, and the HRM is currently consulting on a facilitator's report that would allow them to do just that.
Blue Mountain and a portion of the Birch Cove Lakes are already protected as a provincial wilderness area, designated in 2009 and expanded in 2015. However, much of the remaining land is in private hands, some of it in prime lakefront or wilderness areas.
In the 2006 Regional Plan (updated in 2014), the HRM made clear its desire to create a Regional Park in Blue Mountain - Birch Cove Lakes, identified park boundaries, with the intention that private land would be acquired for inclusion in the park. Private lands within the proposed park boundaries were designated "urban reserve", meaning they were not to be developed until at least 2031.
The facilitator's report is the result of a multi-year negotiation process between the HRM and developers in an attempt to determine the boundaries of the proposed regional park, and in particular, how much private land will be purchased and added to the park. Unfortunately and unusually, the facilitator seems to have come down pretty much entirely on the side of the developers. Her conclusions would use the park boundaries as proposed by the developers, which would open up most of the remaining lakes to development, defeating one of the main purposes in creating the park in the first place. It also seems to contemplate major infrastructure to make the park more "accessible" to the public, which seems inconsistent with much of the park's status as a wilderness area. Most alarmingly, it seems to propose opening up those private lands for immediate development, which is contrary to the Regional Plan.
While the report talks a great deal about "cost" and "economic feasibility" of the park, it makes little or no reference to ecological integrity, or to water quality, biodiversity or wilderness protection, which are the primary reasons for establishing the park in the first place. It ignores the huge public benefit that a park like this provides. It also glosses over the cost to the HRM of opening up these lands for development, and the benefit to the developer of the creation of a regional park on their doorstep. It ignores the fact that HRM already has enough land available for development to meet demand for the next 28 to 35 years. There is no need to open these particular lands up for development.
Blue Mountain Birch Cove Lakes is already under development pressure, and HRM already lost recreational opportunities when a popular mountain biking and hiking area was cleared to allow for further expansion of Bayers Lake.
However, the long fight to protect Blue Mountain - Birch Cove Lakes is not over. There is a public presentation on the facilitator's report on Monday, June 20, 2016, at 7:00 p.m. at the Future Inns Aspin/Birch Room, 30 Fairfax Drive, Halifax, Nova Scotia. And we have until 3:00 p.m. on Monday, July 4, 2016 to submit your comments to the Municipal Clerk's office by fax, 902-490-4208; or by e-mail, clerks@halifax.ca.
I also urge people to contact the Mayor, and their regional councillor, to let them know that both the process and the proposal are deeply flawed, and that they need to stand up for Blue Mountain - Birch Cove Lakes, and a regional park that protects the entire area for now and for future generations. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to protect a jewel that most cities only dream of. Let's not let it slip through our grasp.
Showing posts with label Sprawl. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sprawl. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 14, 2016
Monday, February 24, 2014
Dear Mayor and Council: Don't Destroy the Regional Plan
I have written before on Regional Planning issues in HRM. Draft 4 of the Regional Plan is going before regional council for first reading on Tuesday, and a number of councillors have indicate their intent to seek significant amendments to the Plan. Below is a brief open letter to Mayor and Council explaining why I think this is a bad idea. Please consider contacting the Mayor and your councillor as well.
Dear Mayor and Councillors,
As you know first reading of Draft 4 of the revised regional plan is to come before council tomorrow. I understand that some councilors plan to advance a number of amendments to the draft Plan, which include amendments to:
- have part of the Purcell’s Cove backlands re-designated from Urban Reserve to Rural Commuter;
- re-designate the entire Urban Reserve in Cherry Brook to Urban Settlement; and
- make sewer and water boundaries overlap;
Draft 4 of the Regional Plan is the result of over two years of extensive public consultation and committee work through the RP+5 process. While it is not perfect, it is a step forward from the original regional plan, and balances a number of competing interests, while making sure the Municipality is on a path to financial and environmental sustainability. The public feedback through the RP+5 Process has generally been supportive of the changes contained in Draft 4.
The proposed amendments are not minor amendments. In fact, they represent a complete abandonment of the underlying principles of the plan, including directed growth. This change of direction is being brought to council at the absolute last minute, with no meaningful public input. The proposed changes were never consulted on, and in fact fly in the face of what residents asked for in the RP+5 process.
These amendments would essentially abandon the concept of directing growth to our urban and rural growth centres in favour of allowing growth in areas where it will be expensive for the HRM to provide services. It would allow for development of areas that the community has clearly identified as wanting to preserve, such as the Purcells Cove backlands. They would represent a giant step backwards, not just from Draft 4 of the Plan, but from the 2006 Plan. To make such a significant change in direction at the last minute and contrary to public input would do irreversible damage to the public confidence in municipal decision-making processes like RP+5.
I urge you to vote against these amendments. Let us move forward with the plan the people have asked for.
Regards,
Derek Simon
Dear Mayor and Councillors,
As you know first reading of Draft 4 of the revised regional plan is to come before council tomorrow. I understand that some councilors plan to advance a number of amendments to the draft Plan, which include amendments to:
- have part of the Purcell’s Cove backlands re-designated from Urban Reserve to Rural Commuter;
- re-designate the entire Urban Reserve in Cherry Brook to Urban Settlement; and
- make sewer and water boundaries overlap;
Draft 4 of the Regional Plan is the result of over two years of extensive public consultation and committee work through the RP+5 process. While it is not perfect, it is a step forward from the original regional plan, and balances a number of competing interests, while making sure the Municipality is on a path to financial and environmental sustainability. The public feedback through the RP+5 Process has generally been supportive of the changes contained in Draft 4.
The proposed amendments are not minor amendments. In fact, they represent a complete abandonment of the underlying principles of the plan, including directed growth. This change of direction is being brought to council at the absolute last minute, with no meaningful public input. The proposed changes were never consulted on, and in fact fly in the face of what residents asked for in the RP+5 process.
These amendments would essentially abandon the concept of directing growth to our urban and rural growth centres in favour of allowing growth in areas where it will be expensive for the HRM to provide services. It would allow for development of areas that the community has clearly identified as wanting to preserve, such as the Purcells Cove backlands. They would represent a giant step backwards, not just from Draft 4 of the Plan, but from the 2006 Plan. To make such a significant change in direction at the last minute and contrary to public input would do irreversible damage to the public confidence in municipal decision-making processes like RP+5.
I urge you to vote against these amendments. Let us move forward with the plan the people have asked for.
Regards,
Derek Simon
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
A $3 Billion Boondoggle: Regional Planning and Sprawl in Halifax
Last Tuesday, HRM regional council unanimously approved a $823 million operating and $165 million project budgets for 2013-2014, for a total of close to $1 billion in spending. Several budget items were hotly debated, including the restoration of late night ferry service to Dartmouth, a fare increase and increased spending for transit, and a residential tax increase to expand snow plowing service. One issue that was not directly addressed in the budget was the growing cost of urban sprawl in HRM.
Yet the very next day, the HRM made public a report, by Stantec Consulting, which made it clear that sprawl could cost the HRM and its residents around $2.8 billion over the next 18 years. Yes, billion with a "B". Surprisingly, there has been much less public debate around this report than there was over much smaller line items in the budget.
This report, with the lengthy name "Quantifying the Costs and Benefits to HRM, Residents and the Environment of Alternate Growth Scenarios" is actually an interesting read for anyone following issues around taxation, spending and development in the HRM. The $2.8 billion price tag actually dwarfs the budget itself. Yet nothing in the budget is likely to significantly change that cost, because that cost is tied into issues around how and where development takes place in Halifax, which is dealt with in the HRM regional plan.
The Regional Plan is a 25 year blueprint outlining "where, when and how future growth and development should take place in HRM." All planning strategies, policies and regulations should flow from the regional plan. The current regional plan was passed in 2006, and runs until 2031. Although we are 7 years into the plan, we are only just now completing the first 5 year review of that plan.
One of the key targets in the plan is for population/housing growth. It was expected that the HRM would add 100,000 residents over 25 years, and that 25% of this growth should take place in the urban core (the Peninsula and downtown Dartmouth), 50% in the suburbs, and 25% in rural areas. That growth was to be concentrated in a number of growth centres located throughout HRM, where it could be easily and cost effectively serviced. Those targets are actually quite modest compared to other cities (Victoria, for example, has a target of essentially 90% within existing serviced areas). But they are a starting point in combating the urban sprawl HRM has been experiencing.
Yet, in the first 5 years of the Plan, we fell short of even those modest targets. Only 16% of growth took place in the urban core, while 56% took place in the suburbs, and 28% in rural areas. Indeed, one of the main issues raised in the review is the failure to reach these targets. What the Stantec report shows is that failure to achieve our targets comes with a very real cost to the municipality, and ultimately to the taxpayer.
Stantec was asked to look at what would happen to municipal tax revenues, service costs and other costs of living in HRM if we reach our regional plan targets (the "RMPS Goal"), versus what would happen if we stay on the current path of 16% urban growth (the "Base Case"). Stantec also looked at two other scenarios: if we increased targets to 40% urban, 40% suburban and 20% rural (Scenario A); and if we increased the targets further to 50% urban, 25% suburban, and 25% rural. They also considered certain health and environmental outcomes under all 4 scenarios. Their findings are very clear, and very striking.
As Stantec states in the report summary: "Results of our analysis clearly show the benefits of concentrating new residential development." In other words, under current development patterns, the cost of providing municipal services often exceeds the amount the municipality receives in property taxes, leading to spiralling service costs, and rising taxes. It also results in higher transportation costs, utility costs and other costs for citizens. Concentrating growth (or densification) means the HRM can provide municipal services more cost effectively to residents, leading to lower spending, lower taxes, and more money for improved services. It also decreases various economic costs to residents, making living in the HRM more affordable.
The report found that if we are able to get back on track and meet our RPMS targets, this will save the HRM and its residents close to $655 million over the next 18 years. However, if we were to raise the bar and increase our targets under Scenario B, the savings are closer to $2.8 billion. This breaks down to $148 million a year, which lowers the cost of living for all residents. The municipal portion could be passed on in the form if improved services, tax relief, or both.
The report goes on to say that for nearly all services assessed, Scenario B (50% growth in the urban core) is the best option. Scenario A (40% growth in urban core) is second best, although ranks first on transit use (mainly because more people walk under scenario B). Sticking with our current RPMS targets was the third best option, and the status quo ranks dead last in almost every category. The study also found that concentration of growth under Scenario B provides better health and environmental outcomes. The study further showed that increased walking and transit use meant shorter commute times for all users of our roads.
To date, our Regional Plan has not proven up to the task of concentrating growth in the HRM, and this carries huge financial, economic, environmental and social costs. Yet some municipal staff continue to resist changes to the regional plan that would help us get back on track. Citizens of the HRM, whether they want lower taxes, better transit, less traffic, or more greenspace, should be concerned, if not outraged, that the HRM knowingly and blindly continues to follow a failing development path.
Fortunately, it is not too late to change our course. The 5 year review process is ongoing: the plan is under review by the Community Design Advisory Committee, and a revised plan will soon be coming back to the public for final consultation, before going to council for approval. Groups like Our HRM Alliance have been working hard to propose solutions that address sprawl and build a more liveable, sustainable HRM. The public can have their say by attending a CDAC meeting, speaking at a public consultation, or contacting their councilor and urging them to support measures that will increase densification.
Changing our residential growth patterns will lead to a more sustainable HRM, financially, economically, environmentally and socially, now and in the future. It is ultimately up to us, the citizens of the Halifax Regional Municipality, to make that future a reality. A better city is in our grasp.
Yet the very next day, the HRM made public a report, by Stantec Consulting, which made it clear that sprawl could cost the HRM and its residents around $2.8 billion over the next 18 years. Yes, billion with a "B". Surprisingly, there has been much less public debate around this report than there was over much smaller line items in the budget.
This report, with the lengthy name "Quantifying the Costs and Benefits to HRM, Residents and the Environment of Alternate Growth Scenarios" is actually an interesting read for anyone following issues around taxation, spending and development in the HRM. The $2.8 billion price tag actually dwarfs the budget itself. Yet nothing in the budget is likely to significantly change that cost, because that cost is tied into issues around how and where development takes place in Halifax, which is dealt with in the HRM regional plan.
The Regional Plan is a 25 year blueprint outlining "where, when and how future growth and development should take place in HRM." All planning strategies, policies and regulations should flow from the regional plan. The current regional plan was passed in 2006, and runs until 2031. Although we are 7 years into the plan, we are only just now completing the first 5 year review of that plan.
One of the key targets in the plan is for population/housing growth. It was expected that the HRM would add 100,000 residents over 25 years, and that 25% of this growth should take place in the urban core (the Peninsula and downtown Dartmouth), 50% in the suburbs, and 25% in rural areas. That growth was to be concentrated in a number of growth centres located throughout HRM, where it could be easily and cost effectively serviced. Those targets are actually quite modest compared to other cities (Victoria, for example, has a target of essentially 90% within existing serviced areas). But they are a starting point in combating the urban sprawl HRM has been experiencing.
Yet, in the first 5 years of the Plan, we fell short of even those modest targets. Only 16% of growth took place in the urban core, while 56% took place in the suburbs, and 28% in rural areas. Indeed, one of the main issues raised in the review is the failure to reach these targets. What the Stantec report shows is that failure to achieve our targets comes with a very real cost to the municipality, and ultimately to the taxpayer.
Stantec was asked to look at what would happen to municipal tax revenues, service costs and other costs of living in HRM if we reach our regional plan targets (the "RMPS Goal"), versus what would happen if we stay on the current path of 16% urban growth (the "Base Case"). Stantec also looked at two other scenarios: if we increased targets to 40% urban, 40% suburban and 20% rural (Scenario A); and if we increased the targets further to 50% urban, 25% suburban, and 25% rural. They also considered certain health and environmental outcomes under all 4 scenarios. Their findings are very clear, and very striking.
As Stantec states in the report summary: "Results of our analysis clearly show the benefits of concentrating new residential development." In other words, under current development patterns, the cost of providing municipal services often exceeds the amount the municipality receives in property taxes, leading to spiralling service costs, and rising taxes. It also results in higher transportation costs, utility costs and other costs for citizens. Concentrating growth (or densification) means the HRM can provide municipal services more cost effectively to residents, leading to lower spending, lower taxes, and more money for improved services. It also decreases various economic costs to residents, making living in the HRM more affordable.
The report found that if we are able to get back on track and meet our RPMS targets, this will save the HRM and its residents close to $655 million over the next 18 years. However, if we were to raise the bar and increase our targets under Scenario B, the savings are closer to $2.8 billion. This breaks down to $148 million a year, which lowers the cost of living for all residents. The municipal portion could be passed on in the form if improved services, tax relief, or both.
The report goes on to say that for nearly all services assessed, Scenario B (50% growth in the urban core) is the best option. Scenario A (40% growth in urban core) is second best, although ranks first on transit use (mainly because more people walk under scenario B). Sticking with our current RPMS targets was the third best option, and the status quo ranks dead last in almost every category. The study also found that concentration of growth under Scenario B provides better health and environmental outcomes. The study further showed that increased walking and transit use meant shorter commute times for all users of our roads.
To date, our Regional Plan has not proven up to the task of concentrating growth in the HRM, and this carries huge financial, economic, environmental and social costs. Yet some municipal staff continue to resist changes to the regional plan that would help us get back on track. Citizens of the HRM, whether they want lower taxes, better transit, less traffic, or more greenspace, should be concerned, if not outraged, that the HRM knowingly and blindly continues to follow a failing development path.
Fortunately, it is not too late to change our course. The 5 year review process is ongoing: the plan is under review by the Community Design Advisory Committee, and a revised plan will soon be coming back to the public for final consultation, before going to council for approval. Groups like Our HRM Alliance have been working hard to propose solutions that address sprawl and build a more liveable, sustainable HRM. The public can have their say by attending a CDAC meeting, speaking at a public consultation, or contacting their councilor and urging them to support measures that will increase densification.
Changing our residential growth patterns will lead to a more sustainable HRM, financially, economically, environmentally and socially, now and in the future. It is ultimately up to us, the citizens of the Halifax Regional Municipality, to make that future a reality. A better city is in our grasp.
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Urban Development: Does Halifax need to Grow Up?
It has become painfully obvious to many if not most observers that Halifax has a sprawl problem. The Halifax Regional Municipality covers an area almost the size of Prince Edward Island, and the city seem to be spreading out rapidly to fill those borders. The Halifax Regional Municipality has been experiencing significant population growth in its suburbs, while population in the downtown cores of Halifax and Dartmouth continues to stagnate.
The sheer size of the HRM makes our population density unusually low, at 71 persons per square kilometer. However, even when we look at urban areas of HRM alone, the density is 1106.4 people per square kilometre, which is still significantly lower than comparable cities like Kitchener-Waterloo, London (Ontario) and Regina, slightly less than Victoria, and far below densities of comparable great worldwide. If Halifax aspires to be a great city, then we need to start thinking like a great city, and growing in a more focused, sustainable way.
HRM's Regional Plan, which is supposed to set the framework for sustainable growth in the HRM for the next 25 years, adopted a target that 25% of population growth should take place in the urban core (essentially Halifax, Dartmouth and Bedford) while 50% should take place in the suburbs, and 25% in rural areas. While some would argue that set the bar too low for urban growth, in the first five years of the plan we fell short of even that modest goal, with only 16% of population growth taking place in the urban core, while 56% took place in the suburbs and 28% in rural areas. In other words, the city is expanding into the surrounding countryside at a rate that is not meeting even a modest target for sustainable growth. This makes Halifax a textbook example of sprawl.
What is sprawl and why is it undesirable?
Sprawl has been described as a "land use pattern of single-use zones, typically made up of subdivisions, office parks, shopping centres’ strung together by arterials and highways." While it is sometimes referred to as "suburban sprawl", the problem is not suburbs themselves, but rather the separation of residential, commercial and retail areas into large, isolated, single-use zones which can only be reached by driving, rather than compact mixed-use walkable neighbourhoods. It is typically characterized by lower population density.
Sprawl is problematic from a number of different standpoints, notably its financial and economic costs, its health and environmental impacts and its social dimensions.
In terms of financial costs, sprawl requires a municipality to provide services to the same number of taxpayers over a larger area. This requires not only more infrastructure (more pipes, more roads, etc.) but increases soft costs as well: police officers, garbage haulers, and buses, all have to cover a larger area, resulting in increased costs to the taxpayer.
This has a very real impact on the municipal budget. A recent study commissioned by the HRM shows that changing the urban growth target from 25% to 50% of the population increase would save the municipality $1.7 billion over the next 20 years.
In other words, to continue to service sprawl, the HRM will either have to charge higher taxes, or decrease service levels just to break even. Sprawl imposes such high costs, that observers have linked it with municipal bankruptcies in the US and elsewhere. It has been further linked to higher housing costs and even as a partial cause of the foreclosure crisis in the US.
Sprawl also imposes economic costs. For example, because of it's dependence on single-occupant vehicles, sprawl is also associated with gridlock, which costs the Canadian economy $10 billion a year.
Spawl is also associated with a number of environmental and health problems. An ever expanding city can result in loss of wildlife habitat and greenspace, which is essential for both environmental and human health. It contributes to depletion and degradation of water sources. The focus on single occupant vehicles increases reliance on fossil fuels and greenhouse gas emissions. And it increases air pollution and sedentary lifestyles, leading to rising health problems and costs.
Finally, sprawl is associated with certain social problems, including loss of community, income inequality, and diminished social services. Sprawl has been accused of lacking "quality of place" and creating social disconnection.
What is density and why is it desirable?
Our HRM Alliance defines density as "the number of people per area". Statistics Canada defines an "urban density" as 400 people per square kilometer. Spacing Magazine identifies some of the benefits of density as follows: "Residential density[...] is one of the most important characteristics of urban areas. High densities create vibrant streets, support main street commercial areas, and encourage walking, biking and transit use."
Denser cities avoid many of the problems created by sprawl, as detailed above. Municipalities are able to keep costs (and taxes) down by providing services over a smaller area. More walkable cities avoid many of the costs of gridlock, and reduce air pollution and greenhouse gases. Wild spaces and water can be preserved, providing habitat for wildlife, as well as recreational opportunities for people. Finally, denser cities often provide tighter, more closely knit communities and neighbourhoods. This has led some observers to link density with increased innovation.
Why is sprawl becoming a hot-button issue in Halifax?
Addressing the issue of sprawl has created strange political bedfellows. 42 groups as diverse as the Downtown Halifax Business Commission, the Ecology Action Centre, Fusion Halifax, the Heart and Stroke Foundation, the Halifax Trails Association, and the YWCA have banded together as the Our HRM Alliance, dedicated to making the HRM a more livable and sustainable place. In particular, the group has been working through the Regional Plan five year review process to try and strengthen the regional plan to more comprehensively address sprawl through seven solutions, including green belting. They believe that implementation of these solutions will address the problem of sprawl, and help Halifax grow more densely and sustainably. Groups like the Alliance have been doing a great deal to raise the profile of sprawl as a topic for public discussion.
The issue of sprawl came to a head recently when regional council rejected the application for the 48 story Skye Halifax development. If built, the two towers would both have stood 150 metres (492 feet) high, making them the by far the tallest buildings in Atlantic Canada. Council rejected the development on the advice of staff and the design review committee, who found that it did not meet the development rules set out in the HRM by Design rules for downtown development.
Many opponents of council's decision to nix the proposed building suggested that allowing Skye to proceed would have been one way of addressing sprawl. Many questioned the HRM by Design rules, and suggested Halifax needs to "grow up" and build taller buildings. Despite this, many vocal opponents of sprawl, and proponents of downtown development, such as the Downtown Halifax Business Commission, supported council's decision. So while many agree on the need to densify and combat sprawl, there is a lack of agreement on whether skyscrapers are part of the solution.
Won't taller buildings help?
While it would seem obvious that building taller buildings is one way to increase density and address sprawl, real-world experience suggests that is not necessarily the case.
On the one hand, New York City, which has 5,818 high-rise buildings, of which 92 are over 600 feet, is quite a dense city by North American standards, with 10,518.60 persons/square kilometer By contrast Paris, which has only 14 buildings over 492 feet (of which only 8 are over 600 feet). Paris has used height restrictions to confined high-rise development to specific areas of the city: in most of Central Paris, there are few buildings over six stories high, with the notable except of the Eiffel Tower. Yet, Paris, with 21,196 persons per square kilometer is around twice as dense as New York.
Houston, which has far fewer development restrictions than most large cities, has 360 high-rises, and 31 skyscrapers over 492 feet. Yet despite having more tall buildings than Paris, Houston has a major problem with sprawl, with only 1,505 persons per square kilometer. Similarly, Calgary has few development restrictions and has 14 buildings over 492 feet. Yet Calgary as a City has a lower density than Houston, at 1,329 person/square kilometer. It's urban density is not much higher, at 1,554.8 persons per square kilometer. Calgary is having serious problems meeting the costs of servicing an ever expanding area. The problem is so serious, that Mayor Nenshi and the fire department have said the City is having difficulty maintaining municipal fire services to meet national standards.
Closer to home, Halifax's North End is one of the densest neighbourhoods in Atlantic Canada, with a density of 5,888 people/square kilometer, despite having very few tall buildings at all. Another one of Halifax's densest neighbourhoods is Schmidtville, one of its oldest, and most historic. Schmidtville is a compact, mixed use neighbourhood
So density is not merely a function of height, and there are ways to achieve density without building skyscrapers. Some experts have suggested that mid-rise development, and not towers, are the key to densification. Toronto has achieved significant population growth in its urban core in the last several years, due in part to significant mid-rise development, although this has not been without controversy in some neighbourhoods. However, the question becomes how high we go, and what other considerations we want to balance height against. Is the sky the limit, or is there an optimal height for achieving density?
There is no question that if Halifax is to increase density and combat sprawl, taller buildings will be part of the mix. However, the experience of other cities suggests that skyscrapers are not necessarily a panacea: the solution will have to be more comprehensive. Many cities have been able to develop densely without many tall buildings, and in some cases with significant restrictions on height. Many cities that have allowed tall buildings still have a major problem with sprawl. Many mid-rise buildings may make a greater contribution than a few high-rises.
Generally speaking, it is the cities that place the least rules around development (like Calgary and Houston) that have the biggest problems with sprawl, while cities with clear, considered development guidelines (like Paris) tend to develop more densely. Great cities aren't just grown; they are planned. Whether Halifax becomes the great city it has the potential to be will depend how well our regional plan, downtown plan, and development rules address issues like height and density.
(This post is the first in a series, and is cross-posted with Spacing Atlantic. In future posts on development in Halifax, I will look at: the rules governing development in Downtown Halifax; the rules around suburban and rural development in Halifax; business and industrial parks like Bayers Lake and Burnside; commercial taxation; and other related topics)
The sheer size of the HRM makes our population density unusually low, at 71 persons per square kilometer. However, even when we look at urban areas of HRM alone, the density is 1106.4 people per square kilometre, which is still significantly lower than comparable cities like Kitchener-Waterloo, London (Ontario) and Regina, slightly less than Victoria, and far below densities of comparable great worldwide. If Halifax aspires to be a great city, then we need to start thinking like a great city, and growing in a more focused, sustainable way.
HRM's Regional Plan, which is supposed to set the framework for sustainable growth in the HRM for the next 25 years, adopted a target that 25% of population growth should take place in the urban core (essentially Halifax, Dartmouth and Bedford) while 50% should take place in the suburbs, and 25% in rural areas. While some would argue that set the bar too low for urban growth, in the first five years of the plan we fell short of even that modest goal, with only 16% of population growth taking place in the urban core, while 56% took place in the suburbs and 28% in rural areas. In other words, the city is expanding into the surrounding countryside at a rate that is not meeting even a modest target for sustainable growth. This makes Halifax a textbook example of sprawl.
What is sprawl and why is it undesirable?
Sprawl has been described as a "land use pattern of single-use zones, typically made up of subdivisions, office parks, shopping centres’ strung together by arterials and highways." While it is sometimes referred to as "suburban sprawl", the problem is not suburbs themselves, but rather the separation of residential, commercial and retail areas into large, isolated, single-use zones which can only be reached by driving, rather than compact mixed-use walkable neighbourhoods. It is typically characterized by lower population density.
Sprawl is problematic from a number of different standpoints, notably its financial and economic costs, its health and environmental impacts and its social dimensions.
In terms of financial costs, sprawl requires a municipality to provide services to the same number of taxpayers over a larger area. This requires not only more infrastructure (more pipes, more roads, etc.) but increases soft costs as well: police officers, garbage haulers, and buses, all have to cover a larger area, resulting in increased costs to the taxpayer.
This has a very real impact on the municipal budget. A recent study commissioned by the HRM shows that changing the urban growth target from 25% to 50% of the population increase would save the municipality $1.7 billion over the next 20 years.
In other words, to continue to service sprawl, the HRM will either have to charge higher taxes, or decrease service levels just to break even. Sprawl imposes such high costs, that observers have linked it with municipal bankruptcies in the US and elsewhere. It has been further linked to higher housing costs and even as a partial cause of the foreclosure crisis in the US.
Sprawl also imposes economic costs. For example, because of it's dependence on single-occupant vehicles, sprawl is also associated with gridlock, which costs the Canadian economy $10 billion a year.
Spawl is also associated with a number of environmental and health problems. An ever expanding city can result in loss of wildlife habitat and greenspace, which is essential for both environmental and human health. It contributes to depletion and degradation of water sources. The focus on single occupant vehicles increases reliance on fossil fuels and greenhouse gas emissions. And it increases air pollution and sedentary lifestyles, leading to rising health problems and costs.
Finally, sprawl is associated with certain social problems, including loss of community, income inequality, and diminished social services. Sprawl has been accused of lacking "quality of place" and creating social disconnection.
What is density and why is it desirable?
Our HRM Alliance defines density as "the number of people per area". Statistics Canada defines an "urban density" as 400 people per square kilometer. Spacing Magazine identifies some of the benefits of density as follows: "Residential density[...] is one of the most important characteristics of urban areas. High densities create vibrant streets, support main street commercial areas, and encourage walking, biking and transit use."
Denser cities avoid many of the problems created by sprawl, as detailed above. Municipalities are able to keep costs (and taxes) down by providing services over a smaller area. More walkable cities avoid many of the costs of gridlock, and reduce air pollution and greenhouse gases. Wild spaces and water can be preserved, providing habitat for wildlife, as well as recreational opportunities for people. Finally, denser cities often provide tighter, more closely knit communities and neighbourhoods. This has led some observers to link density with increased innovation.
Why is sprawl becoming a hot-button issue in Halifax?
Addressing the issue of sprawl has created strange political bedfellows. 42 groups as diverse as the Downtown Halifax Business Commission, the Ecology Action Centre, Fusion Halifax, the Heart and Stroke Foundation, the Halifax Trails Association, and the YWCA have banded together as the Our HRM Alliance, dedicated to making the HRM a more livable and sustainable place. In particular, the group has been working through the Regional Plan five year review process to try and strengthen the regional plan to more comprehensively address sprawl through seven solutions, including green belting. They believe that implementation of these solutions will address the problem of sprawl, and help Halifax grow more densely and sustainably. Groups like the Alliance have been doing a great deal to raise the profile of sprawl as a topic for public discussion.
The issue of sprawl came to a head recently when regional council rejected the application for the 48 story Skye Halifax development. If built, the two towers would both have stood 150 metres (492 feet) high, making them the by far the tallest buildings in Atlantic Canada. Council rejected the development on the advice of staff and the design review committee, who found that it did not meet the development rules set out in the HRM by Design rules for downtown development.
Many opponents of council's decision to nix the proposed building suggested that allowing Skye to proceed would have been one way of addressing sprawl. Many questioned the HRM by Design rules, and suggested Halifax needs to "grow up" and build taller buildings. Despite this, many vocal opponents of sprawl, and proponents of downtown development, such as the Downtown Halifax Business Commission, supported council's decision. So while many agree on the need to densify and combat sprawl, there is a lack of agreement on whether skyscrapers are part of the solution.
Won't taller buildings help?
While it would seem obvious that building taller buildings is one way to increase density and address sprawl, real-world experience suggests that is not necessarily the case.
On the one hand, New York City, which has 5,818 high-rise buildings, of which 92 are over 600 feet, is quite a dense city by North American standards, with 10,518.60 persons/square kilometer By contrast Paris, which has only 14 buildings over 492 feet (of which only 8 are over 600 feet). Paris has used height restrictions to confined high-rise development to specific areas of the city: in most of Central Paris, there are few buildings over six stories high, with the notable except of the Eiffel Tower. Yet, Paris, with 21,196 persons per square kilometer is around twice as dense as New York.
Houston, which has far fewer development restrictions than most large cities, has 360 high-rises, and 31 skyscrapers over 492 feet. Yet despite having more tall buildings than Paris, Houston has a major problem with sprawl, with only 1,505 persons per square kilometer. Similarly, Calgary has few development restrictions and has 14 buildings over 492 feet. Yet Calgary as a City has a lower density than Houston, at 1,329 person/square kilometer. It's urban density is not much higher, at 1,554.8 persons per square kilometer. Calgary is having serious problems meeting the costs of servicing an ever expanding area. The problem is so serious, that Mayor Nenshi and the fire department have said the City is having difficulty maintaining municipal fire services to meet national standards.
Closer to home, Halifax's North End is one of the densest neighbourhoods in Atlantic Canada, with a density of 5,888 people/square kilometer, despite having very few tall buildings at all. Another one of Halifax's densest neighbourhoods is Schmidtville, one of its oldest, and most historic. Schmidtville is a compact, mixed use neighbourhood
So density is not merely a function of height, and there are ways to achieve density without building skyscrapers. Some experts have suggested that mid-rise development, and not towers, are the key to densification. Toronto has achieved significant population growth in its urban core in the last several years, due in part to significant mid-rise development, although this has not been without controversy in some neighbourhoods. However, the question becomes how high we go, and what other considerations we want to balance height against. Is the sky the limit, or is there an optimal height for achieving density?
There is no question that if Halifax is to increase density and combat sprawl, taller buildings will be part of the mix. However, the experience of other cities suggests that skyscrapers are not necessarily a panacea: the solution will have to be more comprehensive. Many cities have been able to develop densely without many tall buildings, and in some cases with significant restrictions on height. Many cities that have allowed tall buildings still have a major problem with sprawl. Many mid-rise buildings may make a greater contribution than a few high-rises.
Generally speaking, it is the cities that place the least rules around development (like Calgary and Houston) that have the biggest problems with sprawl, while cities with clear, considered development guidelines (like Paris) tend to develop more densely. Great cities aren't just grown; they are planned. Whether Halifax becomes the great city it has the potential to be will depend how well our regional plan, downtown plan, and development rules address issues like height and density.
(This post is the first in a series, and is cross-posted with Spacing Atlantic. In future posts on development in Halifax, I will look at: the rules governing development in Downtown Halifax; the rules around suburban and rural development in Halifax; business and industrial parks like Bayers Lake and Burnside; commercial taxation; and other related topics)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)