'Team' needed to work with officials
By Grace Lui, Calgary Herald July 25, 2009
One month after the marathon, three-day public hearing on the proposed 60-year, visionary development and transportation plans for our city--known as the Municipal Development Plan (MDP) and Calgary Transportation Plan (CTP)--I am finding there is still some confusion on the stance of the development industry and intent of these documents.
Even with numerous public statements made by developers and builders, that they agreed and supported Plan It's overall vision and direction towards higher densities and greater sustainability, I continue to read through the media--and various blog and Twitter sites--that the industry continues to fight this and is stubbornly defending the traditional notions of sprawl instead.
Perhaps it would be useful to share some industry intentions behind their requests to try and dispel some of these perceptions:-Targets--Perhaps the most well known, but causing the greatest misperception, is the industry's stance on targets.
The industry believes the targets are too ambitious; they represent a hope that might be achieved in 60 years.Planners recognize they are ambitious, but they want to aim high.However, to have a debate over who is going to be right in 60 years is philosophical and academic.
Plan It staff have made it clear to the industry that these targets are city-wide and represent progress they hope to achieve one day--therefore, no development applications, local area plans or regional context studies will be measured against them.
These assurances have been provided verbally and in letters to the industry, but have not been clearly stated within the document.
Developers have added comments on the achievability of these targets, as they are concerned about the application of the targets towards city-wide decisions such as infrastructure spending, which may put the city at greater risk if it makes significant expenditures on the expectation of momentous behavioural changes.
This does not mean we should not prepare for change, but that we shouldn't presuppose the details of that change.-Thresholds (such as minimum densities)--The threshold minimums of 100, 150 or 200 people/ jobs per hectare for activity centres (neighbourhood, community and major) and for corridors across the city need to recognize the differences in community acceptance and market opportunities that exist across Calgary.
Redevelopment in established neighbourhoods will hold greater potential to be able to meet higher thresholds, but new areas will not.The interpretation that is being read into the document is that these minimums are in place upon approval of the plan--not phased in over time.
To require the same standard across the city does not recognize these different potentials and contexts.
An alternate approach that has been suggested is to plan to accommodate for those densities to be reached over time as each community matures and develops higher potential for increased intensity.
Consider community acceptance and absorption on the threshold minimums for corridors.Corridors like the ones along Kensington Road or in Marda Loop are the result of many years of evolution.
They have gradually intensified over time, when opportunities arise.However, implementing targets with attached 30/60 year timelines is somewhat confusing.
Is the intent to meet targets within set timeframes, or to respond to what the communities may have to say?It may not be possible to do both, given the ambitious amount needed to occur within 30 and 50 years.Intensifying with the support of the community takes time--to inform, to engage, to update or create local area plans.
The application of ambitious targets and timelines infers that some "fastrack" method of getting approvals through would be required to meet them, perhaps in spite of concerns typically raised by communities overshadowing, traffic or density.
However, nothing in the document specifically states this (in fact, it states one should respect the single-family, low-density nature of established areas).-Excessive detail--There is too much detail in the plan, which leads to the industry concern about prescription.
Too much detail not only starts to impede interpretation, but contributes to inconsistencies within the document.
For example, the document calls for ways to lower infrastructure and operating costs on one hand, but then requires additional intersections for connectivity on the other (adding to impervious surfaces, capital and operating costs).
For a public visionary document, statements relating to flow duration curves on fluvial morphology of streams might better be made at a technical level through a guidelines or standards handbook, rather than embedding it into a visionary document that should be easily understood by all.Requiring green infrastructure within road standards is another example of being too prescriptive.
Examples of this infrastructure are found in warmer or more predictable climates, and areas that do not develop basements.
Without proper testing in Calgary conditions, the introduction of infrastructure like bio-swales next to roadways may lead to water leaking into and undermining the roadbed, or possibly to flooding of basements.Green infrastructure should be encouraged in all ways that it can be reasonably incorporated into a community: through parks, pathways, yards, and perhaps in roads with the right conditions.
But they should be tested first, and not mandated as part of a road standard.Making this a requirement limits innovation and introduces risk.Examples can be found throughout the document.
The main concern is requiring that communities be created or impacted through the use of specific tools, checklists, thresholds and targets--all of these start to erode the ability of city staff, council and the development industry to create on a qualitative level and reduces the creation of communities to a quantitative, "plan by numbers" or checklist approach instead.
The development industry would prefer to see technical or detailed items relating to things like road standards, infrastructure requirements, specific tools and guidelines to be at a procedural level where flexibility can be introduced-- so that adjustments in response to field testing (especially for new standards) and new methods, practices and technologies can be made as they arise.
The MDP and CTP should be visionary and are not meant to be opened for numerous changes over short periods of time, and therefore are not the right documents to hold this level of detail.-Request to work with industry--The request for a specific working group has raised some concern.In some areas, it is understood as the industry demanding that city hall work with them to the exclusion of all others, so that they can re-write and subvert the intention and direction of the documents to their satisfaction.This is not the case.
The industry request is not meant to be exclusive, but there is a need to work specifically with the development industry.At no time has the development industry indicated that they should be the only, exclusive group to work on the document.
I believe the public hearing showed that the vision is a shared one across all groups. However, the current plan needs work to make it implementable.That there is strong agreement on the vision across both sides of the discussion was made clear over the three-day public hearing.
The intent is not to attempt to subvert that vision, but to create a viable way to achieve it.Why a specific working session with the development industry?Of the many submissions and presentations made by the public, most focused on why the vision was important.Understandably, very few, if any pointed out implementation challenges as they would not be aware of them.
For example, everyone is in favour of the concept of creating "complete streets" (integrating roads with the adjacent land uses).But only the industry has pointed out the challenge of trying to create new urban corridors with residential uses fronting onto them, when the current city standard requires sound attenuation fencing along those same frontages.
For reasons such as these, the industry is requesting that a specific team be struck to work with administration on the implementation needs of the document.
The practical side of this is that the group needs to be small enough to be a productive working group, with all members contributing experience and goodwill in working through these issues.
What was formerly known as Plan It--now our MDP and CTP documents--can and should play crucial roles in guiding our future growth.Understanding that we are all agreed on one vision is a tremendous step.
Translating that vision to reality is one that will require much more attention and focus on detail, process and continued good relations amongst all parties.Let's ensure that the result of $6 million and three years of hard work are not documents that sit on a shelf, but are truly implementable documents that can guide us to a better way to grow our city.
GRACE LUI IS CURRENTLY A DEVELOPMENT MANAGER FOR CARMA DEVELOPERS. SHE RECENTLY WORKED AT THE CITY OF CALGARY DEVELOPING TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENTS AND INDUSTRIAL LAND. PREVIOUS TO THAT, SHE WORKED AS BOTH A PRIVATE AND PUBLIC PLANNER.
---------IN SHORT, City administration will review 100 proposed amendments and return to council no later than December.
© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald