Guest Blogger - James CoulterI went to lunch last week with a city employee.
My intention was to get some input/advice for the downtown charrette. I ended up, well, a little disappointed.
The conversation around the charrette was productive. My city friend helped me establish a framework for a questionnaire and really helped me nail down why I want to organize this event. I want to demonstrate to our elected officials that the people of this city really care about downtown and that they want to be involved in the planning process.
How did I end up disappointed? Well, once we got through the first part of our conversation I started to ask about certain areas of the city and why they ended up the way they have. Specifically, I wanted to know about the East Riverside Planning Area. I live in the East end, and my running routes sometimes take me through this sloppy, wasteland of chipboard and vinyl, crapola houses.
I said to my friend, “I remember seeing the plans of survey for this area back when it was first being developed. I remember thinking that this was such a great opportunity for the city to develop a new town centre. Something like a modern Olde Riverside or Walkerville. You know, a main street with shops and offices and apartments with nice residential streets intersecting.”
He said, “That was the plan. It was drawn up like that - really nice.”
“Well”, I asked, “What happened?” The answer was ridiculous, but it said so much. It seemed the developers came back and said that they couldn’t sell the kind of housing that the plan called for. The market wanted the suburban home, the kind with the big garage and a house behind it. So the plan was amended and the rest is history. Our city is in trouble because our officials amend the official plans to accommodate developers, contractors, and high-school buddies, whatever. The city’s official plan is full of progressive language talking about mixed-use development, walkable communities and alternative transportation. Yet the building department allows continual expansion of big box developments and more and wider roads and housing, miles from any amenities.
I guess it was naïve on my part to imagine that city government is any different from higher levels of government where special interests and lobbyists “grease the wheels”, but really. Our elected officials live in our neighbourhoods. They drive the same roads as us and worry about the values of their properties and business interests - just like us. So how can they make decisions that do nothing to improve the quality of life for their constituents, their neighbours? City politicians are closest to the electorate, why should a developer or an out-of-town land owner’s interests be more important than ours?
Politicking to save a part-time job and some kind of quasi-celebrity status, it’s nauseating.
James Coulter is an Engineering Technologist with the School of Building, Design and Construction Technology at St. Clair College. His opinions are plentiful and may not reflect those of his employer or the teaching faculty at the college.
11 comments:
"His opinions are plentiful and may not reflect those of his employer or the teaching faculty at the college."
That's one of the best disclaimer lines I've seen in a long time!
Looking towards the future, I'm actually hopeful. James mentioned that the city's official plan and policies are not in need of changing, they're only in need of being followed.
If we can continue putting the spotlight on the city's policies, I believe we can have an impact on seeing them followed.
Next election will see a new day. Every decision they make will be posted juxtaposed to their picture and the city's official policy that they approved at election time. All inconsistencies will be in the spotlight
Never before has this been done at this level of awareness.
I think the city's failed attempt at good design that James is speaking of is the blue heron estates/banwell north of techumseh area. I remember reading about this project as a case study of how good design cannot be successful in a lunch bucket town obsessesd with the car and convenience. It doesn't help either when the city is so easily corrupted by developers and a quick buck.
And I think that its just that no one has presented the city with a workable alternative.
Lets make it our job to do that
Mark, the East Windsor/Banwell plan was a mixed-use design. shops, density, all of that. And it went down in flames. If a new mixed-use plan turns up soon again is it up to developers to give the go-ahead or not? If our local developers dont't support good design, there's plenty more out there that will i think. I agree, design guidelines and official plans are very key, obviously. The only other area left for another kick at the can for new mixed-use i can think of is the annex lands. And I remember that being low density with wide roads.
Developers could care less about good design and how it impacts a community. As long as they can sell their development and get their money and move to the next subdivision, that is all they care about.
I noticed that some city departments have authorization in areas that they shouldn't. Take parking lots for example. Why is Engineering giving parking passes to trucks and buses to park on municipal lots? Shouldn't this be at the discretion of parking enforcement? Sounds similar to some of those departments that have 3 supervisors and 5 workers.
Mark, I like the idea of putting the spotlight on city policies and making sure our elected officials follow through.
There is too much grand-standing and promises being made without any follow through. We know our useless local media isn't going to give the citizens any in depth coverage so it is truly up to us.
Sporto,
The other mixed-use could be the urban village....if that EVER comes to fruition.
How does that song go again? "Promises, promises"...
The City's offical plan, the East Riverside plan are/were just that, plans on paper and open to amendment by council.
As for the annexed lands, I brought them up, I told my city friend that if there was one thing I could do, it would be to stop the city from doing anything with those lands. The response was, they will be serviced for industrial land because that is why the city was allowed to annex them. No servicing, then Tecumseh can go back to the OMB and reclaim their land.
Servicing those lands means that they will be lost as farmland. Roads will be built, sewers and utilities installed and nothing but weeds and grass on empty lots until...
James
Homeowners almost can't be blamed for flocking into those double garage facades with nondescript vinyl & glue houses behind. What other real choice do we have in Windsor? The only builder I'm aware of who is prepared to step a little out of the mold is BK Cornerstone, and although they provide some nice environmental features, the general design of their homes is still pretty standard.
James, I recall that there was a charrette process for the east riverside plan?
This is where zoning laws come in. You can write zoning by-laws that say the garage will be located at the rear of the property and access will be provided by a common alleyway.
The city can also decide to make narrower lots and stipulate the footprint size of the buildings.
We don't have to accept what the developers want to build. They aren't doing us any favours building the same dysfunctional s**t. Miles from anything, using up farmland and bankrupting our future. It is unacceptable to me.
Post a Comment