PDA

View Full Version : Waterloo Region Growth Strategy


jcollins
Oct 1, 2008, 1:45 PM
Growth strategy calls for fewer detached homes

October 01, 2008
Jeff Outhit
RECORD STAFF

WATERLOO REGION

Our future includes better transit, fewer detached homes and a countryside line to restrain urban growth.

So says the latest official plan for the region, proposed yesterday by regional council. The growth blueprint, three years in the making, will guide land use until 2029, with periodic reviews. That's when the population is forecast to reach 712,000, up from 516,000 today.

The plan enshrines provincial legislation requiring this region to become more compact.

All growth in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and four townships must conform.

Homebuilders warn this will increase house prices, denying some families the detached home they want. They fear this may make the region less desirable to employers, damaging economic vitality.

"It's going to have a significant impact on the cost of housing," said Eric Kraushaar, president of the Waterloo Region Homebuilders' Association.

The new plan says:

After 2015, 40 per cent of new homes must settle in areas already built. "This is quite a challenge," said Kevin Eby, regional director of community planning. By comparison, in 2006, 29 per cent of new homes settled in built-up areas.

New neighbourhoods must have a mix of homes, jobs and shopping, be more compact and better designed to support transit. It's expected this will mean fewer single-detached homes.

A countryside line drawn around cities and villages will restrain urban growth.

Groundwater and environmental lands will have stronger protections.

New regulations will govern the location of industrial lands and major commercial centres.

Rapid transit will be built and transit-friendly policies established for growth and parking.

"I think we'll see a lot of people embrace the kind of planning that's going on," Regional Chair Ken Seiling said. Developers may press for more land, but provincial law won't make it available, he said.

The growth blueprint heads to public open houses and other reviews this fall. Council plans to finalize the plan next June, after considering public input.

This region is the first to enshrine legislation against urban sprawl in its growth plan. "We're a bit of a guinea pig," planner Kevin Curtis said.

jouthit@therecord.com

metropolis
Oct 2, 2008, 2:01 AM
Pretty proud we are the first region to "enshrine" the provincial anti sprawl plan!

gghtransit
Oct 2, 2008, 6:50 AM
Too bad it's going to become increasingly unafforable to live here. It's already becoming hard to find even small houses for less than $200,000. As the countryside lines fills up, prices will continue to rise, and owning a home will become impractical for more and more people, there's already homes in Forest Heights on the market for over $400,000, and not even overly large ones either.

plam
Oct 2, 2008, 2:29 PM
Sprawling out can't be the solution to unaffordable house prices. I have a suspicion that prices will drop in the near future, anyway; but even if they don't, why shouldn't we pursue intensification instead of building more suburban houses?

jcollins
Oct 2, 2008, 3:37 PM
Sprawling out can't be the solution to unaffordable house prices. I have a suspicion that prices will drop in the near future, anyway; but even if they don't, why shouldn't we pursue intensification instead of building more suburban houses?

I agree. The same day I read this article I drove past the In Towns development on Highland and Queen. I wouldnt mind seeing some more like this, with the town/row house kind of thing. I think these would be attractive to people wanting a bit more intensification, but that do not want to live in a condo building.

gghtransit
Oct 2, 2008, 5:13 PM
I'm not suggesting that sprawl is the solution, I'm just pointing out that it's going to become more and more difficult for people to afford to buy a home in this area. Costs will continue to rise, taxes will continue to rise, energy and food costs will continue to rise, and generally speaking wages aren't going up to compensate.

Why generally do people commute to the GTA, generally it costs more to live there, and people move to where it's been cheaper, ie. Milton, Waterloo Region etc. Now, we in Waterloo Region will become more expensive, and people will be moving to Stratford, Woodstock and Listowel to commuter and the cycle will continue.

metropolis
Oct 3, 2008, 1:25 AM
I'm not suggesting that sprawl is the solution, I'm just pointing out that it's going to become more and more difficult for people to afford to buy a home in this area. Costs will continue to rise, taxes will continue to rise, energy and food costs will continue to rise, and generally speaking wages aren't going up to compensate.

You have to consider that most municipalities will have to push through similar legislature prior to 2015. If prices rise here you have to realize they will rise relatively to every other municipality. This will not bring slower growth as a result of affordable housing here as prices will rise the same way elsewhere.

gghtransit
Oct 3, 2008, 1:37 PM
You have to consider that most municipalities will have to push through similar legislature prior to 2015. If prices rise here you have to realize they will rise relatively to every other municipality. This will not bring slower growth as a result of affordable housing here as prices will rise the same way elsewhere.

IIRC the legislation in question only applies to municipalities within the Greater Golden Horseshoe; of which Waterloo Region is at the western-most edge of. Communities to the west of those in Waterloo Region are not bound by the hard restrictions of the Places to Grow Act, or Greenbelt Act.

jcollins
May 13, 2009, 2:17 PM
Region's growth plan debated

May 13, 2009
Jeff Outhit
RECORD STAFF

WATERLOO REGION

Developers want more land set aside for growth but environmentalists want less.

Regional councillors heard contrary views yesterday in seeking public input on their plan to guide growth until 2029.

The proposed regional plan, a legal document governing land use, calls for rapid transit and a countryside line around cities, to restrain urban growth.

"It is premature to conclude there is no need to expand the urban areas," planning consultant Paul Britton warned councillors.

Britton, speaking for a number of local developers, said the proposed plan lacks the detail to justify some of its housing restraints.

Environmentalists David Wellhauser and John Jackson disagree.

They're upset that in some less-sensitive areas, the countryside line is now proposed to be redefined as a "long-term" boundary.

This is meant to give future generations wiggle room to expand it.

"There is no way we should allow any further movement out," said Jackson, representing a group called the Grand River Environmental Network.

The regional plan, currently in its second draft, must be approved next month under a provincial deadline. More than 30 delegations asked to address council last night.

The plan follows provincial legislation requiring this region to become more compact.

After 2015, 40 per cent of new homes must settle in existing neighbourhoods, which must have a mix of homes, jobs and shopping.

Stronger protections are proposed for groundwater and environmental lands, and new regulations will govern the location of business lands.

jouthit@therecord.com

DHLawrence
May 13, 2009, 2:56 PM
I thought the whole reason for the growth strategy was to reduce the amount of land that was being developed???

Duke-Of-Waterloo
May 13, 2009, 9:20 PM
/\

This was actually for the new Regional Official Plan (new ROP), not the Regional Growth Management Strategy (RGMS). The Record shouldn't have called this article as the "Region's Growth Plan"...

The RGMS was a document that was intended to eventually introduce the official new ROP. The new ROP, now in draft form, has replaced the RGMS as the Region's long term growth/planning document.

mpd618
May 13, 2009, 9:57 PM
[Wrong thread. Carry on.]

Duke-Of-Waterloo
May 13, 2009, 10:02 PM
[Wrong thread. Carry on.]

Actually, it's a significant difference and definitely worth noting.

jcollins
May 14, 2009, 3:17 AM
My mistake.

Can the mods move individual posts to other threads?

mpd618
May 14, 2009, 3:24 AM
(Duke-Of-Waterloo - I was referring to my own comment, which I had mistakenly made in this thread and could edit but not delete.)