Ken Gray: NIMBY watch

[phil235]

Originally Posted by jaydog0212

A anti developer candidate would not fly sure some people have issues with some projects but would people in big numbers vote for someone who is anti developer no such a person would get so few votes it would not even be worth it to run.

Dude, have you noticed how some people throw the odd period or capital letter into their posts?

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by phil235

Dude, have you noticed how some people throw the odd period or capital letter into their posts?

I wasn't going to say anything but... ya, I noticed it to.

[McC]

About Ossington in Toronto, but similar conditions to the Somerset-WestWelli-Richmond corridor (or Wellsboro, if you prefer)
http://spacingtoronto.ca/2012/07/12/...changing-city/

[phil235]

Originally Posted by McC

About Ossington in Toronto, but similar conditions to the Somerset-WestWelli-Richmond corridor (or Wellsboro, if you prefer)
http://spacingtoronto.ca/2012/07/12/...changing-city/

It's quite interesting that the cool areas of Toronto are getting pushed out further and further from the core. If the coolness has already shifted from Ossington to Parkdale, is it only a matter of time before the cool kids are heading to Etobicoke on Saturday nights?

[McC]

Originally Posted by phil235

is it only a matter of time before the cool kids are heading to Etobicoke on Saturday nights?

or Scarborough? http://fmlistings.tumblr.com/post/24...ses-in-toronto

[phil235]

Originally Posted by McC

or Scarborough? http://fmlistings.tumblr.com/post/24...ses-in-toronto

Now that you mention it, there are swaths of Scarborough that do have that edgy feel - an essential element of any truly hip neighbourhood.

[Nepean]

This story on the Ottawa Sun website wasn't written by Ken Gray, but given the subject matter it seems appropriate to post it on this thread.

NIMBY movement sweeps Ottawa

BY CHRIS HOFLEY

There’s a disease running rampant in the city and, while it won’t land you in a hospital bed, it is contagious and can easily hop from neighbourhood to neighbourhood.

The symptoms are diverse and sometimes hard to spot, but most often the illness causes a hoarse voice and the inability to rationalize.

Ottawa, it would appear, has a bad case of the NIMBYs.

Though far from a new phenomenon, the Not In My Back Yard argument is popping up with increasing frequency in the city. People want to live here, and developers are all too happy to build them a place to call home.

But as soon as a shovel goes into the ground, be it for a new townhouse in Westboro or an apartment building in Little Italy, there is a major risk of a NIMBY flare-up.

“I don’t care if they want to build new houses, I just don’t want to have to look at them,” said a Westboro resident who, though he summed up the NIMBY argument perfectly, refused to give his name.

From small issues to massive new developments, NIMBY doesn’t discriminate; from the location of the light rail line to new home construction to the planned interprovincial bridge in the east end, there is a significant NIMBY factor at play in most areas of the city.

The NIMBY argument is based on the belief that most new development in a given area will hurt existing communities: Highrise buildings will disrupt views and increase traffic, while townhomes built on infill lots will destroy the character of older, single-family home communities.

But while the NIMBYs can easily justify their opposition to projects they believe will negatively impact their way of life, the esthetics of a neighbourhood isn’t the only factor in play.

Caroline Andrew, an expert in urban development at the University of Ottawa, suggested people live in constant fear of their property values dropping, causing them to speak up whenever they see something they don’t like in their neighbourhoods.

“Because there’s been this whole period of rising property values, people are extremely anxious about the continuation of that,” Andrew said.

But in older, highly sought-after communities like Westboro and the Glebe, the housing boom is having the opposite effect. People are selling their properties for upwards of $600,000 and often the buyer will knock down the existing house and rebuild. Frequently, multiple semi-detached units replace that single home.

Although the new units are increasingly popular and are sold quickly, the modern look of new homes are despised by many living in those areas.

Melbourne Ave. resident Neal Parker and his wife, who themselves live on an older infill lot, said the value of their home has skyrocketed because of the housing boom.

But don’t try to tell them the new, million-dollar townhomes are good for the community.

“They’re tearing down absolutely nice, lovely homes,” said Parker, suggesting the city needs to do a better job of controlling development in the Westboro area.

Alta Vista councillor and planning committee chairman Peter Hume stopped short of saying NIMBYism is running rampant in the city, choosing to take a more diplomatic route.

“There’s a larger group of people becoming engaged in how their city grows and changes,” he said.

But even Hume realizes there is a line being crossed. Opposition to major projects like Lansdowne and the east-end bridge are expected. But when there is kicking and screaming every time someone wants to build two houses where there was once only one, someone needs a reality check.

“There needs to be a greater realization in the public that change is going to happen,” Hume said. “The idea that a community is going to stay exactly the same forever is just unrealistic.”

Part of the blame for the rise in NIMBYism undoubtedly lies with the city, and Hume acknowledged planning guidelines can be confusing for a layman.

“There’s not a common interpretation of what city council or what our planning policies mean for communities,” said Hume. “That more than anything causes conflict.”

But does that conflict accomplish anything? Depends who you ask.

While the impact of NIMBY opposition usually amounts to nothing more than a stall tactic, it can occasionally impact development, as was seen when the Ontario Municipal Board rejected plans for new highrises on Roosevelt Ave. in Westboro. But more often than not, development protests slow things down and cost money, but the project inevitably gets the green light.

Rob Dekker, vice-president of the Centretown Citizens Community Association, said developers need to “respect the fabric of the community.”

But living downtown, Dekker is realistic.

“We should expect some development in the area,” said Dekker. “Where the NIMBYism comes out (is when) you have developers clearly trying to put 25/27 storeys in a section of town where it’s zoned for 12-18.”

Nobody is going to dispute a taxpayer’s right to question new development, but rallying against every new build ties up resources on issues that only impact a small group.

“NIMBY focuses a tremendous amount of staff time to prepare responses for council, provide data to the NIMBY group and to work out approaches to the (Ontario Municipal Board) should it go to that level,” said former North Grenville mayor Bill Gooch.

But with so much new development under way or on the books, the NIMBYs aren’t going anywhere.

“Unless it’s something exactly the same or very modestly different, people are going to be very resistant to that change,” Hume said.

“It’s a fact of life and human nature that we are going to have to accept and grapple with.”



TALES OF THE NIMBY


The NIMBY factor comes into play with many development projects, but a few
are particularly contentious.

LRT
It’s hard to argue against the need for light rail in Ottawa, but a lot less difficult to complain about where it might go. Carling and Byron avenues are two options that have been considered as a possibility for a light rail line, and each comes with its share of opposition. A woman living near Byron suggested she “would get the hell out of dodge” if the transit line ran near her home, though she also acknowledged that LRT was “probably a good idea” for the city.

Lansdowne Park
The redevelopment of the Bank St. eyesore was delayed repeatedly by legal action brought on by opponents of the project. University of Ottawa political science professor Caroline Andrew said Lansdowne was an “a-typical” example of NIMBYism because of the size of the project.

Interprovincial bridge
Studies have indicated the need for an east-end bridge that would link Hwy. 174 to Gatineau. Three options of where the bridge could cross have been identified, but many east-end residents think it will cause a traffic catastrophe, instead of easing congestion. While mayor Jim Watson recently said he was opposed to the idea, former North Grenville mayor Bill Gooch suggested politicians can feel pressured to oppose worthwhile development because they fear backlash from NIMBY groups.

Soho Italia
The recent decision came under fire from residents who feared the 35-storey building on Preston St. would create a “wasteland of big towers.” The developer bowed to their demands only slightly by moving five floors underground, which was enough to get the city’s blessing.

http://www.ottawasun.com/2012/07/14/...-sweeps-ottawa

[Cre47]

Back with the extrimification BS

http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2012/...eighbourhoods/

[S-Man]

And the usual assertion that ANY CHANGE = RUINED NEIGHBOURHOOD.

In Kenny Grey's world, nothing is ever to change - certainly not zoning (or "law" as he ridiculously puts it.) Even laws change quite often, and they are LAW.

Obviously he knows these things, but is playing dumb in print to get his NIMBY west side neighbours to join his crusade of isolationism.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by S-Man

And the usual assertion that ANY CHANGE = RUINED NEIGHBOURHOOD.

In Kenny Grey's world, nothing is ever to change - certainly not zoning (or "law" as he ridiculously puts it.) Even laws change quite often, and they are LAW.

Oh come off it. You're being just as disingenuous as you're accusing Ken of being.

What evidence do you have to support your claim that he asserts that "ANY CHANGE = RUINED NEIGHBOURHOOD"?

In the very post that Cre47 linked to Ken wrote:

"And that’s exactly the point this blog has been trying to make over the past few months. No environmentally conscious person should be against intensification, it shortens drives and piggybacks on city services. It’s not intensification that’s the problem … it’s how it is being done."

That certainly doesn't sound like someone asserting that any change will ruin a neighbourhood.

And zoning changes should be carried out as part of a considered overall plan, not as a series of one-off changes. Moreover, even when zoning does get changed in an overall plan, it's never enough for the developers.

Obviously he knows these things, but is playing dumb in print to get his NIMBY west side neighbours to join his crusade of isolationism.

But hey, obviously you know these things but you're just playing dumb to further your crusade for more tall buildings and if that means painting any opponents to your vision as NIMBY, then so be it.

[jeremy_haak]

I dunno. If I actually saw any examples of Ken Gray supporting intensification, I might believe him when he says that. If I even saw a slightly nuanced criticism of the intensification instead of the inflated rhetoric he tends to spew out, I might think his urban vision for the city is a bit more sophisticated than your average NIMBY. But he doesn't do anything of the sort except to try to offset his rather shoddy record on these issues with the occasional platitude to good urbanism that come across as less-than-genuine.

[McC]

I'm with Jeremy on this one, KG's got that kind of "some of my best friends are smart intensification" attitude; I mean he's even groused about the Piccadilly for Pete's sake, and not just because it's beige.

[S-Man]

Dado, I say this because he perpetually claims to "support intensification" and "smart growth" but opposes it in every way shape and form in the real world.

Ken is like the environmentalist who claims they are an environmentalist because they subscribe to a 'Green' magazine and watched An Inconvenient Truth, but drive a Ford F-350 and run the AC on 20 degree days when they aren't home. He is all talk, no action. And a part of the problem.

I base my opinion on action, not words. It's great to say "I'm not a NIMBY", but when you follow the sentence with "...but I don't want this built in my backyard", you've kind of just destroyed your claim through lack of supporting evidence. I've mentioned this before.

Grey wants people to think he's reasonable, so he says "I support intensification...", but in absolutely every instance in the real word, he follows it up with "...but this is too much/too tall/out of place/etc, etc"

Supporting one thing is fine, but you have to allow it to happen in the real world, or there are no positive results. I've even raised this with GrEy during one of his ridiculous live blogs chats, and he simply stated his mantra and finally stopped responding.

Show me an example of intensification IN HIS NEIGHBOURHOOD he has supported, and I might take pause, otherwise I'm sticking to my guns here. I can smell BS from a mile away. I was raised in the country.

[Nepean]

Originally Posted by S-Man

Ken is like the environmentalist who claims they are an environmentalist because they subscribe to a 'Green' magazine and watched An Inconvenient Truth, but drive a Ford F-350 and run the AC on 20 degree days when they aren't home. He is all talk, no action. And a part of the problem.

I would have to echo S-Man on this point. I cannot recall a single project that Ken Gray has supported with open arms. In the vast majority of cases (99%?) his answer is to say "No." The other 1% is Lansdowne, which KG sort of supports, but even here has been very critical of the entire process.

Dado, if you can provide a single example of a construction project in Ottawa that KG has supported without any criticism then I am all ears. But from my reading of his column he is a NIMBY, despite what he may claim otherwise.

Like S-Man says, you can vote for the Green Party all you want, and praise Al Gore until the cows come home, but if you abuse your AC, drive a hummer and never recycle then you are not an environmentalist. On a similar bent, just because KG says he supports "appropriate" construction does not mean he is not a NIMBY. His definition of "appropriate" seems to be the status quo.

[lrt's friend]

Now, why would Ken Gray publish support for a project? The one exception being Lansdowne simply because others have been very vocal opponents. Otherwise, it is really pointless. So, just saying that Ken Gray opposes projects 99% of the time is meaningless. Obviously, there are many projects that he doesn't comment on.

Furthermore, Ken Gray has been consistent about projects that exceed height limits, usually far exceeding the limits. Why are we so critical of him taking that position? City planning is not planning at all if you are making exceptions for every developer. I take offense to this sort of thing going on with the frequency that appears to be happening. It is creating a class of people who have influence that get windfall profits by having land rezoned.

[S-Man]

The city hasn't gotten around to rezoning the entire city to accomodate increased population and intensification. Maybe it should have by now, but there is no Ottawa Design Plan. All staff have to go on is its Official Plan and a good look around the area.

So yes, peicemeal zoning doesn't have good optics and raises many people's ire, but the process to rezone property exists and always has, and would you be the first to propose the city drop everything for a few years in order to hold endless public consultations in every street and neighbourhood about what should be "appropriate" for the future on said lots and properties?

A main beef with Ken Grey is his view that all zoning should stick, forever, regardless of how far the city has sprawled and what the current population is. Hence, "I support intensification" doesn't really fly if you refuse to have property upzoned to accept more people, which is what intensification is.

Building tall buildings on new land out on the outskirts of the city (a new place where old neighbourhoods won't be bothered) is more of the same problem. Those people need a way into the city and reaquire roads, water and sewer to boot.

There has to be some compromise. A newer 2-story house that conforms to the community and holds the same amount of people on a lot that used to hold an old 2-storey house is not intensification. There would have to be a duplex or triplex. That would raise ire. Why not stick to the law, he would say? This is double or triple the amount of people that used to be here?

Sorry if I'm flogging a point too much, but I go back to my original point. What do you want? People in the inner city saying "I support intensification" while doing everything they can to avoid new buildings or change, thus nothing ever changing except more costly sprawl, or actual change in the material world that didn't exist in 1960?

Intensification was meant to address a problem, not just to add a shiny new word to our lexicom. People like Grey and others fail to realize that in order to accept the word, you also have to accept what it represents.

Grey also doesn't grasp his own words, as McC alluded to. He goes on and on about how Paris is predominantly 6 stories lining all streets, and how they don't have a need for tall buildings, then complains if a single 6 story building is built on Wellington West (like the Piccadilly). It's taller than the 2 story homes, he shouts, and it will turn the street into a canyon!

Like Paris, the city of dreams he waxes poetically about?

You can't take his words at face value. He wants no change. The solution to respecting a neighbourhood - in his view - is to not touch it and build somewhere else, ideally in a place that hasn't been built yet, thus negating any claim of being "in support of intensification".

His solution to sprawl is, essentially, to sprawl more, because the solution is too hard for him to take.

[eternallyme]

I wonder how long before they start linking the plans to Agenda 21...

[waterloowarrior]

The Bulldog focuses on the zoning but should really focus on the Official Plan. Ottawa's Official Plan is quite flexible and allows for all sorts of zoning changes based on sets of criteria in the plan. The 4-6 and 8-10 storey "height limits" on Traditional and Arterial Mainstreets are all quite flexible (Dado has made the point that almost any project can potentially fit the criteria for increased height). Even a lot of the CDPs that have included site-by-site analyses still have flexibility. The City has also consolidated a bunch of the Secondary Plans out there that used to have more local direction like the Village plans.

To better "enforce" height limits the focus should be on getting rid of this flexibility in the Official Plan so that you would have to amend the Official Plan and make a much better case to change the height limit for a property. Multiple posters have made this point in the comment section, but unfortunately it has yet to be addressed in the blog and many readers are being misinformed that the City is doing something illegal or even unconstitutional. Perhaps Gray could look at other Official Plans like Toronto's which includes designations such as "Neighbourhoods" that focus on preserving existing character. We may not agree with the ideas on getting rid of the flexibility and restricting height, but for him and concerned neighbours it could also provide more certainty to the process. I believe the City may look at this issue in some way in it's next Official Plan review (providing more certainty).

Also the Bulldog has many posts about enforcing the rule of law and sticking to existing zoning, but that's not actually what he seems to be arguing about. He is almost entirely focused on one part of the zoning: height. There are no posts about how the Montreal/Ogilvie development should stick to existing (project specific) zoning. No posts about how the implementing zoning for one of the Fernbank subdivisions should stick to Development Reserve zoning and that the developers are violating the rule of law. There is no outrage about a spot rezoning on West Hunt Club to allow a car dealership, with accessory repair and servicing operations, as an additional permitted use along with site-specific performance standards.

The arguement about the rule of law really falls apart when you step back and think about all the rezonings and variances out there that aren't related to height. Height is one performance standard out of dozens a development must comply with but the only one that really gets the attention. Is the Bulldog saying that if someone got site-specific zoning 10 years ago for a project you can only ever build that same project on the site? Should there be no more suburban growth? Should the list of uses permitted for a property never change if someone comes up with a new idea? Once you start thinking about how many different aspects there are to zoning besides height the rule of law argument and the emphasis on forever sticking to existing zoning really falls apart.

[Nepean]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Now, why would Ken Gray publish support for a project? The one exception being Lansdowne simply because others have been very vocal opponents. Otherwise, it is really pointless. So, just saying that Ken Gray opposes projects 99% of the time is meaningless. Obviously, there are many projects that he doesn't comment on.

I don't understand the logic behind your post. Are you implying that journalists should only write about things that they disagree with, or as in the case of Lansdowne, when they want to give a contrary view? If this is correct, then are you arguing that journalists should never write about things that they agree with?

There are numerous reasons why KG could write about a project that he supports. For starters, such a post / column would provide an example of what, in his view, the city should follow in terms of development. It could also provide support to a good developer, in the same way that local papers promote worthy bands, restaurants, bars, artists, community activists, athletes, etc. with good reviews.

My comment about Ken Gray opposing 99% of developments is not meaningless. Rather, it highlights the fact that for all of his bluster that he is pro-intensification, when push comes to shove, his instinct is to say "no." It also pinpoints the feeling of many people on this site that KG actually does not support urban intensification in practice, despite what he claims in theory.

I also agree with waterloowarrior that KG limits his analysis to height-related issues, and that his blog is silent on many other forms of developments. For instance, on Merivale Road in Nepean, more strip-mall like stores are being built. These buildings are not tall, but they are (in my view) another step in the destruction of this part of Ottawa. The Bulldog, however, does not criticize this form of development, even though in my opinion a strip mall causes a lot more damage to a city than rezoning a lot so a condo building can be taller.

[gjhall]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

I wonder how long before they start linking the plans to Agenda 21...

A presenter at PC for 1050 Somerset did just that.