City looks at upping density downtown

[SteelTown]

City looks at upping density downtown

November 28, 2008
Nicole Macintyre
The Hamilton Spectator

In 20 years, could Hamilton's downtown be nearly as densely developed as Toronto's?

It's a question some councillors want municipal planners to study as the city decides where its growth should be focused in the next two decades.

Hamilton's downtown has already met the province's growth target of 200 people and jobs per hectare. Staff recommended increasing the target to 250, but several councillors questioned if the city was setting its goal too low.

"I think we need to go beyond the status quo," said Councillor Brian McHattie, who plans to ask staff to explore the implications of doubling the current density by 2031.

A growth target of 400 people and jobs per hectare would match Mississauga's goal for its downtown and the current density in Toronto.

Tim McCabe, general manager of planning and economic development, cautioned that changing the city's growth target for downtown would radically change the look of the core. For example, he noted the city would have to change its height restrictions for buildings.

"I think it's a very risky path," McCabe said.

If the city set its downtown growth target too high and failed, it could stop the city from expanding its urban boundary in other areas, he said.

Planning staff said the 250 density target was "a reach" but attainable.

Downtown Councillor Bob Bratina said there might be valid restrictions on the core's growth, such as underground rivers that prevent parking garages from being dug, but he believes there's value in looking at a higher target.

"We've already surprised ourselves with our success," Bratina said.

The city is engaged in a long-term planning process to decide where Hamilton's future growth should be concentrated.

The province expects the city will add 80,000 new households by 2031.

Downtown will have the highest density, followed by other community nodes such as the neighbourhoods around Lime Ridge and Eastgate malls. The "urban structure plan" will also determine the desired density levels in areas such as Ancaster and Dundas.

Councillors deferred approving the plan yesterday to give staff more time to work out issues with the province. Government officials questioned if the city was reaching high enough with its density targets.

Councillor Brad Clark noted the province has made it clear that municipalities that don't meet the province's growth expectations may not get the infrastructure funding they want.

"We have to make sure that we get this right with the province," he said.

nmacintyre@thespec.com

[matt602]

It's a very easy goal to achieve. There's hundreds of underutilized buildings in the core already, and many more parking lots to build on. Underground rivers wouldn't be an issue in those cases, as buildings already existed on those lots. Start by filling up those empty buildings and expanding on them where possible, then lets start killing the gaps. "Skyscraper Zones" will need to be established, since you can't just plop one down anywhere.

[ryan_mcgreal]

Looking at the rough numbers...

In Hamilton, the population density of wards 1 through 4 is about 1,600 people per square kilometre (according to 2001 StatsCan data - the current density is probably slightly higher).

By comparison, Paris, France is almost uniformly built with six storey buildings, but has a population density of 25,000 people per square kilometre - well over an order of magnitude higher than Hamilton's lower city. To the pedestrian, Paris feels lively but by no means claustrophobic. It has plenty of green space, broad tree-lined boulevards, and friendly pedestrian walkways along the Seine.

And Hamilton's planners blanch at the thought of of merely doubling our downtown density?

[go_leafs_go02]

Hmm..

Lister...check

Connaught...check

That skyscraper on top of Jackson Square...top half...check.

[crhayes]

Originally Posted by ryan_mcgreal

Looking at the rough numbers...

In Hamilton, the population density of wards 1 through 4 is about 1,600 people per square kilometre (according to 2001 StatsCan data - the current density is probably slightly higher).

By comparison, Paris, France is almost uniformly built with six storey buildings, but has a population density of 25,000 people per square kilometre - well over an order of magnitude higher than Hamilton's lower city. To the pedestrian, Paris feels lively but by no means claustrophobic. It has plenty of green space, broad tree-lined boulevards, and friendly pedestrian walkways along the Seine.

And Hamilton's planners blanch at the thought of of merely doubling our downtown density?

It would be unrealistic to see them aim for something too dramatic; the biggest problem is attracting people to live here. First, Hamilton really needs to get some more jobs here; specifically office type jobs because they are really lacking.

Everyone is promoting "live close to where you work"; if this is true then there isn't a HUGE incentive for people (at least white-collar workers in general) to move to Hamilton. In fact my dad is planning on moving out of here soon because he has been traveling to Toronto for work for about twenty years.

[ryan_mcgreal]

Originally Posted by crhayes

It would be unrealistic to see them aim for something too dramatic

There is absolutely nothing dramatic about doubling our downtown density over the next twenty-five years. In fact, I would consider that a mediocre bare minimum goal of a half-assed policy. We'd almost get there via status quo planning, especially if LRT goes ahead.

Originally Posted by crhayes

the biggest problem is attracting people to live here. First, Hamilton really needs to get some more jobs here; specifically office type jobs because they are really lacking.

I actually think you've got those two backwards. If you look at the medium sized cities that are doing really well at intensifying over the past decade or so, you can't help but notice that those cities are attracting creative people first.

What happens is: a) businesses looking to expand tend to follow those creative people to the cool cities that attract them, and b) those cool people themselves start businesses, especially if the city manages to achieve the critical mass of innovators, entrepreneurs and VCs to create a virtuous cycle of growth and density in a given industry.

Richard Florida does a great job of identifying, tracking and explaining this phenomenon in his books The Rise of the Creative Class and Who's Your City?, which examine the issue from the city down and from the individual up. Hamilton is running at cross-purposes with regards to Florida's recommendations, doing some things right but many other things almost exactly wrong.

Aiming low on urban density is definitely one of the things we're doing wrong, and here's why. The research into density has demonstrated that two important things happen when you intensify land use:

1. Energy use and the cost of physical infrastructure grows more slowly than the population; and
2. The rate of innovation by a variety of measures grows more quickly than the population.

In other words, scale up a civilization and you get both an energy/infrastructure productivity boost and a boost in human intellectual capital. This is why a city can get as big and dense as, say, New York and not simply collapse on itself - the city actually becomes more and more productive per resident the denser it gets.

By not pursuing higher density, we're effectively stifling whatever potential Hamilton has to become a centre of innovation and an economic growth engine.

[crhayes]

Originally Posted by ryan_mcgreal

There is absolutely nothing dramatic about doubling our downtown density over the next twenty-five years. In fact, I would consider that a mediocre bare minimum goal of a half-assed policy. We'd almost get there via status quo planning, especially if LRT goes ahead.



I actually think you've got those two backwards. If you look at the medium sized cities that are doing really well at intensifying over the past decade or so, you can't help but notice that those cities are attracting creative people first.

What happens is: a) businesses looking to expand tend to follow those creative people to the cool cities that attract them, and b) those cool people themselves start businesses, especially if the city manages to achieve the critical mass of innovators, entrepreneurs and VCs to create a virtuous cycle of growth and density in a given industry.

Richard Florida does a great job of identifying, tracking and explaining this phenomenon in his books The Rise of the Creative Class and Who's Your City?, which examine the issue from the city down and from the individual up. Hamilton is running at cross-purposes with regards to Florida's recommendations, doing some things right but many other things almost exactly wrong.

Aiming low on urban density is definitely one of the things we're doing wrong, and here's why. The research into density has demonstrated that two important things happen when you intensify land use:

1. Energy use and the cost of physical infrastructure grows more slowly than the population; and
2. The rate of innovation by a variety of measures grows more quickly than the population.

In other words, scale up a civilization and you get both an energy/infrastructure productivity boost and a boost in human intellectual capital. This is why a city can get as big and dense as, say, New York and not simply collapse on itself - the city actually becomes more and more productive per resident the denser it gets.

By not pursuing higher density, we're effectively stifling whatever potential Hamilton has to become a centre of innovation and an economic growth engine.

Sorry I wasn't very clear; I didn't mean doubling the density was dramatic. I thought you meant we should aim somewhere closer to Paris' density and I figured that might be a little too dramatic.

As far as the rest of what you said, you have clearly done your research and I am not going to argue with you. Hamilton has been attracting creative individuals, which is good. I don't doubt that these individuals are likely to in turn attract more white-collar jobs to our city, but as the saying goes there is more than one way to skin a cat (this is obviously not the ONLY way to attract jobs).

There is a lot more the city could be doing to entice businesses to want to set up offices here in our core. I mean even Burlington has had some offices set up in recent years (such as VMWare and a couple others) and I think that we have more to offer here in Hamilton; to me this is a sign that something is not right.

[go_leafs_go02]

the sketch factor of Gore Park and area is a major detraction I think to alot of people looking to house their business, be it in an office setting.

[ryan_mcgreal]

Originally Posted by crhayes

There is a lot more the city could be doing to entice businesses to want to set up offices here in our core.

That's going to be a piece of the puzzle, but the more important project is creating the conditions in which Hamilton can grow its own businesses. Look, for example, at Research in Motion (RIM). There's a reason they're based in Waterloo and not, say, Hamilton: Waterloo has a large, robust high-tech development sector with close ties to the university as well as to the municipal, provincial and federal governments.

Mike Lazaridis, RIM's co-CEO with Jim Balsillie, studied electrical engineering and computer science at the University of Waterloo. He dropped out just before graduating in the early 1980s to found RIM with grant money from GM and the Canadian government. With an infusion of VC, institutional and government investment in the mid-1990s, they developed the BlackBerry ... and the rest was history.

There's no way RIM could possibly have happened in a city like Hamilton, in which the infrastructure, institutional outreach, multi-level public commitment, money and density of players simply don't exist and the political will to establish them is utterly lacking (though that seems to be starting to change, as evidenced by Richard Florida's selection to be the keynote speaker at this year's inaugural economic summit).

That's how you create a centre of economic growth: not by cutting taxes, or offering "free" parking, or servicing greenfields, or any of the other nonsense that is constantly bandied around by people with no idea how economic growth actually happens and whose ideas and advice have led us to the nadir of zero percent tax assessment growth in which we find ourselves today.

[Dundasguy]

I know everyone looks to RIM as a miracle in Canadian business and it has been a boon to the Waterloo economy.

Please keep a few things in mind here:

1) RIM has had virtually no competition for the past 9 years, they had most of the emerging market to themselves and this has driven incredible gowth. This is now changing, RIM has found itself chasing the market as it was forced to start emulating other devices from other companies, i.e. Apple with new offerings, this is never a good sign.

2) RIM is largely a one pony show, the Blackberry is their niche product and does not drive revenue growth, the monthly service charges do, they actually loose money on every device they sell. They are in essence a value added cellular provider. Technology is a beeding edge industry, what's hot yesterday is today's Nortel.

3) When the market approaches saturation, revenue will be flat and they will have to manage churn with aggressive pricing, free offers, etc. and this is never good.

4) Access to skilled human resources. By staying in Waterloo they have to lure skilled creative people to live there. This works for short periods of time but creates a revolving door HR policy and is quite disruptive. Tech companies locate in Silicon Valley for a reason.

Now I am not saying that RIM is in any kind of trouble here, not at all. What we need to understand is that this industry is bleeding edge and things change all the time and dramatically. To stay on top you need to be innovating constantly and the leader in your field. When things are good, and stock prices are high, companies, especially public ones, have a habit is sitting back in cruise control while hungry competitors are figuring out ways to eat you lunch.