[getsmart-l] Re: business benefits by having local workers who can afford to live in the cities where they operate.

[M. Laplante]

I had written a brief critique of John Barber's Globe and Mail article that you 
refer to, "Never mind the NIMBYs -- this boom is a rare success",  in my 
blog
http://reversezone.blogdns.com/blosxom.cgi/Toronto_Road_to_Sprawl_Pav
ed_with_Good_Intentions.html

I came to quite different conclusions that this is not smart growth at all, but a 
very dangerous road that Toronto has embarked on, by focusing on high-
rises.  High-rises are not a major part of the solution to sprawl and to GHG 
emission growth, some would even argue that they are a cause of sprawl.

I like the idea of discussing different aspects of Smart Growth, and I 
especially like the first 3 points.  The "Public Space and "non-NIMBY" 
zones" topic is trying to summarize the toughest challenges of urban 
planning and does not do it justice.  Smart Growth tries to promote mixed 
uses, but somewhere between mindless separation of uses and complete 
mixing is the messy business of deciding just how incompatible are different 
uses, and how to prevent land economics from re-segregating land uses.  
One of the things that separation of uses did was keep some services and 
businesses economically viable by making sure no one else could bid for 
their land.  That requires solving some more complex issues, but that's why 
they call it "smart" growth, right?

> An interesting article that promotes intensification, reduction of sprawl and supports the idea of "matrix" from Jane Jacobs, the New Urbanism and other sources - that a city/neighbourhood has multiple functions and services to offer (unlike a mono-culture).
> 
> For future discussion I suggest that some of the other major aspects of Smart Growth be considered:
> - Human Scale - avoiding canyons of high-rises; that we have interesting and accessible ground level streetscapes and access; that leads to
> - Walkability - being both able and attracted to walk to acquire our services and products as in European cities; supported by
> - Superb Transit - as in Paris, New York, Rome, Tokyo, Madrid; and preserving in the Matrix
> - Public Space and "non-NIMBY" zones - public spaces to meet and gather and view and enjoy and the "non-NIMBY" zones to allow space for those activities and services that no individual neighbourhood wants but that the whole city needs - sewage, garbage, noisy airports, slaughterhouses, heavy industry, metal reclamation, etc.
> The tendency of most politicians and planners, let alone land speculators, is to put pressure on to convert what should be non-NIMBY into higher profit developments that then evict or restrict those necessary services. The GTA has done this most un-successfully by crowding Pearson airport, for example. Newmarket allowed housing far too close to its composting facility. Toronto lost the meat packers. Etc.
> John


===============================================
Martin Laplante, PhD			laplante at res.ca
Vice-President, RES Policy Research   	URL: http://res.ca
phone:(613)241-1384   
direct:(613)864-7373