One of the largest problems facing the growth of cities is urban sprawl. The strain it puts on community infrastructure can be experienced as simply as taking a drive down Gordon Street around 8:30 on a weekday morning. The car-centric model of development is being phased out in communities all over the world, but since populations continue to grow, we need to look at alternative means by which to fulfil our city’s housing needs.
There are two different types of land that are primarily used for housing developments: Brownfields are lands which have previously housed industrial or commercial services and greenfields are those that have never been developed. Urban sprawl has long relied on the development of greenfields for a number of reasons. Of which, cost and ease come to mind quite easily.
Recently, local media outlets have featured a number of articles regarding the city’s plan to revive specific brownfield sites with the hopes of providing sustainable housing on sites that currently sit unused or empty. Public opinion is always mixed when it comes to the city providing incentives to developers building on these sites, though there are a number of reasons why it is often in the city’s best interests to do so.
Multi-storey residential, like the proposal at 180 Gordon St. and the under-construction RiverHouse project provide a greater return to the city than empty plots of land. Is it worth it for the city to shell out a little cash now, to generate hundreds of thousands of property dollars annually and in perpetuity? Without getting into specific numbers, the concept is certainly one any investor would entertain. By growing the tax basin now, the city can dip into a greater fund to pay for social services, infrastructure needs (perhaps those brought on by urban sprawl) and other municipal objectives down the road.
Ever notice how your summer drive seems to pass through construction zone after construction zone? Urban sprawl requires the widening of corridors to increase traffic flow, or to better support the current commuters. In Guelph, there are instances where we are not afforded that luxury. For example, Gordon St. has been increasingly relied upon as an artery for transportation; but without the means to widen it, and more strain being put on it with South-end condos being built, planners will need to look elsewhere to provide sufficient residences for the growing population. By providing developers a little more to get brownfield contamination remedied in the core, the city can avoid these infrastructure expenses into the future. Developers can even pay directly for infrastructure expenses, such as Tricar’s split of paving and sewage work with the city, which also helps protect surrounding neighbourhoods from future service interruptions.
We’ll need our greenfields into the future, and as their stock goes up, brownfield redevelopment becomes a more important process. It’s not cheap to remediate soil, but the costs pale in comparison to the future costs of alternative development methods. It makes sense for the city to see in these projects as an investment in their future and invest accordingly. To ignore the opportunities as they present themselves would be a mistake.
For a chance to read up on a current debate, click the link to yesterday’s Mercury. http://www.guelphmercury.com/print/article/800872
-K