Land Use Planning, intensification, density Mat Paterson, University of Ottawa

Land Use Planning,
  intensification, density
Mat Paterson, University of
         Ottawa
 mpaterso@uottawa.ca

Contexts and Aims
•
    Existing planning talks about ‘livability’ and
    planning for better urban form in terms of
    ‘intensification’
    –
        % of new buildings that is infill, brownfield
        redevelopment, etc rather than greenfield
•
    This is a very bad measure of what matters.
•
    Density is key – the overall number of people,
    jobs, etc., per hectare, across the whole city

Why density? Reason I
•
    Climate change as background imperative
•
    Need to reduce GHG emissions (mostly CO2)
    by 80-90% in rich countries.
    –
        Not currently anywhere near achieving that. Going
        in the opposite direction
    –
        Action at all levels required
    –
        Cities control many levers – transport, planning,
        buildings – that determine CO2 emissions.
    –
        80-90% cuts implies radical transformation in

Source: http://climateactiontracker.org/

Why density? Reason I
•
    Climate change as background imperative
•
    Need to reduce GHG emissions (mostly CO2)
    by 80-90% in rich countries.
    –
        Not currently anywhere near achieving that. Going
        in the opposite direction
    –
        Action at all levels required
    –
        Cities control many levers – transport, planning,
        buildings – that determine CO2 emissions.
    –
        80-90% cuts implies radical transformation in

Reason I: Density
•
    Density is key to urban energy use and thus GHG
    emissions
•
    Density determines:
    –
        Proportion of journeys made not in a car (key
        determinant of transport emissions)
         •   Note: much more important than the fuel economy of
             individual vehicles: a dense urbanite SUV owner who
             never drives has much lower emissions than a suburbanite
             Civic owner
•
    Density has big influence on:

Source: Derived from P. Newman & J. Kenworthy, Sustainability and Cities, Island
Press, 1999. This version available at: http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/kenworthy

Reason I: Density
•
    Density is key to urban energy use and thus GHG
    emissions
•
    Density determines:
    –
        Proportion of journeys made not in a car (key
        determinant of transport emissions)
         •   Note: much more important than the fuel economy of
             individual vehicles: a dense urbanite SUV owner who
             never drives has much lower emissions than a suburbanite
             Civic owner
•
    Density has big influence on:

•
    Note: Ottawa 23%
    transit share
•
    Source:
    http://chartingtranspor
    /

Reason I: Density
•
    Density is key to urban energy use and thus GHG
    emissions
•
    Density determines:
    –
        Proportion of journeys made not in a car (key
        determinant of transport emissions)
         •   Note: much more important than the fuel economy of
             individual vehicles: a dense urbanite SUV owner who
             never drives has much lower emissions than a suburbanite
             Civic owner
•
    Density has big influence on:

Source: http://www.cities21.org/HH_NRG_consumption.htm

Planning take home: Density and
             intensification
•
    Aim needs to be to roughly triple the
    population density of the city as a whole
    –
        From roughly 1700 people per km2, to 5000
        people per km2 (this gives a density like say
        Amsterdam or London, which is what is needed to
        radically shif away from car dependence – and
        note those cities need to reduce their emissions
        also)
•
    If we’re stuck with intensification as a goal:
•
    The intensification target should be 100% for

Why density? Reasons II
•
    Economic/tax costs of sprawl
    –
        Council’s own figures show big subsidy from those
        within the Greenbelt to those outside
•
    Social benefits of density livability
    –
        Better health – walking, cycling, cleaner air, etc.
    –
        Better work/life balance – children more
        independent mobility, parents less juggling and
        taxiing
    –
        Less mobility but better access for all – to shops,

Source: Hemson Consulting, reproduced at
http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2013/03/19/new-figures-on-what-it-costs-to-run-ottaw
                                      /

Why density? Reasons II
•
    Economic/tax costs of sprawl
    –
        Council’s own figures show big subsidy from those
        within the Greenbelt to those outside
•
    Social benefits of density livability
    –
        Better health – walking, cycling, cleaner air, etc.
    –
        Better work/life balance – children more
        independent mobility, parents less juggling and
        taxiing
    –
        Less mobility but better access for all – to shops,

The City Draf Plan
•
    Some good words and framing
    –
        “growth management” has become “building a
        sustainable capital city” (1.4)
    –
        Recognition of importance of shifing dependence
        away from the car, and of “compact urban area”
        to get to that (1.3)
    –
        No expansion to urban boundary (2.2.1)
         •   But note: definition of urban boundary is not the built-
             up area, but the area zoned for residential
             development, and provincial requirement to have 17
             years of land zoned for such building.
    –

The City Draf Plan
•
    But:
    –
        Future growth mostly outside the greenbelt (fig
        2.2). By 2031, projected population growth:
         •   180000 more outside the greenbelt
         •   58000 inside the greenbelt
         •   27000 rural
    –
        Total travel will increase by 32%. Plan aims for
        transit share to 26%, and for ‘sustainable modes’
        to be 50% of rush hour journeys. Not clear if this
        actually reduces car use or simply contains
        growth.

•
    Note: Ottawa 23%
    transit share
•
    Source:
    http://chartingtranspor
    /

The City Draf Plan
–
    Intensification targets v weak. 38% for 2012-16,
    40% for 2017-2021, 42% for 2022-2026, and 44%
    for 2027-2031. For 2012-2021, this is actually
    weaker than the 2009 plan. And means fully 60%
    of new builds are planned to be beyond the
    existing built-up area, which cannot address the
    central problem.
–
    This is the opposite of promoting a “compact
    urban form”.
–
    Density targets only for central city and key areas
    on transitway. No change from 2009 plan, and still

Development charges reform
•
    The issue
    –
        development charges are intended to recover
        costs of infrastructure provision
    –
        But these costs vary enormously. Current way of
        doing this creates incentives for low-density
        development
         •   Only differentiation is inside/outside the greenbelt
•
    Development charges should become much
    more differentiated by the cost of
    infrastructure provision

Need to be more systematic and
                radical
•
    Think backwards from the end goal
    –
        The city plan discusses climate change and need
        to reduce emissions, but gives no figures or
        targets that might guide actual practice.
•
    Imagine the city where all the major services
    we use on a daily basis are within walking
    distance (max 1km). What does that city look
    like?

Summary of key messages
•
    Need to replace intensification targets with
    density targets, and aim to at least double the
    population density of the city as a whole
    –
        Intensification figure should in effect be 100%.
•
    The City Draf plan talks about ‘compact urban
    form’ but intensification targets will not create
    this. This will undermine their good (if could
    be better) targets for transit, cycling, etc.
•
    Need to have much more strategic use of

Information source
            (beyond ones cited)
•
    Ottawa City Council, Draf Amendment to the
    City of Ottawa Ofcial Plan, June 24 2013.
    available at:
    http://app05.ottawa.ca/sirepub/agdocs.aspx?doct
    301898
•
    Ecology Ottawa submission on the 2009 plan
    amendments:
    http://ecologyottawa.ca/wp-content/uploads/201
    pdf