"Smart Growth" in Kelowna

[John Zeger]

The way the concept of "smart growth" will be applied in Kelowna is by densifying and erecting many highrises in the downtown and Rutland according to planning director Ron Mattiussi who was interviewed on CHBC on May 20. Mattiussi said this is necessary to accommodate rapid growth. He has obviously never heard about growth controls or maybe just doesn't want to acknowledge their existence because that isn't what the politicians locally want to hear. Ron Cannan was also on this segment parroting the term "smart growth" as if just calling it "smart" makes it self-validating. Some people just never learn. Mattiussi should go back to school and take a refresher course in Planning 101 where he would once again hear about the concept "sense of place." Wendell Berry, America's best-known biogregionalist, says if you don't know where you are, you don't know who you are. With a sense of place, your identity is defined to a significant extent by the natural features of the place where you live. Our sense of place in Kelowna is defined by our natural setting -- the mountains and lake. Erecting highrises is a violation of that sense of place as they obscure our views and thereby break our connection with our natural enviroment. Highrises by their sheer size compete with the natural environment for our visual attention and become the dominant feature of the landscape relegating the lake and mountains to a secondary role. By making tall buildings the primary focus of our city we become like hundreds of other cities in North America and lose our uniqueness. We cease to be what makes Kelowna special and lose our sense of place.

It is imperative that we have a major change in decision makers soon in this city if we are to retain the character of our city -- the reason that most of us have moved here or stayed here all our lives. We need almost a clean sweep on city council which must be replaced by people who aren't beholding to the growth-driven ideology of the development industry and Chamber of Commerce. We also need to replace the planning director and some of the planning managers who are wrongly advising these politicians about the course that Kelowna should take. We need to start our second 100 years with some new people with new ideas. For more on "sense of place" please read the following article:
trumpeter.athabascau.ca/content/v15.1/maser.html

[Rick Shea]

I found the following article, located at www.smartgrowth.org/news/bystate.asp?state=Wa

"King County Marks Success of Growth Management Plan, Looks Ahead to Creating More Affordable Housing

In the 10 years since the enactment of statewide growth-management laws, King County has made significant progress in the ''war against sprawl,'' channeling most development to its heavily urbanized Auburn-Seattle-Shoreline western region and protecting farmland, forest and open space.

A new county report shows, writes Seattle Post-Intelligencer writer Jennifer Langston, that nearly 25 percent of new housing has been built in cities, that the number of new residential lots in rural areas has dropped from 15 to just 4 percent, and that the once-dramatic 33 percent forest loss has stopped.

''I think we surpassed our vision,'' said County Democratic Executive Ron Sims. ''Residential growth is increasingly focused in cities where urban infrastructure can support it, while in the rural areas a wall against sprawl now exists.''

Still, other problems linger, the reporter observes, finding that the county enjoys home ownership increased by 63,000, but many low-income working families ''cannot find affordable housing and must live far from their jobs.''

The county, she notes, is partnering with cities, colleges and private groups to spur small businesses in under-served communities, while training and helping low-income adults get good jobs, and undertaking other revitalization efforts, but one offshoot of the projected economic recovery could be worse traffic.

Almost 29 percent of the area's road repair and improvement projects have been delayed by budget shortages, the report says, while 69 percent of residents driving alone to work most of the time. -- Seattle Post-Intelligencer 10/22/2004"

This article is posted at a pro "smart growth" website. What this says in summary is that the only thing achieved by densification is densification. There may be some temporary benefit in the protection of farmland and greenspace, but none of the other problems, which smart growth is supposed to solve, have been solved. The legacy of smart growth is crowded cities, with all the initial problems unresolved, and with the new problems created by crowding and densification. "Smart" indeed.

[Rick Shea]

If you view the image posted as my avatar (let me know if you need instructions), you will see the city's own data on residential growth in the areas of Kelowna away from the urban core. These areas are McKinley, Black Mountain/Belge, Southeast Mission, Crawford and area, and Southwest Mission.

Couple this with the current council's practice and policy of approving "densifying" developments in the core, and we have an accelerating rate of growth in Kelowna, with even more sprawl planned for the future.

Great job of growth management, guys!

I'll leave that image as my avatar for a few weeks. I'm not sure how the links will work from this forum, but here's the URL as well:

www3.telus.net/Rick_and_Linda/Images/growth.jpg

[Rick Shea]

Here's another graph, from the city's data, on growth nearer to the urban core areas, including Highway 97, Glenmore/Clifton/Dilworth, Central City, Rutland, and South Pandosy/K.L.O. I note that, despite the statements for quite some time now that we need to densify the downtown core, the 2003-2004 data do not show that this is happening. I suspect that that's just a temporary aberration.

www3.telus.net/Rick_and_Linda/Images/core_growth.jpg

What the two graphs I've posted do show is that we have accelerating residential growth in the city, including in the sprawl areas.

I wonder why the city didn't do this sort of analysis and prepare these graphs, given that they had all the data.

I'm looking forward to analyzing the data on commercial growth.

[Rick Shea]

For the last one in this series, here's the graph of total residential growth in Kelowna.

I'll place all the links to the commercial growth graphs in one posting later on, perhaps tomorrow.

www3.telus.net/Rick_and_Linda/Images/total_growth.jpg

[Rick Shea]

The following was printed in today's Courier, and has been sent to all members of city council. The response from some has been less than gracious. I think that it hits too close to home, and shows too clearly how ridiculous the argument that densification will stop sprawl truly is.

Dear Sirs:

Urban sprawl. Even the phrase sounds ugly.

Sprawl has become a hot topic in Kelowna recently, as shown by the volume of letters to the editors of the various media, presentations at city hall, and comments by city staff and councilors.

The current city council has presided over unprecedented sprawl in Kelowna. Indeed, the present council has helped to plan for even more sprawl, as the Official Community Plan clearly shows. Future road allowances in the south slopes area, for example, are there to service the thousands of new homes that the city expects there within the life of the OCP.

To see how the mayor and councilors feel about sprawl, one need look no farther than where they live. They choose to live away from, and often above, the congestion and air pollution of the downtown core, and generally choose single family detached houses, preferably with a view. Kelowna residents in general have already indicated how they feel about
sprawl, by buying those same detached houses in the new subdivisions on the hillsides, with a view if they can afford the premium price. Give people sufficient money, and the vast majority evidently choose the sprawl lifestyle. There is the poll, complete.

Yet, we are told, densifying the urban cores will somehow reduce or stop sprawl. That argument falls apart as soon as we look at recent history in Kelowna, and at the current evidence about where people like to live. Indeed, it appears as though building higher density housing downtown, when coupled with the OCP provisions for more sprawl, will only accelerate the current rate of growth in Kelowna, exacerbating every single problem we already have with infrastructure, disposal of
effluent into our drinking water supplies, air quality, traffic congestion, and on.

In the interest of honesty, the arguments for densification downtown need to be de-linked from the arguments for stopping sprawl.

If sprawl is to be stopped, then it should be stopped. Trite, but self-evident. Sprawl can be stopped by stopping support for the removal of land from the A.L.R., and by halting the issuance of new permits in the areas designated as sprawl. It's that simple, but requires a considerable amount of fortitude to implement.

The other claim, that sprawl will be reduced, is nonsense. To reduce sprawl, we would somehow have to persuade some of the people currently living in the sprawl areas to tear down their brand new houses and give back the land to parks and greenspace. To date, there aren't many volunteers for that.

If there is sufficient will in the city to stop sprawl, it can be stopped. The one horse may be gone, but the door can still be closed.

[Rick Shea]

An interesting take on the supposed link between sprawl and traffic congestion can be found at

www.ti.org/sprawlcausescongestion.html

While I'm not in favor of the rapid growth in Kelowna, including in the areas away from the urban core, the argument that sprawl is actually a solution to the problem of traffic congestion is food for thought.

You know, at some point, the simplest argument simply has to be acknowledged. Given all the problems we are currently encountering because of growth (and very rapid growth, comparatively speaking), given the projections that that growth will continue, and given the many warnings that continued growth will have increasingly dire consequences (in all domains, including social, environmental, and economic), why not address the real issue - growth?

The proposed bandaid solutions - densification, smart growth in general, and so on - are clearly just attempts to whitewash the real problem so that a select few can profit from the present and future misery of the many - an attempt to justify continued abuse, not just of the poor, but of the disenfranchised and those who are just too discouraged to participate.

Please read "The Myths of Growth" and "The Myths of Smart Growth" at the CRCP homepage, if you haven't done so already, before responding to this.

[cathy]

www.newurbanism.org/pages/416429/page416429.html?refresh=1119926247379
www.newurbannews.com/AboutNewUrbanism.html
If you don't like the term "Smart Growth", I suggest you look at the more common idea of "New Urbanism", which is being implemented all over the world, and has some of the same basic plans and ideas. New urbanism is relatively new, and has been in effect in some US cities since the early 1980's. This idea is based on creating cities, towns, or villages with a "Sense of place", with green areas and park space mixed into the development. A key factor is increased density, as well as transit-oriented development to reduce traffic flow, and, "More buildings, residences, shops, and services closer together for ease of walking." The main focus behind New Urbanism is to reduce sprawl, thus preserving the natural environment in the large surrounding regions, while still including some park space in high density areas.
While some aspects of New Urbanism may not be appropriate for Kelowna, (the addition of a train network, for instance), the idea of an active, high density city center, becoming progressively less dense toward the edge, would serve to increase the aesthetics of the city.
The first successful example of New Urbanism was Seaside, Florida. This was considered a huge success, and many towns have since followed the example.
Perhaps the concept of "Smart Growth" is not ideal for Kelowna. However, the idea of a busy, residential, high density city center is not new, and is a proven success in cities developing under the guidelines of New Urbanism.

[John Zeger]

Cathy, if you would read the rest of our website instead of just the forum, you would know that we are very much aware of the new urbanism and have endorsed it.
As it is a pretty broad category we like the type of new urbanism described by people like Leon Krier, Vincent Scully, James Howard Kunstler, Christopher Alexander, and Nikos Salingaros which is totally opposed to creating a high density urban core which has been described as urban hypertrophy. You will find articles by these authors on our Links page. The more you read, the more you will learn. That was your motivation, was it not?

[cathy]

If urban hypertrophy is a "type" of low-density new urbanism, where is the relationship between them? If the idea of having more local shops and parks is included in both, who would use these services without high density? People don't drive for ten minutes to get to a corner store, since that completely defeats the purpose, and a small business wouldn't last long with no local residents to use it. How much of a "Sense of place" can one have when you need to get in the car and drive to the focal point of the city, since there's no where for you to live near it? How could an advanced transit system function successfully with many large, low density areas to provide service to, rather than a central high density area? Kelowna's transit system is already struggling to keep up with new housing estates, and the large areas requiring bus routes for relatively few transit users is hardly cost effective.
If removing the high density aspect rules out many of the key points of new urbanism, how are they similar?

[Rick Shea]

cathy said:

... and a small business wouldn't last long with no local residents to use it.

To reply to this one part for now, and more later, the point is that there will in fact be local residents, and stating otherwise is simply being disingenuous. Having grown up in both urban and rural areas, I've seen the local corner stores survive quite well in both -- small grocery stores, hardware stores, and the like. It was only with unchecked growth that the big box stores became economically viable, and then forced out the local stores. I note the recent vote in Vancouver to reject two such box stores, which are the sorts of things that force people to drive long distances as they force the small businesses out.

[Rick Shea]

cathy said:

If urban hypertrophy is a "type" of low-density new urbanism,

You seem to be confused about the definition and implications of "urban hypertrophy," so for your benefit and ours, can you please post a definition with a link for reference?

[John Zeger]

Urban hypertrophy means exaggerated growth as in high density residential develoment e.g., a dense downtown characterized by lots of highrises. Cathy seemed to think it meant the opposite. Please see James Howard Kunstler's article "The End of Tall Buildings" on our Links page.

[cathy]

As it is a pretty broad category we like the type of new urbanism described... which is totally opposed to creating a high density urban core which has been described as urban hypertrophy.

Sorry... I took this as meaning that urban hypertrophy WAS the type of urbanism described which is opposed to a high density urban core.
I believe it was poorly worded, but I should have realized what was meant.

[Rick Shea]

Thanks, Cathy.

You're absolutely right that language is very important. Not only must we be careful what we say and how we say it, we also must be careful that we are interpreting things correctly, or at least as best we can under the circumstances. Otherwise, communication and dialogue fall apart.

Others realize how powerful language can be, as in the choice of the phrase "smart growth" for example. I suppose that was picked because "dense growth" might have been misinterpreted -- ironically, for what some people think it really is.