Smart Growth _ Placemaking in London by gjjur4356


									Smart Growth & Placemaking in London
      Proposed Demonstration Project

                          May 2004

        Smart Growth and Placemaking in London – Page 1
Smart Growth – Introduction

Municipal Council has expressed a significant interest in Smart Growth. At the direction of Council, Planning
Staff have prepared several reports on the subject over the past two to three years. These reports have
addressed the smart growth issue from different perspectives. For example,
                                                                                                                    The topics of smart
       Two of these reports related to the review of London’s community plan process and outcomes;                  growth and urban sprawl
       One report reviewed the implications of the significant supply of vacant residential land in the City of     have been frequently
       London;                                                                                                      raised by Council and
       Another report considered smart growth policies within the context of the 5-Year Official Plan review,       the Public in recent
       while another considered the smart growth relative to the Long Term Transportation Corridor Study.           years.
       There are two more recent requests to evaluate the City’s smart growth policies that this report
       responds to.

Engineering staff have also addressed growth issues raised by Council regarding the extension of servicing
and the implications of the Urban Works Reserve Fund for growth in London.

Meanwhile, the international media is filled with discussions relating to smart growth initiatives throughout the
United States and Canada – gaining attention at the highest political posts in the country. Environmental
advocacy groups across North America have firmly adopted the smart growth concept and documents such as
the David Suzuki Foundation’s “Citizen’s Guide to Understanding Sprawl” are becoming more common. The
words “smart growth” surface repeatedly as a purported new remedy for curing the many difficult issues faced
by our cities.

Clearly, smart growth is a matter of concern with Council in London and for the leaders of communities
throughout North Amercia. But what is smart growth? Is London growing smart? If not, why not and what can
be done to change this trend?

What Is Smart Growth?                                                                                                Is London growing
                                                                                                                     smart? If not, why not
Discussions with various local officials, politicians, members of the public, members of the development             and what can be done to
community and planners reveal that smart growth means “many things to many people”. Although the basic               change this trend?
tenants of smart growth seem to be relatively common – growth that supports strong economies, develops high

                                        Smart Growth and Placemaking in London – Page 2
quality communities, and protects the environment – there are broad differences in how people view smart

To some smart growth is about urban design. Others feel smart growth is about compact urban form. Some
view smart growth as environmental protection. Others see smart growth as a planned and coordinated form
of regional economic development.

A review of the literature shows that smart growth has been suggested to embody any one or all of the
following components:
                                                                                                                   Smart growth means
   Regional coordination between various municipalities;                                                           many things to many
   Concensus building;                                                                                             people. The term is often
   Planning process streamlining;                                                                                  mis-understood and used
   Transportation initiatives;                                                                                     as a panacea for solving
                                                                                                                   all of our urban
   Coordinated economic efforts between municipalities;                                                            concerns.
   Social programs of various kinds;
   Urban design practices;
   Livable community development;
   Environmental protection;
   Various public finance, education and municipal incentive efforts;
   Parks and recreation planning;
   Decentralization of growth from major metropolitan areas;
   Sustainable energy conservation;
   Agricultural productivity improvements;
   Improvements to the movement of products and goods within the community and economy;
   Improvement of communications technologies;
   Identifying and filling infrastructure gaps within a community.

The smart growth label appears on almost every possible positive initiative that could be taken relative to our
communities. While some may say that this is true, and this should be expected as an inclusive definition for
smart growth, it should be recognized that this broad definition of smart growth creates differing expectations,
confusion around goals and objectives, and diminishes the ability of groups to address and respond to smart
growth principles. If smart growth is tantamount to “urban apple pie” the concept loses meaning.

                                        Smart Growth and Placemaking in London – Page 3
Planning Staff suggest that smart growth is nothing more than sound urban planning. Like growth
management, sustainable development and comprehensive planning labels before it, smart growth is serving        Smart growth is nothing
                                                                                                                more than a new label for
as the new “tag” given to “good planning”. Such planning naturally balances economy, community and the          “good planning”.
environment. It ensures that growth today is planned for the benefit of current AND future generations.

The Underpinnings of Smart Growth

To launch the Federal Livable Communities for the 21st Century program in the United States, Vice President
Al Gore made a speech at the Brookings Institution. In this speech, where he popularized the term smart
growth, Mr. Gore asked “why it was that America’s cities and America had lost its way in creating and shaping
its urban fabric”. “He reflected on the 19th century and the proud legacy of spectacular urban places that
America had built. He then recounted how the vibrancy and greatness of the Amercian city had been tarnished
with urban cores that had been abandoned in favour of poorly planned sprawl”.

Mr. Gore underscored the importance of returning vibrancy and identity to cities:

       “Increasingly, in the 21st Century, a livable community will be an economically powerful community: a
       place where high quality of life attracts the best educated and trained workers and entrepreneurs. A
                                                                                                                In popularizing the term
       place where good schools and strong families fuel creativity and productivity. A place where the best    smart growth, Al Gore
       minds and the best companies share ideas and shape our common future…That is why our efforts to          made a clear link
       make communities more livable today must emphasize the right kind of growth – sustainable growth.        between economic
       Promoting a better quality of life for our families need never come at the expense of economic growth.   prosperity and quality of
                                                                                                                life through the
       Indeed in the 21st Century it can and must be an engine for economic growth”
                                                                                                                development of high
                                                                                                                quality built communities
This background clearly shows that smart growth focuses on the importance of creating livable communities
which preserve natural heritage.     The concept was borne from the disappointment that people were
expressing with the development of communities over the past 50+ years – communities that can be described
as sprawl.

High quality communities are seen, by smart growth advocates, to be economic engines of the future. Those
communities that continue to encourage sprawl development and ignore issues of livability and quality of life
will be at a disadvantage in the economy of the future.

                                        Smart Growth and Placemaking in London – Page 4
Recognizing that smart growth was spawned by the public’s disappointment with the quality of life that we were
creating through new development, it is instructive to understand that smart growth can be separated into two
broad components:

    1. PLACEMAKING: Creating livable communities which have an identifiable character, sense of place,             Smart growth is about
                                                                                                                   sound functional
       and provide for a high quality of life.                                                                     planning AND
    2. FUNCTIONAL PLANNING: Planning built form such that it conserves energy, preserves the
       environment and sets parameters for health and safety.

Such growth builds cities that are economically successful.

These two components can be seen clearly in each of the following four definitions from the smart growth

1. Smart growth is building “neighbourhoods and communities that widen opportunities for pleasant,
   hospitable and economically beneficial conditions for living, working and recreating”1.

2. Smart growth is “an evolving approach to development, the goal of which is to balance economic progress
   with environmental protection and quality of life”2.

3. Smart growth is “a vision that promotes and manages growth to sustain a strong economy, strong
   communities and healthy environment.3”

4. “At its core, Smart Growth is a concept that links development and quality of life. It seeks development that    “At its core, Smart
   will simultaneously improve the economy, build community, and protect and enhance the environment. It is         Growth is a concept that
   not anti-growth, nor is it an enemy of suburban life styles. Smart Growth is the enemy of inefficient growth     links development to
   that increases pollution, worsens traffic conestion, degrades neighbourhood and the sense of community,          quality of life”

  Georgia Quality Growth Partnership (2002)
  Urban Land Institute
  Province of Ontario

                                              Smart Growth and Placemaking in London – Page 5
      has higher infrastructure costs, increases taxes and destroys or damages environmentally sensitive

Is London Growing Smart?
As the City of London has continued to develop over the past several years, Staff and Council have
increasingly heard concerns from the Public regarding the topic of smart growth – or its antithesis, urban
sprawl. Typically, such concerns cite the development of treed areas or farmers fields that have, until recently,
been untouched by urban uses. The Public may look at new subdivisions, whose often sterile streets,
unimaginative building designs, automobile dominance, and treeless environs stand in stark contrast to the
appealing landscapes that existed prior to development; they ask how Council and City Planners could allow
such “sprawl” to occur.                                                                                             London’s recent growth
                                                                                                                    does not represent urban
                                                                                                                    sprawl from a functional
This perception does not consider issues such as development density, compact urban form, coordinated               planning perspective.
infrastructure, ecosystems planning, or the planning of community services. Similarly, this perception does not
consider that the farmers fields that have been recently developed are included in the City’s Urban Growth
boundary and have been included since 1996 when they were identified for growth based on a long term land
needs assessment. The treed areas that are often removed in favour of development have been evaluated
through a detailed environmental review process and through that process have NOT been identified as having
environmental significance as a component of the City’s natural heritage system. Meanwhile, large tracts of
land have often been set aside as Open Space as legitimate components of the natural heritage system. This
same subdivision that may be perceived as sprawl has been master planned, with logical and pre-planned
extensions of sewer, water and roads infrastructure, planned parklands, community facilities, schools,
commercial areas, appropriate residential mixes, and transit plans.

Furthermore, it is important to remember that new growth occurs to accommodate valuable communities of
people - communities that make up the fabric of our City.

Appendix 1 of this report includes a review of London’s Initiatives to support smart growth and prevent urban
sprawl. The review describes an aggressive range of Official Plan policies which are specifically targeted to
what could be described as smart growth principles and other initiatives that pursue smart growth principles.
As sample of these smart growth initiatives is summarized in the below question and answer dialogue.

    Smith Lyons

                                        Smart Growth and Placemaking in London – Page 6
Does the City of London institute a growth boundary as advocated in smart growth literature? Yes it does.
This urban growth boundary was established based on a comprehensive land needs assessment. All
urban development is to occur within this area.

Does the City of London preserve the environment through the development process? Yes it does. The
Official Plan establishes the natural heritage system at the top of the planning hierarchy, establishing an
ecosystems approach to planning (ie. environmental constraints are established prior to considering
development opportunities). Subwatershed studies and policies in London’s Official Plan have served as a
model for other communities in Ontario.

Does the City of London plan new development through a comprehensive planning process? Yes it does.
The community planning process plans land use based on:
o Natural heritage and natural hazard constraints;
o Community-level infrastructure servicing plans which tie into a City-wide infrastructure plan;
o Projected parks, recreation, and public service requirements;
o Transportation servicing requirements;
o Commercial, institutional, industrial and other land use requirements.

Subdivision development is not permitted to occur in advance of these comprehensive and integrated
community plans.

Does the City of London plan for a mix of land uses? Yes it does. A mix of residential densities and retail,
office, institutional and recreational land uses are provided for in all community plans.
                                                                                                               A detailed review shows
                                                                                                               that London has many
Does the City of London plan for compact urban form? Yes it does. The urban growth boundary, density           policies, programs and
mix targets through the community planning process, and various policies such as the “small lot                initatives that support
development policies” and “infill development policies” all serve to support intense development forms.        smart growth – some of
                                                                                                               which are leading edge in
                                                                                                               Ontario and Canada.
Does the City of London seek to preserve agricultural land? Yes it does. The urban growth boundary and
the Rural Settlement designation have minimized severances on agricultural lands and have directed urban
development to where it belongs – in the urban growth area.

                                    Smart Growth and Placemaking in London – Page 7
   Does the City of London plan for infill and intensification? Yes it does. Policies in the Official Plan support
   infill development at higher than normally permitted densities. Policies also support higher densities in the
   Central London area.

   Does the City of London provide incentives to support revitalization and intensification in its Core? Yes it
   does. The City has invested more that $100 million in its Downtown since the inception of the Downtown
   Millennium Plan and hosts a series of downtown incentives. These efforts have paid dividends of late as
   significant amounts of new residential development has been constructed.

   Does the City of London encourage cultural heritage preservation? Yes it does through aggressive
   heritage resource conservation policies, the provision of some minor incentives and an active heritage
   designation campaign.

   Does the City plan for transit servicing? Yes it does. Transit planning is incorporated into the community
   plan process. Furthermore, higher density uses are typically located in transit supportive locations at the
   intersection of arterial roads. The recently tabled Transportation Master Plan has gone a long way towards
   developing a plan for increasing SOV and transit ridership. The new bicycle master plan also seeks to
   provide a basis for improving modal shift.

   Does the City of London plan for the clean-up of brownfield sites? At the direction of Council, Staff are
   preparing a brownfield revitalization incentive program for consideration in the Spring of 2004.

While this question and answer format could continue for many pages, the above illustrates the summary
message from the information provided in Appendix 1. London is performing well with respect to planning for
Smart Growth.

Appendix 2 of this report provides a supplementary evaluation of the City’s Smart Growth initiatives. Using the
categories of Economic Development, Strong Communities, and Healthy Environment, policies, programs and
other initiatives are considered. This analysis also shows that London is performing well from a functional
planning perspective.

This is supported by some of the facts that surfaced through the review of seven community plans. The
review, which was prepared by staff in 2003 (a follow-up report is forthcoming, pending staff resource
availability), produced results which are encouraging when considering smart growth objectives:

                                        Smart Growth and Placemaking in London – Page 8
   405 ha of land was preserved for Open Space through the 7 community plans; this represnts 18% of the
   total community plan land area.

   Collectively, natural heritage , parks and schools accounted for over 25% of the total land area.

   In some cases 20-40% of the land area within community plans was preserved as open space for natural
   heritage preservation alone.

   20 linear kilometers of natural heritage corridor were preserved – equal to the length of the Thames River     The review of recently
   from Byron to the easternmost tip of the North Branch within the City limits.                                  completed community
                                                                                                                  plans showed that many
   103 ha of land was planned for parks – equal to 8 Stronach Parks or 3 London Sportfields.                      excellent results were
                                                                                                                  achieved relative to smart
                                                                                                                  growth objectives.
   47 km of off-street walking/cycling pathways are planned.

   A park exists within 800 m of all residential uses planned through community plans.

   A lower portion of residential lands were planned for the low density residential designation than was
   planned in similar communities planned in the 1970’s and 1980’s (78-88% in older plans vs. an average of
   68% in the 7 plans under review). New areas planned for as low as 55% of their residential land base for
   low density residential development.

   Forecasted population per hectare, based on planned land use designations, was higher in new plans than
   in comparable plans of the past. For example, Masonville and Westmount have built out at 28-33
   persons/ha, while Riverbend and Stoney Creek are planned to build out at over 55 person/ha and Fox
   Hollow is planned to accommodate 60 person/ha.

   Table 1 shows net densities and typical lot frontages of built subdivisions of various ages as well as draft
   approved plans of subdivision.

The evidence is clear that new subdivisions are, on average, being constructed at much higher densities than
those of previous eras. In fact, some new low density subdivisions are being constructed at densities which
are more than 50% higher than their low density counterparts in Old South. Typical lot frontages in the range

                                        Smart Growth and Placemaking in London – Page 9
of 9 to 11 metres are common in today’s subdivisions, where lot frontages in the range of 14 and 15 were
prevelant 20-30years ago.     London is achieving some very high densities in single family subdivisions - 25-
30 uph which stand in stark contrast to the 10 uph of Oakridge built in the 1960's or Warbler Woods built in the

Table 1 - Low Density Residential Densities- Some Samples
                                                                      Avg.                Typical
Status or                                                 Units       Lot     Density     Frontages
                                                                                                        (max (m))    New single family
Year Built    Subdivision                                 Sampled     (m2)    (uph)       (min (m))
                                                                                                                     detached is developing at
draft plan    Arvilla                                            96     335         30              9          9.5   very high densities –
new           Stoneycreek North                                  74     356         28            9.4          9.7   some at higher densities
new           Capulet Lane                                      244     359         28            9.6         28?    than Old North, Old
new           North of Beaverbrook West                         166     361         28            9.6          9.6   South, and White Oaks.
draft plan    Hyde Park- S of Gainsborough                      521     394         25            9.6           16
new           North Talbot                                      135     409         24            9.8           17
new           Stoneycreek                                       467     441         23          11.5         12.5
1970's        White Oaks                                        953     444         23            9.8        13.3
1990's        Bonaventure                                       648     452         22              9        12.4
new           Railton- Marconi                                  633     459         22            9.5        12.9
draft plan    Hyde Park- N of Gainsborough                      315     468         21          11.4         14.5
1990's        Summerside                                        760     471         21              9        13.5
draft plan    Stoneycreek- north of Sunningdale                 317     478         21            9.2        13.5
new           Optimist Park                                     230     529         19          10.7         18.6
very old      Old North                                         545     545         18          10.7         12.4
draft plan    Summerside                                        887     546         18          12.1         15.9
draft plan    Wickerson Road                                    344     554         18          12.1            16
very old      Old South                                         852     570         18            9.6           22
new           Uplands                                           285     575         17             12        12.6
1970's        1970's Byron                                      343     637         16             15        16.5
1960's        Glen Cairn                                        488     669         15          10.2         18.4
draft plan    Riverbend (various subdivisions)                  496     709         14             16          22
1960's        Berkshire Village                                 553     738         14             10           18
new           Applegate                                          84     761         13          15.3         18.6
1970's        Northridge- Glenora                               672     816         12          16.3         19.1

                                       Smart Growth and Placemaking in London – Page 10
new           Sunningdale                                        566     837         12           15        18.5
draft plan    Sunningdale-Pinnacle/Fanshawe                      107     911         11          18          20
1950's        1950's Byron                                       302     950         11         15.8        18.7
1990's        Stoneybrook Heights                                231    1008         10           18         23
1960's        Oakridge Acres                                     422    1023         10           16        24.6
1980's        Warbler Woods                                      187    1029         10          20         21.2
1980's        Southwinds                                         188    1051         10         15.8        21.3

All of the points noted above indicate that London is growing smart from a functional perspective. Growth is
being managed, the environment is being preserved, and communites are being well planned to provide
recreation, public services and well considered services.

What’s Missing?
In light of the above, it is reasonable to ask why public concerns continue to surface relative to the perception
of sprawl. What is missing from our planning efforts that may account for this fact?

It is Planning Staff’s contention that London is doing a good job of functional planning (component 1 of smart
growth), but is not faring as well with the second component of smart growth - placemaking. In other words,
many of the suburban communities that are being constructed today are considered sprawl because they                Too often, development
                                                                                                                    in London is falling short
represent nondescript extensions of our city’s built form. They are often devoid of a sense of place or             from a placemaking
distinctive character. They are generic subdivisions and while they may be well planned from a functional           perspective.
perspective, they appear to sprawl across the landscape sometimes negatively affecting the overall image of
our City.                                                                                                           While not representative
                                                                                                                    of sprawl from a
                                                                                                                    functional planning
The literature is clear that Cities that develop high quality, livable neighbouhoods will be strong economic        perspective, such
attractors in the future. Such neighbourhoods will be sought out by those who make up the labour force that is      development produces
required by the most desirable industry. Such neighbourhoods provide for high quality architectural design,         poor living environments
pedestrian-oriented streets, and community focal points and recreational areas. They supply safe and healthy        that do not represent
                                                                                                                    smart growth.
environments and create a sense of place that their residents can identify with.

It is contended that this is what is all-too-often missing from London’s new development. Managed greenfield
development may be much more acceptable to the public when the result is a quality, livable, community which
creates a sense of place and a positive extension of our urban landscape.

                                        Smart Growth and Placemaking in London – Page 11
Examples of Placemaking
One way to illustrate the concept of placemaking is by comparing some of our own recently developed
communities to examples of projects in other communities that are creating strong, livable communities, that
integrate high quality community design principles. While such an analysis cannot be given justice within this
report, what follows are some visual examples. Appendix 3 “Placemaking – Designing Subdivisions With a
Sense of Place” provides a more complete overview of urban design elements that are important to
placemaking.                                                                                                     A sample of
                                                                                                                 placemaking design
Street Layout – Walkability
London Example – Street pattern does not                       Placemaking Examples – Easy pedestrian               Walkability
provide for easy walkability. Consider the                     access and connectivity in all directions            Public realm
pedestrian journey to get from one point in this                                                                    Rear lotting
subdivision to another.                                                                                             Façade treatment
                                                                                                                    Meeting spaces
                                                                                                                    Focal points
                                                                                                                    Corner lots

                                        Smart Growth and Placemaking in London – Page 12
Public Realm – Availing of Natural Heritage Assets
London Example – Houses rear-lotted onto                       Placemaking Example – Single-loaded road
natural heritage area, preventing visibility and               allowing for the natural area to enhance the
the association of the environmental feature with              community and provide an identifiable
the community                                                  landscape

Rear Lotting onto Arterial and Collector Roads
London Example – Rear lotting removes any                     Placemaking Example – Houses front onto
opportunity for pedestrian relationship to the                street, with small front yard setbacks to create a
street                                                        clear interface/relationship between the public
                                                              street and the private homes.

                                       Smart Growth and Placemaking in London – Page 13
Façade Treatment & Creating a Lively Street
London Example – Garage-oriented house                      Placemaking Example – Garage set-back from
with hidden entrance and no front-yard                      building face, clearly identifiable entrances and
socializing opportunities                                   front porches to allow for social activities
                                                            between homeowners and passers-by from the

Public Realm – Squares and Meeting Places
London Example – Very few examples of                       Placemaking Example – Park square which is
squares in London. Traditional park space                   adjacent to residential uses on single-loaded
models (most new parks are very effective and               roads which provide for natural surveillance of
serve as major community assets).                           the park and a sense of ownership.

                                     Smart Growth and Placemaking in London – Page 14
Landmarks/Focal Points
London Example – Potential focal point could                 Placemaking Example – Create landmarks and
be established with single-loaded roads and                  focal points that contribute to defining the
integrated passive park space/pathways.                      character of the neighbourhood.
Instead, houses are rear-lotted onto feature.

Architectural Variety and Interest
London Example – Limited variety, lack of                    Placemaking Example – High quality design
architectural detail, poor treatment of corner               features, building materials, and a strong
properties, no relationship to the street.                   orientation to the street

                                      Smart Growth and Placemaking in London – Page 15
Corner Lot Treatment
London Example – Side view of corner house                    Placemaking Example – Bay window at side of
has no relationship to street; hostile form                   corner lot. Often, will use wrap-around porches

London Example – Main entrance to                             Placemaking Example –
subdivision with rear-lot fence on one side and
no distinctive features identifying this

                                       Smart Growth and Placemaking in London – Page 16
The above provides some examples to illustrate placemaking principles.              Appendix #3 provides more
considerations, although still not an exhaustive list, of placemaking principles.

Barriers to Placemaking in London
Discussions with the development community confirm that there are several barriers to placemaking in London.
Some of these barriers apply to municipalities across Ontario, while others are specific to the City of London:

1. Lack of provincial legislative framework to strictly require higher community design standards within a
   regulatory framework.
                                                                                                                  It is important to
                                                                                                                  understand the barriers
2. Political reluctance to “push the envelope” on regulatory design issues. There is a priority placed on         to placemaking in
   streamlining planning processes and reducing regulatory hurdles. This is illustrated by Council’s              London so that all parties
   reluctance to support the Commercial Design Guidelines in the face of several commercial development           can explore possibilities
   proposals.                                                                                                     for breaking down these

3. Financial lending practices relating to land development, which provide lower interest rates for low risk
   projects which replicate what has worked successfully in the past.

4. A small number of developers within the London development community who are also averse to risk and
   are not challenged to take risks by competition.

5. Standardized housing models which are entrenched by builders who are seeking to easily “plug” these
   models into new subdivision developments.

6. Planning and Engineering Departments that place a high priority on adherence to standards and accepted
   practices while minimizing processing times and issues.

7. Planning and Engineering Departments that are reluctant to “push the envelope” with innovative
   alternatives (this, in part, stems from the limited staff numbers versus the quantity of applications being
   processed at any one time).

8. A Planning Department staff composition that does not include an urban design specialist.

                                        Smart Growth and Placemaking in London – Page 17
9. A lower priced housing market in London that likely produces lower profit margins for developers than their
   counter-parts in larger urban areas – and thus a reluctance to explore design options that may cost more.

10. A smaller and slower growing housing market than those in larger municipalities, thus increasing carrying
    costs for developers from initiation of development to final completion of all sales.

These barriers all contribute to London’s current track record of good functional planning, but often falling short
from a placemaking perspective.

Options for Addressing Barriers to Placemaking

Two general approaches are worth consideration if Council chooses to pursue a strong focus with respect to

   1. Make a firm commitment to placemaking principles and integrate design into all of Council’s actions and
      decisions in the future; OR

   2. Initiate a demonstration project to illustrate the possibilities and potential benefits of placemaking to the
      development community and the Public.

Option #1 – Commit to Placemaking

Under this option, Council could take an “immdediate leap” to make a bona fide commitment to placemaking in
London. This would involve a commitment to a regulatory approach whereby all planning approvals – including
area plans, Official Plan amendments, zoning amendments, plans of condominium, plans of subdivision and
site plans - are subjected to a high level of design scrutiny. This would also involve the hiring of appropriate
planning staff resources, with design specialization, to perform such review.

Under this approach, Council would undoubtedly receive significant pressures from individual development
proponents, from time to time, requesting relief from design standards and placemaking principles. For such
an approach to be successful, Council would have to firmly commit to such standards and only support relief in

                                        Smart Growth and Placemaking in London – Page 18
the most extenuating circumstances. There would, of course, be a significant ongoing cost associated with the
hiring of staff to implement this approach.

Other communities in Ontario have begun to take this approach. Markham, Oakville and Hamilton are three
clear examples. There is an indication that Kitchener Administration is currently considering this approach as

Option #2 – Demonstration Project

Recognizing that the above-noted barriers are deeply entrenched in London, it is not expected that a regulatory
approach would be supported in London at this time. Rather, it is recommended that the best approach is one
which shows the various parties that play a key role in the development process the opportunities and benefits
that can accrue through the application of placemaking principles in community planning and subdivision

It is important to understand that the development community is building what they have determined to be the
market demand for residential development in London. For example, there is a demand for cul-de-sac lots.
There is a demand for lower-cost homes on small lots that accommodate two cars within a garage. Many
developers assess their net profits based on the linear length of roads that they can “squeeze” into a specific
land parcel. In this way, the development community is responding to community demand and market

However, the alternatives of new development forms and which takes a different shape are difficult to find in
London. The development community and the Public have no such alternatives to compare and assess such
that they may explore the possibilities that come with these alternatives. Hence the need to demonstrate
viable, proven-to-be-successful alternatives. Without a clear alternative which can be demonstrated to provide
equal net benefits to all parties concerned, it is not possible for the Public, development community or staff to
reasonably consider and implement these alternatives.

The objectives of the demonstration project would be to:

   1. Show the development community the potential financial benefits of placemaking. A key perspective to
      be considered is the comparative net profit that would accrue to the development under both scenarios.

                                        Smart Growth and Placemaking in London – Page 19
   2. Engage a lending institution in the placemaking process to support a higher confidence in the potential
      yields from such development and to encourage supportive lending practices in the future.

   3. Allow City staff to consider innovative design practices and potentially entertain alternative design
      standards within the context of a high quality community project. Allow staff to consider community
      design without processing timelines acting as their first priority.

   4. Illustrate to Council and the Public the many benefits of placemaking and providing an example of the
      possibilities for placemaking in London.

Structure of the Demonstration Project
It is proposed that staff facilitate a demonstration project which will develop an alternative plan for a relatively   Project Components
large residential parcel that has been approved for draft or registered plan of subdivision. A team consisting             Develop a
                                                                                                                       communications plan
of the following parties would work to develop this alternative plan with the intent of comparing the two plans
from a variety of perspectives:
     A property owner/developer                                                                                           Develop a list of
     A financial lending institution                                                                                   placemaking principles
     Planning Staff
     Canada Mortgage and House Corporation Staff                                                                            Establish key
     Urban/community design consultant                                                                                      measures for
                                                                                                                        evaluating each plan
The general process for the project would be as follows:                                                                 Re-design draft or
                                                                                                                       registered subdivision
1. An aggressive communication and education plan will be developed with the goals of:                                 plan with placemaking
           Raising the profile of the demonstration project within the community as a whole.                           Measure and compare
           Educating various stakeholders regarding the project and its ultimate results.                               the draft/registered
           Promoting the involvement of the “smart growth partners” that are involved in this project.                      plan and the
                                                                                                                         placemaking plan
   While not necessarily the FIRST step in this process, it has been listed up-front to recognize that
   communications will permeate the entire process. This element of the project is seen as vital to its                  Communicate the
   success. If the project is completed successfully, but the results are not communicated clearly and                  results and educate

                                         Smart Growth and Placemaking in London – Page 20
   repeatedly, the goal of educating stakeholders around the possibilities and potential benefits of
   placemaking will not be met.

   Furthermore, the communication process will be key to initiating broad discussion in the public about the
   concepts of smart growth, placemaking and urban design.

2. Develop some consensus around the concept of placemaking. What are the goals and objectives for
   creating a sense of place and high quality community? What design elements should be considered within
   the plan? What are the key factors that will be pursued in developing a new plan which creates a high
   quality livable community? Develop a list of placemaking principles.

3. Key measures for comparison between the two plans will be developed. These measures will relate to the
   goals of the overall demonstration project and the goals of creating a community with a strong sense of
   place. A sample of measures that may be used are as follows:

       Developable area
       Unit yields
       Estimated average and total lot values (to developer) by structure type
       Number, percentage, and total value (to developer) of premium lots categorized based on rationale for
       premium (eg. vistas, proximity to open space, proximity to parks, courts, crescents, etc.)
       Estimated total developer revenues (with a break-down as determined)
       Estimated total builder revenues (with break-down as determined)
       Estimated total value (to builder) of premium lots
       Estimated total developer costs (with a break-down of cost category)
       Estimated average developer costs per unit
       Estimated average builder costs per unit
       Estimated developer gross profits
       Estimated builder gross profits
       Estimated costs to City – capital
       Estimated ongoing costs to City - operating
       Open space accessibility factror – by category (using GIS analysis of maximum and average travel
       Connectivity (using GIS analysis of travel times between strategically identified points)
           o For automobiles

                                      Smart Growth and Placemaking in London – Page 21
           o For cyclists
           o For pedestrians (walkability)
       Safety (by modeling traffic flows and evaluating total and average lot exposure to auto counts)           Key measures will be
       Total road length; total paved area; average right-of-way                                                 developed to assess and
       Residential densities (gross, net, and by structure type)                                                 compare the existing
       Population densities                                                                                      plan vs. the newly
                                                                                                                 developed “placemaking
       Unit mix                                                                                                  plan”.
       Number of rear lots
       Number of focal points/landmarks/gateways
       Street length adjacent to open space and park space

   The team will determine which of the above measures are appropriate to utilize and establish other
   measures that will assess and compare the two plans. In addition to these quantified measures, qualitative
   measures will also be utilized for comparison and illustration.

4. Team members will design a new plan for the area. The plan will need to meet all the typical requirements
   relating to subdivision development, while working towards the placemaking goals. Alternative design
   standards may be considered. Elements of the design will be clearly documented such that the rationale
   behind each element of the plan will be explicit.

5. Utilizing the measures designed in #3, above, qualitative and quantitiative comparisons will be made
   between the draft approved plan and the “smart growth/placemaking plan” for the subdivision. Results will
   be broadly and repeatedly communicated.

6. If results are positive, a second phase of the program may be pursued where a partnership will be struck
   with a developer and lending institution willing to actually develop a smart growth subdivision.

As noted in point #3, above, , communications will raise the profile of our partners as being supportive of
smart growth and sponsors of innovation within the London community which will act as an incentive for the
financial institution and developer to participate in this process. In this way, our partners can market their
firms as unique within the London community.

To date, two developers have expressed a strong interest in participating in this project, pending further
details and Council’s position for moving forward with this project.

                                       Smart Growth and Placemaking in London – Page 22
Placemaking Project Team – Key Roles                                                                              All members of the team
                                                                                                                  will participate in the
Planning and Development Department Staff will:                                                                   design process, but they
                                                                                                                  will take on different lead
                                                                                                                  roles based on the
      Lead the project                                                                                            expertise they bring to
      Assemble the Placemaking project team                                                                       the table.
      Facilitate all meetings
      Work with Communications Department staff to prepare a demonstration project communications plan
      Work with the Placemaking Team to develop placemaking principles
      Work with the project team to establish comparative measures
      Assist in the placemaking design process
      Work with CMHC to perform measurements (eg. GIS measures will be handled by Planning Staff)
      Assemble and analyze all project information developed by other team members
      Prepare written progress reports (as necessary) and a final report relating to the results of the project
      Lead the communication and education process – hold workshops, stakeholder meetings, public
      meetings, etc. as determined through the preparation of the communication and education plan

Engineering and Environmental Services Department Staff will:

      Participate in all meetings
      Play a large role in the development of the communications and education plan and link this project to
      other related initiatives being spear-headed by EESD – as appropriate
      Assist in the development of placemaking principles
      Assist in the development of comparative measures
      Lead discussions with respect to the exploration of alternative design standards for infrastructure
      planned by the EESD (lead the interface with the City’s Utilities Coordinating Committee)
      Assist the placemaking design process
      Estimate municipal costs relating to infrastructure – capital and operating
      Participate in the communication and education process

                                      Smart Growth and Placemaking in London – Page 23
Communications Staff:

      Play a large role in the development of the communications and education plan

Development Community Partner

      Assist with the preparation of the communications and education plan
      Assist in the development of placemaking principles
      Assist in the development of comparative measures
      Assist in the placemaking design process
      Assist in the measurement process – with an emphasis on determining developer costs and revenues
      Assist in the communication and education process

Financial Lending Community Partner

      Assist with the preparation of the communications and education plan
      Assist in the development of placemaking principles
      Assist in the development of comparative measures
      Assist in the placemaking design proces
      Assist in the measurement process
      Assist in the communication and education process

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation

      Assist with the preparation of the communications and education plan
      Assist in the development of placemaking principles
      Assist in the development of comparative measures
      Play a key role in the placemaking subdivision design process
      Together with Planning Staff, lead the measurement process

Urban/community Design Consultant

      Assist in the development of placemaking principles

                                     Smart Growth and Placemaking in London – Page 24
       Assist in the development of comparative measures
       Play a key role in the placemaking subdivision design process
       Assist, in a minor way, with the measurement process
       Assist, in a minor way, with the communication and education process

Building a City That Future Generations Will Be Proud Of – Placemaking in London

This report proposes a demonstration project that could, if successful, make a significant and lasting impact
on London’s future form. As detailed in Part 1 of this report, London is growing smart in many ways. While
there is undoubtedly room to improve, the functional planning that has established the framework for growth
is a positive reflection of smart growth principles. Policies, programs and other initiatives which support
smart growth are plentiful and meaningful in London. These positives need to be better communicated to
Londoners so that they understand, more clearly, what we are collectively achieving.

At the same time, it is important that we understand our weaknesses in terms of new development. All-too-
                                                                                                                          High quality
frequently we are not effectively creating livable communities that create a sense of place and set the             neighbourhoods make
environment for a high quality of life. This fact is reflected in the Public’s ongoing request for Council to       for great cities that, in
reconsider “smart growth” and Council’s repeated requests to Planning Staff to evaluate our effectiveness in      turn, attract a high quality
achieving smart growth.                                                                                              labour force and the
                                                                                                                   industries that seek that
                                                                                                                         labour force.
Experts agree that Cities that develop a high quality of life through placemaking efforts will reap significant
economic rewards now and in the future. They will powerfully attract a high quality labour force and the
business and industry that such a labour force supports. Conversely, cities that ignore such tenants will
likely struggle to attract the “brightest and the best” and will fall behind from an economic perspective.

This report has identified some of the barriers that exist to placemaking in London. It is contended, however,
that many of these barriers may begin to be overcome by demonstrating the possibilities and potential
benefits to various stakeholders in the subdivision development process. There is good reason to believe
that development using placemaking principles can significantly increase development revenues.            For
example, “an Urban Land Institute study of over 10,000 housing transactions in four pairs of housing
developments in the United States revealed an average sales premium of $20,000 or 11% on schemes
upholding basic urban design principles…”

                                       Smart Growth and Placemaking in London – Page 25
This proposed demonstration project is designed to inject excitement around placemaking and smart growth in
the community. It will allow the community to debate and discuss the possibilities. It will allow London to stand
on a stage of innovation within the Ontario context. It will provide an opportunity for the development
community, financial lending community, engineers, planners, Council and the public to work together in an
innovative and exploratory manner. And, by communicating the process and the results, it is hoped that this
project can play a role in improving City-building and placemaking in London.

                                        Smart Growth and Placemaking in London – Page 26
Appendix 1 – Initiatives to Support Smart Growth and Prevent Urban Sprawl in London

Smart growth is the antithesis of urban sprawl. However, often the term urban sprawl is misapplied. The perception is often held
that greenfields development, no matter how well planned, is urban sprawl. Recognizing that growth is positive for a community, if
well planned and coordinated, it is important to make this distinction and recognize that urban sprawl is different than the simple
outward geographic expansion of a City.

Urban sprawl represents an unchecked, unplanned and uncoordinated form of growth that is non-contiguous, non-compact,
extremely low density, expensive to service, damaging to the natural environment, wasteful of agricultural land, non-functional for
transit servicing and ignorant to opportunities for redevelopment in the existing urban area. Continual urban sprawl is not
sustainable over a long term - it is unsustainable from a financial, environmental and energy perspective. Put differently, urban
sprawl is the antithesis of smart growth.

The following discussion demonstrates that the City of London has taken many measures to prevent urban sprawl. Furthermore,
there are some initiatives that have recently begun and, if approved, could strengthen the City’s commitment to denying urban
sprawl in the pursuit of smart growth.

Official Plan Vision Statement

The Official Plan Vision Statement (Policy 2.2) is “an expression of Council’s intent for the long term planning and management of
land use and growth in the City of London.” These policies underscore the intent of Council to “manage growth and change so
that efforts to foster economic development; protect and enhance nature within the City; provide for the efficient
movement of people and goods; and promote attractive, cohesive neighbourhoods, are in balance and supportive of each
other. The policies focus on growth management highlighting the intent to protect agricultural lands, protect and enhance natural
features, revitalize the Downtown and support the City’s transportation planning objectives.

City Structure Policies

The City’s new (1996) city structure policies continue to pursue responsible growth management practices by promoting an
intensely developed and utilized Downtown, higher densities in areas near the Downtown that are appropriate for conversion and
redevelopment and the concentration of employment opportunities (supportive of transit usage). These policies go on to

                                       Smart Growth and Placemaking in London – Page 27
encourage a compact urban form and the intent to “avoid a scattered or leap-frog development pattern” to “maximize the use of
existing services, minimize the loss of productive agricultural land, be conducive to the provision of public transit and minimize the
need for and cost of new infrastructure.” The policies continue by specifically promoting infill development and intensification.

Growth Management Policies

“Responsible growth management is a key element of the City of London’s strategic approach to the accomplishment of its Vision
and Goals. Growth management embodies the City’s commitment to optimize the use of existing and new services and facilities, to
protect and rehabilitate its natural heritage, to conserve its prime agricultural lands, to take full advantage of its opportunities for
sustainable economic development and to promote healthy communities, while maintaining a strong financial position for the
municipality”. (Policy 2.6.1).

This range of policies goes on to encourage “a compact urban form”, support the use of existing infrastructure and to emphasize
that the “outward expansion of the urban area will be managed..” These policies state that “new areas of community growth will be
planned to provide a mix of housing types and to achieve a target density consistent with a more efficient utilization of land and
services”. Growth management policies prohibit the extension of municipal water and sewer services beyond the limits of the land
designated for urban growth except in certain specific situations - thus directing growth through the strategic provision of

Smart Growth financing is also addressed through policies such as 2.6.2. (viii), stating “that the City will consider and encourage
viable innovative proposals such as partnerships, cost-sharing and alternative technologies and design standards, that may reduce
the overall costs of growth or allow for the more timely delivery or use of the infrastructure required for growth, provided such
proposals satisfy City requirements and will contribute to a compact urban form.”

Perhaps most importantly, Official Plan policies introduced in 1996 included the concept of a growth boundary. New urban
development is only to be permitted inside of this growth boundary. This containment is an important advancement in growth
management within the City of London. The Official Plan also ensures that undeveloped lands within this growth boundary that
were annexed to the City in 1993 will not be developed in the absence of a comprehensive community plan which will coordinate all
aspects of preservation and development and allow Council the opportunity to consider land needs, residential densities and
community design principles.

Energy Conservation

Official Plan policies 2.9.3 (xv) and (xvi) provide strategies for energy conservation. These policies state that the City will initiate,
participate in, and cooperate in conservation programs, including public education and awareness programs. They continue to
underscore the City’s intent to encourage denser, contiguous development; intensification of existing built up areas and the efficient
use of existing infrastructure. Policies in the plan state that the City will encourage the use of walking, bicycling, public transit and
car pooling as alternatives to private auto use.
                                               Smart Growth and Placemaking in London – Page 28
Transportation Strategies

Among other transportation strategies listed in Policy 2.11.3 of the Plan, there is Council’s clear intent to “promote and encourage
Transportation Demand Management Strategies as identified in the Transportation Plan Review that are integral to the realization
of modal split targets and a healthy environment.” The policies re-iterate the intent “to promote transit friendly, compact forms of
development that encourage and facilitate an efficient public transit system.”

Specific Examples of Smart Growth Initiatives in London

Established Growth                    In 1996, introduced a new range of policies specifically designed to manage growth in the City of
Management Policies          London
Established an Urban                  Introduced an urban growth boundary in the Official Plan in 1996
Growth Boundary                       All urban growth is directed to lands within this urban growth boundary
                                      The urban growth boundary was planned to accommodate forecasted industrial and residential growth
                             over the 20 year horizon of the Official Plan (with additional contingencies included)
                                      The urban growth boundary was planned to contain urban growth, and allow for such growth to occur in
                             a logical, pre-planned sequence on lands which are most affordable and practical to service
                                      The City has been doing a good job of containing urban growth to within the urban growth boundary;
                             there are very few examples of urban development which has been permitted beyond this boundary
Established a Rural                   Outside of the urban growth boundary very contained and specific rural settlement areas have been
Settlement                   identified which recognize settlements that existed prior to annexation. Where there are established settlement
Designation                  areas that include infill opportunities, we allow for such infill. This promotes intensification, but prevents further
                             extension of the settlement areas.
Master planning was                   Prior to establishing the urban growth area, the City prepared master plans which focused on an eco-
completed for the            systems approach to planning. Sub-watershed studies were prepared, as were master transportation, water,
urban growth area            sewer, stormwater studies. All of this study and analysis led to the establishment of an optimal urban growth
                             area and gives a “big picture” for the community and industrial area plans to “plug” into.

Lands designated                     Within the urban growth boundary the City has kept land in an urban reserve designation until such
urban reserve until          time as a detailed community plan is prepared. Ad-hoc, individual development s are not allowed in this urban
planned                      reserve designation – detailed planning for the larger community or industrial planning area is required before
                             development is allowed to occur
Community Plans                      Within the urban growth boundary, lands have been re-designated based on community and industrial
                             area plans.
                                     These area plans are coordinated with the larger scoping master plans for the entire urban growth area
                             (which promotes coordinated growth – the antithesis of sprawl).
                                     Extensive studies are prepared to protect natural heritage, plan for public infrastructure, promote a
                             sound mix of land uses, and design a community which is in the public interest. These studies are synthesized
                             and result in the development of a community plan.

                                               Smart Growth and Placemaking in London – Page 29
                                   The community plans are developed through a public process which allows for scrutiny and
                         modifications relating to many issues – natural heritage protection is a common theme which has been
                         promoted by staff and the Public throughout the process.
                                   As opposed to sprawl, community plans allow for a well-thought-out blue-print for growth in a
                         greenfield setting. All infrastructure (roads, sewers, stormwater, water, etc.) is well planned in advance as is
                         natural heritage preservation, cultural heritage preservation, and the provision of recreational and other public
Seek a good mix of                 Community plans are required to plan for a sound mix of residential densities (not just sprawling low
residential              density residential development). An initial evaluation of community plans (tabled in June of 2003) shows that
development in           the City has planned for a good mix of low, medium and high density development within our new communities
community plans          – an improvement over many communities planned prior to 1996.
Subdivision                        Community plans have status through Official Plan policy, as guideline documents which provide
development required     direction for future development. Official Plan amendments are implemented at the completion of an area plan
to follow community      to lay out, in Official Plan policy, where high, medium, and low density residential uses, commercial uses, office
plans                    uses, institutional uses, recreational uses, etc. will be located.
                                   Plans of residential subdivision are required to follow community plans and the associated Official Plan
                         designations that were established through the community plan process
Severance Policies                 Official Plan policies have been established that limit the severance of agricultural lands – thus
                         maintaining the integrity of agricultural uses and avoiding pressure for urban uses outside of the urban growth
Infill and                         Official Plan policies (3.2.3) allow for infill and intensification projects – in certain circumstances, these
Intensification          projects are allowed to exceed the prescribed densities normally permitted to be developed within the low
Policies                 density residential designation.
                                   These policies and other policies in the Official Plan which allow for higher densities in the core area
                         have supported an extensive amount of urban intensification over the past 5 years (everything from apartment
                         buildings to relatively high density cluster single family detached housing projects).
Investment in the                  Keeping Greenfield development in check relies upon the re-development and intensification of the
Inner City               existing urban area. As noted above, the City’s infill and intensification policies do this. The City’s strong
                         investment in the Core also has this effect.
                                   With over $100 M of public investment in the Core, the private sector has become willing to invest in
                         residential projects themselves. The core has recently attracted an abundance of new residential units through
                         new apartment buildings, large converted commercial buildings, and small-scale convert-to-rent projects.
                                   The Downtown environment has been transformed to one which is now attracting residents. Continued
                         intensification in the core will help moderate the demand for Greenfield development.
Natural Heritage                   Based on the sub-watershed studies prepared prior to 1996, the City’s Official Plan plans on an eco-
Policies – ecosystem     system basis. This means that the natural heritage system has been placed at the forefront of master planning,
approach to planning     and all community plans are developed within this context.. The intent of this approach is to consider the entire
                         natural heritage system in all of our planning and avoid fragmenting this system by planning in an ad-hoc or
                         overly focused way.
Clustering of activity             Based on Official Plan policy (locational requirements), high and medium density housing is clustered
nodes – high/medium      at primary intersections of arterial roads or arterial and secondary collector roads. This allows for easy transit
density housing;         serviceability and also can encourage practical pedestrian linkages between high resident populations and
commercial               commercial uses which are also located at such intersections.
                                            Smart Growth and Placemaking in London – Page 30
development; etc.
New Format Retailing                   Policies prepared in 1994/95 allow for, and encourage, the re-development of existing commercial
Policies                      centres for new format retail uses rather than the development of an entirely new stock of commercial
                              development within a new format on greenfield sites. We have seen some success with these policies,
                              including proposal for new Loblaws at Oakridge Mall and Wolseley Barracks, reformatting of Northland Mall
                              and Sherwood Forests Mall, and redevelopments along Wellington Road near WhiteOaks Mall.
Small lot subdivision                  The City recently introduced a new zoning category to allow for very narrow lots (9 m) (small lot
policies, zones and           development). This allows for very compact single family detached housing. At the same time, the City
design guidelines             introduced design guidelines for this form of development recognizing that the design of such uses is an
                              important element in determining whether it will be functional and successful. Official Plan policy 3.6.12
                              supports this type of small-lot development.
Rural/Urban Interface                  New rural/urban interface policies are on the leading edge of planning in Ontario. These policies
Policies                      coordinate urban growth at the City’s urban boundary, with agricultural land uses, to minimize conflict. This is
                              another example of coordinated, rather than sprawling, growth that values and works to protect agriculture.
Currently preparing a                  Encouraging smart growth means managing the way people use the urban environment. Planned new
bicycle master plan           development and established development alike is being linked by a new bike network plan which staff are
                              currently developing. Together with other transportation demand management measures, it is hoped that the
                              plan will be one step towards getting Londoner’s out of their cars and using other modes of transportation.
Transportation                         The City has hired a Transportation Demand Manager who is looking at innovative ways of saving
Demand                        energy, reducing air emissions and taking traffic off the roads by encouraging ride sharing, transit usage,
Management                    bicycling, etc.
Re-development and                     The City recently received and moved forward the Old East Village plan for revitalization. Various staff
revitalization of Old         are considering a number of recommendations in the plan to help spur revitalization of the area. Re-use and
East London                   redevelopment of portions of this area can encourage a greater use of the existing infrastructure that surrounds
                              it and relieve pressure greenfields development in the suburbs.
Considering                            Based on a Council direction, staff are currently considering a range of brownfield incentives. Cleaning
Brownfield Incentives         and re-using brownfield sites is an important initiatives towards managing growth.

Beyond these strategic policies and implementation initiatives listed above, there are many more detailed and specific policies in
the Plan which promote growth management and prevent urban sprawl (too many to list here). Below is a sample of the many
ways in which London’s Official works to prevent urban sprawl, with an emphasis on examples that relate to growth management:

i.      Conversion of non-residential buildings to residential uses (3.2.4)
ii.     Higher residential densities in Downtown and Central London (3.4.3)
iii.    Opportunity for proposals for higher densities (3.4.3)
iv.     Policies for specific residential areas which provide for additional increases in densities and a broader mix of housing types
within specific areas of the City (3.5)
v.      Small lot subdivision policies (3.6.12)
vi.     Downtown revitalization and intensification policies (4.2)
vii.    Office/residential policies allowing for mixed use development (5.3)
                                               Smart Growth and Placemaking in London – Page 31
viii.    Urban design policies relating to pedestrian traffic, streetscape, density bonusing, etc. (11.1.1)
ix.      Housing supply policies relating to housing mix and density (12.2.1)
x.       Pedestrian and bicycle circulation system policies (16.4.1)
xi.      Multi-use community centres (16.4.3)
xii.     Transportation objectives (18.1)
xiii.    Bicycle parking facilities, bicycle routes and pedestrian paths (18.1(ix) and (xi))
xiv.     Modal split targets (18.1(xv))
xv.      Energy conservation and air quality policies (18.2.10)
xvi.     Public transit policies (18.2.11)
xvii.    Cash-in-lieu of parking policies (18.2.12)
xviii.   Bicycle policies (18.2.13)
xix.     Pedestrian policies (18.2.14)
xx.      Bonus zoning (19.4.4)

                                                 Smart Growth and Placemaking in London – Page 32
Appendix 2 - Evaluation of City of London Smart Growth Initiatives

                               Land Use &                                                                Public Projects /
      Smart Growth
                           Development Policies                  Other Municipal Policies,                Partnerships /
                            (ie. Official Plan & Zoning          Programs, & Guidelines                   Private Sector
  in the City of London                By-law)                                                              Initiatives
Economic Development
Improvements to make       • O.P. Section 11 – Urban           • Parks & Recreation Strategic Master   • City of London &
                           Design Principles                   Plan                                    Mainstreet London -
the City’s                 • O.P. Section 14 – Community       • Small Lot Subdivision Design          London Facade Restoration
neighbourhoods more        Improvement Policies                Guidelines                              Loan Program
attractive and vibrant     • O.P. Section 16 – Parks and
                           Recreation Policies
                                                               • Downtown London Urban Design
                                                                                                       • Forks-of-the-Thames
                                                                                                       revitalization project
                                                               • Urban Design Awards                   • Victoria Park revitalization
                                                               • Victoria Park Conservation Master     project
                                                               Plan                                    • Kinsmen Recreation
Reinvestment in the core   • O.P. Section 4 – Downtown and     • Downtown Millennium Plan              • John Labatt Centre
                           Commercial District Policies        • Downtown London Community             (downtown arena
area, older industrial     • O.P. Section 5 – Office           Improvement Plan                        entertainment complex)
areas, and declining       Development policies                • Downtown Rehabilitation and           • Covent Garden Market,
business districts         • O.P. Section 14 – Community
                           Improvement Policies
                                                               Redevelopment Grant Program
                                                               • Development charges waived for
                                                                                                       London Convention Centre,
                                                                                                       London Public Library
                           • O.P. Section 18.2.12 – Cash in-   downtown residential development        • City of London &
                           Lieu of Parking                                                             Mainstreet London -
                           • downtown residential parking                                              London Facade Restoration
                           requirements removed from Z.-1                                              Loan and Building Code
                           Zoning By-law                                                               Loan Programs
                           • Brownfields Planning Strategy                                             • Mainstreet London - About
                           Study                                                                       Face Building Improvement
                                                                                                       • PACT - Old East Village
                                                                                                       Revitalization Plan
                                                                                                       • Wellington Streetscape
                                                                                                       Beautification Project
Incentive programs to      • O.P. Section 2.7 – Economic       • Downtown Rehabilitation and           • Mainstreet London -
                           Development Strategy                Redevelopment Grant Program             Downtown Incentive
encourage private sector   • downtown residential parking      • Development charges waived for        Programs
investment                 requirements removed from           downtown residential development        • London Economic
                           zoning                              • Industrial Land Strategy              Development Corporation
                                                                                                       • London Chamber of
                                                                                                       advocacy/support programs
Incentive programs to      • Z.-1 By-law Section 4.3 –         • Downtown Rehabilitation and
                           Density Bonus Zones (heritage       Redevelopment Grant Program
encourage developments     preservation, affordable housing,   • Development charges waived for
which meet specific        open space, day care,               downtown residential development
planning criteria          underground parking)
                           • downtown residential parking

                                      Smart Growth and Placemaking in London – Page 33
                                Land Use &                                                                  Public Projects /
      Smart Growth
                            Development Policies                    Other Municipal Policies,                Partnerships /
                             (ie. Official Plan & Zoning            Programs, & Guidelines                   Private Sector
  in the City of London                 By-law)                                                                Initiatives
                            requirements removed from
Move people and goods       • O.P. Section 18 - transportation     • Transportation Master Plan           • London’s Urban
                            planning, traffic management,          • Long Term Transportation Corridor    Transportation Showcase
more efficiently            public transit, bicycle and            Protection Study                       Proposal
                            pedestrian policies                    • Transportation Demand Management     • L.T.C. Service
                                                                   program                                Development Strategy and
                                                                   • London’s Bike Path Master Plan       Business Plan
                                                                   • Bicycle & Multi-Use Pathways Map
Promote technological       • O.P. Section 2.7 – Economic          • Industrial Land Strategy             • London’s Urban
                            Development Strategy                                                          Transportation Showcase
innovation                                                                                                Proposal
                                                                                                          • UWO Research Park
                                                                                                          • London Economic
                                                                                                          Development Corporation
Make efficient use of       • O.P. Section 2.6.3 – Growth          • City of London 20 Year and 50 year   • Southside Pollution Control
                            Financing Policies                     Sanitary Sewerage Servicing Study      Plant - Class EA
existing infrastructure     • O.P. Section 2.6.4 – Growth
and invest in new           Servicing Policies
infrastructure wisely
Promote mixed use           • O.P. Section 2.4 – City              • Downtown Millennium Plan
                            Structure Policies                     • Downtown London Community
developments and a          • O.P. Section 4.2 – Downtown          Improvement Plan
compact urban form          Development and Density                • Downtown Rehabilitation and
                            policies                               Redevelopment Grant Program
                            • Z.-1 By-law Section 20 –             • Development charges waived for
                            Downtown Area zone provisions          residential developments in the
                            • Residential Infill Planning Policy   downtown
Link new transportation,    • O.P. Section 2.6.4 – Growth          • Transportation Master Plan           • London’s Urban
                            Servicing Policies                     • Long Term Transportation Corridor    Transportation Showcase
water and sewer             • O.P. Section 18.2 –                  Protection Study                       Proposal
infrastructure to sound     Transportation Planning                                                       • Southside Pollution Control
and sustainable             • O.P. Section 17 – Services &
                            Utilities Policies
                                                                                                          Plant - Class EA

development policies
Ensure fairness,            • O.P. Section 2.3 – Planning          • Community Plan Process Guidelines    • consultation with London
                            Principles                             • Community Plan Evaluation (draft)    Development Institute
efficiency, and certainty   • O.P. Section 19 –                    • Corporate Renewal Program            • consultation with Urban
in the development          Implementation Policies                • Small Business Task Force Study      League of London and
process                     (monitoring, subdivision review
                            criteria, public participation
                                                                   • City of London Zoning System
                                                                   (monitoring and refinement)
                                                                                                          community associations
                                                                                                          • liaisons with external
                            process)                               • O.P. and zoning amendment            agencies, boards,
                            • comprehensive Z.-1 Zoning By-        application process                    commissions, and Provincial
                            law and annexed area zoning by-                                               Ministries
                            law project

                                        Smart Growth and Placemaking in London – Page 34
                                 Land Use &                                                                  Public Projects /
      Smart Growth
                             Development Policies                  Other Municipal Policies,                  Partnerships /
                              (ie. Official Plan & Zoning          Programs, & Guidelines                     Private Sector
  in the City of London                  By-law)                                                                Initiatives

Strong Communities
Decide where growth will     • O.P. Schedule ‘A’ – Urban         • Council-adopted Community Plans
                             Growth Boundary; Urban              • Community Plan Evaluation (draft)
occur → manage growth        Reserve – Community Growth          • Land Requirements Study
effectively                  and Industrial Growth               • Annual Vacant & Underutilized Land
                             designations                        Inventory
                             • O.P. Schedule ‘D’ – Proposed      • Employment, Population, Housing, and
                             Planning Areas                      Non-Residential Construction
                             • O.P. Section 2.6 – Growth         Projections (Clayton Research Report)
                             Management Policies
Improve quality of life by   • O.P. Section 16 – Parks and       • Parks & Recreation Strategic Master     • Western Fair Sports
                             Recreation Policies                 Plan                                      Centre
providing communities        • O.P. Section 16.4.3 – Multi-Use                                             • Stronach Community
with facilities, services    Centres                                                                       Recreation Centre
and green spaces                                                                                           • Carling Heights Optimist
                                                                                                           Community Centre
                                                                                                           • Kiwanis Seniors Centre
                                                                                                           • Crouch Branch Library
                                                                                                           • Saturn Playgrounds
Offer a range of housing     • O.P. Section 3 – Residential      • Affordable Housing Task Force Report    • Habitat for Humanity
                             Land Use Policies                   & Recommendations
options                      • O.P. Section 12 – Housing         • Housing Directory

Ensure new residential       • O.P. Section 18.2 –               • Area studies & subdivision review
                             Transportation Planning             criteria
developments are                                                 • London’s Bike Path Master Plan
designed to support
transit and other
alternatives to car use
Make certain every           • O.P. Section 13 – Heritage        • Inventory of Heritage Resources         • Heritage London
                             Resource policies                   • Heritage Conservation District Plans    Foundation
community has a              • O.P. Section 14 – Community       (East Woodfield & Bishop Hellmuth)        • PACT - Old East Village
distinctive sense of         Improvement policies                • Municipal Council advisory committees   Revitalization Plan
place, character and         • O.P. Section 11 – Urban
                             Design Principles
                                                                 • Urban Design Guidelines
                                                                                                           • Wellington Streetscape
                                                                                                           Beautification Project
vibrancy that attracts                                           • Community Planning Process
people and investment
Promote education                                                • City of London Strategic Priorities     • Western Ontario Smart
                                                                 2002-2006                                 Growth Panel
regarding the objectives,
principles and
implementation of smart
                                        Smart Growth and Placemaking in London – Page 35
                               Land Use &                                                                    Public Projects /
      Smart Growth
                           Development Policies                  Other Municipal Policies,                    Partnerships /
                            (ie. Official Plan & Zoning          Programs, & Guidelines                       Private Sector
  in the City of London                By-law)                                                                  Initiatives
Healthy Environment
Establish meaningful       • O.P. Schedule ‘A’ – Urban
                           Growth Boundary; Urban
urban growth boundaries    Reserve – Community Growth
                           and Industrial Growth
                           • O.P. Schedule ‘D’ – Proposed
                           Planning Areas
                           • O.P. Section 2.6 – Growth
                           Management Policies
Protect environmentally    • O.P. Section 15 - Natural         • City of London sub watershed studies      • Meadowlily Nature
                           Heritage System objectives and      • Guidelines for Environmentally            Preserve (Thames Talbot
sensitive areas and        policies                            Significant Areas Identification,           Land Trust)
agricultural land          • O.P. Schedule ‘B’ – Flood Plain   Evaluation, and Boundary Delineation
                           and Environmental Features          • Guidelines for Evaluation of
                           • O.P. Section 9.2 – Agriculture    Ecologically Significant Woodlands
                           land use designation objectives     • Site alteration and tree cutting by-law
                           and policies                        • Floodplain Acquisition Program
                           • O.P. Section 3.6.13 –             • Municipal Council advisory committees
                           Urban/Rural Interface policies      (EEPAC, AAC)
                           • Z.-1 By-law – Open Space &
                           Environmental Review zones;
                           Agricultural zone regulations

Implement measures that    • O.P. Section 17 – Services and    • Air Quality Management Program            • London’s Urban
                           Utilities objectives and policies                                               Transportation Showcase
reduce impacts to air,     (sanitary sewerage, solid waste,                                                Proposal
land and water resources   stormwater management, water                                                    • Environmental Awareness
                           services)                                                                       Reporting (CLEAR) Network
                           • O.P. Section 15 - Natural
                           Heritage System
                           • O.P. Schedule ‘B’ – Flood Plain
                           and Environmental Features
                           identifies ESA’s, wetlands, and
                           groundwater recharge areas
                           • O.P. Section 18.2.10 – Energy
                           Conservation & Air Quality

Encourage growth in        • O.P. Section 15 - Natural
                           Heritage System objectives and
areas that will have the   policies
least impact on the        • O.P. Section 15 –
environment                Environmental Impact Studies
                           and Subject Lands Status

                                      Smart Growth and Placemaking in London – Page 36
                              Land Use &                                                      Public Projects /
      Smart Growth
                          Development Policies                    Other Municipal Policies,    Partnerships /
                           (ie. Official Plan & Zoning            Programs, & Guidelines       Private Sector
  in the City of London               By-law)                                                    Initiatives
Clean up “brownfield”     • O.P. Section 3.2.3 – Residential
                          Infill Policies
sites by removing         • Brownfields Planning Strategy
barriers to their         Study
redevelopment                          First report to Planning
                          Committee and Council in 2002
                                       In Spring, 2004
                          proposed Brownfield clean-up
                          program report will be forwarded
                          to PC & Council

                                       Smart Growth and Placemaking in London – Page 37
Appendix 3: Placemaking – Designing Subdivisons to Create a Sense of Place

Below are some design principles that can guide the development of subdivisions to create a sense of place and avoid
the creation of low quality, hostile urban environments. The this list is not exhaustive, but provides a sense of important
variables that contribute to the quality and livability of a new urban environment. These elements define the legacy of
the built form we will leave for Londoners of the future.

Architectural Design
      Variety and visual interest – building design and layout
      Quality architectural detail and materials – elements such as cornices, key stones, window bays, eaves and
      Attention to architectural elements, including: entrances, corners, roofscapes, projections, and the relationship of
      the façade to the streetscape
      Distinctive building design
      Design which relates to landscape and surrounding environment
      Relationship to the street
      Reduce front yard set backs
      Encourage porches and verandahs
      Active building frontages
      Garages set back from building frontages
      Low boundary fences and walls at lot frontage
      Visible/welcoming entrances
      Creation of identifiable streetscapes through continuity and enclosure
      Rich detail at key locations

Pedestrian Priority
     Walkability – pedestrian connections and direct accessibilities
     See points in above and below categories that relate specifically to pedestrian priority

Street Layout
       Window streets
       Narrower ROW where appropriate
                                           Smart Growth and Placemaking in London – Page 38
      Promote walkability and connectivity
      Reduce speeds and minimize traffic cut-through
      Address snow plow, street cleaning, emergency vehicle, garbage collection concerns
      Reduced turning radii at intersections to calm traffic
      Traffic circles
      Avoid all noise walls through the use of service roads or rear lanes

      No reverse-lotting onto streets
      Window streets to allow for an interface between the public realm and parks, open spaces, squares, etc.
      Minimize front yard setbacks
      Increase densities appropriate to the character that is being established
      Mix densities – avoid broad separations of densities

Park spaces and the public realm
      Parkland, gardens, playgrounds, streets, squares, crescents, walkways etc. need to effectively interface with the
      private realm
      Accessible and visible – with minimum walking distance
      Safe, relaxing environments that are designed for comfort and passive engagement
      Variable sizes and functions
      Serve as pedestrian linkages within the community
      Serve as focal points if properly developed
      Use of distinctive public features – such as public art, street signage, street lighting, boulevard trees, etc.
      Strong building lines around open spaces can provide definition and enclosure of the open space.
      Single loaded roads adjacent to open space allow for natural surveillance and a sense of ownership of the space.
      Greater investment in the public realm can be used as an effective sales feature
      Create parkside drives – single loaded roads near parks, schools, open spaces

Focal points/Landmarks/Gateways
      Create identity and sense of place
      Planned squares and gathering/meeting places are positive contributions
      Pedestrian comfort/safety/tranquility/relaxation
      Use of architectural icons – eg. churches or other public buildings
      Highlight natural heritage assets
      Highlight existing cultural heritage structures
      Use distinctive and robust landscaping features
                                         Smart Growth and Placemaking in London – Page 39
      Use of ground surface treatments
      Capture and take advantage of vistas – existing and newly created
      Recognize and provide special design treatment to buildings at street termination points
      Give special design treatment to corner buildings – avoid blank walls facing streets
      Gateways could utilize light standards, bus stops, landscaped central medians, street trees and enhanced

Better integration of the density mix
       Medium/low density mixes
       Create identifiable edges to the stree through the use of street townhouses

                                          Smart Growth and Placemaking in London – Page 40

To top