City promotes high-density growth options without addressing their adverse impact on livability
The next phase of the Kelowna OCP 2030 and the associated public survey that is being conducted (www.kelowna2030.ca) deals with evaluating the final four land use scenarios that have been generated by city planners and consultants. The primary difference among these four scenarios is the urban densities that are being proposed for the city’s urban centres, in particular the downtown and surrounding area, where the possible densities range from a small increase from what currently exists to a near doubling.
Although the overriding goal of the new OCP is to make Kelowna sustainable, none of these four scenarios accomplishes this objective but rather puts the City further in the hole. Notably, each scenario would involve an increase in the amount of greenhouse gas emissions and overall water consumed from the current level. This is because no matter how you distribute the projected increase in population of 45,500 by the target year 2030, our environment will have a greater burden placed upon it.
Although one member of the team of planners and consultants at the City’s recent open house privately admitted to me that the best way to make the city sustainable would be to simply stop growth, the emphasis of the public presentation was to turn people’s attention from this obvious and inescapable fact to that of choosing the land use scenario that had the least harmful impact on the environment while making the public believe that they were actually helping to make Kelowna more sustainable.
Most alarming to me, however, was that through the information presented on the display boards at the open house, the City’s team was nudging the public towards choosing the highest density scenarios, first among them being the “Ultra Compact” option followed by the “Hubs and Spokes” option which would direct 30% and 21%, respectively, of the city’s future growth towards the downtown and environs. This was done under the guise of making the city more sustainable, which neither will, without regard for the impact that a near doubling in the population of that area in the case of the “Ultra Compact” option would have on worsening an already bad situation in regards to traffic congestion there while at the same time diminishing the livability of this neighbourhood for its residents. The only recognition that the City gave to these matters was in a footnote on one of its display boards that said that qualitative issues such as livability need to be taken into consideration when evaluating each of these land use scenarios. In other words, buyer beware!
Although the overriding goal of the new OCP is to make Kelowna sustainable, none of these four scenarios accomplishes this objective but rather puts the City further in the hole. Notably, each scenario would involve an increase in the amount of greenhouse gas emissions and overall water consumed from the current level. This is because no matter how you distribute the projected increase in population of 45,500 by the target year 2030, our environment will have a greater burden placed upon it.
Although one member of the team of planners and consultants at the City’s recent open house privately admitted to me that the best way to make the city sustainable would be to simply stop growth, the emphasis of the public presentation was to turn people’s attention from this obvious and inescapable fact to that of choosing the land use scenario that had the least harmful impact on the environment while making the public believe that they were actually helping to make Kelowna more sustainable.
Most alarming to me, however, was that through the information presented on the display boards at the open house, the City’s team was nudging the public towards choosing the highest density scenarios, first among them being the “Ultra Compact” option followed by the “Hubs and Spokes” option which would direct 30% and 21%, respectively, of the city’s future growth towards the downtown and environs. This was done under the guise of making the city more sustainable, which neither will, without regard for the impact that a near doubling in the population of that area in the case of the “Ultra Compact” option would have on worsening an already bad situation in regards to traffic congestion there while at the same time diminishing the livability of this neighbourhood for its residents. The only recognition that the City gave to these matters was in a footnote on one of its display boards that said that qualitative issues such as livability need to be taken into consideration when evaluating each of these land use scenarios. In other words, buyer beware!
Comment
About
© 2009 Created by John Zeger on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
You need to be a member of Citizens for Responsible Community Planning (Kelowna, B.C.) to add comments!
Join this Ning Network