Promoting Smart Growth for Economic Development

Residents of Sudbury, Ontario, say the town is at a critical turning point. Politicians voice a need to pursue a greater share of mining revenue from the province. Civic associations in Sudbury would like to see a new arts and convention centre constructed. City officials want to allow businesses that establish certain kinds of industrial parks to be exempt from paying development charges. Developers argue that they face too much opposition when the propose building in existing neighborhoods, a practice known as infilling. The rationale for supporting infilling is that existing living areas yield a higher level of revenue, which makes city infrastructure more affordable for developers. There are ancillary benefits to infilling, such as contributing to the financial and operational viability of the Sudbury Transit and averting urban sprawl, which supports efforts to address climate change.

Neighborhood organizations oppose the policy of infilling, often on a case-by-case basis that is charitably known as not in my backyard (NIMBY). Critics assert that infilling increases traffic congestion on a local level, reduces open space, and results in overcrowding that puts too much pressure on neighborhood services. As a result of organized neighborhood protest, developers have shuttled appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board in order to obtain approval for projects and move forward. This situation happens regularly, even when developers comply with all the planning requirements for their projects. From a fiscal standpoint, blocking infill development prevents the city from obtaining reasonable tax revenue for planned building. Finally, developers experience more than their fair share of red tape when trying to get projects approved.

Problem Definition

Infill development is characterized by paradoxical outcomes that may or may not be ameliorated by smart growth planning and coordinated transit initiatives. Cities like Portland, Oregon; Freiburg in Breisgau, Germany; and the City of Cambridge, Massachusetts have experimented with smart growth and provide examples of elements that can be utilized in other locations with infilling positive policies.

Research Questions

Traffic patterns and travel behavior have been shown to be impacted by urban intensification and smart growth policies (Melia, et al., 2011). The research indicates that there is support both for and against these development practices (Melia, et al., 2011). Development that increases population densities in urban area does not have a robust effect on reductions in the use of cars. In fact, when this effect is calculated, the distances that cars are driven or the frequency that people chose to drive their cars, is not halved the population density of a specified area doubles. This relationship is known as the paradox of intensification, as follows:

Ceteris paribus, urban intensification which increases population density will reduce per capita car use, with benefits to the global environment, but will also increase concentrations of motor traffic, worsening the local environment in those locations where it occurs (Melia, et al., 2011).

What are the variables that influence developers' perceptions of red tape in the planning and approval processes?

What is the political will of the planning commission with respect to infilling?

What efforts have been made to inform local residents and businesses about the tenets and successes of smart growth?

How applicable is urban intensification to the city?

To what degree do transit operations appear capable of supporting smart growth?

To what extent is the planning commission receptive to compact neighborhoods, pedestrian and bicycle friendly design, and transit-oriented development?

Methodology and Approach

The research will employ qualitative primary research methods in the form of surveys and in-depth interviews. Secondary research will be conducted prior to the primary research in order to guide the survey questionnaire development and to ensue that robust examples of smart city strategies are utilized in the research.

Data Sources

Type of Data

Source

Primary -- surveys research

Responses on survey questionnaire conducted with town hall participants of neighborhood organizations, members of the planning commission, city planning department staff,

Primary - interviews

Responses to in-depth interviews with transit authorities, public officials in local government, and developers,

Secondary -- document review

Extant research and reports on cities using a smart growth or urban intensification approach.