Infill development and smart growth policy in Sudbury, Ontario

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.

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.

Work Breakdown Schedule

Task

Description

Deadline

(from start)

Responsible

Kick-off meeting

Meet with client to discuss research objectives and timeline. Discuss sampling frame and other methodologies of approach.

1-week

Consultant / Researcher

Conduct secondary research

Obtain, review, and synthesize existing research & outcome reports on cities successfully implementing smart growth.

2 weeks

Researcher

Develop questions

Write survey questions and interview protocols

1-week

Researcher

Prepare panel (participants)

Establish sample and contact participants for primary research (surveys, interviews)

2 weeks

Consultant / Researcher

Conduct primary research

Conduct surveys

2 weeks

Researcher

Analyze survey responses

1-week

Researcher

Conduct interviews

4 weeks

Researcher

Analyze interview responses

1-week

Researcher

Synthesis & Analysis

Write final report. Meeting for researcher to discuss findings with consultant

1-week

Researcher

Final report

Meet with client to discuss findings. Submit report to client and relevant stakeholders.

16 weeks

Consultant / Researcher

Sources:

Melia, S., Parkhurst, G. And Barton, H. (2011). The paradox of intensification. Transport Policy, 18(1), 46-52. Retreived http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2010.05.007

4

Research Methods