There was a big splash yesterday as the federal government announced its significant new $30-billion public transit infrastructure fund. Residents can read the linked press release for the details, but I wanted to highlight this morning what the Prime Minister himself has called the “catch”, and the significant question I have today about what it means for our zoning and for Kitchissippi.
There’s no question that cities in Canada are in need of funding to offset pandemic-related revenue losses from reduced ridership. In Ottawa we’re feeling the pinch from the significant loss of daily commuters. A very significant capital investment in LRT should have resulted in increased ridership that would have underpinned our future capital program. As LRT is expanded and the bus system stabilized through route consolidation, better maintenance and operator hiring things will improve a little, but we nonetheless face a hole in the budget. Federal funding is very much needed as the city continues to grow and the need for transit improvements becomes more acute.
The federal government has been actively engaged seeking ways to address the housing crisis. One avenue to boosting housing supply recognized as important by observers is more permissive zoning that allows greater density. The federal government can’t mandate that; land-use planning is the provinces’ constitutional purview. But the federal government historically has not been shy to use funding leverage to seek desired housing outcomes, and linking transit funding to density targets is a legitimate and time-worn tactic. In the case of the new Canada Public Transit Fund, the feds have hinged the money on several caveats.
In order to get the taps flowing, cities are expected to:
- Eliminate all mandatory minimum parking requirements within 800 metres of a high-frequency transit line.
- Allow high-density housing within 800 metres of a high-frequency transit line.
- Allow high-density housing within 800 metres of post-secondary institutions.
As some residents are aware, the first of these is already a proposal before Council as part of the comprehensive review of our zoning by-law being undertaken to codify the new Official Plan. It is the second of these that raises significant questions in my mind, though, as “high-density” is undefined and may or may not align with the direction in which that new zoning by-law is already headed.
I think it’s helpful to visualize what 800m looks like. Here I’ve presented my rough stab at drawing those circles over a map of the ward. It’s not perfect, but it’s close enough for horseshoes.
In our current zoning approach, many of the neighbourhoods within the circles are already anticipated to be intensified when the new by-law is adopted. The new Official Plan defines “emerging neighbourhood overlays” across the city that are the locations where more density will best spur more 15-minute neighbourhoods. How dense those areas will be allowed to intensify will depend on where in the city they are: close to downtown, older suburbs ringing the inside of the Greenbelt, our newest suburbs. In our ward, we’ve generally anticipated that the emerging neighbourhood overlay areas will be permitted to develop to the scale of low-rise apartment buildings – three- or four-storey structures with under 20 apartments. In the graphic taken from the Official Plan below, those emerging neighbourhood overlays are the speckled purple areas.
Comparing the two maps, there are some misalignments. Using the very simple 800m federal ruler would capture much more of the interior of neighbourhoods like Champlain Park and Civic Hospital, just as examples.
The comprehensive zoning by-law review is well underway now, and planners, residents and industry need to know what “high-density” means so that we can make decisions about whether the quid pro quo to unlock transit funding is an acceptable one and, if so, to pivot our zoning proposals to match federal requirements.
The future sustainability and success of a ward like Kitchissippi has to be based on public and active transportation. There is no path to accommodating more cars without suffocating our neighbourhoods. But to achieve the modal splits we want our transit system has to be fast, convenient and affordable. We need excellent connections to destinations across the city and transit infrastructure inside the ward that ensures our new fleet of electric buses can move us around our streets quickly and efficiently. We need help to do that.
If unlocking that help means the consistent application of zoning to allow low-rise apartment buildings across more of the ward, filling in the gaps between the emerging neighbourhood overlay and 800m circles, the time to pivot is now. If that higher-density zoning needs to be applied within those circles more consistently across the city (and it should be) the time to pivot is now. If by “high density” the feds mean something more dramatic – 10+ storey apartment buildings, for example, then we need an opportunity to present that possible give-and-take to residents.
My hope is that what the federal government has in mind is the broader application of the zoning we’re already considering for neighbourhoods such as Hintonburg and Mechanicsville (with much greater permissions more immediately adjacent to transit stations, obviously). That’s not without contention, but it’s legitimate and a conversation I believe Council would be eager to have. In the absence of more information and definition, though, I’m worried this morning that residents and their representatives will reject funding if “high-density” means taller apartment buildings at the mid- to high-rise scale anywhere within those 800m circles.
The sooner that clarity comes, the sooner we can get to work.