Webpage Info for: Deposition to the PDVC Port Place OMB Hearing
Smart Growth Under Attack
On April 9th, 2008, at the Ontario Municipal Board's Vice-Chair, Susan Campbell request, members of the public opposed to the Port Place development proposal, were able to present evidence as to their opposition. The following is my deposition to the OMB, upon which a decision for allowing the injection of a tower into a heritage designated district could set an international precedent. I was one of two out of 20, not cross-examined by Mark Noskiewicz, PDVC's solicitor.(Disclaimer: I apologize for any links within any of my websites which may have become inactive over time.)
Madam Chair, I've researched trends impacting our societies since '97 and helped shape our smart growth strategies since '01, involved with every policy document cited-for which I have letters of recommendation [1] from Mr. Rodey [2] and Mr. Cambray. I wrote two extensive papers [3] [4] on the applications (on the record) to gain insight into my own conflicted feelings; having been so active in revitalization strategies, why did such an awesome development concern me? My research indicated how the application and documentation precariously compromised the intents and integrity of our Official Plans, smart growth initiatives and other policy papers. Firstly, if Port Place were approved, would not the rationalization, generally of the same height implies possible exceptions [5] establish a precedent enabling others everywhere to argue the same? Secondly, the Director of English Heritage wrote "[t]here are no economic, social or environmental imperatives for a new generation of tall buildings"; [6] and that "in terms of [their] impact on the historical environment at a city-wide as well as local level" good design is irrelevant [7]; and for the APA, "[d]etermining how height looks to pedestrians is not an objective measure" [8] It concerned me that the Heritage Assessment Report lacked historical precedents, that example developments focused on articulations of mass and roofs with no real similarity to Port's uniqueness, and that two footnoted citations pertaining to new construction in an historical setting were removed from the amended report (from subsection E). Mr. Cambray's declaring "the proposal does not meet all principles of smart growth" [9] possibily resulted from my research's similar reflection to that of the Smart Growth Network:"Smart growth has been characterized in many ways, and some initiatives-such as directing growth away from certain areas without identifying parcels appropriate for development, high-density projects without a mix of uses, and large-scale revitalization without affordable housing-have been incorrectly characterized as smart growth in order to capitalize on the popularity of the term. Such initiatives lack the combination of the many smart growth principles (see box [attached under 'Principle' column]) that create synergies and generate benefits." [10]The combinations of current economic upheavals, rising oil prices, global initiatives to mitigate carbon emissions, smart growth and sustainability impact PDVC's economic rationalizations. The popularity of smart growth has raised the profile and value of built heritage everywhere. From the perspective of the existing village, heritage aside, as we, along with communities everywhere grapple with them, Port Place needs to be tested against these new planning directives much as it is against heritage guidelines. Therefore, I implore the Board to place "The Ahwahnee Prinicples" [11] and the "Charter of New Urbanism" [12] into evidence since the 10 prinicples eminate from them.
[Click here for document version of Word Document]
