City administration has delivered on its promise to create a homegrown version of smart growth, but there are still too many unanswered questions about what the plan means for the St. Albert of tomorrow. Senior city management this week unveiled a ‘hybrid’ smart growth plan. It’s an attempt to strike a balance between the original smart growth principles that call for more density, walkable neighbourhoods, and flexible zoning than the spread out suburbia for which St. Albert is known.
Essentially, the hybrid is a watered-down version of smart growth. While the smart growth plan had three high-density transit-oriented nodes, the hybrid has one. Smart growth featured neighbourhood activity centres, a compact mixed-use area that would be the focal point in all residential neighbourhoods; the hybrid has neighbourhood centres that are still mixed use but limited to two zones in the northwest lands. Smart growth allowed mixed-use development in all neighbourhoods; the hybrid aims for more distinct residential subdivisions by limiting street-oriented commercial to a few locations.
The report also spells out what the differences in land uses mean for housing densities. Smart growth calls for 190 hectares of low-density residential; the hybrid aims for 252 hectares. By putting more emphasis on building up, smart growth has an overall density of 37.5 residential units per gross hectare. The hybrid calls for 33.2 units, though even that is a quantum leap over the 12-unit minimum the city now follows in its municipal development plan (MDP).
The last point is particularly significant because it illustrates the type of change proposed — a near three-fold increase in density over the St. Albert of today. Unfortunately the hybrid report focuses very little on what St. Albert is now versus what it could become. Comparisons provided show the differences between smart growth, the hybrid and ‘conventional’ growth. Most would assume this to mean existing St. Albert neighbourhoods like North Ridge or Lacombe Park, but in fact it refers to a type of development that doesn’t exist in the city since it’s based on relatively new planning rules that are still untested. The report also lacks a statistical comparison between how the two plans stack up against new density requirements proposed by the Capital Region Board (CRB). The CRB targets, currently under provincial review, require 25 to 30 units per gross residential hectare.
Even more distressing is how the report fails to paint a complete picture of city finances. The hybrid, we’re told, would cost less to operate, meaning municipal property taxes would be 5.0 per cent lower than ‘conventional’ St. Albert at full build out. Full build out would happen in 30 years with conventional land uses and 48 years for smart growth. There is no information about what that means for the city’s bottom line in all the years in between, and how development fluctuations could affect taxes.
A major red flag with both the hybrid and smart growth reports is how potential risks are mentioned almost in passing. The hybrid version does not describe potential capital costs, only giving assurances the price tag will grow in proportion with population so that the per capita cost to taxpayers is identical in any scenario. There is no evaluation about whether there’s a market for smart growth; if the hybrid doesn’t work, council could always change the MDP and zoning rules, the report says. The concept of form-based zoning poses more concerns. While touted to be more flexible in allowing mixed-use development, it also takes considerable power from council when it comes to planning decisions because rezonings happen all at once at the area structure plan stage. That might be a planner’s dream come true, but it leaves residents out in the cold if they don’t like how the neighbour’s home suddenly turned into a commercial enterprise.
With the CRB’s new density targets likely to become reality and St. Albert’s ongoing affordability concerns, status quo is not an option. St. Albert has to grow up, and not just out, but we can’t lose sight of what has made our city a great place to live and work. Whatever balance we strike, the public deserve to know the full consequences of change.
