Three years ago the previous council updated the city’s top planning document — the municipal development plan (MDP) — with references to future smart growth guidelines for the annexed lands. Despite ample opportunity to get it right, it appears smart growth was not worth the wait and could be rejected by council as early as Monday.
The smart growth plan and its subsequent watered-down hybrid version support higher density development, promote alternate forms of transportation and street alignments and would change zoning practices to allow more flexible, mixed-use development. While those objectives are admirable, the review has failed to objectively address several obvious questions, most notably whether well-meaning principles and theories can translate into market demand on the scale proposed for a 1,336-hectare area on the fringe of suburbia. Given the scope of change involved, and the possible consequences if the plan fails, it’s understandable that many councillors are skeptical about proceeding.
If we’re to believe the experts, smart growth will be a cure-all for St. Albert’s sprawling ways where residents will suddenly forgo box stores and commuting in favour of walking to small retailers and biking to work. Most of the research points to government-subsidized infill developments in the United States, while examples from Canada like the 1,600-unit Emerald Hills in Sherwood Park do not come close to the scale envisioned here. Uncertain market demand is identified as a risk almost in passing, while the tax implications are presented in what can only be called best-case scenarios. Shockingly, the hybrid study offers no meaningful analysis of year-over-year development uptake, leaving council and residents to accept the numbers on blind faith. And while much of the plan emphasizes sustainable land uses, it paradoxically proposes adding a 280-hectare industrial park next to Carrot Creek, a concept that smacks of archaic planning standards.
It’s no wonder several people on council, including Gareth Jones and Mayor Nolan Crouse, have labelled the information provided by administration as one-sided. The fact that councillors have had to resort to travelling on their own time to other cities in Canada and the U.S. to research smart growth reflects poorly on the quality of material provided in-house. And though it’s easy to call out planners for not adequately providing all the answers, council should not forget it initiated the smart growth review by making it a priority early in its term. Council could have backed out at the first sign of trouble but instead opted to push on with a complicated review that’s consumed considerable staff resources. It’s also puzzling that, near the end of the process, some councillors are suddenly worried about changes like moving to a modified street grid from St. Albert’s traditional curving arterials and cul de sacs. Those worries are three years overdue considering the changes were made during the MDP review and reinforced by this council in other master plans.
Despite its obvious flaws, rejecting smart growth in its entirety would be a waste, especially when several aspects of the review make sense, such as high-density transit-oriented developments in strategic areas. The hybrid plan calls for one transit node next to a future park and ride along St. Albert Trail. The amount of density is similar in scope to the Grandin mall redevelopment with offices, commercial space and the population base to support them in apartment towers. Coun. Len Bracko wants council to add a second transit hub, a worthwhile idea that would give St. Albert a broader range of housing options for its seniors, single professionals and young families. It’s the type of concept that, if successful, could be the push needed to win support for other sprawl-reducing initiatives while maintaining a balance with St. Albert’s traditional character.
Doing nothing is not a long-term option given density targets recently imposed by the Capital Region Board. Even if St. Albert approved the original smart growth plan — a near four-fold increase in density — it still would not be enough to meet the regional targets. Council has to decide where it’s appropriate to build up, using all the tools at its disposal, from pockets of high-density in the northwest to infill in older areas. Throwing away the entire review would not be smart.
