Should Ottawa grow by using the land we already have, or should we expand Ottawa's urban boundary to allow for new greenfield development? Staff recommend the expansion. I read the report and think we should stick to what we have. Here's my view.

The goal of urban development in Ottawa is to have the appropriate amount of living space for an increase of 400,000 people by 2046. That means there needs to be 195,000 new residential units. Where should they go?

When adding 195,000 new units, you should do it in a way that's economical (doesn't cost the city too much money), efficient (keeps things close together, like schools, workplaces, homes, stores, etc.), and sustainable (good for the environment).

The best way to achieve those goals while adding new housing is to intensify areas that are already built up. That means adding more places to live in existing space: turning single-detached homes into multi-unit homes and developing underused land into complete communities.

In the Growth Management Strategy, this option is called the "No Expansion" option. But despite it being the most desirable option to meet policy goals, staff instead recommended what they call the "Balanced" option--which is an option that expands the urban boundary.

So why did staff use to reject the "No Expansion" option? This: “Staff feel that the rate of change is too high for the industry to adapt to, and the level of community acceptance for intensification at that rapid a rate of increase is not yet there to ensure it is realized.”

It is not clear what they are basing that feeling on, how they measured community acceptance, why the industry can't adapt to increased intensification rates, or why that feeling is enough to merit rejecting an option that best meets their own criteria.

Industry should be able to adapt to an intensification figure higher than what we are used to. That’s what industry is meant to do: innovate, solve problems, work within parameters to achieve results. Claiming that industry can’t evolve doesn’t give enough credit to industry.

There are lots of very competent business people in the housing industry and very creative architects and urban designers that would love to step up to this challenge. Let them.

Is it true that "community acceptance is not there yet?" I don't believe we have had a serious enough discussion as a city about what intensification actually looks like. Yet staff feel we're not ready. We should have a say in that before staff make up our minds for us.

There are ways to accelerate intensification within our existing urban boundary that can appeal to industry and residents. It will require thought and creativity—but dismissing thought and creativity as too difficult is not a serious approach.

High density can be achieved around transit with large towers, yes. But "gentle density" can be achieved in existing neighbourhoods while still maintaining the character and desirability of living in those neighbourhoods. This report itself says that!

The creative approaches for gentle density offered in the report are good ones. The 613 flat idea (6 rooms in 1 unit, 3 bedrooms) is great! With these types of ideas, there is a path to a 100% intensification rate by 2046—which is a better approach than the "balanced" 60%.

So: After reading the report, I am not convinced that the “Balanced Option” is either “more realistic” or more beneficial than the “No Expansion Option”. We should hold the line of our urban boundary.

Staff have recommended the Planning Committee and Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee to approve the Growth Management Strategy on May 11. Read the report for yourself. Let the committee and your councillor know how you feel about it by May 11.