Raise the Hammer

Calgary's South Corridor LRT Land Use Study of 1981 was two years in the making with extensive public consultation.

According to this study it did not assume that development would occur at the LRT Stations simply because 'development follows transit'. It stated that: other contributing factors such as surrounding land use and road access have been evaluated and their influence considered... The development climate in Calgary and the growing attractiveness of the Macleod Trail Corridor for office development --even before the decision to build the LRT system-- will contribute to the realization of the unique development opportunities afforded by the LRT station areas.

In spite of this, it introduces a supplementary growth impetus: a "Bonus System" to spur high density development.

This clearly spell out that LRT in itself is not capable of triggering development contrary to popular beliefs, but it is the critical 'Bonusing feature' in the station areas that motivates development.

This is the most contentious part of LRT development which needs to be addressed democratically in Hamilton - where transit has come to be looked at as an end in itself to develop growth. This is the part that gives mass-transit a bad name, by skewing the holistic economic development of cities with arbitrary LRT route planning.

If Bonusing is primarily used to trigger growth, then irrespective of the LRT - why not simply open up Bonusing of higher density (based on sustainable development criteria) across the city to trigger Hamilton's gold rush?

But, the downtown secondary plan has higher density already specified in certain areas of Main and King in the core and along Main East to Mac. Then why have we not seen a flood of building permit applications in these locations?

We need to be more realistic about how economic growth occurs. And understand the difference between real-estate development triggered spikes and real economic growth.

Calgary's West LRT Land Use Study of 2009, uses the same basis for growth as in 1981. Only now instead of the word Bonusing - it uses a more contemporary term: Transit Oriented Development (TOD) - which essentially does the same thing -- only with more articulated mix-use development criteria instead.

"Calgary’s economic growth is expected to be 3.4 per cent this year, according to the Conference Board of Canada... Toronto and Hamilton — which saw the strongest growth rates in 2010 at four per cent, according to the report — are expected to see more modest expansions this year of 2.8 and 2.5 per cent. That ranks them fifth and sixth in this outlook of Canadian cities."

Was it LRT that really gave Calgary its edge in economic growth? Or was it their ability to keep their eye on the ball that drives their growth - without an urban-suburban divide?

This is from page A2 of their strategic view: "Some municipalities have adopted the approach of trying to influence population growth by setting boundaries or creating rules to constrain the amount of development needed to accommodate growth. The City of Calgary does not attempt to control population growth by artificially imposed economic or geographic limits. Rather, the approach has been to build on the foundation of a unicity concept..."

Vision 42 proposes to connect the two ends of a highly developed corridor in Manhattan. This project sets a new standard in visioning and promoting transit. "The Anticipated Economic Impacts of Introducing Light Rail to New York City’s 42nd Street", are not based on Bonusing. It shows us how a well researched and strategically targeted LRT line can remain keenly focused on transit goals - while spurring development on its west end and substantially increasing real-estate values on the corridor. See the Vision 42 Economic Study: 1 and 2

Lobbying frenzy is triggered from bonusing density. It is such "indirect activities" which are premised on sweeping economic presumptions that distract from core transit focus of most LRT initiatives. In vulnerable cities like Hamilton which seeks growth by any means - could it be this frenzy which caused temporary suspension of the land use study, while an unbiased economic feasibility report is being developed for council presentation?

Comment edited by Mahesh_P_Butani on 2011-08-13 14:52:22