Re-Zoning Hearing and Infill Development
I stumbled into this notice of public hearing on the district's web site yesterday. It's interesting to see that a group of eight different homeowners in one neighbourhood have banded together to ask for a change in their zoning designation.
They're asking for zoning to change from single detached homes to residential duplex housing. These changes are usually met by complaints and resistance from neighbours who fear that increased densities near them will create noise and traffic and drive down property values. I suppose they'll be at the meeting, doing their NIMBY best to block the change. One of the other reasons people oppose duplexes is that they've traditionally been built so poorly. They're often ugly and set too far back, with unsightly parking, bare yards and weird fences in front.
I'm considering attending the hearing for the opposite reason -- I'd like to see them increase the density further. That area (Spencer Avenue, Ritchie Street and Orchard Crescent) is close enough to downtown for people to walk for just about everything. Why not create high-quality, high-density housing there that encourages more people to walk, talk to their neighbours, and offers a mix of housing options?
This ties into the issue of expanding (or NOT) Summerland's developed land base. If Summerland can effectively develop near their established (and excellent) downtown area, the pressure comes off the ALR and open lands on the hillsides. It's a test of our resolve to do infilling well. It just makes more sense.
As a related aside...read this article to get a sense of a vision for towns and cities that would work infinitely better than the suburban sprawl currently dominating the landscape. He's aligned with the New Urbanism movement, which is basically aiming to create beautiful places where people can live, shop and work without needing cars.
They're asking for zoning to change from single detached homes to residential duplex housing. These changes are usually met by complaints and resistance from neighbours who fear that increased densities near them will create noise and traffic and drive down property values. I suppose they'll be at the meeting, doing their NIMBY best to block the change. One of the other reasons people oppose duplexes is that they've traditionally been built so poorly. They're often ugly and set too far back, with unsightly parking, bare yards and weird fences in front.
I'm considering attending the hearing for the opposite reason -- I'd like to see them increase the density further. That area (Spencer Avenue, Ritchie Street and Orchard Crescent) is close enough to downtown for people to walk for just about everything. Why not create high-quality, high-density housing there that encourages more people to walk, talk to their neighbours, and offers a mix of housing options?This ties into the issue of expanding (or NOT) Summerland's developed land base. If Summerland can effectively develop near their established (and excellent) downtown area, the pressure comes off the ALR and open lands on the hillsides. It's a test of our resolve to do infilling well. It just makes more sense.
As a related aside...read this article to get a sense of a vision for towns and cities that would work infinitely better than the suburban sprawl currently dominating the landscape. He's aligned with the New Urbanism movement, which is basically aiming to create beautiful places where people can live, shop and work without needing cars.
posted by Jeremy |
Permanent Link
6 Comments:
We drove around the area soon after the announcement was placed in the Summerland Review and looked at the homes and lots being envisioned for rezoning. I fully concur with the possibilities of revising this section, but don’t think they should stop with duplexes. This is an ideal spot for a modern complex of 2 storey attached homes similar in appearance to those pictured in your write-up, Jeremy, but without the similarity of structure. Front porches are a prerequisite. Some dormers, but not on every one. Backyard gardens, where people can chat across fences or shrubbery with four neighbours at once, small front yards that can be personalized. Much after the English fashion but with more pizzazz.
This is where our Association could shine. Insist on architectural design based on the ideas of new urbanism, AND input from neighbours and townspeople.
April 29,2005 4pm
By
Anonymous, at 4:06 p.m.
Try walking around this area and talking to people before you make grandiose pronouncements that affect others lives. Is driving by the best research you can do?
As a resident I can't see the sense in tearing down perfectly good houses made better than the construction I see today. My place has oak floors, one foot joist spacing, real wood siding, and all sorts of heavy duty stuff like real plywood. It appears to have been made a by a carpenter, an endangered species these days.
Why not put a high density community in Grand Forks or some non desert community with actual water supplies? Why Summerland? What is wrong with the concepts that were around when this area was made into quarter acre lots with the houses in the middle for good privacy? Is green space only for public places?
Summerland is in no position to even begin to alleviate the boomer retirement housing shortfall by tearing down fully functional, low turnover neighbourhoods such as this and replacing them with higher density projects done by the lowest bidder. In fact, that is what I see - maximise the density and minimise the cost.
Spencer and Ritchie areas are not sprawl; These are traditional, modest single family dwelling within walking distance of town. You will find that the initiative for the zoning change came from one resident who has been attempting to gain a rental income by various means, and has now apparently abandoned the idea as uneconomic, as I have heard. Council siezed upon the [abandoned?] request and contacted the adjoining areas with an offer to change their zoning. Most signed on. Council was not approached by a group as you suggest, rather the other way around.
I'm glad that we have well meaning folks like you insist that I have a front porch, not too many cutesy dormers and can chat with my fellow inmates in the excercise yard out back. New Urbanism? Maybe you should do some New Math on the current residents first. And if you want to have some input from the neighbours and townspeople, try walking by and chatting up the new urbanism with the locals you drove by. At least you drove by which is more than council seems to have done before voting on the changes last week. The coffee/ tea is on.
John Park 10712 Ritchie St. 494 8871
By
Anonymous, at 9:50 a.m.
I’m 18 and I grew up in Summerland. I worked construction out in Kelowna the past few months where this building boom has been focused on mostly. From working for a large excavation company hired by the developers, I've realized that the developers all share one thing in common, money. This is their only motivation for developing in our town. By letting the OCP go ahead, we are putting up a sign saying " developers come here! Put money before people!" We should try and stop the developers from selling out our town. Our town needs to grow in the fashion that Summerland always has, to keep our home town atmosphere and way of life. Please try and save our land, lifestyle, and water. Attend the meetings and be aware of what our council is up to.
By
Anonymous, at 4:29 p.m.
John, thanks for weighing in here. This is exactly the kind of conversation I had hoped could take place here.
This kind of writing about planning is so theoretical. Perhaps on paper it makes sense, but in social terms the ideas are not feasible at all. I did walk around that neighbourhood, although it felt like intruding to knock on residents' doors to ask about a potentially difficult issue. Perhaps I should have included a section from my letter to council in this post:
"I've never met any of these homeowners. Judging by the fine condition of their properties, they likely don't want to knock all the houses down and start from scratch, even if that was supported by council. They've probably applied for duplex zoning because it's easiest and would be least disruptive in their neighbourhood. One of the other reasons people oppose duplexes is that they've traditionally been built so poorly -- perhaps there is a better zoning option that would allow for more attractive infilling?"
Aside from our more obvious differences, I agree with much of what you've written here. At the root, I feel that there is a middle ground solution that could maintain the quality of life of existing residents, while bringing more people in to help make our downtown more vibrant. I realize that there are probably very few people in town who share that vision.
I also appreciate you signing your comment and leaving your contact information -- it opens up the potential for dialogue, rather than just ranting.
By
Jeremy, at 3:35 p.m.
Hey Thomas, I'm glad to see some younger folks getting involved in these issues. Thanks for your comments.
The OCP will go ahead -- everyone sees that as a necessary process. It's just a matter of getting a blueprint for the future that meets the needs of Summerlanders in the best possible way.
By
Jeremy, at 3:38 p.m.
Touche, John. You are quite right, of course. Thanks for the invitation for tea. I got the unfounded impression initially that some developer had gotten to you folks with promises of big money, etc., if you all went together and asked for the rezoning. It never occured to me that the real promoter was Council. I don't think this side of the story was ever publicized.
As you are probably aware I am a member of the "Association" and if you read my last "advertisement" in the Review (Martens Orchard) you will realize your comment on Summerland acting as the recipient of all of BC's retirees is almost exactly what I said. That is why we need people like yourself to keep council, realtors, developers and people like me on our toes.
I like sugar in my tea. :))
Martens Orchard (Frank and Jane Martens)
Monday, May 2,2005 9:45 pm
By
Anonymous, at 9:48 p.m.
Post a Comment
<< Home