Official Plan: Fast-tracking sprawl damages the environment

More car-oriented city poses a threat, says Robb Barnes.

On May 27, Ottawa council will make its most important environmental decision this term. At issue is whether or not to expand the city’s urban boundary and fast-track urban sprawl. Because of the many impacts of sprawl — on climate action, green space, biodiversity, trees and transit — the votes cast by the mayor and councillors could well define the environmental legacy of their entire careers.

The environmental case against sprawl is rock-solid. First, we know it’s a climate killer. More urban sprawl means more car-oriented development patterns, with houses cut off from amenities and people forced to drive to get groceries, go to work, go to school and visit local parks. This means fewer travel options, more hours stuck in traffic, and many more emissions from vehicles. It also means more energy-inefficient, single-detached monster homes. Ottawa council passed a climate emergency declaration only last year. This vote is a test of whether council actually intends to follow through.

Sprawl also poses a major threat to our living city. The urban expansion on offer is up to 1,650 hectares, an area more than six times larger than the Glebe and nearly five times as large as New York City’s Central Park. This area is, of course, already occupied by the many living creatures that call these forests, fields and grasslands home. More sprawl would be an assault on local nature at a time of an escalating global biodiversity crisis. And paving this green space for box malls and parking lots will mean more impermeable surface. This will leave our city more vulnerable to storms and floods becoming the new normal in our climate-changed world.

What’s on the other side of this debate? A lot of money, for starters. Amidst citizen groups and concerned residents urging council to stop expansion, committee meetings have featured

We can build at ... higher densities while providing easy access to amenities.

a who’s who of Ottawa’s development industry. These are the same developers blanketing news outlets and social media feeds with ads and visuals of imagined development-gone-wrong scenarios. Developers are hoping their investment will pay off if council lets them sell the rural land they’re sitting on, and develop more sprawling communities.

But beyond deep pockets, developers don’t have a leg to stand on. They claim intensification lacks public support, but they leave out the important detail of which kind of intensification we’re talking about. It’s true many residents of Ottawa are opposed to bad intensification, which has been all too common in our city. They’re tired of giant towers and Astroturf-laden infill projects that violate community design plans and drain neighbourhood vitality.

But these same residents know a better way is possible. The trend towards “missing middle” or “gentle density” is sweeping cities around the world. Ottawa needs to catch up. We can build at much higher densities while providing easy access to amenities, walkability and sensitivity to neighbourhood character. This enthusiasm for better density has been palpable in the last few weeks. Community associations from all corners of the city have sent letters urging council to hold the line on sprawl. Meanwhile, thousands of Ottawans have signed Ecology Ottawa’s petition urging the same, and over 500 attended an online rally recently.

The council vote on May 27 is all about legacy. It’s about whether Ottawa chooses to step up and face the climate crisis with ambition and resolve. It’s about whether councillors will side with developers spending big money for sprawl, or community groups demanding more complete communities. And it’s about the kind of city we’ll leave for our children.

The choice is clear. Council must hold the line on urban boundary expansion.

Robb Barnes is executive director of Ecology Ottawa.