Suburban sprawl is the opposite of smart growth

Re: Five-storey tower proposed for derelict

downtown store site, Oct. 23

The headline about the proposal for redevelopment of a derelict store site downtown was attention-getting.

Naturally, it demanded attention because it was featured on the front page.

However, it also got my attention because it included this word: “tower.”

One could easily accept that “tower” is an accurate descriptor of this proposal. However, one could also surmise that word was chosen for dramatic effect. Why would it be dramatic to have a tower proposed for downtown Peterborough?

Surely it is appropriate to house a city’s greatest concentrations of people closest to where they can work and meet their needs for living, shopping, socializing, learning, and entertainment.

The Smart Growth Manual’s authors (Andres Duany and Jeff Speck, 2010) wrote: “As recommended by Jane Jacobs almost 50 years ago, revitalization should begin by reinstating this urban balance. In most downtown’s, housing is under-represented, so cities should make special efforts to bring more apartments and row houses into their urban cores.”

If it is dramatic to see a “tower” proposal in downtown Peterborough, what is the way to characterize the sprinkling of towers around the city on sites where future inhabitants will not be able to meet their broader needs nearby?

Duany and Speck also wrote: “A neighbourhood should endeavour to include a balanced mix of housing, working, shopping, recreation, and civic uses. Simply put, housing subdivisions, apartment clusters, office parks, and shopping centres are the ingredients of suburban sprawl and the antithesis of smart growth.”

I believe that the planners involved with proposals for single-purpose housing developments, including ones for residential “towers” in dispersed locations, should be obliged to explain to us all why such proposals constitute good urban planning. Gregory Pulham, Ashdale Crescent