PROCESS AND COMMUNICATION KEY ON INFILL

Many projects are shown to increase value of homes in a neighbourhood

Two local housing related news stories caught my attention recently.

The first is about a four-storey mixed-use complex on the corner of 13th Avenue and Elphinstone Street.

A group called Project Cathedral has raised concerns about the height of the complex and the parking requirements that involve the removal of what some might consider a character house.

When projects like this are designed and begin to move forward in existing neighbourhoods, it is not uncommon in North American cities for a local interest group to emerge. These special interest groups are often referred to as NIMBYs (Not In My Back Yard is often used to describe an individual, group or attitude). The NIMBY might agree that we should deter urban sprawl and there is a place for this type of project in the larger community, but does not want it placed too close to his or her own home or in the neighbourhood.

Local homeowners are understandably concerned when a changing neighbourhood threatens their investment. A reduction in property values is perhaps the most commonly expressed objection to a housing proposal or higher-density development. Some of the more common themes are that it will increase traffic, change the character of the neighbourhood, is not the right design and will be unattractive.

Contrary to these widely held views, a substantial body of research dating back to the early 1970s has established that projects like this have no detrimental effect on property values or on the time that homes spend on the market.

In fact, the B.C. government commissioned several case studies and found that in none of the cases did surrounding property values decrease. What actually occurred was values of homes in proximity increased, substantiating positive impacts on surrounding properties.

Local residents may feel apprehension about how the character of their neighbourhood will change in a negative way. A primary aim of zoning bylaws is to manage change and to mitigate its effects on existing uses of land, especially in residential areas. Such laws should not be imposed in a manner that violates sound community planning policies. If the housing project meets the goals of the Official Community Plan and can be built on a particular parcel of land, the anxiety of neighbours should not create significant obstacles to such a use.

For clarity, the developer of this project is not a member of the Regina & Region Home Builders Association.

My observations are intended for the wider conversation about neighbourhoods and our community as a whole.

The other interesting story was 13 Leopold Cres. Several delegates appeared before city council to bring their perspective on the 70-year-old property. Although it might have some historical significance, it is rotting from the inside, mould ridden, requiring significant asbestos remediation and very expensive renovations.

The question before council was: should this property move to a heritage protection designation or be removed from the Heritage Holding Bylaw?

I think city council got this one right. What became clear during the heritage debate was how unclear the Heritage Holding Bylaw was. In 1985, 305 Regina properties were added to the Heritage Holding Bylaw. Fifteen more were added in 2015. Properties on the list were based on recommendations by the city administration to city council at the time. What remains a mystery was how they ended up on the list in the first place. What was the criteria? Who made the recommended to city administration in the first place? And did the property owners have any say at the time?

Even the former chair of the Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee, whose role is to make recommendations on the preservation, interpretation, development and designation of heritage buildings and cultural properties within the City of Regina, questioned why there is a lack of process in determining which properties make the cut.

The mayor and city council were brave in their decision to release 13 Leopold Cres. from the Heritage Holding Bylaw. I would guess they will face criticism in some circles. They were placed in the awkward position of cleaning up previous administration and council decisions that allowed this lack of clarity to continue. They have instructed the city administration to accelerate their work plan and committed future budget dollars to bring back a comprehensive plan that looks for real consultation with heritage groups and property owners.

What I see as the commonality between the two stories is the need for a significant amount of work by the city to make policies more clear and granular to support the Official Community Plan. In both cases, if the policy work that followed the adoption by the city of the OCP in 2011 had been funded and resourced sooner, many of these items would be resolved before they hit the city council floor.

The OCP has several objectives. One of them is to ensure 30 per cent of growth in population is housed in the existing city. For this to occur in a manner that limits financial loss and delay for property owners and at the same time reduces the tremendous anxiety of process on both sides of the discussion, the city’s administration needs to be based on policy and regulations, not so much subjectivity. City council needs to ensure the city administration has the funding and resources to get this work done.

The mayor and city council were brave in their decision to release 13 Leopold Cres. from the Heritage Holding Bylaw.