Last night, the City’s consultant working on the OCP said that there must be a balance between statements of principle and prescription (flexibility and certainty) in the OCP. I don’t disagree with that, but I remain concerned about creating policies that might discourage creativity, or worse, end up ignored because they are unrealistic, impractical or completely inflexible.
Let’s look at the issue of green space in the town centre, for example.
The current OCP has the following policies.
Policy 8D: Ensure the provision of an interconnected open space network in the Town Centre.
Policy 8G: Increasing density [...] will only be considered if amenities [...] are provided with the development. These amenities may include one or more of the following: [list of 12 things. including] the provision and improvement of publicly accessible open space and/or pedestrian routes, either through dedication, easement, or covenant.
I believe the OCP needs stronger, clearer statements than this to provide effective direction for creating additional park space in the town centre.
My suggestion is to include principled statements about creating a balanced, healthy urban neighbourhood, perhaps mentioning social benefits of ensuring access to nature close to home, and that the design of redevelopment projects must increase the available park space in the town centre. A prescriptive statement might follow providing a target percentage of land or per capita ratio that the City expects to be provided.
These statements would give the what, why and how.
For it to work well, it will be important to more clearly define exactly what “open space” and “park” means so everyone knows what to expect.
The reasons for providing this space must be given so that if anyone comes up with a creative idea for meeting the same needs in a different way, there’s a way of measuring its value. Also, I think that describing the purpose gives strength to the intent of the policy.
And maybe most importantly, do not water it down by giving developers the choice of opting out in favour of other cheaper, easier amenity options, especially when it is something they would have provided anyway without additional density.
I think policy statements with these elements will provide the certainty that residents are asking for and the clarity that developers want, while still allowing some degree of flexibility for exactly how it is to be achieved. It should be more interested in measuring the outcome than directing the implementation — it should do both, but the emphasis should be on the quality of life or sustainability goals that we want to acheive.