Quote:
Originally Posted by bizaro86
so I hadn't noticed that 50th ave was passed last month. That's two now since Nenshi was elected. IIRC all of the other high priority ones you mentioned were done by previous councils or aren't finished yet. Previous councils' were able to do ARPs at a higher rate, so I'm not seeing an improvement.
|
Fair enough, but I guess we might just have a different measure of success other than how many ARPs we can crank out from Land Use Planning and Policy. Policy is a means to an end - real success is whether outcomes are improving - I believe they are both in redeveloping and developing areas. Nonetheless, I agree that in particular we need to update the many outdated ARPs - I think the new system will be much more capable of doing so (and more effectively).
One of the things, as part of the overall overhaul of planning that we've been doing related to ARPs, is to re-invent the document itself. I've written a few as a consultant and they're far too detailed and prescriptive in some regards, but also do not focus enough on others. For instance, very detailed on land use and built form, but do a poor job of considering mobility and particularly infrastructure requirements to support that intensification. Infrastructure is usually 2 paragraphs as an afterthought in the implementation section at the end of the document. They'll also focus a lot more on the areas within communities that will/should actually change, and focus less on areas with relative stability.
ASPs are going through a similar overhaul - they will be much simplified and a "new community guide" will apply to all new areas - this will reduce a lot of the duplication across them.
