| Advertisement |
|
Local Guides
|
|
|
BROWNFIELD VS GREENFIELD : WHAT WAS SAID
|
by
Don McLean
December 17 - 23, 2009 |
|
The debate about how to fund $2 billion in water and sewer infrastructure to service the aerotropolis and other proposed growth areas has re-energized the debate of brownfield versus greenfield development. The plans include $700 million for a new sewage treatment facility.
The following exchange took place after city finance manager Rob Rossini warned councillors that the city is “caught between a rock and a hard place because we need to grow, we need to do the investment so that we can service, in particular, the 1200 acres around the airport”.
Downtown councillor Bob Bratina offered an alternative viewpoint.
“I want to go to the comment that Rob made with regard to greenfields and that’s where the people want to go. It’s generally assumed that most of your growth and commercial development and industrial development will come from the people who are already there – something like 80 per cent of it. And 80 per cent of our existing industrial area is in the north part of the city.
“In the last couple of years we’ve had a $60 million Bunge plant open up on a brownfield at Burlington and Victoria. We’ve had Biox open up. We’ve had Fluke Transport establish their operations from elsewhere to the old P&G site. We’ve had Steelcare which opened up in the last couple of years. We’ve had McKeill [Marine], always expanding, and they’ve introduced a barge service, a container service, from the foot of Wellington Street to Montreal. Also Siemans, I’m told, is adding people. Hamilton Speciality Bar came back from oblivion and is now going well. 500 more people have come back to National Steel Car which is working again.
“So I’m wondering why this greenfield thing is so entrenched as a point of view among our staff. The greenfield development – those horses left the barn during regional government. We spent $439 million on roads that have no potential to have industry or commercial developed along with them. The roads we did have, the 403 through Ancaster, went over to residential development. So all those roofs you see on the 403 should have been factory roofs. The question is why is the greenfield approach, this very costly and unsustainable approach, so entrenched when it’s evident there is huge potential for further development of our brownfields?”
Rossini replied:
“It’s not a staff position. This is just an observation. I’ve spent 16 years of my career working in high growth GTA municipalities, both the region of Halton and Mississauga. And all you have to do is take a drive along the 400 series highways in the GTA and you see the explosion of growth along the 407, the 400, parts of the QE.
“It’s not me. I’m just saying that’s an observation of the huge growth areas that have happened in the GTA in the last 20 years. When I was at the Region of Halton we did a Halton urban structure plan and they took great care that they built into those plans 3000 hectares of employment lands. That’s huge.
“And I think you’ve had Neil Everson [director of economic development] stand here in front of you many times – that the lack of employment ready lands, to the extent that’s being planned and delivered in places like Vaughan, and Brampton and Mississauga and Halton, does impede our ability to get that type of development that wants to be in greenfields.
“It’s not the city manager, it’s not Tim [McCabe – general manager of economic development and planning]. That’s what’s happened. That’s an observation of what’s happened over the last 20 years in the GTA.”
To which Bratina responded:
“I understand that, but the fact is that we have road, rail and harbour infrastructure. We have the problem of brownfields. And I think that the onus is on us as a city with this type of infrastructure to exploit it to the best we can, rather than spending $700 million [for a new sewage treatment plant] on a guess.”. V
[DON MCLEAN]
|
Share on
 |
No comments yet... be the first! |
|
