Opinion - Westerra weakens its Main Street
Half of proposed mixed-use commercial zone gets the axe in proposal by Forster Harvard
This is an extended review of the Regina Planning Commission agenda item “RPC23-26 Concept Plan Amendment; Zoning Bylaw Amendment; Discretionary Use – 1501 West Market Street – PL202300102, PL202300103, PL202300104”.
Forster Harvard, developer in charge of the partially-built Westerra neighbourhood, is requesting a change to their plan. In particular, the properties along the east side of West Market Street are to be rezoned from “Main Street Retail” to “Medium Density Residential”, and from “MH - Mixed High-Rise Zone” to “RL - Residential Low-Rise Zone”.
Here are a few drawings of the new buildings —
These changes would diminish the mixed-use character of the development, removing the “walkable main street” planned for the east side of West Market Street (though the other side of the street would remain — for now, anyway).
They also apparently decrease the density which, among other things, makes the infrastructure for the far-flung Westerra neighbourhood more costly to maintain per household.
As is often the case with these reports from administration, the “Impacts” section goes out of its way to claim the changes actually do conform with the Official Community Plan (and more recently, Sustainability initiatives), even though the changes are a net negative.
For example —
The proposed development supports the City’s Strategic Priority relating to Environmental Sustainability by developing residential dwellings in proximity to transit, amenities and employment opportunities. Therefore, opportunities arise to replace personal automobile travel with active and transit transportation, which are generally more energy efficient and contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. (emphasis added)
But later on in the report administration notes —
The Westerra Neighbourhood Plan identifies the main street area as accommodating small format, pedestrian-oriented commercial or residential in mixed use buildings. The proposal would remove the prospect of commercial land use from the east side of West Market Street. Main Street Retail is still intended for the west side of the street, which fulfills the intent of the policy, when taken as a whole.
Concerns have been raised by the community regarding the lack of retail businesses in the community to support the vision of Westerra as a complete neighbourhood. The applicant has indicated that despite efforts to market the land, potential commercial tenants have consistently given feedback that they are not prepared to commit to opening new locations in the community until there is constant growth and more population in the area.
Administration acknowledges these concerns and notes that the OCP requires commercial land use in the area, being designated as an Urban Center. However, the remainder of commercial land will be sufficient to meet the objectives of this policy and ensures Westerra is developed to meet the Complete Neighbourhood design principles in the OCP. (Emphasis added)
Despite removing half of the neighbourhood commercial, administration claims the remaining planned commercial in Westerra is good enough, even though much of it it will likely be of the low-rise, separated-out, strip mall type, such as that proposed for the far-west section of the development — requiring driving back and forth between the residential and commercial areas.
Even though more driving will result from this separation of uses, the report still claims that putting housing near transit reduces greenhouse emissions — which is true, but not especially relevant.
While we are on the subject of driving —
144 on-site parking stalls are proposed, whereas 100 are required, limiting off-site impacts
Removing proximate retail makes driving (and parking) more necessary. The developer is generating their own parking demand.
Slouching towards Suburbia
It is always disappointing reading these reports, and observing how land use decisions shake out in Regina. Within administration, Planning Commission and (usually) City Council, there is very little rigour in enforcing the goals of the Official Community Plan or the Sustainability Framework. Nearly anything can be permitted, as the conceptual stretching that goes on in administration allows nearly any zoning changes to adhere, however tenuously, to some part of the Plan.
Administration reports err on the side of advocating for the changes proposed by developers, couched in objective language, instead of pointing out to decision-makers that the proposed changes would actually hinder the city’s stated goals, compared with the status quo.
With such proposals, a public consultation process usually plays out. The results this time show that 48 out of the 63 people engaged opposed this proposal, in part due to lack of commercial space.
Massive (often unhinged) opposition is not uncommon for these types of consultations, but in my experience, it’s rare that the opposition focuses on the lack of mixed-use, higher density features —
The reasons provided by the developer, Forster Harvard, for the lack of retail are debatable. They claim that
retail tenants have consistently given the feedback that they are not prepared to commit to opening new retail locations in the community until there are more rooftops, population, and consistent growth in the neighbourhood. […] If this application does not proceed, there is simply no demand for unanchored main street retail product and this land will sit vacant for the next decade.
It’s hard to believe that Forster Harvard has found every potential small business that might arise, and that all of them claimed not to be interested. We also discount the extent to which a truly walkable main street — with two sides — would act as a regional draw and generate its own demand. I don’t recall seeing many vacant storefronts in Cathedral Village lately. Or on Broadway in Saskatoon, for that matter.
Despite the developer’s threat, this land being vacant for 10 years seems preferable to locking in car-centric land-uses for the next 50 years or longer.
Where we should be headed (if we were serious)
This row house type of construction (though with fewer parking spots) might be exactly the type of infill we would need in some of Regina’s existing suburban neighbourhoods. But for greenfield areas like Westerra, we should be talking about 5-over-1s, which would build more needed housing, generate the density required to support public services and neighbourhood commerce.
With the “tightest market conditions since 2007” in Saskatchewan, particularly at the lower end of the housing market, as well as the ongoing housing crisis in Canada, I think we can afford to be a bit more demanding — and greener — in our greenfield builds.
Overall, we need to adopt the mindset that in exchange for the privilege of building in the City of Regina, developers should keep the promises they made when initially proposing their developments, and leave behind a sustainable, high-quality city.
I would expect that this proposal will sail through Planning Commission and will come before Council next week, where residents may have a chance of delaying or stopping the changes.