No. I commit to intensifying the urban core. I am not able to commit to no more extensions of the urban boundary because projected population growth is very high. I do commit to preferentially choosing intensification over sprawl.
Yes. Our office opposed the expansion of the urban boundary, which is both environmentally detrimental and cost inefficient. The development charges imposed on new developments cover up-front costs, but not operational expenses for infrastructure, which continue to accrue for well over 50 years. Holding the line on the urban boundary would have resulted in 1137ktCO2 of emissions reductions compared to the balanced scenario. To put that amount in context, that’s the same carbon reduction that would come from a deep energy retrofit of every municipal building or fully electrifying the transit fleet, to the tune of over $800 million. While this decision has been made, we can now focus on spreading density equally within the City, and ensuring that residents have supporting services and infrastructure.
No. Population growth over the next 25 years would prohibit such an undertaking.