Parkland Dedication
Mayor and Councillors,
Once again, I am saddened that Markham is still considering a
reduction in Parkland Dedication because there are so many benefits that greenspace provides to all residents. While we have previously discussed this topic, today I am here to remind council that there are huge benefits to preserving Parkland Dedication -- not reducing it.
Urban parks and open spaces provide many important benefits
including improving overall health, increasing social and spiritual well-being, and enhancing environmental quality.
Some benefits that I have found include:
1. Protection of natural environment
2. Residentsʼ identity and pride
3. Community visual appeal and function
4. Development of strong communities
5. Individual growth and development
6. Prevention of social problems
7. Reduction of health problems and costs
8. Integration of disabled, disadvantaged and socially alienate
There are also many economic benefits listed in a publication called, “Economic Benefits of Parks and Open Space: How Land Conservation Helps Communities Grow Smart and Protect the Bottom Line”. It states, “Communities around the country are learning that open space conservation is not an expense but an investment that produces important economic benefits.”
By:
1. Attracting Investment: Parks and open space create a high
quality of life that attracts tax-paying businesses and residents to communities;
2. Preventing Flood Damage: Floodplain protection offers a
cost-effective alternative to expensive flood-control measures;
3. Safeguarding the Environment: Open space conservation
is often the cheapest way to safeguard drinking water, clean the air, and achieve other environmental goals.
The Faculty of Health, Medicine, Nursing and Behavioural Sciences Deakin University Burwood, Melbourne states:
“...research indicates ... humans may be dependent on nature for psychological, emotional, and spiritual needs that are difficult to satisfy by other means. Findings so far demonstrate that access to nature plays a vital role in human health, well-being, and development that has not been fully recognized.”
In terms of health, parks and other natural environments have been viewed almost exclusively as venues for leisure and sport. Yet recent research shows that ʻgreen natureʼ, such as parks and viewing nature, can reduce crime, foster psychological well-being, reduce stress, boost immunity, enhance productivity, promote healing, and improving psychological state, particularly of people in confined circumstances such as hospitals.
Studies clearly demonstrate that being in a natural environment affects people positively, particularly in terms of Cardiovascular and Mental Health.. In fact, the positive effects on human health, particularly in urban environments, cannot be over-stated. As a result, urban planning should ensure that the communities have adequate access to nature.
Nature is important to people.
Exposure to Nature and Greenery Makes People Healthier.
A growing body of research shows that mere contact with the natural world improves physical and psychological health. One important study reviewed the recovery of surgical patients in a Pennsylvania hospital. The rooms of some patients offered views of trees, while others faced a brown brick wall. A review of ten years of medical records showed that patients with tree views had shorter hospitalizations, less need for pain killers, and fewer negative comments in the nursesʼ notes, compared with patients with brickwall views.
“...research on recreational activities has shown that savanna-like settings are associated with self-reported feelings of ʻpeacefulness,ʼ ʻtranquility,ʼ or ʻrelaxationʼ...“Viewing such settings leads to decreased fear and anger ... [and] is associated with enhanced mentalalertness, attention, and cognitive performance...”
CBC News published a study, Parks help narrow health gap between rich and poor dated November 7, 2008
An excerpt states, “The difference in the rate of deaths between the richest and poorest was roughly halved for those living with the most greenery around them, compared with those with the fewest green spaces, the researchers found.
Reseachers went on to say, "The size of the difference in the health gap is surprising and represented a much bigger effect than I had been expecting..."
ʻSo the key message is green spaces are another tool for
governments to combat this health gap between rich and poor.ʼ
Green spaces may encourage people to be more physically active, and previous studies have suggested that parks and open space help people reduce blood pressure and stress levels, and perhaps even heal more quickly after surgery.
In a commentary accompanying the study, Terry Hartig of the Institute for Housing and Urban Research at Uppsala University in Sweden agreed: "This study offers valuable evidence that green space does more than pretty up the neighbourhood. It appears to have real effectson health inequality, of a kind that politicians and health authorities
should take seriously."
A very interesting fact is that “Park and recreational service use continues throughout the life cycle. Recreational participation declines with age, but park use does not. In fact, people between the ages of 65 and 74 use local parks more frequently than any other age group from those 15 and older.”
For small children, playing is learning. Play has proven to be a critical element in a childʼs future success. Play helps kids develop muscle strength and coordination, language, cognitive thinking, and reasoning abilities.
For children with Attention deficit disorder (ADD), this condition negatively impacts academic performance, peer relationships, and family harmony. Plus, these children are at greater risk than their peers for low self-esteem, anxiety, and depression. Current treatments of medication and behavioral therapy have serious side effects -- but parks provide treatment therapy without negative consequences. Benefits to ADD children include better concentration on schoolwork and similar tasks, and a reduction in symptoms.
Research suggests that humans prefer nature in their landscapes because it is a key ingredient of human habitat, it is essential to our psychological and social health, social behaviour, cognitive functioning, and work performance.
In fact, residents of neighbourhoods with greenery in common spaces are more likely to enjoy stronger social ties than those who live surrounded by barren concrete.
And, what about our air quality?
Yesterday, Councillor Burke mentioned the growing problem with our deteriorating air quality and global warming.
Parks and greenways can mitigate air pollution and increased
temperatures. Mature tree canopies can reduce air temperature five toten degrees and trees filter pollutants out of the air.
According to American Forests, trees in Atlanta remove 19 million pounds of pollutants annually, a service worth $47 million.
In presenting this information to you today, it is my hope that this council will realize that a reduction in parkland dedication would be a very negative and short-sighted move. Residents are counting on all of you to look after our environment, so that we can all enjoy a long and healthy life.
Once council gives up our greenspace, it is gone forever.
Before voting on this important health and quality of life
issue, ask yourself if you want your legacy to be that you did your part to help increase the health of Markham residents. If you do, then show your community by voting against decreasing Parkland Dedication.
Again, I respectfully ask each and every one of you, to vote to
preserve greenspace and to vote against a reduction in Parkland Dedication.
Thank you, Donna Bush -- Markham Village City RA
Showing posts with label Parkland Dedication. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Parkland Dedication. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Parkland Dedication Deputation by Karen Rea to DSC June 11, 2013
Parkland Dedication
Here we are back again, fighting the same issue.
The staff report says, approach should be simplified, should be fewer categories for reductions, and incentives for higher development. The incentive for higher development, is that they sell more units and charge a floor premium. We don’t need to give up parkland that we should be entitled to!
Per your report, most of the development in Markham is below 3.0 FSI, So why are we even having this conversation, there is no need to discuss a reduction, as it would never be used. Or is it that once it is adopted, the flood gates will open and we will see much more higher density and less and less park land.
Reading through both reports and on page 23 on the recommendation report states: BILD indicates that the majority of Markham higher density development sits within 3.5 to 5.0 FSI range (something a little different than what the Towns report states.. who are we supposed to believe??) and that the proposed graduated scale provides real relief only at density rates higher than this. They would like to see the lowering of the threshold in order to allow more developments to take advantage of the reduction incentive.
The incentive that was originally to start at 2.5 FSI has been raised to 3.0 FSI, which you may say great- we have a compromise, However the incentive rises to 30% from 25 %...
Whose interest are we looking after the developers or the residents?
Development charges are outrageous in York Region, and we seem to keep asking the developers to contribute here and donate here, maybe we need to stop asking for extra money for anything and everything. Maybe then they will stop asking us to give them a break with the parkland. The extra monies that they spend have to come from somewhere.. nothing is free! However, parkland should not be an option and should not be up for discussion. This is vital to the well-being of every resident, it’s important for our real estate values and the quality of all our lives.
There have been many studies comparing the health of people related to the green space that surrounds them.
Many of us know intuitively that green space, parks, forests and trees make us feel better. They refresh and recharge our batteries, bringing peace and tranquility. It improves our well-being by reducing stress and fatigue and improving mental health and longevity. The closer the green space is to our homes, the more benefit we derive from it. In fact, there’s a growing body of research on green spaces and their positive impacts on the health and wellness of children and communities.
The percentage of green space inside a one kilometre and a three kilometre radius had a significant relation to perceived general health. The overall relation is somewhat stronger for lower socioeconomic groups. Elderly, youth, and secondary educated people in large cities seem to benefit more from presence of green areas in their living environment than other groups in large cities. Yet we would like to discard these people from having adequate green space.
Exemptions for retirement homes and affordable housing and non-profit is not acceptable. Everyone needs green space and everyone has the right to have some fresh air, a place to relax, read a book, walk a dog or just spend some quality “me time” in an open air park, square, or a park bench, regardless of age.
The developers are going to build, regardless of whether you change the parkland dedication. As in a real estate transaction, you ask for everything when you send over an offer and in the end you may get nothing and you pay the full asking price.
The builders are not going to lose money if they do not get an “incentive” They all charge floor premiums of an average of $1000.00 per floor, which more than covers what they have to pay for the parkland. A unit on the 20th floor is essentially $18000 more than the identical unit on the 2nd floor. Buyers don’t get a discount or a break to purchase on a higher floor. They pay more… yet the developers want to pay less?? Where is the fairness in this equation?
Parkland is a high quality public realm that has a tremendous value for all.
As citizens, residents, taxpayers of Markham, we urge city staff and the City Council to not lower the required amount of parkland dedication required by builders. We should be actively conserving, protecting, restoring, enhancing, and expanding natural areas and green space for public enjoyment, community health, and ecosystem resiliency.”
Here we are back again, fighting the same issue.
The staff report says, approach should be simplified, should be fewer categories for reductions, and incentives for higher development. The incentive for higher development, is that they sell more units and charge a floor premium. We don’t need to give up parkland that we should be entitled to!
Per your report, most of the development in Markham is below 3.0 FSI, So why are we even having this conversation, there is no need to discuss a reduction, as it would never be used. Or is it that once it is adopted, the flood gates will open and we will see much more higher density and less and less park land.
Reading through both reports and on page 23 on the recommendation report states: BILD indicates that the majority of Markham higher density development sits within 3.5 to 5.0 FSI range (something a little different than what the Towns report states.. who are we supposed to believe??) and that the proposed graduated scale provides real relief only at density rates higher than this. They would like to see the lowering of the threshold in order to allow more developments to take advantage of the reduction incentive.
The incentive that was originally to start at 2.5 FSI has been raised to 3.0 FSI, which you may say great- we have a compromise, However the incentive rises to 30% from 25 %...
Whose interest are we looking after the developers or the residents?
Development charges are outrageous in York Region, and we seem to keep asking the developers to contribute here and donate here, maybe we need to stop asking for extra money for anything and everything. Maybe then they will stop asking us to give them a break with the parkland. The extra monies that they spend have to come from somewhere.. nothing is free! However, parkland should not be an option and should not be up for discussion. This is vital to the well-being of every resident, it’s important for our real estate values and the quality of all our lives.
There have been many studies comparing the health of people related to the green space that surrounds them.
Many of us know intuitively that green space, parks, forests and trees make us feel better. They refresh and recharge our batteries, bringing peace and tranquility. It improves our well-being by reducing stress and fatigue and improving mental health and longevity. The closer the green space is to our homes, the more benefit we derive from it. In fact, there’s a growing body of research on green spaces and their positive impacts on the health and wellness of children and communities.
The percentage of green space inside a one kilometre and a three kilometre radius had a significant relation to perceived general health. The overall relation is somewhat stronger for lower socioeconomic groups. Elderly, youth, and secondary educated people in large cities seem to benefit more from presence of green areas in their living environment than other groups in large cities. Yet we would like to discard these people from having adequate green space.
Exemptions for retirement homes and affordable housing and non-profit is not acceptable. Everyone needs green space and everyone has the right to have some fresh air, a place to relax, read a book, walk a dog or just spend some quality “me time” in an open air park, square, or a park bench, regardless of age.
The developers are going to build, regardless of whether you change the parkland dedication. As in a real estate transaction, you ask for everything when you send over an offer and in the end you may get nothing and you pay the full asking price.
The builders are not going to lose money if they do not get an “incentive” They all charge floor premiums of an average of $1000.00 per floor, which more than covers what they have to pay for the parkland. A unit on the 20th floor is essentially $18000 more than the identical unit on the 2nd floor. Buyers don’t get a discount or a break to purchase on a higher floor. They pay more… yet the developers want to pay less?? Where is the fairness in this equation?
Parkland is a high quality public realm that has a tremendous value for all.
As citizens, residents, taxpayers of Markham, we urge city staff and the City Council to not lower the required amount of parkland dedication required by builders. We should be actively conserving, protecting, restoring, enhancing, and expanding natural areas and green space for public enjoyment, community health, and ecosystem resiliency.”
Thursday, April 11, 2013
Parkland Dedication Deputation April 9, 2013 by Eileen Liasi
Parkland Dedication Deputation April 9, 2013 by Eileen Liasi
Dear Council Member,
I don't believe in creating different, reduced or graduated parkland
dedication standards for high density areas, not for centres or for corridors,
nor do I believe in cash in lieu for this commodity. How can you put a price on
fresh air, sunshine and green space?
People are people no matter where they live. The people who live in high
density areas deserve just as much fresh air, sunshine and grass beneath their
feet as do people who live in low density areas. In fact they may very well
require more as they likely have very limited balcony space, ground space which
is urban concrete and for those living on the north side of buildings and in
the shadow of other buildings they likely receive little if any sunshine. To
deprive this population of the quality of life their fair share of these
factors provide is inhuman.
I don't believe the City will not be able to achieve urban structure
without these reductions. We have enough incentives in place already to achieve
urban structure. This is obviously the development industry pushing for these
reductions so they are able to reduce their costs and increase their profits.
The developers will not be living in these units so what do they care. They
have their mansions set in beautiful parkland settings where you can't see the
house for the trees and where they have ample access to fresh air and sunshine.
Yet they want to deprive ordinary folk of their quality of life.
People should not have to use their cars or take transit to get to green
space. Parks should be within a reasonable walking distance for everyone. To
purchase more suburban land with urban cash-in-lieu only makes the distribution
of parkland more unequal, less available for use by urban dwellers and provides
parkland for suburbanites which has been paid for by urban dwellers. How fair
is that?
Great cities of the world have great parks. Let's put parks for people
instead of casinos for gamblers and arenas for millionaires and billionaires in
our public spaces.
Eileen Liasi
Parkland Dedication Deputation April 9, 2013 by Karen Rea
Parkland Dedication Deputation April 9, 2013 by Karen Rea
There have been many studies comparing the health of people related to the green space that surrounds them. Many of us know intuitively that green space, parks, forests and trees make us feel better. They refresh and recharge our batteries, bringing peace and tranquility. It improves our wellbeing by reducing stress and fatigue and improving mental health and longevity.
The closer the green space is to our homes, the more benefit we derive from it. In fact, there’s a growing body of research on green spaces and their positive impacts on the health and wellness of children and communities. A classic study demonstrated that patients with views of trees vs. views of a brick wall had shorter hospitalizations, less need for painkillers, and fewer negative comments in the nurses' notes.
The percentage of green space inside a one kilometre and a three kilometre radius had a significant relation to perceived general health. The relation was generally present at all degrees of urbanity. The overall relation is somewhat stronger for lower socioeconomic groups. Elderly, youth, and secondary educated people in large cities seem to benefit more from presence of green areas in their living environment than other groups in large cities.
This is not hard, and the complicated math that is shown in the reports is not necessary.
The higher the building the more people, the more people the more parkland and green space is needed, not less. All builders charge a floor premium- the same unit on a higher floor is more money. Floor premiums range from $500 to $2000 per floor.
For example Greenpark, on Markham Rd is charging $1000 per floor after the 2nd floor.
So a unit on the 20th floor is essentially $18000 more than the same unit on the
2nd floor. Builders are charging more and making more- it doesn’t cost them anymore
money to build the same unit on a higher floor, yet they are asking us to give
them a discount.
It is interesting, that we are asking the developers for money to build an Arena,
and now the developers want a break on the development charges, I guess they
want to cut the costs somehow, even though all charges are passed on to the new
homeowner. Exemptions for retirement homes and affordable housing and non-profit is not
acceptable. Everyone needs green space and everyone has the right to have some
fresh air, and a place to relax, regardless of age.
Parkland is a high quality public realm that has a tremendous value for all
As citizens, residents, taxpayers of Markham, we urge city staff and the City
Council to not lower the required amount of parkland dedication required by
builders. We should be actively conserving, protecting, restoring, enhancing, and
expanding natural areas and green space for public enjoyment, community
health, and ecosystem resiliency.”
Karen Rea
There have been many studies comparing the health of people related to the green space that surrounds them. Many of us know intuitively that green space, parks, forests and trees make us feel better. They refresh and recharge our batteries, bringing peace and tranquility. It improves our wellbeing by reducing stress and fatigue and improving mental health and longevity.
The closer the green space is to our homes, the more benefit we derive from it. In fact, there’s a growing body of research on green spaces and their positive impacts on the health and wellness of children and communities. A classic study demonstrated that patients with views of trees vs. views of a brick wall had shorter hospitalizations, less need for painkillers, and fewer negative comments in the nurses' notes.
The percentage of green space inside a one kilometre and a three kilometre radius had a significant relation to perceived general health. The relation was generally present at all degrees of urbanity. The overall relation is somewhat stronger for lower socioeconomic groups. Elderly, youth, and secondary educated people in large cities seem to benefit more from presence of green areas in their living environment than other groups in large cities.
This is not hard, and the complicated math that is shown in the reports is not necessary.
The higher the building the more people, the more people the more parkland and green space is needed, not less. All builders charge a floor premium- the same unit on a higher floor is more money. Floor premiums range from $500 to $2000 per floor.
For example Greenpark, on Markham Rd is charging $1000 per floor after the 2nd floor.
So a unit on the 20th floor is essentially $18000 more than the same unit on the
2nd floor. Builders are charging more and making more- it doesn’t cost them anymore
money to build the same unit on a higher floor, yet they are asking us to give
them a discount.
It is interesting, that we are asking the developers for money to build an Arena,
and now the developers want a break on the development charges, I guess they
want to cut the costs somehow, even though all charges are passed on to the new
homeowner. Exemptions for retirement homes and affordable housing and non-profit is not
acceptable. Everyone needs green space and everyone has the right to have some
fresh air, and a place to relax, regardless of age.
Parkland is a high quality public realm that has a tremendous value for all
As citizens, residents, taxpayers of Markham, we urge city staff and the City
Council to not lower the required amount of parkland dedication required by
builders. We should be actively conserving, protecting, restoring, enhancing, and
expanding natural areas and green space for public enjoyment, community
health, and ecosystem resiliency.”
Karen Rea
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Parkland Dedication Deputation April 9, 2013 by Donna Bush
Parkland Dedication Deputation April 9, 2013 by Donna Bush
I am saddened that Markham is even considering a reduction in parkland dedication because there are so many benefits that greenspace provides to local residents. In case not everyone on council has had the opportunity to research this topic, I would like to share some of my findings with you. You may be as surprised as I, to learn that there are huge benefits to parkland.
Urban parks and open spaces provide many important benefits including improving overall health, increasing social and spiritual wellbeing, and enhancing environmental quality.
Some benefits that I have found include:
1. Protection of natural environment
2. Residents’ identity and pride
3. Community visual appeal and function
4. Development of strong communities
5. Individual growth and development
6. Prevention of social problems
7. Reduction health problems and costs
8. Integration of disabled, disadvantaged and socially alienated
There are also many economic benefits listed in a publication called, “Economic Benefits of Parks and Open Space: How Land Conservation Helps Communities Grow Smart and Protect the Bottom Line”. It states, “Communities around the country are learning that open space conservation is not an expense but an investment that produces important economic benefits.”
- Attracting Investment: Parks and open space create a high quality of life that attracts tax-paying businesses and residents to communities;
- Preventing Flood Damage: Floodplain protection offers a cost-effective alternative to expensive flood-control measures;
- Safeguarding the Environment: Open space conservation is often the cheapest way to safeguard drinking water, clean the air, and achieve other environmental goals.
The Faculty of Health, Medicine, Nursing and Behavioural Sciences Deakin University Burwood, Melbourne states:
“...research indicates that ... humans may be dependent on nature for psychological, emotional, and spiritual needs that are difficult to satisfy by other means. Findings so far demonstrate that access to nature plays a vital role in human health, wellbeing, and development that has not been fully recognized.”
In terms of health, parks and other natural environments have been viewed almost exclusively as venues for leisure and sport. Yet recent research shows that ‘green nature’, such as parks, can reduce crime, foster psychological wellbeing, reduce stress, boost immunity, enhance productivity, and promote healing. In fact, the positive effects on human health, particularly in urban environments, cannot be over-stated. As a result, urban planning should ensure that the communities have adequate access to nature.
Evidence shows that among other benefits viewing nature is positive for health in terms of recovering from stress, improving concentration and productivity, and improving psychological state, particularly of people in confined circumstances such as prisons and hospitals. Studies clearly demonstrate that being in a natural environment affects people positively, particularly in terms of mental health.
Nature is important to people.
Most relevant to parks and nature are Cardiovascular Health and Mental Health.
Exposure to Nature and Greenery Makes People Healthier
A growing body of research shows that mere contact with the natural world improves physical and psychological health.
One important study reviewed the recovery of surgical patients in a Pennsylvania hospital. The rooms of some patients offered views of a stand of trees, while others faced a brown brick wall. A review of ten years of medical records showed that patients with tree views had shorter hospitalizations, less need for pain killers, and fewer negative comments in the nurses’ notes, compared with patients with brick-wall views.
“...research on recreational activities has shown that savanna-like settings are associated with self-reported feelings of ‘peacefulness,’ ‘tranquility,’ or ‘relaxation,’” Frumkin writes. “Viewing such settings leads to decreased fear and anger ... [and] is associated with enhanced mental alertness, attention, and cognitive performance...”
At this point we do not know when or where reduced parkland dedication may rear its ugly head, but we do know that it will have negative consequences on the young, the elderly, the infirmed, and for everyone in between. And, by proposing to swap parkland from those living in concrete in the sky to lower cost land away from thesParkland Dedication Deputation April 9 2013.pagese greenspace deprived taxpayers is cruel and unhealthy.
A very interesting fact is that “Park and recreational service use continues throughout the life cycle. Recreational participation declines with age, but park use does not. In fact, people between the ages of 65 and 74 use local parks more frequently than any other age group from those 15 and older.”
Parks Support Play and Brain Development: For small children, playing is learning. Play has proven to be a critical element in a child’s future success. Play helps kids develop muscle strength and coordination, language, cognitive thinking, and reasoning abilities.
Parks Provide Therapy for Attention Deficit Disorder: Attention deficit disorder (ADD), is a condition that negatively impacts academic performance, peer relationships, and family harmony. In addition, children with ADD are at greater risk than their peers for low self-esteem, anxiety, and depression. Current treatments of medication and behavioral therapy have serious side effects or limited efficacy.
Researchers have recently discovered that children with ADD can concentrate on schoolwork and similar tasks better than usual after taking part in activities in green settings, such as walking through or playing in a park. And the greener a child’s play area, the less severe the symptoms.
Research suggests that humans prefer nature in their landscapes because it is a key ingredient of human habitat, it is essential to our psychological and social health, and has an apparent beneficial effect on blood pressure, heart rate, mood, day-to-day effectiveness, social behaviour, cognitive functioning, and work performance.
Parks Promote the Social Health of Communities: Research shows that residents of neighbourhoods with greenery in common spaces are more likely to enjoy stronger social ties than those who live surrounded by barren concrete.
Parks and greenways can mitigate air pollution and increased temperatures. Mature tree canopies can reduce air temperature five to ten degrees and trees filter pollutants out of the air. According to American Forests, trees in Atlanta remove 19 million pounds of pollutants annually, a service worth $47 million.
In presenting this information to you today, it is my hope that this council will realize that a reduction in parkland dedication would be a very negative and short-sighted move that may pacify Markham developers, but it is definitely not in the best interests of any future Markham community.
And, the only reason that I see for a reduction request is avarice -- in other words developers’ greed. As distasteful as this sounds, I cannot find another benefit to a reduction in parkland dedication.
I respectfully ask each and every councillor, to vote with current and future Markham residents -- the young, the seniors, the infirmed, and all those who want to extend their good health and say NO to a reduction in parkland dedication.
Thank you,
Donna Bush
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)