To Thrive Together community in Bloomingdale

[KingandWeber]

Yeah it's hard not to roll your eyes at this one. It's only green in name, but in reality just some suburban homes with green features. Also, I do not like the idea at all that they want the Region to agree to take over their wastewater treatment system if they fail to upkeep it. No thank you.

[danbrotherston]

Yeah it's hard not to roll your eyes at this one. It's only green in name, but in reality just some suburban homes with green features. Also, I do not like the idea at all that they want the Region to agree to take over their wastewater treatment system if they fail to upkeep it. No thank you.

Presumably the region could levy them a special tax to pay for it?

I roll my eyes a little bit, but they do seem to be genuinely interested, just really missinformed or...short on thinking. I don't know.

I think this is part of our broken culture. Too many people like the idea of living "rurally/suburban" but fail to understand the compromises involved. Worse, too many people like the "rural/suburban" idea because cities are overrun with cars---ya know, from the unsustainable suburban development.

[tomh009]

Yeah it's hard not to roll your eyes at this one. It's only green in name, but in reality just some suburban homes with green features. Also, I do not like the idea at all that they want the Region to agree to take over their wastewater treatment system if they fail to upkeep it. No thank you.

Before we moved downtown, we lived in Heidelberg. The subdivision had its own wastewater treatment plant, built in the 1970s, which the region subsequently took over and now maintains. I don't think this part is fundamentally flawed as long as the plant is built (and maintained) to proper standards -- it saves the region the capital cost of building such a plant.

[danbrotherston]

Yeah it's hard not to roll your eyes at this one. It's only green in name, but in reality just some suburban homes with green features. Also, I do not like the idea at all that they want the Region to agree to take over their wastewater treatment system if they fail to upkeep it. No thank you.

Before we moved downtown, we lived in Heidelberg. The subdivision had its own wastewater treatment plant, built in the 1970s, which the region subsequently took over and now maintains. I don't think this part is fundamentally flawed as long as the plant is built (and maintained) to proper standards -- it saves the region the capital cost of building such a plant.

Well, it might save the capital cost, but it's another example of the cities subsidising rural and suburban homeowners.

A small plant to service a single subdivision will not benefit from the efficiency of scale that the city does.

[KingandWeber]

Yeah it's hard not to roll your eyes at this one. It's only green in name, but in reality just some suburban homes with green features. Also, I do not like the idea at all that they want the Region to agree to take over their wastewater treatment system if they fail to upkeep it. No thank you.

Before we moved downtown, we lived in Heidelberg. The subdivision had its own wastewater treatment plant, built in the 1970s, which the region subsequently took over and now maintains. I don't think this part is fundamentally flawed as long as the plant is built (and maintained) to proper standards -- it saves the region the capital cost of building such a plant.

 
True, and I guess it all comes down to how the agreement works with the development. I wouldn't say there's much capital cost saved though because the Region wouldn't be building a new plant to add 30 houses to existing systems if this were an infill development. Makes sense why this is a sticking point for getting the go-ahead I guess.

[Joedelay Highhoe]

Zero carbon, multi-generational community planned for Bloomingdale: https://outline.com/UNEASs

Well, OK, but I wonder where people go to buy their milk. The article is pretty silent about that. It's good to have zero carbon and all but if you can't meet your daily needs without using a car it kind of misses the point.

If they're shooting for zero carbon, milk is definitely not allowed on the property. Vegans only.

[tomh009]

Yeah it's hard not to roll your eyes at this one. It's only green in name, but in reality just some suburban homes with green features.

Transportation/location aside, it does look like they have put significant effort in this, and it's far more than "green in name" only. They are looking to generate all their energy through geothermal and solar, and the land usage is far less than typical suburban house, let alone a township one. And they are far smaller, 815 sqft as opposed to 2000+ sqft that's typical in the townships. They are using sustainable materials, they have community gardens, there are no garages, and parking is outside the community.

Doing this on a larger scale, or next to an existing community, would certainly be better. But I still respect the developers for what they are trying to do. As it is, it's about 1 km from Bloomingdale (OK for me to walk or bike but not for many others), Sawmill Rd isn't particularly bike-friendly -- and Bloomingdale doesn't offer much in terms retail (although there is a regional library branch there).

[danbrotherston]

Yeah it's hard not to roll your eyes at this one. It's only green in name, but in reality just some suburban homes with green features.

Transportation/location aside, it does look like they have put significant effort in this, and it's far more than "green in name" only. They are looking to generate all their energy through geothermal and solar, and the land usage is far less than typical suburban house, let alone a township one. And they are far smaller, 815 sqft as opposed to 2000+ sqft that's typical in the townships. They are using sustainable materials, they have community gardens, there are no garages, and parking is outside the community.

Doing this on a larger scale, or next to an existing community, would certainly be better. But I still respect the developers for what they are trying to do. As it is, it's about 1 km from Bloomingdale (OK for me to walk or bike but not for many others), Sawmill Rd isn't particularly bike-friendly -- and Bloomingdale doesn't offer much in terms retail (although there is a regional library branch there).

I mean, this comes back to my original question, do they really not understand the implications of where they are locating?  Sociologically, I'd really like an answer from them on this. They do seem in earnest...would they care to understand the implications of carbon free rural living?

[tomh009]

Transportation/location aside, it does look like they have put significant effort in this, and it's far more than "green in name" only. They are looking to generate all their energy through geothermal and solar, and the land usage is far less than typical suburban house, let alone a township one. And they are far smaller, 815 sqft as opposed to 2000+ sqft that's typical in the townships. They are using sustainable materials, they have community gardens, there are no garages, and parking is outside the community.

Doing this on a larger scale, or next to an existing community, would certainly be better. But I still respect the developers for what they are trying to do. As it is, it's about 1 km from Bloomingdale (OK for me to walk or bike but not for many others), Sawmill Rd isn't particularly bike-friendly -- and Bloomingdale doesn't offer much in terms retail (although there is a regional library branch there).

I mean, this comes back to my original question, do they really not understand the implications of where they are locating?  Sociologically, I'd really like an answer from them on this. They do seem in earnest...would they care to understand the implications of carbon free rural living?

So, let's agree that one would really need a car to live in this development -- or a car share on site. But if you are not driving more than once or twice a week (you are retired, for example, or working from home) the location is not unreasonable. If you are not looking for city life, you can enjoy the Grand (kayak, canoe), nearby trails (hike, cycle), community gardens and generally quiet life. And much of that activity is low impact on the environment.

Or what implications am I missing?

[danbrotherston]

I mean, this comes back to my original question, do they really not understand the implications of where they are locating?  Sociologically, I'd really like an answer from them on this. They do seem in earnest...would they care to understand the implications of carbon free rural living?

So, let's agree that one would really need a car to live in this development -- or a car share on site. But if you are not driving more than once or twice a week (you are retired, for example, or working from home) the location is not unreasonable. If you are not looking for city life, you can enjoy the Grand (kayak, canoe), nearby trails (hike, cycle), community gardens and generally quiet life. And much of that activity is low impact on the environment.

Or what implications am I missing?

Canoeing the grand, cycling (unless you're willing to cycle on road), hiking, all require a car to do in that location. And driving not more than once or twice a week is a pretty limited number of errands to run. I don't know anyone who stays in their home 6 out of 7 days of the week.

And limiting a development to those who work exclusively from home or are retired does not seem to be something they expect.

I mean, I could be wrong, but I'd take out a pretty large bet that the vast majority of folks here will own a car and drive it nearly daily.

[tomh009]

So, let's agree that one would really need a car to live in this development -- or a car share on site. But if you are not driving more than once or twice a week (you are retired, for example, or working from home) the location is not unreasonable. If you are not looking for city life, you can enjoy the Grand (kayak, canoe), nearby trails (hike, cycle), community gardens and generally quiet life. And much of that activity is low impact on the environment.

Or what implications am I missing?

Canoeing the grand, cycling (unless you're willing to cycle on road), hiking, all require a car to do in that location. And driving not more than once or twice a week is a pretty limited number of errands to run. I don't know anyone who stays in their home 6 out of 7 days of the week.

And limiting a development to those who work exclusively from home or are retired does not seem to be something they expect.

I mean, I could be wrong, but I'd take out a pretty large bet that the vast majority of folks here will own a car and drive it nearly daily.

The development is about 100m from the Grand River so you certainly could canoe or kayak. Don't know whether there are any facilities. There is an unpaved trail starting about 50m upstream of the development that would allow hiking or bicycling; I expect that this would be extended to reach the development.

And while we don't stay inside our (downtown) home six days a week, we drive our car typically only once or twice a week. Some of our neighbours work from home every day, and already did so prior to the pandemic.

I don't know who the buyers will be, but my point is that it is certainly possible to live a low-carbon life at a development such as this. And it's what we would do if we chose to live there.

[danbrotherston]

Canoeing the grand, cycling (unless you're willing to cycle on road), hiking, all require a car to do in that location. And driving not more than once or twice a week is a pretty limited number of errands to run. I don't know anyone who stays in their home 6 out of 7 days of the week.

And limiting a development to those who work exclusively from home or are retired does not seem to be something they expect.

I mean, I could be wrong, but I'd take out a pretty large bet that the vast majority of folks here will own a car and drive it nearly daily.

The development is about 100m from the Grand River so you certainly could canoe or kayak. Don't know whether there are any facilities. There is an unpaved trail starting about 50m upstream of the development that would allow hiking or bicycling; I expect that this would be extended to reach the development.

And while we don't stay inside our (downtown) home six days a week, we drive our car typically only once or twice a week. Some of our neighbours work from home every day, and already did so prior to the pandemic.

I don't know who the buyers will be, but my point is that it is certainly possible to live a low-carbon life at a development such as this. And it's what we would do if we chose to live there.

You only use your car 1-2 times per week, but how often do you go out to a store or other errand? In a downtown home it's obviously easy to avoid driving a car. Even at the height of the pandemic, when we weren't going out much at all, we still usually had something to do 4-5 times per week. Either picking up a package at the post office, or going to the Dr. or getting tested, or any number of other errands.

I really don't think it's possible to live in Bloomfield and avoid driving while also maintaining a similar quality of life.

It may be possible to avoid driving if one doesn't commute for work, and also is willing to shop very infrequently and all at once, and also only enjoys the very small number of amenities (like, your neighbour, and maybe a trail, and church) that are accessible by walking.

Yes, technically possible...just as rural people lived just fine before the car was invented.

But hardly typical of today's lifestyle, and I suspect, not what these folks have in mind. But again, that's why I want to ask them.

[ac3r]

Even if they will have to use cars to get into the city proper, it's still good they're trying to build a zero carbon neighbourhood in the region. Also, because this community is aiming to be zero carbon, you can likely assume the residents who move in will have interest in carbon reduction and slowing climate change, who will then advocate for things like walkability or more transit and so on.

We all rely on cars - not even the most strict, conservative bike-transit-walking hipster can deny that - so at least having a community that is proposing to rely on geothermal etc energy and have less spacious units is a good thing. The world is fucked up and dying, so having anything like this is a benefit. I won't waste my time breaking out CO2 models for X amount of cars versus forcing everyone to ride bikes or whatever, because I really don't care enough, but if they're setting an example and adopting some principles/technologies, that's a benefit to us considering we're making this planet more and more inhabitable by the day.

A group of people are trying to good, maybe...you know...don't try cancelling them for doing that, just because it isn't 100% ideal. Nothing is, after all.

[plam]

A group of people are trying to good, maybe...you know...don't try cancelling them for doing that, just because it isn't 100% ideal. Nothing is, after all.

At some level this is an empirical question: do the benefits of platinum standard construction (echoing LEED) outweigh the necessity of using a car to meet daily needs? My gut instinct is "no", but I'd think that one ought to math it out.

[danbrotherston]

A group of people are trying to good, maybe...you know...don't try cancelling them for doing that, just because it isn't 100% ideal. Nothing is, after all.

At some level this is an empirical question: do the benefits of platinum standard construction (echoing LEED) outweigh the necessity of using a car to meet daily needs? My gut instinct is "no", but I'd think that one ought to math it out.

We don't have to guess. The average GHG emissions in the region come from transportation. Around 50%. Even if they manage to lower their other emissions to zero (local only) the best they can achieve is around 50%. And yes, maybe their transportation emissions will still be lower than their peers, but their peers are in the township which will already be above folks in the city. 

And I don't know who is "cancelling" them, I haven't read that anywhere in this thread.