I don't know if the Windsor Star will be printing my letter in response to Chris Vander Doelen's article from last week, so I thought I'd post it here.

Mr. Vander Doelen:

I have read your column from Thursday's Star objecting to the planning department's proposal to restrict new commercial building in Windsor. Requiring developers to re-use existing vacant space, or at least to show that new commercial space will not harm existing businesses in the BIAs, will, you argue, stifle new growth and investment. Like it or not, you write, the vast majority of the city's economic activity takes place at the edge of Windsor, "where the people are", not the core. Politicians should leave it to investors to decide how to spend their money, rather than scaring them off.

Leave aside the question of whether it is actually anti-business to safeguard existing businesses, even to the extent of imposing requirements on new investment. What your column really neglects is the fact that "the people are" at the edge of town for reasons that are no less artificial. For decades, cities generally (and Windsor is no exception) have been in the business of telling people what they can build and where. Just have a look at Windsor's zoning by-law: any area must be either a residential, institutional, commercial or manufacturing district. Most often, a 'residential area' means either a single-family dwelling, or an existing semi-detached or duplex structure. The only kind of new construction permitted is low-density single-family dwellings limited, with all accessory buildings, to 45% of the lot area at most. Even in higher-density areas there is no concept of mixed use -- that it might suit people to live, work and/or shop within walking distance. Small wonder if this has led to the inexorable creep of suburban sprawl, ever-increasing car dependency, and a ghastly vacancy rate downtown.

There is nothing natural or inevitable, or even particularly free, about the edge-city development model that you seem resigned to. It is largely an imposition, no less artificial than what the planning department proposes. Hollowed-out cities like Windsor are the result of decades of mandating the separation of where people live (in detached, single-family units) from where they work and shop (largely, strip malls and big-box developments that only masochists ever try to reach without a car). Toronto might be an expensive place to live, but that's largely because it still has so much mixed-use area in the core. It shows that people will vote with their dollars and pay to live in desirable places in the inner city -- but not if you let the inner city dry up and blow away. Windsor could do a lot worse than try to return to something like that model, instead of throwing up our hands and submitting to more bad consequences of past bad decisions. I support the planning department's proposal.

Lorne Beaton

I've been reading a lot about these issues lately, including listening to James Howard Kunstler's weekly pontification, I mean, podcast. I'm close to finishing The Geography of Nowhere and moving on to Jane Jacobs. The thoughts in my letter were set off by this posting on Andrew Sullivan's indispensable Daily Dish blog.