In what is, I opine, a very slick piece of political smoke and mirrors, Niagara-on-the-Lake’s interim chief administrative officer, Bruce Zvaniga, submitted a report to council, dated April 29, entitled “Creation of an Urban Design Review Panel.“

This report proposes that the current urban design committee be “sunset” (read, dissolved) and, in the fullness of time, be replaced by an urban design review panel.

As many of my readers may be aware, the town’s urban design committee has been “on pause” since last August. This, despite the fact that, even with the resignations of two members and the completely unexplained and unjustified removal of another expert member “by council direction,” the committee still maintains membership sufficient to reach quorum.

The elephant in the room can be found in the body of this report, wherein it states that the problem “identified by staff is the confusion and frustration expressed by applicants and/or consultants with the direction of the advice given. Council has expressed concern that the mandate of the committee was not consistently followed, and that the applicability of the advice was not within the parameters of urban design.”

A justification that sounds very similar to the developer-led overture in London, Ont., which resulted in the axing of its urban design review panel in October 2023.

Perhaps at this juncture, it might be advantageous to wrap our arms around what urban design actually is and how it is distinctly different from urban planning.

The town of Niagara-on-the-Lake employs only urban planning specialists in its planner positions. Urban planning, as a discipline, is focused on city development within the context of and using instruments such as policies, zones, neighbourhoods, infrastructure, standards and building codes. Urban planners operate primarily within technical and political matrixes.

On the other hand, urban design focuses on the creation of city features including public spaces, integration with infrastructure, modes of transportation (foot, bicycle, public transport and vehicular — in that order), landscapes, community facilities and human-centric streetscapes including the relationships between buildings while weaving together different building forms, uses, tenures and densities. Urban design professionals fundamentally operate within design and “user” experience contexts.

Urban planners function on a macro scale, ensuring developments and all the associated infrastructure conform to government policies and codes.

Urban designers function on a micro scale — designing the built environment on a block or multi-block level.

Their university degrees are different and their professional experience after graduation develops in two unique and separate fields of expertise.

It is a fundamental mistake for a municipality to assume that urban planners and urban designers are interchangeable. A city or town must draw upon the expertise of both professions to successfully realize urban development that serves the needs of its residents.

The Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake does not employ an urban design professional on staff.

Returning to the staff report, there is an intimation that the terms of reference (mandate and requirements) of an urban design review panel are substantively and qualitatively different from the terms of reference currently applied to NOTL’s urban design committee.

However, after conducting a thorough review of the terms of reference for the panels in the cities of Brampton, Ottawa, Toronto (all four panels) and et al., it is my observation that, except for a few narrow areas, the common terms of reference for an urban design review panel are not appreciably different from, nor better than, the terms of reference for NOTL’s urban design committee. 

In other words, in this area, a panel is largely the same as our committee, under a different name.

That said, there are a few items that cities successful in working with input from urban design advisory bodies possess that NOTL does not.

Let’s consider Brampton as an example.

First, this city has a robust, detailed and current official plan (and all its appendages) which serves as a basic framework and reference within which its urban design advisory body couches its observations and recommendations on a broad level.

Secondly, Brampton has complemented its official plan with overarching urban design guidelines, augmented by a series of secondary guidelines focused on the design of developments, service centres, drive-through facilities, transit-supportive development and sustainable community development.

All of these urban design documents serve to provide clear context and defined criteria for their urban design advisory body — and indeed those developers who make application to the city — to ensure that development is compatible with the city’s vision and its residents.

Finally, the city has one other related document that serves to ensure that, while their urban design panel focuses on the larger, more impactful development proposals, the smaller (but nonetheless important) developments do not escape beneath the radar — that is, architectural control guidelines for ground-related residential development.

Furthermore, Brampton has urban design professionals on staff to initially review and vet all development applications, make recommendations to their urban design advisory body and guide that body’s deliberations effectively and efficiently. 

Niagara-on-the-Lake lacks a current, robust official plan, nor does it possess urban design guidelines that address the town at large or employ any in-house urban design expertise (relying instead on reports/recommendations authored by urban planners, whose expertise is not in the field of urban design). And, we certainly don’t have architectural controls!

And, I’m out of racetrack … more on urban design for NOTL next week.

Brian Marshall is a NOTL realtor, author and expert consultant on architectural design, restoration and heritage.