|
Article Excerpt
Introduction
As in many U.S. and European cities, the legacy of a negligent past has left scars on Canada's urban landscapes in the form of numerous underused industrial and commercial brownfield sites. An article in Canada's popular Maclean's magazine once described these sites as 'the most visible sign of urban rot' in the country (Bergman and DeMont 2002, 21). While many of these sites are located in prime areas for urban revitalization, private sector stakeholders have often been reluctant to invest in them for fear that they may be contaminated, and thus too expensive, time-involving and risky to redevelop profitably. To overcome such negative perceptions, governments at all levels in the U.S. and Europe have implemented various policies and programs since the mid-1990s, imparting a general sense to the private sector that 'something is being done' (Bartsch et al. 2001; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2002; United States Conference of Mayors 2003). In Canada, however, there continues to be apprehension among stakeholders that such efforts are deficient, fragmented, and piecemeal at best (National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy 1998, 2003; De Sousa 2001).
Recently, brownfields have started receiving more attention in Canada. But the issues and relevant policies under consideration are typically federal or provincial in scope, as opposed to municipal where the bulk of redevelopment takes place. Ultimately, it is local government that is responsible for attracting, guiding, and managing most of the brownfields redevelopment activities throughout the country. Given the salient gaps in Canadian brownfields policy making and relevant research, the purpose of this paper is to start filling these gaps by an examination of brownfields problems in Canadian cities and the role that local governments should play in remedying these problems. Specifically, this paper seeks to answer four questions. First, what is the extent of the brownfields problem in Canadian cities? (1) Second, what barriers continue to inhibit the redevelopment of brownfields? Third, what role has local government played in managing and facilitating redevelopment activity in regulatory, financial, technical, and other relevant terms? Finally, what redevelopment outcomes and impacts are evident?
Answers to these questions are derived from survey data and on-site visits. These answers also contain implications for future research and planning, since they provide an initial empirical basis for assessing the scale of the brownfields problem in Canada, confronting the challenges it poses, and suggesting the most appropriate role for local governments to play in remedying the situation.
Brownfields Redevelopment
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1997) provides the most commonly accepted definition for the term brownfields as: 'abandoned, idled, or under-used industrial and commercial facilities where expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination'. The term includes both known contaminated sites and those suspected of being contaminated because of previous land-use activities (waste disposal, manufacturing, fuel service stations, etc.). In the general scientific literature, brownfield is often used in alternation with contaminated lands, potentially contaminated sites, and derelict lands. However, brownfields is typically favored by those dealing with the issue in urban areas because it does not evoke the negative connotations associated with terms such as contaminated and it constitutes a semantic counterpart to greenfield, the term often used to refer to an agricultural or open space property in the urban periphery.
The brownfields problem is widespread among industrialized cities around the world, driven by the steady migration of industries out of central cities since the mid-1970s that have left behind vast tracts of vacant industrial lands. In the U.S., for instance, a study of 200 cities reported that there are as many as 24,000 extant urban brownfield sites, ranging in size from a quarter of an acre to 1,000 plus acres (or 0.1 to over 400 hectares) (U.S. Conference of Mayors 2003). In a study of 31 cities in the U.S., these sites occupy on average 6 percent of a city's land area (Simons 1998). Unfortunately, similar data for Canadian cities are sporadic. According to some estimates, as much as 25 percent of the Canadian urban landscape is potentially contaminated because of previous industrial activities (Benazon 1995, 18). Estimates of the number of potentially contaminated sites nationally range extensively from between 2,900 (NRTEE 1996a) to 30,000 (Sisson 1989).
Urban geographers have devoted significant attention to the documentation and analysis of the industrial migration trend that has given rise to brownfields. Early theories attributed the exodus of manufacturing out of the city core to two major reasons, namely the tendency of manufacturing enterprises to follow the exodus of higher income groups (Park et al. 1925) and seek cheaper land and better infrastructure in the periphery (Alonso 1960). More recently, studies have connected the urban exodus of manufacturing to the globalization of production and the need for businesses to locate themselves where skilled workers have moved, and to be in a propitious situation to access transportation facilities such as airports (Storper and Scott 1992). For whatever reasons, the steady exodus of manufacturing from city cores has left behind brownfields, depressed industrial real estate markets, and a sense of overall 'blight' (Smith 1996; Greenberg and Lewis 2000). However, as some sociogeographic frameworks suggest, this pattern is only part of a cycle, whereby after a mass exodus, abandoned urban neighbourhoods start to experience a sense of renewal and rebirth, leading to their rehabilitation (Bourne 1981, 1991; for a more comprehensive review of these frameworks see McCarthy 2002).
Socio-economic revitalization of urban areas and the management of environmental risk are the primary reasons for the rising interest in brownfields redevelopment, often contextualized under the rubrics of Sustainable Development and Smart Growth (European Commission 1996; NRTEE 1998; Bjelland 2004). The main environmental benefits to brownfields redevelopment are the mitigation of the health and environmental risks posed by contaminated soil and groundwater, the restoration of nature, and the reuse of urban land to minimize development pressure on greenfield land. The various socio-economic benefits to brownfields redevelopment relate to revitalized neighbourhoods, job creation, local tax base enhancement, and the promotion of economic renewal. Given such benefits, it is little wonder that governments have started in earnest to develop policies and programs that encourage more brownfields projects, that in turn have received increased attention from geographers and other urban researchers regarding their application and effectiveness (Wernstedt and Hersh 1998; Simons and Jaouhari 2001; McCarthy 2002; U.S. Conference of Mayors 2003).
Regulation of Brownfields in Canada
The federal role in brownfields redevelopment has consisted largely of information gathering (on environmental risk management by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, on stakeholder perspectives and policy by the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, and on housing opportunities by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation), the management of federal property, and some financial assistance through the Green Municipal Fund program administered by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Most regulations of brownfields in Canada are the responsibility of the provincial and municipal levels of government that typically hold the private sector financially responsible for cleanup and redevelopment and see their own role primarily as a regulatory and advisory one (De Sousa 2001). While provincial governments can order the assessment and remediation of a contaminated site, such tasks typically unfold as voluntary on the part of a landowner or developer and are regulated by provincial statutes or guidelines. In general, those interested in redeveloping a site are required to assess soil and groundwater quality, remediate it in accordance with government criteria prior to redevelopment, make provisions for future liability, and finance the project.
The methods for assessing and remediating contaminated sites have become relatively standard throughout North America and Europe. The first step involves the determination of the history of a site and, if necessary, testing its soil and groundwater to check if contamination exceeds the safe levels set by government. If so, it must be cleaned up to meet generic contaminant concentration levels that are appropriate for different land uses (e.g., residential/parkland, commercial or industrial) or to offset exposure risks according to each specific development situation (e.g., more contamination can remain in soil under a concrete parking lot than is allowed under a home). Once cleanup is completed, some provinces review the cleanup and send a letter to the developer to confirm that it complies with existing regulations. Other provinces do not conduct a review themselves, but require a record from an 'environmental professional' that the necessary cleanup has been undertaken. With regard to financing brownfield projects, most provinces do not offer financial incentives, except for Quebec, which funds up to 70 percent of site assessment and cleanup costs through its Revi Sols program introduced in 2000. The Ontario provincial government also recently passed a measure to abate...
|
