On Monday, October 23, 2023, a major overhaul to the previously adopted 2018 Williams Neighbourhood Community Plan goes to public hearing. The following is my letter of support, as well as concern, for the updated Williams NCP. You can read my previous criticism of the Williams NCP here.

---

My name is Brad Richert, and like almost the entire population of future residents of Williams, I do not live in the Williams NCP. I am a resident of the nearby Central Gordon Estate neighbourhood of Willoughby. Unlike the developers and speculators that now own the majority of redevelopment lands of Williams, myself and my family and thousands of others will live, work, and play in the community with the repercussions of these plans. When the Williams plan was adopted on October 1, 2018, just weeks before that 2018 civic election, I was shocked that such an archaic, car-oriented plan could be passed in the so-called “urban” environment of Willoughby. The plan was an utter failure by any modern measure.

The Failure of the 2018 Williams NCP

The previous Williams NCP planned for highly segregated uses with very limited mixed use, which would force more cars on the road, not less. The commercial section of the plan was almost entirely single story buildings with massive amounts of surface parking, again, encouraging people to drive and park, further congesting Willoughby’s stroads. The commercial uses that were being promoted almost entirely cannibalized Willoughby Town Centre businesses, without offering any amount of innovation – it was as if it was literally designed for people to get on and off the highway here. Although H-street designs are mentioned, as they have been in previous Willoughby neighbourhoods, the previous plan actually offered basically no porous network of local streets to encourage pedestrian, cycling, or transit activity. Every one of the then-projected 4,600 residents would be pushed to Willoughby’s ever widening stroads to shop, work, or go to school.

Therefore, I am thankful that this council has fast tracked a progressive and timely update to what was essentially the epitome of a poorly thought out suburban sprawl plan. Much of the problems with the original plan have been addressed. I understand many may now look at the NCP update’s projected population increase from 4,600 to 11,000 residents with a bit of shock and concern. But based on over a decade of experience studying urban design principles and travelling throughout North America, let me address some of the more common concerns.

Lower density does NOT equal less traffic.

When we build a neighbourhood that requires the car to move around, you put more cars on the road. The typical single family home in Langley, with a suite, has anywhere between 4 and 7 cars per household: and they are all being used, daily. When you build a neighbourhood where you can walk or cycle to work, go to school, top up on baked goods and fruits, or grab a coffee, you inevitable decrease the number of cars on the road. Doubling the number of residents in the same condensed area does not double the number of cars on the road. One apartment unit with 2 or 3 residents generally has one parking space and one car. That’s simply the reality that most urban residents live with, which I know is shocking for the many use to having multiple cars per household. The majority of 216th Street and 80th Avenue traffic will not come from Williams residents at build out – it will continue to come from those in more car-oriented neighbourhoods throughout Willoughby and Langley using the interchange.

Lower density is NOT better for the environment or the Agricultural Land Reserve

So-called “transition zones” are just another argument for suburban sprawl. There is no scientific evidence that building low density homes sprawl homes next to farmland or greenfield is better than a midrise apartment. Throughout the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, the UK, and many other European countries, it is common to see densified midrise apartments almost directly abutting protected greenspace and farmland. An acre with 1 apartment at 2.5 FSR, when built properly, has more porous greenspace and homes for 200 residents than 10 lower density 0.5 FSR suburban homes for 50 residents.

The 2018 Williams Plan was never People-Oriented

The existing plan was not conducted with the public engagement in mind. It was not people-oriented: it was car-oriented. It was directed entirely by a small select group of local developers and speculators who either held the lands directly or who had transactions pending the approval of the plan. It was a plan intended to get a quick buck without the livability of future residents. The flaw in public engagement in greenfield development is that the people who live their today will not live there when the plan is implemented. This is the type of “engagement” that has led to the poor urban planning of Willoughby to this day. If we continue to demand wide lanes, wide roads, and taxpayer subsidized parking, we will get the congested roads we demanded. Willoughby is an urban environment, so let’s do urban planning right. Those who want to continue living in their suburban homes can do so – no one is forcing them to move to a more densified, walkable community. There is no lack of suburban sprawl neighbourhoods in Langley and throughout the Fraser Valley. We don’t need more of them. We need more options for the next generation of residents.

My Concern: Schools

This, however, leads me to my one criticism and concern of this plan. In their rush to put together this plan with a projected buildout of an additional 4,300 units and 6,400 more residents, Township has failed to update the projected school aged children.

Earlier this year, Council Reports stopped including school projections for all new development. I verified through school board staff that this was, in fact, a Township-led change in procedure. Of course, these projections were never to be depended on. They were based on old nation-wide calculations that did not match the reality of Langley’s rapid development in an era where the typical condo price is higher than most single family homes just 10 years earlier. However, it would appear that we are now actually planning an entire neighbourhood without any update to projected school aged children.

In the 2018 Williams plan, the projected school aged children was 530 elementary students, 220 middle school students, and 251 high school students. The recommendation was for 1 elementary school, with all other students being placed in future schools outside of the NCP. This was obviously not adequate, even with these projections. For the 2023 update, I am thankful that a projected middle school has now been added that should, theoretically meet the capacity as projected. However, the 2023 update assumes these exact projections, despite a 139% increase in population and a 293% increase in units. This is absurd. The projections now show that there will be 1 school aged child for every 10 residents in Williams. Even the car-oriented North American average has a 1 in 5 ratio for school aged children in midrise apartments.

I am thankful for every new school building announcement. I am thankful because we are so far behind. But one of the reasons we are so far behind is not that the money isn’t there – it’s because of a lack of planning and the ability to keep up with new economic realities. This new plan could be a great, walkable, cycling-friendly, urban village. For all ages. For ALL ages. In a time when young families are living in apartment condos more than ever, it cannot be assumed that there will be less school aged children in condos in 2033 than there were in 2013. In 2022-23, Langley had 24,590 K-12 students enrolled. This is a 20% increase since 2015-16. That’s almost 600 new students every year in years that we averaged 2,032 new homes per year, of which 81% were either condos or suites. Where is this growth? It’s Willoughby.

Based on Langley’s new home development and increase in enrollment over the past 7 years, it is more likely that Williams will add approximately 1,650 students to our school system, not 1,000. Not only will this put significant strain on our lack of high schools, but it is more likely that we will need an additional elementary school either in this neighbourhood or the nearby Carvolth or Yorkson – neither of which appear to have any room for additional unplanned schools.

I would ask for Council to consider referring these housing projections to an independent consultant to adequately assess the impact of 5,770 homes on our school system and whether or not just 1 standard elementary and 1 middle school is adequate for the final buildout. Additionally, I would ask that Council work with the school board and Ministry of Education to lobby for a two-story double (1,000 student) capacity elementary school for this more urban environment where land value is at a premium.

Sincerely,

Brad Richert

*December 5, 2023 Update*

The Plan that was brought forward for adoption at the December 4th Public Hearing, 3rd Reading and Final was significantly changed from the original land use map presented in October and that was still available on the Township of Langley website. While I continue to support, for the most part, the areas south of 80th Avenue, I recognize the significant concerns regarding the areas north of 80th Avenue, as well as the lack of transportation details for the majority of the plan.