InfraCycle Comparing Alternate Design Standards

<<< Back <<<

A conventional suburban development and an alternative plan were assessed. The alternative plan, which is twice the density, is lower in its per unit costs, as the costs of infrastructure are spread over more units.

Completed for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton

This study assessed and compared the cost of two patterns of development: 

  1. A conventional suburban development pattern
  2. A mixed use, more compact development based on New Urbanism

    A sample community representative of conventional suburban development patterns in the Ottawa-Carleton region was selected as the study area, and an alternative plan based on principles of New Urbanism was developed.  The two plans were compared and evaluated based on the public and private infrastructure costs.

The conventional community is characterized by homogeneity, separation of land uses, emphasis on the private automobile, and lower residential densities, vis-à-vis the alternative plan, which features a more compact pattern of development, higher densities, a pedestrian-scaled environment, and a grid system of streets.  The study area selected is in the northwest portion of Barrhaven, part of the South Urban Community in the City of Nepean.  The total site area is 338 hectares or 835 acres.

The Alternative Plan produces 71% more dwelling units, as the community is built at twice the density of the Conventional Plan.  The Alternative Plan has more than twice the amount of commercial land uses, as well as 20% more recreation and open space lands.  There are 16% greater length of roads and almost 15% more asphalt road surface area.  The cost analysis assumes that all lanes are privately maintained.