Council Approves the Kitchener 2051 Official Plan

Kitchener Council passed the Kitchener 2051 Official Plan (OP) at its June 29th Council meeting. I’m quite excited about the plan as a whole, although I think Council missed the mark with two amendments from Councillors Marg Johnston and Stephanie Stretch which ‘protect’ two amenity-rich neighbourhoods from incremental growth over the next 25 years. You can read my concerns about those amendments here.

You can watch the June 29th Council meeting below as well as see the text for my delegation (although I edited it slightly to adjust for timing).

While I’m frustrated by the amendments, I want to thank all of you who let me know that you reached out to council to echo some of the concerns I shared in my previous post. I know everyone has very busy schedules, so I’m always impressed that people take the time to reach out to council on these important issues. Thank you!

I also emailed each councillor and the mayor to share my thoughts on the Kitchener 2051 plan as well as the two concerning amendments. I’m happy to say that most councillors responded in some way.

The following councillors responded to my first email: Scott Davey (ward 1), Jason Deneault (ward 3), Bil Ioannidis (ward 7), Marg Johnston (ward 8), and Stephanie Stretch (ward 10). Marg Johnston actually went a step further and offered to chat via phone, which we did.

Since I was still awaiting responses from many councillors, I sent a second follow-up email. That prompted responses from two more councillors: Dave Schnider (ward 2) and Paul Singh (ward 6).

While it’s always nice to have your ward councillor and/or mayor generally align with your own perspectives, I think it’s even more important that they are willing to engage in dialogue when you see things differently. So, I truly appreciate when councillors take the time to respond to emails and phone calls.

I was therefore disappointed to not hear anything from the following: Ayo Owodunni (ward 5), Christine Michaud (ward 6), Debbie Chapman (ward 9), and Mayor Berry Vrbanovic. While I can give Councillors Michaud and Owodunni a bit of a pass as I’m not in their ward, I was hoping to hear from the mayor and my own ward 9 councillor, Debbie Chapman. Chapman is currently running for a third term and her recent social media posts highlight her commitment to engagement. (Update since writing this: Councillor Chapman reached out to me on July 4th with an offer to meet.)

While I clearly didn’t change any of Council’s final vote on these amendments, I still think it’s important that we take the time to reach out to Council on the issues that are important to us - both when we are opposed to something and (perhaps especially so) when we support a direction of Council. I generally find that many on Council are willing to have a conversation about the issues our city is facing. What about you? Have you reached out to Council on anything before? Did you find your elected representatives were willing to engage? Comment below!

While I wish I had been able to convince Council that it is important to see incremental growth in all areas of our city in order to ensure each resident feels welcome in every neighbourhood, I was even more disappointed that not a single Councillor spoke out against the anti-apartment/density rhetoric that suggests apartments and/or those who rent will destroy otherwise strong, unique neighbourhoods. It’s simply not accurate and I think it’s a harmful stereotype that Council should have addressed publicly.

At the end of the day though, I’m happy to see an Official Plan that encourages (almost) all neighbourhoods to welcome more neighbours. What about you? Share your thoughts about the Official Plan in the comments.

My delegation to Council on June 29th, 2026

Delegation text:

Good evening, council.

Kitchener has spent years developing this Official Plan. It reflects thousands of conversations, four phases of engagement, and a clear commitment to building a connected, green, economically thriving, caring, and equitable city. It is a 25‑year vision, one that must be consistent, principled, and fair.

That is why I’m here to urge you to adopt the draft Official Plan as recommended by staff, without the proposed amendments from Councillors Stretch and Johnston.

Sticking with staff’s recommendations gives us a city with diverse housing types, neighbourhoods, and opportunities for residents at every stage of life. It does not give developers carte blanche, as some have suggested. What it does is call for reasonable, incremental growth in all areas of the city; growth that staff have clearly stated is essential to the Plan’s core values.

And yet, we are being asked to carve out exemptions for two amenity-rich neighbourhoods in Kitchener—exemptions that would require an Official Plan amendment for anything above three storeys. Staff have been clear: this approach is not supported. It contradicts the Plan’s Big Ideas, and it undermines the principle that “the role of all of Kitchener’s neighbourhoods to accommodate more housing so that more people, more families can remain in their neighbourhoods as their life circumstances change is a core value of the Plan.”

I want to emphasize that: all neighbourhoods. Not some. Not only those without the political influence to resist change.

Why are we saying that these two neighbourhoods deserve protection from even modest change, while others must absorb more? Why are we reinforcing the idea that some communities are too unique or too “historic” to welcome new neighbours?

And we need to be clear that some of the feedback from those who oppose density is simply nonsensical anti-apartment rhetoric. Comments such as, “No matter what, the 6-8 storey structures will be an eyesore. Mature trees – gone. Close neighbourhoods – gone. A sense of security – gone… Apartment buildings will destroy that.” I’m concerned that by granting these exemptions, council is validating it. Several councillors have said they found some of the public comments objectionable or even ‘cringeworthy’. Yet adopting these amendments would reward exactly that thinking.

I understand the instinct to offer concessions when dealing with a specific development proposal. But that’s not what this is. This is a long‑term, city‑wide planning document. It is not the place for concessions that undermine Council’s commitment to fairness, equity, and the integrity of the planning process.

Hundreds of residents, including many who are typically underrepresented in planning, participated in shaping this Plan. The engagement process was intentionally inclusive, equitable, respectful, meaningful, and responsive. To now concede to a small group of well‑resourced residents, exempting them from a requirement as modest as 150 homes over 25 years, is frankly insulting to those who invested their time and lived experience in this process.

I think too of the comment made recently by one councillor about trying to maintain a Sesame Street feel with these exemptions. Sesame Street is a mixed‑use, mixed‑income, diverse neighbourhood—exactly the kind of neighbourhood we should be enabling across Kitchener. Using it to justify limiting growth in amenity-rich areas is a fundamental misunderstanding of what that fictional community represents.

I also can’t ignore the contrast between council’s unanimous support for the 57‑storey Vive development and the concurrent push to shield Westmount and the Auditorium neighbourhood from even moderate density. How can we justify telling some (often lower‑income) neighbourhoods that they must accommodate massive towers, while telling others (often wealthier ones) that they don’t have to accept even four storeys?

I want to be fair: I recognize the work Councillors Johnston and Stretch have done with residents. I’m not asking them to abandon their efforts. But I am asking the rest of council to uphold the integrity of this Plan and vote against these amendments.

Finally, I want to leave you with a quote that captures the heart of this issue: “Historic preservation may feel apolitical, but space (of any kind) never is. In particular, historic districts (which often see more investment and interest than your “standard” neighborhood) shape a lot—who belongs, who benefits, and whose history is ‘worth’ preserving.”

Tonight, you have the opportunity to choose a future where everyone belongs, where every neighbourhood participates in growth, and where our planning decisions reflect our values—not our fears.

Please adopt the Official Plan as recommended by staff, without the proposed amendments.

Thank you.