Jamaican-Phoenix
Oct 27, 2007, 7:49 PM
I've been thinking and reading through a lot of comments made by Ottawa forumers(and Gatineau forumers) and I think that if we put in the time and effort, we could come up with a really kick ass plan for Ottawa that we could present to the Mayor and City Council.
I mean come on, most of the things we've discussed have been discussed heatedly and there are good ideas all around. For proof, just look at d_jeffrey's ambitious plan for MetrO in Ottawa.
If we combine/finetune/agree on a variety of subjects ranging from LRT to Suburban development to Intensification, we could have a very ambitious yet possible plan for Ottawa.
It is very rare when I agree with Randall Denley, but he got it right this time...
Bells and whistles, but no bold ideas in online discussions
Randall Denley
The Ottawa Citizen
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Too bad. It was a good idea.
The city of Ottawa's latest attempt to consult the public on growth and development features all the latest interactive technology, but the content is sadly lacking. The technology might be Web 2.0, but the ideas are still Conventional Thinking 101.
The city released nine discussion papers this week on topics including transit, residential intensification and the city's role in climate change. Four more, written by community volunteers, discuss rural issues. The idea is to gauge what direction the public wants the city to go in, and the new twist is online discussion forums moderated by well-known pollster Nik Nanos. The technology is convenient, but the discussion papers lack any kind of intellectual boldness. There is nothing here to challenge the way we see our city. This is all about tweaking what the city has been doing, not re-imagining it.
About the closest city staff come to going out on a limb is suggesting that maybe they should drop their policy of trying to get more jobs in the east end. Whatever, nothing they have done up to now has made any difference. Alternatively, city staff also raise the idea of restricting housing development in Orléans until the required number of jobs are produced. It's an idea that fails the real-life feasibility test.
The standard anti-car, pro-transit rhetoric is abundant, although there isn't anything much here to reduce car use and boost transit. The transit section is particularly weak, considering that there is already a public consensus on the type of transit system we need. Why ask people if they want fewer express routes? It's a change that's inevitable.
City staff do suggest that the transportation needs of infill development should be met "primarily through public transit, walking and cycling." That could be accomplished if the infill units had no garages, no driveways and no on-street parking. What do you think the odds are of that being approved?
City staff note the gap between policy and performance in their past plans, then go on to discuss things the city can't control, like air pollution and development outside the city limits. There's no use talking about areas where the city has little leverage.
Back in 2003, the city launched Ottawa 20/20, which was all about "smart growth," whatever that really is. The result was a planner's version of Utopia, but councillors and the public never really bought in. The 20 year plan turned out to have a best before date of only five years, and now city staff and councillors are trying to produce a new, better official plan. That's the document that guides where and how the city grows.
Our bureaucrats have at least learned something from the past. Discussion papers that attempt to raise issues without offering preferred solutions provide a more sensible way to seek our input than solutions that are already printed in glossy books. You don't have to be a veteran of public consultation to know that those kinds of plans aren't likely to change.
If city staff want to engage the public, they ought to challenge us to think differently. These discussion papers should have included one on selective development of the Greenbelt, particularly in areas adjacent to the Queensway approaching both Kanata and Orléans and in federal lands north of Barrhaven. It's irrational to keep pushing our suburban development farther and farther from the centre so we can keep these government-owned farmers' fields in place while we develop the fields of real farmers farther out.
Deputy city manager Nancy Schepers says a Greenbelt discussion paper will come later. Done properly, it would have given this whole project the profile it needs. Opening our minds to developing part of the Greenbelt is the transformative step required to resolve many of this city's problems.
The city should also be prepared to take a fresh look at social housing. Instead of studying ways to compel builders to sell housing at artificially low prices, the city should consider getting out of the business altogether. The estimated $600-million backlog of repairs and maintenance for the city's social-housing stock is the single biggest financial time bomb at City Hall. We should be talking about rent-to-own programs for social-housing tenants or selling the buildings to private landlords and making them affordable with a rent subsidy. It makes no sense to build more social housing when the city doesn't have the money to maintain what it owns now.
People are dissatisfied with the city's current approaches to transit, transportation and development. We need to change, but it starts by asking the right questions.
Contact Randall Denley at 613-596-3756 or by e-mail, rdenley@thecitizen.canwest.com
© The Ottawa Citizen 2007
It's time for change and serious ambitious in Ottawa. I think it's possible, but we'd need practically everyone to be on board. What do you guys think?
I mean come on, most of the things we've discussed have been discussed heatedly and there are good ideas all around. For proof, just look at d_jeffrey's ambitious plan for MetrO in Ottawa.
If we combine/finetune/agree on a variety of subjects ranging from LRT to Suburban development to Intensification, we could have a very ambitious yet possible plan for Ottawa.
It is very rare when I agree with Randall Denley, but he got it right this time...
Bells and whistles, but no bold ideas in online discussions
Randall Denley
The Ottawa Citizen
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Too bad. It was a good idea.
The city of Ottawa's latest attempt to consult the public on growth and development features all the latest interactive technology, but the content is sadly lacking. The technology might be Web 2.0, but the ideas are still Conventional Thinking 101.
The city released nine discussion papers this week on topics including transit, residential intensification and the city's role in climate change. Four more, written by community volunteers, discuss rural issues. The idea is to gauge what direction the public wants the city to go in, and the new twist is online discussion forums moderated by well-known pollster Nik Nanos. The technology is convenient, but the discussion papers lack any kind of intellectual boldness. There is nothing here to challenge the way we see our city. This is all about tweaking what the city has been doing, not re-imagining it.
About the closest city staff come to going out on a limb is suggesting that maybe they should drop their policy of trying to get more jobs in the east end. Whatever, nothing they have done up to now has made any difference. Alternatively, city staff also raise the idea of restricting housing development in Orléans until the required number of jobs are produced. It's an idea that fails the real-life feasibility test.
The standard anti-car, pro-transit rhetoric is abundant, although there isn't anything much here to reduce car use and boost transit. The transit section is particularly weak, considering that there is already a public consensus on the type of transit system we need. Why ask people if they want fewer express routes? It's a change that's inevitable.
City staff do suggest that the transportation needs of infill development should be met "primarily through public transit, walking and cycling." That could be accomplished if the infill units had no garages, no driveways and no on-street parking. What do you think the odds are of that being approved?
City staff note the gap between policy and performance in their past plans, then go on to discuss things the city can't control, like air pollution and development outside the city limits. There's no use talking about areas where the city has little leverage.
Back in 2003, the city launched Ottawa 20/20, which was all about "smart growth," whatever that really is. The result was a planner's version of Utopia, but councillors and the public never really bought in. The 20 year plan turned out to have a best before date of only five years, and now city staff and councillors are trying to produce a new, better official plan. That's the document that guides where and how the city grows.
Our bureaucrats have at least learned something from the past. Discussion papers that attempt to raise issues without offering preferred solutions provide a more sensible way to seek our input than solutions that are already printed in glossy books. You don't have to be a veteran of public consultation to know that those kinds of plans aren't likely to change.
If city staff want to engage the public, they ought to challenge us to think differently. These discussion papers should have included one on selective development of the Greenbelt, particularly in areas adjacent to the Queensway approaching both Kanata and Orléans and in federal lands north of Barrhaven. It's irrational to keep pushing our suburban development farther and farther from the centre so we can keep these government-owned farmers' fields in place while we develop the fields of real farmers farther out.
Deputy city manager Nancy Schepers says a Greenbelt discussion paper will come later. Done properly, it would have given this whole project the profile it needs. Opening our minds to developing part of the Greenbelt is the transformative step required to resolve many of this city's problems.
The city should also be prepared to take a fresh look at social housing. Instead of studying ways to compel builders to sell housing at artificially low prices, the city should consider getting out of the business altogether. The estimated $600-million backlog of repairs and maintenance for the city's social-housing stock is the single biggest financial time bomb at City Hall. We should be talking about rent-to-own programs for social-housing tenants or selling the buildings to private landlords and making them affordable with a rent subsidy. It makes no sense to build more social housing when the city doesn't have the money to maintain what it owns now.
People are dissatisfied with the city's current approaches to transit, transportation and development. We need to change, but it starts by asking the right questions.
Contact Randall Denley at 613-596-3756 or by e-mail, rdenley@thecitizen.canwest.com
© The Ottawa Citizen 2007
It's time for change and serious ambitious in Ottawa. I think it's possible, but we'd need practically everyone to be on board. What do you guys think?