General Update/Rumour thread

[J.OT13]

Bus lanes for the foreseeable future, fine. Streetcars, never. I don't buy the multiple mode of transportation argument. The O-Train and the Confederation line are both part of a larger "metro" system. The trains might look different and the O-Train platforms may not be as long or fancy, but the do the same job; bring the masses from a. to b. on a fixed rail line. Build a few subways in old Ottawa, same thing; just draw these new lines on the map, it's all part of the same metro system.

Something that doesn't make sense is the Scarborough RT in TO. Short line from nowhere to nowhere, transfer on a line that brings you to the city, but then you have to transfer again to downtown. Now that was too much.

As long as people don't need to transfer rail lines more than once, the system works fine. That said, all lines should go to downtown eventually if possible.

[rocketphish]

If I were to put a surface tram through Vanier, I'd run it along McArthur and make a beeline to La Cité Collegale. It would have guaranteed ridership, especially if it linked with uOttawa. McArthur is lined with property that is ripe for redevelopment and intensification, and less susceptible to congestion. A surface tram, along with a drastic streetscape make-over (reduced lanes, wider sidewalks), would be a far better demonstration of how transit can transform the city.

Interesting, though how would you get it from St. Laurent Blvd. to La Cité collégiale?

[Kitchissippi]

There would obviously have to be a redevelopment plan and some properties bought up for the ROW. Gardenvale Road runs roughly from McArthur to the Aviation Parkway near La Cité Collegiale.

As for the bridge across the Rideau, Cummings Bridge could be redone with a wider upper deck for traffic and a narrower lower deck for transit (like a mini Bloor-Danforth Bridge in Toronto), or a tram-specific bridge (plus ped and bike) could be built to Laurier and run trams there. In fact, once most of the buses are gone from Albert/Slater after the Confederation line is built, the segregated bike lanes could be moved there and Laurier could become a downtown surface tram ROW with some sort of eventual connection to Carling

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7434/9903532476_71fe614a6c_h.jpg

THere could also be s spur at the NRC up to the Rockcliffe Base site

[teej1984]

Im confused... what's wrong with the 12? It's frequent, if sometimes busy, and relatively quick. There is also a bus lane down Montreal Road/Rideau St.

[Schattenjager]

From past experiences in 2009 - 2010, the 12 is extremely slow during rush hour.

[Capital Shaun]

From past experiences in 2009 - 2010, the 12 is extremely slow during rush hour.

Yep. It is slow and unreliable in rush hour. It is pretty common to wait 15 minutes to get 3-4 buses running back to back.

[lrt's friend]

I find it ironic that a downtown surface tram is being suggested when the original plan calling for the same was considered unacceptable even in the short term and that a subway would make a surface tram redundant. I am not disagreeing with a downtown surface tram but the arguments at the time indicating that it was a subway OR a surface tram and not both were ridiculous. I have long argued that a single major transit route through downtown is not in our best interests.

As someone who is interested in heritage, I am not at all supportive of significant changes to Cummings Bridge as I consider it one of the most attractive bridges in the city.

[Capital Shaun]

...
I have long argued that a single major transit route through downtown is not in our best interests.
...

No argument from me there.

I would have preferred that a separate East-West line (Example: Montreal-Carling) have been built before converting the Transitway itself. This initial line could have helped handle some of the load during Transitway conversion. Two lines also avoids the 'all our eggs in one basket' scenario should part of the line be closed due to an incident. This will become very evident the first time there's an emergency shutdown during rush hour.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

From past experiences in 2009 - 2010, the 12 is extremely slow during rush hour.

EVERYTHING is slow during rush hour.

[J.OT13]

No argument from me there.

I would have preferred that a separate East-West line (Example: Montreal-Carling) have been built before converting the Transitway itself. This initial line could have helped handle some of the load during Transitway conversion. Two lines also avoids the 'all our eggs in one basket' scenario should part of the line be closed due to an incident. This will become very evident the first time there's an emergency shutdown during rush hour.

Build new transit before upgrading something adequate; seems sensible enough.

[Harley613]

As for the people mover idea, I'm sorry but elevated rail looks like shit!

It doesn't have to!

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSKj5ed3igq32gAi4zRA0AZlSJBHmlR_xCkVdtOU13P7peBOR7YYg
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTxMtKQuxVNCBq1mhXDmejcR_EKugWhQgZAzDdwhv_r4a62zwrX
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3369/3451571218_92eececc49_b.jpg
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSMQzBEl1yLitSk7j9MBA2LPXPq_lxatneMteig81k4wOKiQYUHQg

[c_speed3108]

Heard two interesting things this morning for along Montreal Rd.

1) Belisle Chevrolet site is owned by Phoenix homes and basically think along the lines of 3 or 4 towers of like 20 stories.

2) Eastview Plaza site (that's the one on the right just after you come over the bridge) will likely be some sort of mixed residential, office and retail development.

I also heard but can't confirm the application has actually been submitted but is not yet up on the development application website.

[Harley613]

Heard two interesting things this morning for along Montreal Rd.

1) Belisle Chevrolet site is owned by Phoenix homes and basically think along the lines of 3 or 4 towers of like 20 stories.

2) Eastview Plaza site (that's the one on the right just after you come over the bridge) will likely be some sort of mixed residential, office and retail development.

I also heard but can't confirm the application has actually been submitted but is not yet up on the development application website.

Excellent. Eastview plaza is SO ripe for development, it could be a jewel in the rough and change the whole vibe of Vanier.

[rocketphish]

Plan to make Montreal Road a walkable ‘main street’ passes committee

By David Reevely, OTTAWA CITIZEN September 24, 2013 6:01 PM

OTTAWA — A new plan to prepare Vanier to become a denser, more walkable neighbourhood got approval from city council’s planning committee Tuesday morning.

Although redevelopment there hasn’t yet taken off in the same way as it has west of downtown, the city’s urban-planning department expects it will before long and the plan is meant to get out ahead of demand for taller buildings. It scraps an old urban plan for the area that produced box stores as Vanier’s commercial core, narrow sidewalks for pedestrians, and big lots that are hard to redevelop, in favour of new rules that are supposed to make Montreal Road in particular feel more like a “main street,” a Vanier version of Richmond Road in Westboro or urban Bank Street.

It also points to a handful of “gateways” at Vanier’s edges, particularly where Montreal Road begins at the east end of the Cummings Bridge, as good places for tall buildings. Developers have moved in on big properties such as the defunct Belisle car dealership and Eastview Shopping Centre.

Setting the stage for future battles, the plan leaves the zoning on those sites to be decided when a specific proposal comes from a property developer. The idea is not to get too bossy about what can and can’t be built before the city even has an idea of what builders want. The plan sets a maximum height of 28 storeys, a little shorter than the tallest buildings in the downtown core. It says such proposals will have to come with detailed ideas about how they’ll blend into their surroundings, but otherwise it isn’t very specific.

“This document is less prescriptive than other documents for elsewhere in the city,” enthused Miguel Tremblay, a private urban-planning consultant who works for developers. “This is the right way to do policy.”

Yet it leaves important things unresolved.

“We have this nagging fear,” said Mike Bulthuis, the president of the Vanier Community Association. The group is eager for most of the things the plan is supposed to promote, he said, but is also insistent that it be involved when serious decisions need to be made about the marquee sites.

The planning committee approved the plan unanimously. City council still has to sign off on it before it become official.

dreevely@ottawacitizen.com

ottawacitizen.com/greaterottawa
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/community+design+plan+Vanier+aims+making+less+centric+more/8953870/story.html

[J.OT13]

Heard two interesting things this morning for along Montreal Rd.

1) Belisle Chevrolet site is owned by Phoenix homes and basically think along the lines of 3 or 4 towers of like 20 stories.

2) Eastview Plaza site (that's the one on the right just after you come over the bridge) will likely be some sort of mixed residential, office and retail development.

I also heard but can't confirm the application has actually been submitted but is not yet up on the development application website.

Belisle was sold to Brigile, not that it inspires much more confidence.

[rocketphish]

Plan for new Centretown park on McGarry property collapses

City doesn’t understand basics of the business world, Brian McGarry says

By David Reevely, OTTAWA CITIZEN September 25, 2013

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/ottawa/cms/binary/8958875.jpg

OTTAWA — Plans to turn a downtown parking lot into a city park are dead because the city won’t pay anything like what the land is worth, says its owner, funeral mogul Brian McGarry.

“I was astounded, quite frankly. It came by letter, through our lawyers. I guess dumbfounded would be the best way to put it,” McGarry said Tuesday. The city offered $4 million for the parking lot at McLeod and O’Connor streets, adjacent to the flagship Hulse, Playfair & McGarry funeral home, McGarry said. He said he has been offered $8 million for it by property developers and although he didn’t expect the city to pay quite that much, $4 million is simply insulting.

“The McGarrys didn’t mind taking something less than market value. We didn’t expect market value. But this is ridiculous,” he said.

The city’s unwillingness to tighten the gap speaks to a basic misunderstanding of how private business works, said McGarry, a former school-board trustee and regional councillor, and sometime candidate for the Conservatives.

“I’m not talking just this year or Jim Watson in particular, I’m talking councils several years back. They’ve lost a sense of corporate Ottawa. I just don’t think they’re treating corporate Ottawa very well. There seems to be an attitude — not from 100 per cent of councillors, but a lot of them — that when corporate Ottawa comes in, they’re always asking for more than they should get.”

The property has been the main chapel for Hulse, Playfair & McGarry for 88 years and McGarry loves it, but he thinks more and more that it’s time to move, as the value of the property goes up and the convenience of holding funerals in the middle of downtown goes down.

“They’re cutting the parking back all the time. The bulldozers are out on Gladstone right now,” McGarry said, reconstructing the crumbling street but also reducing the number of parking spots on the street.

He has his eye on another downtown spot that could be a new headquarters, more accessible and yet cheaper. He was willing to sell the whole McGarry property to the city if that deal would have worked better, he said.

The funeral home, which is a heritage building, could have been turned into a community centre or a daycare. A park that at least covered the existing parking lot might have gone some way to replacing the land the nearby Museum of Nature now intends to take up with a new parking lot of its own.

“We saw it as a bit of a donation, really,” McGarry said.

The idea of selling the land to the city arose after a development plan with builder Charlesfort Developments fell through last year. The company envisioned a condominium on stilts, with a publicly accessible garden below. But it would have had to have been tall, much taller than the city’s plan for the neighbourhood allows.

The latest version of the plan identifies McGarry’s property as a site for a landmark building, potentially suited for the tallest building in the city, but only if it has a very major public amenity or a big new home for a cultural institution at ground level. A small park or garden wouldn’t cut it: it would have to be something more like the headquarters of the Toronto International Film Festival, which is at the base of a 46-storey luxury condo tower.

The Citizen couldn’t reach Somerset Coun. Diane Holmes to talk about the collapse of the McGarry proposal; when the idea first came up last November, she said it would be “very difficult, but possible” to pull off.

Given the city’s budget for parks, even $4 million is a lot of money. Parkland is built into new suburban developments, but it’s hard to retrofit into long established neighbourhoods, so the city charges builders of things like condominiums a fee that’s supposed to go to either buying new parkland or total renovations to existing parks to make them suitable for new residents. It’s divided up ward by ward, though, and a recent reckoning of the various funds had $1 million in the one for Somerset ward, which includes the McGarry property. The ward that had the most unspent money, Kitchissippi, had $2 million. McGarry offered to let the city spread payments out over many years, he said, knowing how little money is available.

McGarry said his property isn’t actively for sale, though he’s been getting offers for it for 10 years. Its value just goes up, so although he’s turning 70 and wants to see something sorted out, McGarry’s not in a rush.

dreevely@ottawacitizen.com

ottawacitizen.com/greaterottawa
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/ottawa/Plan+Centretown+park+McGarry+property+collapses/8958874/story.html

[J.OT13]

Let's make a deal; Keep two plain brick walls and you can tear down the rest! Why? The school is nothing but a brick shell. No detailing, no nothing. Easy to replicate. The only thing that's remotely interesting is the green door (or is it a window) on the western façade and that will probably be lost.

As for the old townhomes, nicer buildings but not salvageable.

Instead of "saving" two walls, the City should just learn from years of historical neglect and implement proper by laws and fines to people who let buildings, any buildings, rot.

Deal in bitter fight over crumbling Lowertown schoolhouse

By Jon Willing, Ottawa Sun
First posted: Thursday, September 26, 2013 02:46 PM

http://storage.canoe.ca/v1/dynamic_resize/sws_path/suns-prod-images/1297374501108_ORIGINAL.jpg?quality=80&size=650x

The city has struck a deal with a developer while fighting in court over the future of an old schoolhouse in Lowertown.

Groupe Claude Lauzon owns the heritage properties at 287 Cumberland St., which is the old Our Lady’s School, and the neighbouring building at 207-209 Murray St.

The schoolhouse was built in 1904. The Murray St. building was built in the 1870s.

The city deemed the schoolhouse unsafe last winter and ordered Lauzon to encase it and the neighbouring building with hoarding.

Lauzon wanted to tear down the schoolhouse but the city wanted the developer to try repairing the heritage building.

The quarrel ended up in court.

According to a new report to the city’s built heritage subcommittee, engineers for the developer and city have concluded the schoolhouse wasn’t salvageable, except for the south and west walls.

The Murray St. building, which was further damaged by fire, is beyond repair, the engineers concluded.

City planners want to allow Lauzon to demolish the Murray St. building and partially raze the schoolhouse, keeping the south and west masonry walls.

The city is even offering to waive a $47,000 encroachment fee for the work because the building is currently a public safety hazard.

The city wants Lauzon to supply a set of photos and plans for “historical reference.”

The subcommittee will consider the plan Monday before it rises to the planning committee and council.

jon.willing@sunmedia.ca


http://www.ottawasun.com/2013/09/26/deal-in-bitter-fight-over-crumbling-lowertown-schoolhouse

[Harley613]

What the heck could one build here anyways? This is literally the worst block in the city for development of any kind.

[kwoldtimer]

Most likely development for that location would probably be assisted housing of some sort.

M. Lauzon is smiling today, I suspect. Unless he actually wants the two walls gone as well, in which case there will be no redevelopment of the site. He's not a young man however.......

[J.OT13]

Yup, social housing or a homeless shelter would be a good option.

[Harley613]

Yup, social housing or a homeless shelter would be a good option.

A homeless shelter is the absolute last thing I want to see there. I want the existing shelters moved, the market is a horrible location for them. These people need rehabilitation, not a downtown nexus for all things bad.

[phil235]

A homeless shelter is the absolute last thing I want to see there. I want the existing shelters moved, the market is a horrible location for them. These people need rehabilitation, not a downtown nexus for all things bad.

Yeah, concentrating all of the shelters in one area is a terrible idea. A mix of housing is the way you want to go.

[gjhall]

Most likely development for that location would probably be assisted housing of some sort.

M. Lauzon is smiling today, I suspect. Unless he actually wants the two walls gone as well, in which case there will be no redevelopment of the site. He's not a young man however.......

Where do you get this idea? It's been on the forum here before, but have you all missed the fact that 1) there is development in the area, 2) housing prices in the market are high, not low, 3) just because it's near the Shepherds doesnt mean it wouldnt make a good market rate development site, see: The St George, the East Market, Claridge Plaza, all next to social services.

[J.OT13]

Does anyone have a suggestion as to where the homeless shelters and social housing should go. It's one thing to criticize, it's another to offer an alternate suggestion.

That said, the homeless aren't just downtown because of the shelters, but because it's the best place to panhandle.

[phil235]

Does anyone have a suggestion as to where the homeless shelters and social housing should go. It's one thing to criticize, it's another to offer an alternate suggestion.

That said, the homeless aren't just downtown because of the shelters, but because it's the best place to panhandle.

Not criticizing the fact that homeless shelters are downtown. Criticizing the idea that they should all be in one place.

It is well established that a mix of income levels and types of housing is far superior to creating low income ghettos. The idea is that the shelters need to be spread out, maybe in the broader central area where transit and services are better, but intermingled with higher quality housing.

[1overcosc]

Not criticizing the fact that homeless shelters are downtown. Criticizing the idea that they should all be in one place.

It is well established that a mix of income levels and types of housing is far superior to creating low income ghettos. The idea is that the shelters need to be spread out, maybe in the broader central area where transit and services are better, but intermingled with higher quality housing.

:tup: People often get emotional and ignore logic when it comes to dealing with the homeless and the poor. Like with the whole kerfluffle over safe injection sites. It is proven without dispute that safe injection sites are a really good thing, dramatically reducing deaths and significantly improving the rehabiliation rate for drug addicts, but people still get all upset at them. I really wish the government would step out of these issues and let the psychologists & social workers handle them.

[J.OT13]

Not criticizing the fact that homeless shelters are downtown. Criticizing the idea that they should all be in one place.

It is well established that a mix of income levels and types of housing is far superior to creating low income ghettos. The idea is that the shelters need to be spread out, maybe in the broader central area where transit and services are better, but intermingled with higher quality housing.

Say, have one homeless shelter in each corner of the central city, say one in Hintonburgh, one in Centretown and one in the market or whatever. Makes sense. maybe I jumped the gun when suggesting a homeless shelter on that site. I suppose spreading social housing and shelters around might be in everyone's interest as long as they stay downtown where people have easy access to services such as medical clinics, transit and other governmental social aid facilities. I would never build social housing/shelters in suburban areas.

Safe injection sites and needle "exchange" programs I don't support. Why is it a drug addict can come in City Hall and get hundreds of syringes for free and drop (if they feel like it) used ones while diabetics have to pay for their syringes and have to dispose of the used ones on their own? As for safe injection sites, skip that step and just put those people in methadone programs or detox programs right off the bat. Government should not fund illegal activity.

As a productive tax payer, I feel I should get the same services as people using social assistance programs.

[1overcosc]

Say, have one homeless shelter in each corner of the central city, say one in Hintonburgh, one in Centretown and one in the market or whatever. Makes sense. maybe I jumped the gun when suggesting a homeless shelter on that site. I suppose spreading social housing and shelters around might be in everyone's interest as long as they stay downtown where people have easy access to services such as medical clinics, transit and other governmental social aid facilities. I would never build social housing/shelters in suburban areas.

Safe injection sites and needle "exchange" programs I don't support. Why is it a drug addict can come in City Hall and get hundreds of syringes for free and drop (if they feel like it) used ones while diabetics have to pay for their syringes and have to dispose of the used ones on their own? As for safe injection sites, skip that step and just put those people in methadone programs or detox programs right off the bat. Government should not fund illegal activity.

As a productive tax payer, I feel I should get the same services as people using social assistance programs.

The problem with detox programs is that they don't work. People will almost always get re-addicted as soon as they leave detox. Once a person is truly addicted, quitting is near-impossible. Look at the very low success rate for people quitting smoking, for example (important thing to keep in mind when discussing drugs--tobacco & alcohol are 'drugs' just like marijuana, cocaine, heroin, etc.--don't think them as scientifically different because they are legal).

For this reason, getting addicts to go bone-dry is not realistic or possible. Think about drug addiction for a second. It's not the drugs themselves that create problems for society & the addicts. It's all the stuff associated with it. People who are on drugs go broke, are forced into the streets, become a source of income for gangs, commit crime because of their poverty and desperation for more drugs. Ultimately, all these things are problems because drugs are illegal, not because of the drugs themselves. Think about it. People who are addicted to cigarettes or alcohol often live fairly normal lives.

Safe injection sites help stop addicts from massively harming themselves and society, even though they still take drugs. Ideally you'd get them to not take drugs, but as I mentioned earlier, that's not practical.

Data collected from safe injection sites in Switzerland (the first country to introduce such programs) found that detox programs will only cure 10% of addicts, and leave the remaining 90% to cause havoc. A safe injection site would stop most of the harmful effects to society from 75% of addicts, while leaving only 25% to cause havoc. Thus, a safe injection site approach will have greater net benefit to society than a detox program approach.

[adam-machiavelli]

A few years ago I helped carry out a survey determining the characteristics of people who support and oppose safe injections sites. Overall we found most people from every province and territory supported them. There was only a small hardcore group who opposed them. Unfortunately this group was composed almost entirely of Conservative Party supporters who collectively gave a lot of money to the Party.

[J.OT13]

A few years ago I helped carry out a survey determining the characteristics of people who support and oppose safe injections sites. Overall we found most people from every province and territory supported them. There was only a small hardcore group who opposed them. Unfortunately this group was composed almost entirely of Conservative Party supporters who collectively gave a lot of money to the Party.

I'm actually a member of the Liberal Party and have only once voted differently, and that was for Layton in 2011. I just don't believe in supporting drug usage.

[Uhuniau]

Does anyone have a suggestion as to where the homeless shelters and social housing should go. It's one thing to criticize, it's another to offer an alternate suggestion.


Away.

People seem to just want them to go away.

Never any concrete definition of where that is, though, other than not in their own neighbourhood.

[kwoldtimer]

I'm actually a member of the Liberal Party and have only once voted differently, and that was for Layton in 2011. I just don't believe in supporting drug usage.

Not even to reduce the transmission of HIV? That's harsh.

[J.OT13]

Not even to reduce the transmission of HIV? That's harsh.

Not harsh, we just have different opinions and priorities.

[SF Thomas]

Personally I'm still kind of conflicted on the safe injection sites. I agree largely that the current approach to drug issues isn't working and probably needs to be rethought. There is a case to some extent about the concentration of hard drug users in one area as well though. However safe injection sites isn't abetting or choosing to support drug use to the extent the federal Conservative party or 'tough on crime/drugs' people will tell you. It is more akin to trying to help correct a disorder or societal problem.

I think this is probably something best made as a localized decision rather than having the feds make a blanket policy like how the Conservatives tried to shut down the Vancouver program.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Away.

People seem to just want them to go away.

Never any concrete definition of where that is, though, other than not in their own neighbourhood.

The smartest and best place would be the country or another rural area. It would be quiet, peaceful, and isolated. It would be easier to scan for people trying to bring in contraband and stop people from leaving before they're better. It would also offer better air quality, pleasant surroundings, and an opportunity for a healthier lifestyle and an outlet. Running, walking, whittling, painting, music-making, writing, and others are all available out in the country in a safe and isolated environment to get clean.

To get people there, you'd need a kind of temporary area/office/building somewhere in the city.

[S-Man]

I've heard enough about safe injection sites to be wary of some of the possibly downsides, and not just to the people using them. (ie-the surrounding neighbourhood, crime)

That said, the issue is so steeped in ideology and politics that you can't seem to have a conversation about downsides without being labelled. (eg - "Only Conservative donors don't like them - EVERYONE else and their mother wants them!")

Really? That personal 35 million-person poll must have been exhausting for you.

Also, if drug detox programs don't ever work, which is what I'm hearing from some, how does this help get people off drugs? Or does it matter if they get off drugs? How has anyone ever in history gotten off drugs without a safe injection site?

Amazingly, there are still musicians from the 90s who are alive, and clean.

Explain.

[Norman Bates]

I've been to the Vancouver safe injection site. I was on an organized tour and was accompanied by the Vancouver Police. It is not in a good part of town. I can't think of any skid row part of Ottawa that would compare.

That being said, the deputy chief who accompanied my group explained that initially he was not personally in favour of the InSite idea, but after it was launched he came to realize that it was beneficial.

The root problem is with organized crime getting people addicted and then generating revenue from the narcotics. Then the addicts engage in desperate and dehumanizing criminal acts to get their fix. This is what truly damages the community's fabric. It ends with addicts getting their fix in reckless ways and costing their lives and the health care system inordinate amounts of money.

I am completely anti-drug and a teetotaller but have taken opiods once following an emergency room visit for an industrial accident. After a week of the pain killers you could say that I brushed up against addiction. It took me three days to detox in the comfort of my home and given the choice I would have stayed on the drug rather than gone cold turkey.

God bless those poor souls who get addicted, and then can't get off.

[S-Man]

I've been to the Vancouver safe injection site. I was on an organized tour and was accompanied by the Vancouver Police. It is not in a good part of town. I can't think of any skid row part of Ottawa that would compare.

That being said, the deputy chief who accompanied my group explained that initially he was not personally in favour of the InSite idea, but after it was launched he came to realize that it was beneficial.

The root problem is with organized crime getting people addicted and then generating revenue from the narcotics. Then the addicts engage in desperate and dehumanizing criminal acts to get their fix. This is what truly damages the community's fabric. It ends with addicts getting their fix in reckless ways and costing their lives and the health care system inordinate amounts of money.

I am completely anti-drug and a teetotaller but have taken opiods once following an emergency room visit for an industrial accident. After a week of the pain killers you could say that I brushed up against addiction. It took me three days to detox in the comfort of my home and given the choice I would have stayed on the drug rather than gone cold turkey.

God bless those poor souls who get addicted, and then can't get off.


All this is true, but it doesn't explain how such sites are supposed to work, or how they gauge success. Or, what controls/measures would be in place to prevent undue harm to the surrounding community.

I have heard former police chief Vern White (now a Senator, true, but so far doesn't seem to be on the take) speak out cautiously against such a site in Ottawa, and criticize the lack of consultation in this case. He said he also toured the Vancouver site.

As a smoker (and not a new one, I'm afraid), addiction is a scary thing. It's why I never, ever gamble. But, if other addictions are like nicotine addiction, there are different ways to quit, some that work for some, others that don't.

[J.OT13]

I just don't understand why anyone would even try these kinds of drugs. Sure some people had some pretty shitty childhoods, but everyone knows drugs will only make things worse. Learn from you family's screw ups and make something out of yourself.

[S-Man]

I just don't understand why anyone would even try these kinds of drugs. Sure some people had some pretty shitty childhoods, but everyone knows drugs will only make things worse. Learn from you family's screw ups and make something out of yourself.


Never underestimate the ability of psychology - shaped by years of experiences and traumas - to manipulate a person's actions and behaviour.

[J.OT13]

I guess. I still don't like the idea of safe injection sites. I'd like to see some sort of tough love approach; catch them doing drugs and bring them to a forced detox centre (as opposed to jail) in the middle of nowhere as Jamaican-Phoenix suggested. Maybe RCR?.. cheap shot, I know.

Seriously, I would like the prison system to include three different types of facilities; traditional jail, mental institutions and detox centres. That said, we should probably start a crime and punishment thread, solutions to homelessness thread or a what to do with drug addicts thread.

[S-Man]

I guess. I still don't like the idea of safe injection sites. I'd like to see some sort of tough love approach; catch them doing drugs and bring them to a forced detox centre (as opposed to jail) in the middle of nowhere as Jamaican-Phoenix suggested. Maybe RCR?.. cheap shot, I know.

Seriously, I would like the prison system to include three different types of facilities; traditional jail, mental institutions and detox centres. That said, we should probably start a crime and punishment thread, solutions to homelessness thread or a what to do with drug addicts thread.

Can't say I disagree with any of this.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

I just don't understand why anyone would even try these kinds of drugs. Sure some people had some pretty shitty childhoods, but everyone knows drugs will only make things worse. Learn from you family's screw ups and make something out of yourself.

In my experience, it often has to do with issues with family (abandonment, physical or sexual abuse, excessively strict parenting, inability to comprehend and accept alternative lifestyles, etc.). When I was in high school, I came into contact with around a dozen or so 14-16 year olds who had been kicked out of their homes for the following reasons: caught smoking (cigarettes or pot), caught drinking, or for being gay. Of course, they fell in with bad crowds but loved it at the time because "yay freedom to do what I want and be who I want to be", and they made progressively poorer decisions.

Another seven I knew (some of whom were friends) turned to drugs because one of their parents walked out on the family, another might have been overbearing, or another would sexually abuse their children. Drugs are a cheap, easy, and semi-effective way of coping.

Also, teenagers just make bad decisions sometimes. We had a girl transfer from another school, and she brought a giant 3lb. candy bag full of hydromorphone which is similar to opiates such as morphine. She essentially stole it from her mom who had a prescription, and wanted to become one of the "cool kids" in a part of our school where punks, hipsters, outcasts, nerds, eclectics, artists, and others gathered. This girl is directly responsible for two of my friends at the time becoming heroin junkies. She was giving it out for free. Who doesn't like free stuff, and free drugs that make you feel good? We were all teenagers, and we've done stupid stuff before. I even tried it because I was a fucking dumbass back then. I hated it, since it made me sweat and feel nauseous, but once that feeling passed DAMN DID I FEEL GOOD. I can't even describe it accurately; it was a late spring afternoon, the sun was shining, and you just feel floaty, really good, relaxed and happy all at once. However, it was cut short when I remembered the sweat and nausea to get to that point, and it wasn't worth it to me, so I stuck with marijuana. I didn't get addicted to the stuff, but it was the closest I've come. Others got addicted and of course turned to harder drugs such as heroin.

Now on top of all of this, factor in the fact that drug education in schools is absolute shit. I learned more about drugs from other smart friends (and a biology/chemistry nerd), my own experiences, and websites like Erowid than I did from anything the school taught or provided. I knew which drugs to steer clear of, and which might be okay for experimentation. After all, I know my parents were teens in the 70's, and they've never hid their drug experimentation from me, using the excuse "that's how it was back then".

So immediately I questioned the school's mantra of "drugs are bad" because A) millions of people did more drugs in the 70's and are productive members of society now, and B) they never explained why they were bad (only said "just say no") and C) we all learned that the school and the "program" were full of crap because nearly everyone in the school had tried marijuana at some point and either didn't like it, or enjoyed it but never really tried anything else. So there's now hundreds of teenagers who are thinking "hey, I smoke marijuana but my marks are still fine and it's not like I "need" a joint the way my dad needs a cigarette. Maybe the school got it wrong. I wonder what else the school got wrong?" Schools really need to be fair and balanced in their approach to drug use and education, and should actually, you know, EDUCATE the kids about drugs.

So there you have it. Bad home situations, poor decisions/being a teenager, and a lack of proper, informative, and non-biased education about drugs and drug use is what often gets a lot of people onto drugs. Myself and a handful of others from my group of high school friends were able to experiment with some drugs and smoke marijuana without becoming junkies. This is due to better family situations (I was given a tonne of freedom as a teenager, on the condition it would be revoked if I was an idiot and made too many poor decisions), and education. I myself was curious about drugs, and so curiosity would often lead me personally to self-education. Not everyone is so lucky.

Additionally, marijuana (my "drug of choice" in high school and college) was something I gave up for the sake of my career. I don't want a plant to ruin my chances at a rewarding career, so I stopped several months before graduation. It was easy for me, because it had only been a social aspect for me. I never needed it for creativity, because I know I'm a creative person. I never needed it to escape the bad things in my life because my life was pretty solid. The same cannot be said for the majority of people who start using drugs, and they often start for either one of the reasons I listed above, or a combination of them.

I guess. I still don't like the idea of safe injection sites. I'd like to see some sort of tough love approach; catch them doing drugs and bring them to a forced detox centre (as opposed to jail) in the middle of nowhere as Jamaican-Phoenix suggested. Maybe RCR?.. cheap shot, I know.

I wasn't talking about tough love. Drug addicts should be pitied, not persecuted. I'm talking about a safe, welcoming yet isolated environment where they can go and have an honest shot at turning their lives around.

Seriously, I would like the prison system to include three different types of facilities; traditional jail, mental institutions and detox centres.

That would be ideal.

[Kitchissippi]

Seriously, I would like the prison system to include three different types of facilities; traditional jail, mental institutions and detox centres.

I would not put mental institutions in that group, they belong in the medical system. As for the rest, if you used the more politically correct term "Correctional Facilities" to group them, you might convince more people to buy the idea.

[J.OT13]

In my experience, it often has to do with issues with family (abandonment, physical or sexual abuse, excessively strict parenting, inability to comprehend and accept alternative lifestyles, etc.). When I was in high school, I came into contact with around a dozen or so 14-16 year olds who had been kicked out of their homes for the following reasons: caught smoking (cigarettes or pot), caught drinking, or for being gay. Of course, they fell in with bad crowds but loved it at the time because "yay freedom to do what I want and be who I want to be", and they made progressively poorer decisions.

Another seven I knew (some of whom were friends) turned to drugs because one of their parents walked out on the family, another might have been overbearing, or another would sexually abuse their children. Drugs are a cheap, easy, and semi-effective way of coping.

Also, teenagers just make bad decisions sometimes. We had a girl transfer from another school, and she brought a giant 3lb. candy bag full of hydromorphone which is similar to opiates such as morphine. She essentially stole it from her mom who had a prescription, and wanted to become one of the "cool kids" in a part of our school where punks, hipsters, outcasts, nerds, eclectics, artists, and others gathered. This girl is directly responsible for two of my friends at the time becoming heroin junkies. She was giving it out for free. Who doesn't like free stuff, and free drugs that make you feel good? We were all teenagers, and we've done stupid stuff before. I even tried it because I was a fucking dumbass back then. I hated it, since it made me sweat and feel nauseous, but once that feeling passed DAMN DID I FEEL GOOD. I can't even describe it accurately; it was a late spring afternoon, the sun was shining, and you just feel floaty, really good, relaxed and happy all at once. However, it was cut short when I remembered the sweat and nausea to get to that point, and it wasn't worth it to me, so I stuck with marijuana. I didn't get addicted to the stuff, but it was the closest I've come. Others got addicted and of course turned to harder drugs such as heroin.

Now on top of all of this, factor in the fact that drug education in schools is absolute shit. I learned more about drugs from other smart friends (and a biology/chemistry nerd), my own experiences, and websites like Erowid than I did from anything the school taught or provided. I knew which drugs to steer clear of, and which might be okay for experimentation. After all, I know my parents were teens in the 70's, and they've never hid their drug experimentation from me, using the excuse "that's how it was back then".

So immediately I questioned the school's mantra of "drugs are bad" because A) millions of people did more drugs in the 70's and are productive members of society now, and B) they never explained why they were bad (only said "just say no") and C) we all learned that the school and the "program" were full of crap because nearly everyone in the school had tried marijuana at some point and either didn't like it, or enjoyed it but never really tried anything else. So there's now hundreds of teenagers who are thinking "hey, I smoke marijuana but my marks are still fine and it's not like I "need" a joint the way my dad needs a cigarette. Maybe the school got it wrong. I wonder what else the school got wrong?" Schools really need to be fair and balanced in their approach to drug use and education, and should actually, you know, EDUCATE the kids about drugs.

So there you have it. Bad home situations, poor decisions/being a teenager, and a lack of proper, informative, and non-biased education about drugs and drug use is what often gets a lot of people onto drugs. Myself and a handful of others from my group of high school friends were able to experiment with some drugs and smoke marijuana without becoming junkies. This is due to better family situations (I was given a tonne of freedom as a teenager, on the condition it would be revoked if I was an idiot and made too many poor decisions), and education. I myself was curious about drugs, and so curiosity would often lead me personally to self-education. Not everyone is so lucky.

Additionally, marijuana (my "drug of choice" in high school and college) was something I gave up for the sake of my career. I don't want a plant to ruin my chances at a rewarding career, so I stopped several months before graduation. It was easy for me, because it had only been a social aspect for me. I never needed it for creativity, because I know I'm a creative person. I never needed it to escape the bad things in my life because my life was pretty solid. The same cannot be said for the majority of people who start using drugs, and they often start for either one of the reasons I listed above, or a combination of them.



I wasn't talking about tough love. Drug addicts should be pitied, not persecuted. I'm talking about a safe, welcoming yet isolated environment where they can go and have an honest shot at turning their lives around.



That would be ideal.

Better education is something I would support. Videos of people on drugs, detailed description of how it can screw your head and body, maybe have former addicts come in and talk about their experience hitting rock bottom...

I know you weren't talking about tough love but a welcoming rural site far from the temptations of drugs on the big city streets.

[J.OT13]

I would not put mental institutions in that group, they belong in the medical system. As for the rest, if you used the more politically correct term "Correctional Facilities" to group them, you might convince more people to buy the idea.

I'm referring to mental institutions for people like the guy who decapitated a passenger on a Grey Hound bus. Prison will not help these kinds of people and even if you give them prescription drugs that might fix some sort of neurological chemical imbalance, they could stop taking them because they think their fine or whatever...this might be another of my extremes that most people don't agree with, but people with major mental issues that cause them to commit major crimes should be permanently institutionalized. Some things just aren't curable.

Of course, the mental institutions would not be a form of punishment, you can't help a mental illness. You could have entertainment, proper nutritional services, sports, whatever. Let them live a normal life within the secure compound.

So prisons and detox centres would be "correctional facilities" and mental institutions for people who commit crimes due to mental illness would be permanent. It might also scare some criminals away from pleading insanity to get out of a long jail sentence.

[NOWINYOW]

To all the politicians, medical and community activists who support the safe injection site I ask only one simple question; would your support be the same if the injection site was in your neighbourhood?
I'll hazard a guess and say NO!

What lowertown and the market really needs are a few politicians living and raising their families in this neighbourhood. THEN we'd see some real action on the real problems.

[Norman Bates]

In my experience, it often has to do with issues with family (abandonment, physical or sexual abuse, excessively strict parenting, inability to comprehend and accept alternative lifestyles, etc.). When I was in high school, I came into contact with around a dozen or so 14-16 year olds who had been kicked out of their homes for the following reasons: caught smoking (cigarettes or pot), caught drinking, or for being gay. Of course, they fell in with bad crowds but loved it at the time because "yay freedom to do what I want and be who I want to be", and they made progressively poorer decisions.

Another seven I knew (some of whom were friends) turned to drugs because one of their parents walked out on the family, another might have been overbearing, or another would sexually abuse their children. Drugs are a cheap, easy, and semi-effective way of coping.

Also, teenagers just make bad decisions sometimes. We had a girl transfer from another school, and she brought a giant 3lb. candy bag full of hydromorphone which is similar to opiates such as morphine. She essentially stole it from her mom who had a prescription, and wanted to become one of the "cool kids" in a part of our school where punks, hipsters, outcasts, nerds, eclectics, artists, and others gathered. This girl is directly responsible for two of my friends at the time becoming heroin junkies. She was giving it out for free. Who doesn't like free stuff, and free drugs that make you feel good? We were all teenagers, and we've done stupid stuff before. I even tried it because I was a fucking dumbass back then. I hated it, since it made me sweat and feel nauseous, but once that feeling passed DAMN DID I FEEL GOOD. I can't even describe it accurately; it was a late spring afternoon, the sun was shining, and you just feel floaty, really good, relaxed and happy all at once. However, it was cut short when I remembered the sweat and nausea to get to that point, and it wasn't worth it to me, so I stuck with marijuana. I didn't get addicted to the stuff, but it was the closest I've come. Others got addicted and of course turned to harder drugs such as heroin.

Now on top of all of this, factor in the fact that drug education in schools is absolute shit. I learned more about drugs from other smart friends (and a biology/chemistry nerd), my own experiences, and websites like Erowid than I did from anything the school taught or provided. I knew which drugs to steer clear of, and which might be okay for experimentation. After all, I know my parents were teens in the 70's, and they've never hid their drug experimentation from me, using the excuse "that's how it was back then".

So immediately I questioned the school's mantra of "drugs are bad" because A) millions of people did more drugs in the 70's and are productive members of society now, and B) they never explained why they were bad (only said "just say no") and C) we all learned that the school and the "program" were full of crap because nearly everyone in the school had tried marijuana at some point and either didn't like it, or enjoyed it but never really tried anything else. So there's now hundreds of teenagers who are thinking "hey, I smoke marijuana but my marks are still fine and it's not like I "need" a joint the way my dad needs a cigarette. Maybe the school got it wrong. I wonder what else the school got wrong?" Schools really need to be fair and balanced in their approach to drug use and education, and should actually, you know, EDUCATE the kids about drugs.

So there you have it. Bad home situations, poor decisions/being a teenager, and a lack of proper, informative, and non-biased education about drugs and drug use is what often gets a lot of people onto drugs. Myself and a handful of others from my group of high school friends were able to experiment with some drugs and smoke marijuana without becoming junkies. This is due to better family situations (I was given a tonne of freedom as a teenager, on the condition it would be revoked if I was an idiot and made too many poor decisions), and education. I myself was curious about drugs, and so curiosity would often lead me personally to self-education. Not everyone is so lucky.

Additionally, marijuana (my "drug of choice" in high school and college) was something I gave up for the sake of my career. I don't want a plant to ruin my chances at a rewarding career, so I stopped several months before graduation. It was easy for me, because it had only been a social aspect for me. I never needed it for creativity, because I know I'm a creative person. I never needed it to escape the bad things in my life because my life was pretty solid. The same cannot be said for the majority of people who start using drugs, and they often start for either one of the reasons I listed above, or a combination of them.



I wasn't talking about tough love. Drug addicts should be pitied, not persecuted. I'm talking about a safe, welcoming yet isolated environment where they can go and have an honest shot at turning their lives around.



That would be ideal.

I've been around here for about five years.

In that time I've read a lot of wise things, but nothing wiser than this post.

[bartlebooth]

Learned this evening that Toronto architecture firm KPMB is involved in the design of the new Centre for Global Pluralism for the Aga Kahn Foundation on Sussex (the site of the old Canadian War Museum).

Below is a link to the Centre's website though there is no mention of KPMB or a timeline for it's construction. I am anxious to see what comes of this project. The Delegation of the Ismali Imamat on Sussex by Fumihiko Maki is probably one of the best pieces of architecture in Ottawa so I am hoping for something significant on this site.

http://www.pluralism.ca/.

KPMB was responsible for the renovation of the Canadian Museum of Nature (along with Barry Padolsky).

[Buggys]

Re location of social housing

The smartest and best place would be the country or another rural area. It would be quiet, peaceful, and isolated. It would be easier to scan for people trying to bring in contraband and stop people from leaving before they're better. It would also offer better air quality, pleasant surroundings, and an opportunity for a healthier lifestyle and an outlet. Running, walking, whittling, painting, music-making, writing, and others are all available out in the country in a safe and isolated environment to get clean.

To get people there, you'd need a kind of temporary area/office/building somewhere in the city.

Not necessarily. Troubled country kids get into things like theft, vandalism, and drugs because they feel like there's nothing to do. They feel like there's no entertainment.

I'm also not sure that it's easier to scan for contraband in rural areas. In fact, corn fields are one of the prime locations for growing marijuana out in the country! And in some parts of the country, there are so many acres of field crops that this scan would take ages.

[Buggys]

So prisons and detox centres would be "correctional facilities" and mental institutions for people who commit crimes due to mental illness would be permanent. It might also scare some criminals away from pleading insanity to get out of a long jail sentence.

A deterrent for pleading insanity?
I'm starting to like this idea : - D.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

I've been around here for about five years.

In that time I've read a lot of wise things, but nothing wiser than this post.

Wow, thanks. :cheers:

Re location of social housing



Not necessarily. Troubled country kids get into things like theft, vandalism, and drugs because they feel like there's nothing to do. They feel like there's no entertainment.

I'm also not sure that it's easier to scan for contraband in rural areas. In fact, corn fields are one of the prime locations for growing marijuana out in the country! And in some parts of the country, there are so many acres of field crops that this scan would take ages.

True, but we're talking a secure location here; like a lot of rehab centres in California. They're in the country, very welcoming, secure, and isolated. They plan group activities, there's always something to do, able psychiatric professionals, and they try to find an individualized way for each person.

And yeah, growing marijuana in a corn field isn't anything new, but marijuana is pretty harmless compared to other illegal and even legal substances. Additionally, if we're talking about a secure and isolated location, then where's the threat?

[1overcosc]

Ya marijuana really isn't that harmful. (In fact, scientists have spent the past few decades trying to find negative consequences of pot-smoking and have found very little). The drugs that actually are problems, like heroin and cocaine, are derived from tropical plants that can't be grown in our climate. (Heroin from opium, cocaine from coca bush). Fun side note: Almost all painkillers are chemically very similar to heroin.

[Buggys]

True, but we're talking a secure location here; like a lot of rehab centres in California. They're in the country, very welcoming, secure, and isolated. They plan group activities, there's always something to do, able psychiatric professionals, and they try to find an individualized way for each person.


...Initially I thought you were referring to locating social housing in rural areas??? I don't agree with that.

But locating secure rehab centres out in the country sounds like a good idea.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

...Initially I thought you were referring to locating social housing in rural areas??? I don't agree with that.

But locating secure rehab centres out in the country sounds like a good idea.

Social housing should remain in the city, as it's usually closer to all life's needs, and is more affordable. But yes, rehab/detox centres should have a sort of registering/processing centre(s) in the city, with a main rehab facility in the country somewhere.

[DowntownDensity]

Hey look: I've found Place Bell's "sister tower" in NYC! (Bear in mind...Ottawa/NYC sister tower pairings mean one side has a much taller version....)

767 5th Avenue:


http://www.google.ca/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&docid=qe1Rr-ZiLNEz8M&tbnid=nwxGuNTUmY6V7M:&ved=0CAUQjBwwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.panoramio.com%2Fphotos%2Flarge%2F49483308.jpg&ei=c2JPUubDOqbl4APu24GwBQ&psig=AFQjCNF02Jm-Jywra7zEqMbgVfFugW-AQA&ust=1381020659992220

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&docid=WjsFwpY-xN8MGM&tbnid=U5m2SrW2wKiRzM:&ved=0CAUQjBwwADgQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nyc-officespace-leader.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Ffeatured-space%2Fgenmotors.jpg&ei=hGJPUo-ZJ47_4APBmoDQDQ&psig=AFQjCNF6inJY39bhBA0GzXCx4GX5f-t3Lw&ust=1381020676686483

[J.OT13]

Hey look: I've found Place Bell's "sister tower" in NYC! (Bear in mind...Ottawa/NYC sister tower pairings mean one side has a much taller version....)

767 5th Avenue:


http://www.google.ca/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&docid=qe1Rr-ZiLNEz8M&tbnid=nwxGuNTUmY6V7M:&ved=0CAUQjBwwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.panoramio.com%2Fphotos%2Flarge%2F49483308.jpg&ei=c2JPUubDOqbl4APu24GwBQ&psig=AFQjCNF02Jm-Jywra7zEqMbgVfFugW-AQA&ust=1381020659992220

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&docid=WjsFwpY-xN8MGM&tbnid=U5m2SrW2wKiRzM:&ved=0CAUQjBwwADgQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nyc-officespace-leader.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Ffeatured-space%2Fgenmotors.jpg&ei=hGJPUo-ZJ47_4APBmoDQDQ&psig=AFQjCNF6inJY39bhBA0GzXCx4GX5f-t3Lw&ust=1381020676686483

There's another "sister tower" in Toronto; the TSX Building, built by the same company (O&Y) 10 years after Place Bell;

http://www.paulhillier.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/exchange-tower-sept14-colour.jpg

[MountainView]

Our Place Bell would have looked sweet slightly thinner and about 40 storeys

[J.OT13]

Our Place Bell would have looked sweet slightly thinner and about 40 storeys

Or even with the same footprint at 40 storeys. Still a neat building.

[rocketphish]

City exceeds urban targets

Report shows intensification goals being surpassed

By Derek Spalding, Ottawa Citizen October 4, 2013

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/cms/binary/8996463.jpg

The city is exceeding its goals of clustering residents into areas where it wants to see higher population densities, according to the latest data from the planning and growth management department.

Figures from the 2012 development report show building permits were issued for 1,973 residential units within the city's targeted intensification areas, which include locations close to rapid transit stations, busy transit service areas, main streets and town centres.

Those numbers amount to 31.4 per cent of the new units approved throughout the city, which is the highest rate seen since the intensification targets were introduced in 2003, according to the document going to the planning committee next week.

Committee member and Coun. Stephen Blais praised the numbers from the report because higher densities will eventually appear in the target areas that are largely within the greenbelt, where the rate of population increases have long been much slower than in the suburbs.

"The more people who live outside the greenbelt, the more money required for things like transit, water and sewer," Blais said. "I see the goal of the targeted areas as a way to bring more people closer to the core."

Target areas only account for a portion of the overall intensification levels in Ottawa, which are measured in five-year increments against goals set out in the official plan. For the period between 2007 and 2011, the city saw 39 per cent of new units within the urban area, which was higher than the 36 per cent target for that period.

These latest figures show the city is well on its way to meeting the target of 38 per cent set for 2012 to 2016. Overall residential intensification reached 50.8 per cent in 2012, which was up from 45.2 per cent from 2011, according to the report.

But, as the document cautions, those numbers could change with a sudden downturn in the housing market. Blais agreed, saying the cost of housing can determine where people will live.

"As long as market trends continue the way they are, then things are good ... but you can never predict how the market or how these other external forces are going to play on how things are going to look in the future," he said.

The report also highlights the continuing trend of people moving to "urban areas" outside the greenbelt. An estimated 33.5 per cent of the city's 935,255 population, at the end of 2012, lived in these urban centres. That figure is compared with the 56.6 per cent living within the greenbelt and the 9.9 per cent in rural communities.

Areas with the largest population gains in 2012 were South Nepean, Orléans, Kanata and Leitrim, according to the report. In terms of a growth rate, Leitrim led the way, with a 20.9-per-cent increase in population, followed by Riverside South at 9.3 per cent and South Nepean at 3.9 per cent.

In comparison, the downtown population grew by just 0.4 per cent to an estimated 97,875. Areas inside the greenbelt, but outside of downtown, fell 0.1 per cent to about 431,000.

dspalding@ottawacitizen.com Twitter.com/Derek_Spalding
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/City+exceeds+urban+targets/8996462/story.html

[JackBauer24]

I'm not sure if there's a thread for this project (and pardon my lack of technological abilities to start a proper thread), but I just came across this project near the Train Yards.

http://www.gatewayoncoronation.ca/index.html

It's new and I haven't heard or seen hardly any advertising for it, so I know very little about it aside from what's on the website.

[McPwned]

I'm not sure if there's a thread for this project (and pardon my lack of technological abilities to start a proper thread), but I just came across this project near the Train Yards.

http://www.gatewayoncoronation.ca/index.html

It's new and I haven't heard or seen hardly any advertising for it, so I know very little about it aside from what's on the website.

I live close by, and I wouldn't call it that new. The signage feels like it's been there almost a year now, but I don't remember exactly when it first went up.

[JackBauer24]

I assumed it was new since I have not seen one lick of advertising. But if it's not new, it's the best kept secret in Ottawa.

Have they started construction on it yet? The website says occupancy is estimated for April 2014.

I live close by, and I wouldn't call it that new. The signage feels like it's been there almost a year now, but I don't remember exactly when it first went up.

[McPwned]

I assumed it was new since I have not seen one lick of advertising. But if it's not new, it's the best kept secret in Ottawa.

Have they started construction on it yet? The website says occupancy is estimated for April 2014.

I've certainly not noticed any construction going on. Maybe I'll go take a close look after work tonight to see if they're doing anything at all.

Alta Vista Ridge is coming along, though.

[JackBauer24]

Yes, I've been by that area recently and Alta Vista Ridge is moving along quite well - in terms of sales and construction.

My recent visit there was partly why I thought this Gateway project was new. If they haven't started construction yet, they'll be strained to make an end of 2014 closing, let alone April 2014.

I've certainly not noticed any construction going on. Maybe I'll go take a close look after work tonight to see if they're doing anything at all.

Alta Vista Ridge is coming along, though.

[JackBauer24]

Interesting read from the Citizen today....

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/ottawa/Forest+condos+planned+east+side+transit+stations+make/9007522/story.html

[McPwned]

My recent visit there was partly why I thought this Gateway project was new. If they haven't started construction yet, they'll be strained to make an end of 2014 closing, let alone April 2014.

I can't say that I ever thought much of the project. It's crammed in the lot, joined to a rental, isn't cheap, and the apartments aren't large.

Also, the site links to a Citizen article from February that talks about the launch of the project - so I guess it's about eight months old.

[Beatrix]

Interesting read from the Citizen today....

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/ottawa/Forest+condos+planned+east+side+transit+stations+make/9007522/story.html

Very interesting indeed.

Wouldn't they need to demolish the new Ottawa U football field to make way for this "forest of towers"?

[MountainView]

From the Citizen article:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/ottawa/cms/binary/9007838.jpg?size=620x400s

This would really be something!

[Urbanarchit]

From the Citizen article:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/ottawa/cms/binary/9007838.jpg?size=620x400s

This would really be something!

It would be, although what would happen to uOttawa's new field?

There's definitely a lot more space around there for similar development, actually. Just the city needs to make it work as a neighbourhood, not just buildings around the Queensway and transit station. Make it actually walkable, with lots of retail (and people who can work there).

What did you think of the discussion in the comments? ;)

Also... wasn't Chernushenko supportive of highrises around Dow-Preston/Glebe/Bayview/ Hintonburg? All of a sudden he doesn't support it for his constituency?

[OTSkyline]

Very interesting indeed...

This is the kind of thinking that will get people closer to downtown and jobs, less people commuting on highways (hopefully) and more people using EXISTING infrastructure and public transit.

David Chernuchenko's idea that Lees or entire neighbourhoods should be 8 stories high and that's it is idiotic. He says the neighbourhood will not be a "community", well a "community" is what the people make of it, if people want to know their neighbours and put together bake sales and events like that they can do it if they live in a suburban community as much as if they live in a condo high-rise community. Just because there are towers doesn't mean it will bring crime or that people will not feel "connected". He really is starting to get on my nerves... #diane2.0

[JackBauer24]

Well said.
Communities dont have to be horizontal to be effective, they cab be vertical as well. Its all about the people who live there and what they make of it. Whether its a 5 storey tower or a 500 storey tower, that will have little to no baring on how much or little socializing there will be in that neighborhood.

And his tie in to higher rates of crime in high rises is also ridiculous. One of the areas with the highest crime rate in Ottawa is Manotick - how many high rises are there in that neck of the woods? Like communities, people have much more of a direct impact on crime rates than the size and shape of buildings.

Very interesting indeed...

This is the kind of thinking that will get people closer to downtown and jobs, less people commuting on highways (hopefully) and more people using EXISTING infrastructure and public transit.

David Chernuchenko's idea that Lees or entire neighbourhoods should be 8 stories high and that's it is idiotic. He says the neighbourhood will not be a "community", well a "community" is what the people make of it, if people want to know their neighbours and put together bake sales and events like that they can do it if they live in a suburban community as much as if they live in a condo high-rise community. Just because there are towers doesn't mean it will bring crime or that people will not feel "connected". He really is starting to get on my nerves... #diane2.0

[OttawaSteve]

From the Citizen article:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/ottawa/cms/binary/9007838.jpg?size=620x400s

This would really be something!

A 21st-century take on the Greber Plan?

http://www.busgallery.ca/greber.jpg

[rocketphish]

What did you think of the discussion in the comments? ;)

Well, you seem to be very well versed in Jane Jacobs, and you put together a good case. :tup:

[Shalaby]

Very interesting indeed...

This is the kind of thinking that will get people closer to downtown and jobs, less people commuting on highways (hopefully) and more people using EXISTING infrastructure and public transit.

David Chernuchenko's idea that Lees or entire neighbourhoods should be 8 stories high and that's it is idiotic. He says the neighbourhood will not be a "community", well a "community" is what the people make of it, if people want to know their neighbours and put together bake sales and events like that they can do it if they live in a suburban community as much as if they live in a condo high-rise community. Just because there are towers doesn't mean it will bring crime or that people will not feel "connected". He really is starting to get on my nerves... #diane2.0

Right? I don't understand the logic at all.

There’s no magic number of floors where a condo tower becomes too isolating, Chernushenko said, but a neighbourhood dominated by 30- and 40-storey buildings won’t be much of a neighbourhood.

Why would they not be much of neighbourhoods? What alternate is he proposing- increase the suburban sprawl?

[McPwned]

I've certainly not noticed any construction going on. Maybe I'll go take a close look after work tonight to see if they're doing anything at all.

I passed by last night. The property is still a parking lot for the rental building and all the billboards have been taken down. The rental looks like it got the renovations, though.

[JackBauer24]

Thanks for the update. Looks like that April 2014 move-in date is a little off. :P


I passed by last night. The property is still a parking lot for the rental building and all the billboards have been taken down. The rental looks like it got the renovations, though.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Very interesting indeed...

This is the kind of thinking that will get people closer to downtown and jobs, less people commuting on highways (hopefully) and more people using EXISTING infrastructure and public transit.

David Chernuchenko's idea that Lees or entire neighbourhoods should be 8 stories high and that's it is idiotic. He says the neighbourhood will not be a "community", well a "community" is what the people make of it, if people want to know their neighbours and put together bake sales and events like that they can do it if they live in a suburban community as much as if they live in a condo high-rise community. Just because there are towers doesn't mean it will bring crime or that people will not feel "connected". He really is starting to get on my nerves... #diane2.0

Well said.
Communities dont have to be horizontal to be effective, they cab be vertical as well. Its all about the people who live there and what they make of it. Whether its a 5 storey tower or a 500 storey tower, that will have little to no baring on how much or little socializing there will be in that neighborhood.

And his tie in to higher rates of crime in high rises is also ridiculous. One of the areas with the highest crime rate in Ottawa is Manotick - how many high rises are there in that neck of the woods? Like communities, people have much more of a direct impact on crime rates than the size and shape of buildings.

This reminds me, I used to have a summer job doing bbq catering. We'd load up trucks and go wherever we needed to go in the city, set up, and serve fresh made burgers and sides to large groups of people. There were a few times where we served several hundred people in apartment towers and condos. It was definitely a community/social exercise for them, so even a single condo/apartment tower can be its own community.

[Urbanarchit]

Well, you seem to be very well versed in Jane Jacobs, and you put together a good case. :tup:

http://images.wikia.com/elderscrolls/images/e/ea/Oh_stop_it_you.png

Thanks! ;) I'm actually just reading "The Death and Life of Great American Cities", so I felt I should share some of that with him.

I was actually surprised because two people on there I recognized. Geoffrey Hall works with Katherine Hobbs, and attends the meetings she organized with the community and their associations in her wards. And then Alexandre Laquerre (who does Ottawa Past and Present) commented. I always thought he was a middle-aged man, not someone so young.

[phil235]

From the Citizen article:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/ottawa/cms/binary/9007838.jpg?size=620x400s

This would really be something!

Where has the stadium gone? It's not across the 417 as planned?

[J.OT13]

Where has the stadium gone? It's not across the 417 as planned?

Leadingedgeboomer said something about the new stadium being a mid-term solution before building something bigger and better a few years down the road.

[rocketphish]

Where has the stadium gone? It's not across the 417 as planned?

It's not just the stadium that's gone, it's the whole south campus. I imagine that U of O could profit quite nicely by selling it to developers, or orchestrating a land swap of some sort.

[phil235]

Leadingedgeboomer said something about the new stadium being a mid-term solution before building something bigger and better a few years down the road.

But where would that be, if not on south campus and not near Sandy Hill arena?

As for U of O, I understood that some of the taller buildings would be university buildings.

[Harley613]

But where would that be, if not on south campus and not near Sandy Hill arena?

As for U of O, I understood that some of the taller buildings would be university buildings.

One stop away at Hurdman! Ottawa U is already running out of space, surely they'd be a good candidate for for a plot at a new Hurdman Nexus.
http://i.imgur.com/iJ4Qg5a.jpg

[phil235]

One stop away at Hurdman! Ottawa U is already running out of space, surely they'd be a good candidate for for a plot at a new Hurdman Nexus.
http://i.imgur.com/iJ4Qg5a.jpg

Not a bad idea at all.

[J.OT13]

But where would that be, if not on south campus and not near Sandy Hill arena?

As for U of O, I understood that some of the taller buildings would be university buildings.

I don't remember for sure, but I think he said around Sandy Hill Arena.

[rocketphish]

Mutchmor Public School parking plan still being discussed with city, board says

By Neco Cockburn, OTTAWA CITIZEN October 10, 2013 4:00 PM

OTTAWA — Discussions with the city to find parking for an expanded Mutchmor Public School have turned to the possibility of using spaces on the street, says the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board.

Following community opposition to the potential creation of a strip of parking on a field the board owns across the street from the Glebe school, board staff said this past summer that they would try to reach a lease arrangement for parking in a new four-storey, 149-space garage being planned by the city a short distance away.

Jennifer Adams, the board’s director of education, stated in an email Wednesday evening, however, that “the timing of the completion of the parking garage may not align with the timing of the school construction,” and that “staff has been working with the city to access on street parking.”

The city hopes to open the garage in November of 2014, said Capital Coun. David Chernushenko. There was always the possibility that temporary on-street parking for the school would have to be explored for a “bridging” period between the opening of the larger Mutchmor building in September 2014 and the garage a couple of months later, he said.

“If the city can accommodate it for a temporary period and it’s not forcing us to pinch our noses and break with our own policies, then go to it to try and facilitate a solution here. Everybody wants to avoid parking on the field, even temporarily,” Chernushenko said.

The Mutchmor school, at 185 Fifth Ave., west of Bank Street, is being renovated and expanded in preparation for a “switch” in September that’s to see First Avenue Public School move into the building.

The addition of classrooms and a new main office and library means that 24 parking spaces are to be reduced to 14. With board staff intending to provide the same ratio of parking currently available at the First Avenue school, they have stated that a total of about 35 spaces would be needed.

After some parents, students, residents and politicians opposed the possibility that a row of parking would be introduced along the west side of the field across from school, staff announced in June that they planned to discuss a possible lease arrangement for space in the city’s planned parking garage at 170 Second Ave., near Bank Street.

They’d also look into a potential long-term option of acquiring additional land to develop for parking, staff stated in a memo at the time. A decision on parking is needed by April in order for it to be implemented by next summer, the memo stated.

Part of the field has since been hoarded off for construction staging, and in a recent message to parents, the school stated that the contractor has been asked to “avoid any parking on the field as much as possible” during the project.

The Glebe Community Association stated in an update to residents this week that the staging means the community won’t be able to use an ice rink at the field this winter for the first time since 1933.

Despite earlier assurances that the community would be kept in the loop, “OCDSB staff did not previously communicate this information to the community and have not maintained communications with the GCA on any other construction impacts,” the message stated.

Adams confirmed Wednesday that there will be no skating rink for 2013-2014 “in order to ensure a safe playground for students at Mutchmor during construction.” Board staff have met with school councils and community associations to share timelines for the construction project, she stated.

“The District remains committed to working with the community,” Adams wrote.

Next month, a committee that includes representatives of board staff, school councils, community associations and city are to begin working on a “rejuvenation plan” for the playground once the construction project is completed, she stated, and “a skating rink will be considered by this committee during their discussions.”

City staff aim to have a zoning application for the parking garage considered by council’s planning committee in December. The garage would include about 35 bicycle spaces and have a couple of parkettes containing plants and street furniture at either end, on Second and Third avenues, according to a planning rationale document that’s part of the application.

ncockburn@ottawacitizen.com

twitter.com/NecoCockburn
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Mutchmor+Public+School+parking+plan+still+being+discussed/9021075/story.html

[TransitZilla]

[B]Mutchmor Public School parking plan still being discussed with city, board says
...


It's kind of ridiculous the amount of effort that is being expended here to ensure teachers continue to get free parking.

I'm no teacher basher, but I don't understand why free parking is considered such an inherent right. Teachers parking at any school should be required to pay for a monthly pass to offset at least the cost of lot maintenance. (Yes, that includes the schools in Kanata, Orleans, etc).

As it is now, the budget for construction and maintenance of parking lots is coming out of coffers that could otherwise be spent in the classroom.

[kwoldtimer]

Teachers get free parking? Why?

[waterloowarrior]

http://www.juteaujohnsoncomba.com/newsletters/2013/August_2013_Newsletter_June_Sales.pdf

The most notable transaction was the purchase of 1140 Wellington Street for
$5,500,000 or $104/sf of site area by Tamarack Corporation from The Governing Council of the Salvation Army in Canada. Tamarack Corporation intends to redevelop the property with a thirteen-storey residential condominium that will incorporate the existing heritage office building into the design.

here's the site
http://f.tlcollect.com/fr2/112/80493/1140_Wellington_Street_Flyer.pdf

[c_speed3108]

It's kind of ridiculous the amount of effort that is being expended here to ensure teachers continue to get free parking.

I'm no teacher basher, but I don't understand why free parking is considered such an inherent right. Teachers parking at any school should be required to pay for a monthly pass to offset at least the cost of lot maintenance. (Yes, that includes the schools in Kanata, Orleans, etc).

As it is now, the budget for construction and maintenance of parking lots is coming out of coffers that could otherwise be spent in the classroom.

Not withstanding the ridiculous effort being spent on this (why not just put a small parking garage under the addition?), I seem to recall back when I was at school there was some level of requirement for cars. I seem to recall particularly on field trips at least one of the accompanying teachers had to a car with them for emergencies. No idea if this is still the case or even was the case (this is memories from when I was much younger).

That school never had a ton of parking in the first place. I am sure some teachers would have either been parking elsewhere or getting to work by other means.

[kwoldtimer]

It will be interesting to see a render of an eventual proposal. The site extends both behind and to the east of the existing building.

[rocketphish]

Historic Vanier church on verge of heritage protection

By David Reevely, OTTAWA CITIZEN October 10, 2013

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/life/cms/binary/9021915.jpg

OTTAWA — The city’s heritage committee voted Thursday to protect Vanier’s St. Charles church as a historic building over the complaints of its parish and Ottawa’s Catholic archdiocese.

They say they need the money from selling the property on Beechwood Avenue for redevelopment to sustain the French Catholic community whose history the preserved church is supposed to honour.

“They need to be reinforced,” argued Kevin Beach, the vicar-general of the archdiocese, in exchanges with councillors held mostly in French. The church, which held its last regular service in 2010, is a huge asset whose future has been debated intensely for the last five years, Beach said, with the goal being to get the most value out of it possible to support Vanier’s French Catholic community.

As prominent as the church building is on Beechwood, Beach said it’s not as distinctive architecturally as other churches a short walk away. The history of the church as a community centre and as the founding location of the Order of Jacques Cartier (a French Catholic secret society that eventually stretched across French-speaking Canada and helped members break into jobs that dominant Anglos wanted to keep them out of) doesn’t depend on the building itself, Beach argued.

A rough estimate of the property’s value is $2 million, but it would be worth a lot less if the church is an immovable part of the deal. Just restoring the structure to make it useful again would cost about $1 million, money nobody’s offering.

“The Heritage Act does not govern use,” emphasized the city’s top heritage expert Sally Coutts. “It does not stop the owner from selling the property to anybody they choose.” Wal-Mart could open up shop inside if it wanted, she said, so requiring the church — and strictly speaking, just its exterior — to be preserved doesn’t necessarily limit the use of the land too profoundly.

The meeting drew both Ottawa-Vanier MP Mauril Bélanger and former Vanier mayor Guy Cousineau, who heads the parish that used to call St. Charles home, a sign of how important the building’s future is.

Most of the people who addressed the committee disagreed with Beach.

“This building represents a major element of our community’s story,” said Mike Bulthuis, president of the Vanier Community Association. “We see designation as a way of ensuring our communities remain rooted in our past.”

St. Charles was always more than a church, he said, it was a community centre and should stay that way, as a performance space, place for public meetings, perhaps a market.

“We see this as being a landmark facility,” agreed Alexander Macklin, a former president of the Rockcliffe Park Residents’ Association. It’s a potential community and cultural centre that could draw people from Vanier, Rockcliffe and New Edinburgh together. Another disused church, St. Brigid’s in Lowertown, has been used exactly this way, he pointed out, to marvellous effect.

Others suggested different compromises. Belanger said the site’s importance could be marked if it were designated a national historic site because of the Order of Jacques Cartier, though that wouldn’t protect the building or necessarily come with federal money for anything. Nearby resident and urban designer Marilyn Hart said she’s worked at length with Cousineau to explore possibilities and said perhaps the bell tower and its distinctive cross could be kept while the rest of the church is demolished. There’s a community plan for the Beechwood strip that was structured to preserve the prominence of the bell tower, she pointed out.

In the end, with virtually no debate after hearing all the public presenters, the committee voted unanimously to protect the church as a heritage building. The decision needs ratifying by city council’s planning committee and full city council before it’s final.

Coun. Mathieu Fleury, whose ward includes the church, said he hopes to find a way that everyone can work together to bring the building back to life and make the parishes some money. “We want to see uses,” he said.

dreevely@ottawacitizen.com

ottawacitizen.com/greaterottawa
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/life/Historic+Vanier+church+verge+heritage+protection/9021914/story.html

[J.OT13]

Thank God! The City is finally doing something about heritage protection!! Maybe the Ogilvy didn't die in vain.

[J.OT13]

Maybe the Sparks Street BIA will beat the NCC to the punch on interprovincial transit! They seem serious with their heritage streetcar idea;

http://www.ottawastreetcar.com/

Obviously won't hold the capacity needed to shuffle civil servants between the Rapibus and Confederation Line, but it would be great for tourists.

[NOWINYOW]

Maybe the Sparks Street BIA will beat the NCC to the punch on interprovincial transit! They seem serious with their heritage streetcar idea;

http://www.ottawastreetcar.com/

Obviously won't hold the capacity needed to shuffle civil servants between the Rapibus and Confederation Line, but it would be great for tourists.

It would be awesome for tourists! It's great to see private enterprise stepping up when Gov'ts have consistently failed. How many times have Gov'ts tried to "revitalize" Sparks Street?

[J.OT13]

It would be awesome for tourists! It's great to see private enterprise stepping up when Gov'ts have consistently failed. How many times have Gov'ts tried to "revitalize" Sparks Street?

Seems every time they try to "revitalize" something, they end up making it worse.

[kwoldtimer]

Seems every time they try to "revitalize" something, they end up making it worse.

I doubt there needs be much concern in this case....

[waterloowarrior]

It was reported recently in one of the threads that KPMB would be doing the new Global Centre for Pluralism for the Aga Khan Foundation. A meeting with the local councillor was just reported to the lobbyist registry as well so we may be seeing the plans soon.

Jeff Polowin (Aga Khan Foundation of Canada) Re-zoning of former War Museum http://bit.ly/19Nah3y

[bartlebooth]

It was reported recently in one of the threads that KPMB would be doing the new Global Centre for Pluralism for the Aga Khan Foundation. A meeting with the local councillor was just reported to the lobbyist registry as well so we may be seeing the plans soon.

Jeff Polowin (Aga Khan Foundation of Canada) Re-zoning of former War Museum http://bit.ly/19Nah3y

I mentioned that about three weeks ago. Thanks for the update. I can't wait to see what is proposed for this site.