NCC Greenbelt

[waterloowarrior]

new whitepaper going to committee

http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2008/06-10/ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0123%20RevisedFinal.htm

[Aylmer]

They should build small "villages"; Medium density pockets of land which are axed on transit.

Self-sustained and environmentaly freindly!

:)

[Mille Sabords]

This should be an intense debate. Personally, I agree that it is a discussion whose time has come.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=dddf03f6-dca3-4b22-b093-37cfc92497e8
==========================================================

Greenbelt development under review
21,500 acres could be used for housing; nearly 14,000 without doing any harm: city paper

Mohammed Adam, The Ottawa Citizen
Tuesday, June 17, 2008

For the first time, the City of Ottawa has identified more than 13,700 acres of the Greenbelt, worth about $1.6 billion, that could be developed without damaging the integrity of the capital's most treasured natural landmark.

The land, about a quarter of the 49,400-acre (20,800-hectare) belt, is enough to provide more than 20 years of urban land for housing and employment if the National Capital Commission decides to open it up for development, says a white paper released by the city last week.

It is the first time since the Greenbelt was created in the 1950s that a government body has put out a serious proposal on developing property that has been kept immune to development. It is also the first time that anyone has put a figure on its value. Assembled for $40 million (in 1966 dollars), about 85 per cent of the belt, made of up of farms, woodland, wetland, trails and scrubland, is undeveloped. Today, shorn of the environmentally sensitive lands that are virtually untouchable, the Greenbelt has about 21,500 acres (8,746 hectares) of theoretically developable land.

Those 21,500 acres are worth $2.5 billion, a city estimate based on the going market price of $120,000 an acre for urban land. The city believes that, realistically, only 13,700 acres (5,560 hectares) can be developed without doing lethal harm to the Greenbelt as a whole.

Ian Cross, author of the white paper and the city's manager of research and forecasting, says in the end, the fate of the Greenbelt will be decided by the NCC, which owns and manages the land. However, it is useful for the coming debate on the future of the city's most prized natural asset to ask whether the Greenbelt envisaged by French planner Jacques Gréber almost 50 years ago is still relevant.

"Right now we are building on farmland outside the urban area and the question is, does it make sense to protect agricultural land in the Greenbelt when we continue to build farther out?" Mr. Cross said. "The primary purpose of the Greenbelt was to contain urban development, but that is gone. It didn't work. Building sustainable communities in the Greenbelt may be the appropriate evolutionary development."

In its white paper, the city laid out three development options for discussion as the federal government considers the future of the once sacrosanct belt. The options are:

- Corridor development along major roads in the Greenbelt such as Highway 417 in the west, Highway 416 to Barrhaven and Highway 174 to Orléans.

- High-density mixed-use development along existing or planned rapid-transit lines such as the east and west sides of the Woodroffe transitway, south of Hunt Club Road, to encourage high transit use.

- Extension of urban land into the Greenbelt in existing neighbourhoods in areas such as north and south of Hunt Club west and the west side of Orléans along Innes Road.

The Greenbelt has long been treated with such reverence that it was considered taboo to contemplate any development on it beyond the public institutions such as the Ottawa Airport and research centres that call it home. A series of experts' reports, including one recently from the Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy, have all said the Greenbelt has fuelled sprawl, instead of containing it. Last year, NCC chairman Russell Mills became the most influential voice in the city to advocate some strip development along the Greenbelt to reduce urban sprawl. And when she announced the NCC's review this spring, chief executive Marie Lemay said "everything is on the table. You've got to ask the basic question: Is the use we have now what we want for the next 10 to 15 years or are there parts where we want something different?"

But others, prominent among them Larry Beasley, a noted urban planner and former chief planner of Vancouver, and Environment Minister John Baird, oppose development in what they consider an important part of the city's heritage. Mr. Baird vowed to fight any such move.

The white paper notes that with 141 kilometres of city roads, 43 kilometres of water pipes and 39 kilometres of sewer pipes running through the Greenbelt, the cost to the city and to commuters of continued expansion beyond the belt is running high. The extra travel through the Greenbelt during the peak period costs drivers $60 million annually. It also costs the city an extra $10 million a year to run buses through the Greenbelt to outlying areas. The cost of vehicle emissions is incalculable, Mr. Cross says. For all those reasons and more, he says, it makes sense to put the Greenbelt into the equation so that whatever the final decision is, all the issues will have been thrashed out.

- - -

By the Numbers

49,400 - Total number of acres in the Greenbelt.

21,500 - Number of acres of theoretically developable land in the Greenbelt.

13,700 - Number of acres that could be developed without affecting the integrity of the natural landmark.

[Kitchissippi]

I don't think this city and its developers are mature enough to consider developing the Greenbelt. Only a few years ago we were squandering available land within the Greenbelt on single family homes in Centrepointe and Central Park. Even in the Westboro area, I have seen 2 or 3 homes demolished only to provide larger lots for McMansions (go to Denbury between Dovercourt and Tilbury and you'll see reverse intensification happening).

I think the Greenbelt should be held intact for at least another 50 years before considering development. We should even look at its purpose as carbon offsetting. While it has not contained urban sprawl, I think it will force the development of the suburban town centres into denser satellite cores.

[Mille Sabords]

I don't think this city and its developers are mature enough to consider developing the Greenbelt. Only a few years ago we were squandering available land within the Greenbelt on single family homes in Centrepointe and Central Park. Even in the Westboro area, I have seen 2 or 3 homes demolished only to provide larger lots for McMansions (go to Denbury between Dovercourt and Tilbury and you'll see reverse intensification happening).

I think the Greenbelt should be held intact for at least another 50 years before considering development. We should even look at its purpose as carbon offsetting. While it has not contained urban sprawl, I think it will force the development of the suburban town centres into denser satellite cores.

I have to agree with your first point - Central Park was a waste of land and is a scar on the urban fabric.

Mind you, if we start the process today of talking about the Greenbelt, knowing the players involved (NCC, etc.) it will probably be 50 years before anything happens anyway!! :haha:

As I said, I think the discussion is a worthwhile one. I've long believed that the Greenbelt feeds a self-righteous fake environmentalism of the worst kind and perpetuates the very real problems we have in trying to bring the scale of this city back to the pedestrian.

[c_speed3108]

I have to agree with your first point - Central Park was a waste of land and is a scar on the urban fabric.

Mind you, if we start the process today of talking about the Greenbelt, knowing the players involved (NCC, etc.) it will probably be 50 years before anything happens anyway!! :haha:

As I said, I think the discussion is a worthwhile one. I've long believed that the Greenbelt feeds a self-righteous fake environmentalism of the worst kind and perpetuates the very real problems we have in trying to bring the scale of this city back to the pedestrian.

If lebretton was any indication - now is the time to start talking if our deadline to build is 50 years. Granted probably by then everything will have cycled again and it will be all about the suburbs again. People will talk about a new downtown concept called "urban renewal". :yes:

[Dado]

I don't think this city and its developers are mature enough to consider developing the Greenbelt. Only a few years ago we were squandering available land within the Greenbelt on single family homes in Centrepointe and Central Park. Even in the Westboro area, I have seen 2 or 3 homes demolished only to provide larger lots for McMansions (go to Denbury between Dovercourt and Tilbury and you'll see reverse intensification happening).
I'll have to go check that out. In my neck of the woods, they keep knocking down tiny cottages and bungalows on 50' lots just to replace them with semis that completely fill the building envelope while uprooting every tree on the lot - it's intensification but the semis are mini-McMansions that are each bigger than most of the two-storey detached houses that are around them. See Kirchoffer. Somehow, I don't think that is what intensification was supposed to be about, especially the loss of trees. Up until about 10 years ago, most of the semis that were going in "fit in" - they were not oversized monsters and they even left behind most of the trees. Now, my parents have got so sick of it all (the McMansion pissing contests - more of the developers and the people coming in have a suburban mentality that they refuse to leave behind) that they are going to move out into the country. Five years ago the thought would not even have crossed their minds.


I think the Greenbelt should be held intact for at least another 50 years before considering development. We should even look at its purpose as carbon offsetting. While it has not contained urban sprawl, I think it will force the development of the suburban town centres into denser satellite cores.
Except for a few "obvious" places like around Moodie and Carling, I agree. If the NCC does start selling chunks of it, the funds should be used to purchase more land further out (or at least to pay off the development rights), especially for the areas between Kanata and Barrhaven in particular but also between Orleans and South Gloucester (i.e. the Mer Bleue and Pine Forest Reserve areas should be extended into the area south of Leitrim and east of Bank Street). The last thing we need is to have our suburbs spill into one another.

[waterloowarrior]

there's a pretty big response on the citizen's website so far
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/story.html?id=50bb869e-9ad3-401a-bfbf-d17416bcb0d1

[Kitchissippi]

I have to agree with your first point - Central Park was a waste of land and is a scar on the urban fabric.

Speaking of Central Park and CentrePointe, and wasted opportunities, both could have been TODs on an ideal east west LRT route:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3135/2587941698_3fb2770cea_b.jpg

[citizen j]

I don't think this city and its developers are mature enough to consider developing the Greenbelt. Only a few years ago we were squandering available land within the Greenbelt on single family homes in Centrepointe and Central Park. Even in the Westboro area, I have seen 2 or 3 homes demolished only to provide larger lots for McMansions (go to Denbury between Dovercourt and Tilbury and you'll see reverse intensification happening).

I think the Greenbelt should be held intact for at least another 50 years before considering development. We should even look at its purpose as carbon offsetting. While it has not contained urban sprawl, I think it will force the development of the suburban town centres into denser satellite cores.

You're right.
"High density node" = Centrum or Innes Road with just enough stacked townhouses and seniors' residences to hide the parking lots.

[harls]

Looks like Mr. Baird's at it again... check the front page of the Citizen today.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Looks like Mr. Baird's at it again... check the front page of the Citizen today.

This man is a threat to the world... :hell:


And I had the dubious displeasure of having met, shook hands with and had a conversation with this man... :rolleyes: :hell: :yuck:

[Mille Sabords]

Bah, what else is he gonna say. Most of the people who vote for him are probably the old grannies with bungalows backing onto Greenbelt property anyway. Mr Baird will be long gone when the right decision is made about the Greenbelt.

[lrt's friend]

I just don't get this pave over everything mentality that I see on this forum. Knock down every low density house in the city, and build skyscrapers regardless of the impact on the various neighbourhoods. Sensitive and attractive intensification is very difficult accomplish and I have previously talked about how intensification has made a royal mess of our community. Everybody here seems to look down there noses at anybody who lives in a single family home, extolling the virtues of high density living, not understanding that this is not what everybody wants. Now the desire to sell off the Greenbelt. For what?

Our family was forced to sell the family farm in the name of the Greenbelt. Our family was forced to sell the family homestead for a road that was never built. For all the suffering that was inflicted in creating the Greenbelt, let's preserve it. You are kidding yourself that such a selloff will make this city any better. You are kidding yourself if you think we will end up with some utopian urban development on that land. Opening up that land will just result in more mediocre suburban style development.

[Mille Sabords]

Things are not perfect, I agree. Developing on the Greenbelt now would probably end up with more suburban wasteland, I agree. Lots of infill in mature neighbourhoods introduce suburban monstrosities that disfigure charming streetscapes, I agree.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't have a bigger picture when planning.

The proper way to intensify residential neighbourhoods is to urbanize their fabric. Much of the piecemeal infill we see now is inflicting extra distortions, although it is technically intensification. Although sometimes, small-scale infill projects hit the right note. The one in New Edinburgh by Larco that proposes to replace a corner-lot bungalow with 6 townhouses close to the street with rear lane parking is one of them. A project like that densifies a residential neighbourhood with a human-scaled form and design that actually improve the street.

High density living is not what everyone wants, I agree. But some people DO want it. Their choice shouldn't be restricted. And those who do want that choice will look for their choice in high-density areas. Makes sense. So, the areas that are already vibrant and mixed-use, ARE the logical candidates for intensification.

It's also too simplistic to describe what the city said in their white paper as "pave it all over". If you read it, as I did, they're actually quite careful. Most of the Greenbelt won't change. The Greenbelt will be preserved. It will always be there. It will be smaller and have a different shape, but it will stay.

What they are saying, and I agree, is that out of all the various types of lands on the Greenbelt, let's look at the more marginal ones as places to grow instead of taking up similar types of land further out.

[lrt's friend]

I wouldn't trust any 'expert', bureaucrat or politician with coming up with a definition of 'marginal' lands, and a definition that might actually stick. If we don't say no now, I can see a gradual selloff of more and more of the Greenbelt over time in order to develop adjacent properties as development pressure builds and there is the need for more cash by the NCC. Maybe the most environmentally sensitive lands will be preserved, but even that will be at risk as development encroaches closer and closer.

If you look at the proposed map of corridors to be developed, it is easy to see how the Greenbelt could be reduced to islands over time. And we forget hundreds of people who paid a premium for housing that backs onto the Greenbelt. Also think of communities like Blackburn Hamlet and Bells Corners which have a special character because they are surrounded by the Greenbelt.

As far as developing land further out, at least it is individual owners who will be benefitting from the sale of that land and they are selling the land on their own timetable. In most cases, land is sold as farmers decide to retire.

[AuxTown]

I agree that the environmentally sensitive areas of the Greenbelt such as Mer Bleu, Old Quarry Trail, Stoney Swamp etc. should be preserved at all cost, but much of the area surrounding Ottawa is farmland. Specifically, the area just West of Bayshore and North of Barhaven along Woodroofe strike me as perfect spots for development. These areas are already served by high-frequency public transit and are along major arterial roads. It's funny that many people would protest such development for environmental reasons, but they fail to realize the amount of farmland (arguably more appropriately located) is disappearing outside of the city in Carp, Carleton Place, Riverside South, etc. Who decided that those agricultural areas within the city are so much more important than those outside the city? It's sheer selfishness to force people to move further and further into exurbia, lengthening commutes, and increasing the cost to service new homes when there is perfectly good land within the city along major transit corridors just waiting to be developed. And don't get me even started on the Experimental Farm, a strip of which along Baseline and along Carling should have been developed 20 years ago!

[Dado]

With all the parking lagoons both inside and outside the Greenbelt as well as former brownfields and other unused sites available, I really don't see the point of touching the Greenbelt.

The talk of using the Greenbelt is to decide between ripping up farmland further out versus ripping it up further in. Great choice. Shouldn't we be keeping it all, and using the stuff closer in for more intensive agriculture? Losing strawberry farms in the city that one can take the kids to for an afternoon would be a real loss on so many levels.

Developing tracts of the Greenbelt is basically a way of avoiding doing something that developers seem loathe to do - not creating any more parking lots and redeveloping all the ones we have.

[Mille Sabords]

With all the parking lagoons both inside and outside the Greenbelt as well as former brownfields and other unused sites available, I really don't see the point of touching the Greenbelt.

The talk of using the Greenbelt is to decide between ripping up farmland further out versus ripping it up further in. Great choice. Shouldn't we be keeping it all, and using the stuff closer in for more intensive agriculture? Losing strawberry farms in the city that one can take the kids to for an afternoon would be a real loss on so many levels.

Developing tracts of the Greenbelt is basically a way of avoiding doing something that developers seem loathe to do - not creating any more parking lots and redeveloping all the ones we have.

When you put it that way it's hard to argue to the contrary. But, as good as it is, your argument rests on the premise that the industry, the city and communities are ready now to accept higher land coverage, taller buildings, higher densities and good urban form starting tomorrow morning 9 am. Which they aren't. All these people who get excited over whether a new building has 8 storeys instead of 6 are blind to the big picture. The two are related and inseparable.

[lrt's friend]

All these people who get excited over whether a new building has 8 storeys instead of 6 are blind to the big picture. The two are related and inseparable.

Don't you think that pushing the limits is all a game? The city plan calls for 6 storeys, so propose 10 in order to get 8. And there is lots of opportunity for extra profit in playing this game. You may tick a lot of people off, but the profit motive is stronger.

[citizen j]

With all the parking lagoons both inside and outside the Greenbelt as well as former brownfields and other unused sites available, I really don't see the point of touching the Greenbelt.

The talk of using the Greenbelt is to decide between ripping up farmland further out versus ripping it up further in. Great choice. Shouldn't we be keeping it all, and using the stuff closer in for more intensive agriculture? Losing strawberry farms in the city that one can take the kids to for an afternoon would be a real loss on so many levels.

Developing tracts of the Greenbelt is basically a way of avoiding doing something that developers seem loathe to do - not creating any more parking lots and redeveloping all the ones we have.

Hear, hear.

[Dado]

When you put it that way it's hard to argue to the contrary. But, as good as it is, your argument rests on the premise that the industry, the city and communities are ready now to accept higher land coverage, taller buildings, higher densities and good urban form starting tomorrow morning 9 am. Which they aren't. All these people who get excited over whether a new building has 8 storeys instead of 6 are blind to the big picture. The two are related and inseparable.

Somehow - and call me crazy if you really disagree - but somehow I think there would be much greater acceptance of throwing up, say, 15 storey towers on parking lots devoid of anything else than of putting up 8 storey buildings where the locals have already agreed to 6. And land coverage? I can't really see any issue there - it's hard to increase beyond 100% after all. Redevelopment might even lead to a few trees and small gardens being planted. And good urban form? I didn't even know anyone was opposed to it. In fact, it would appear that with respect to intensification of parking lots, there isn't likely to be any community opposition to speak of. I would hope the City wouldn't be opposed, especially since the newest big box estate at Barrhaven has been laid out to "allow" it in the future (as an aside, doesn't this strike anyone as a teensy bit odd?). Anyhow, it would appear that the only group of the three that you list that would be opposed to parking lot intensification tomorrow morning at 9 am is ... industry.

This is what gets me about intensification as it actually plays out. What's so special about a few dozen acres along the oldest streets in the city that calls for them to be intensively built up while there exists much larger tracts of land - often not far away (I can name several around here - will someone please redevelop that *@#&^! parking lot north of Westboro Transitway Station with a nice 12-storey mixed use development? Please? bring it on! anyone?) - that escape to continue on as parking lot? You know, big picture? Canadian Tire just built a new store on Carling near Churchill. It replaced a parking lot with a 2-storey store. Yippee. It's a start, but where are the other 6+ storeys that site could have supported with ease?

[lrt's friend]

Somehow - and call me crazy if you really disagree - but somehow I think there would be much greater acceptance of throwing up, say, 15 storey towers on parking lots devoid of anything else than of putting up 8 storey buildings where the locals have already agreed to 6. And land coverage? I can't really see any issue there - it's hard to increase beyond 100% after all. Redevelopment might even lead to a few trees and small gardens being planted. And good urban form? I didn't even know anyone was opposed to it. In fact, it would appear that with respect to intensification of parking lots, there isn't likely to be any community opposition to speak of. I would hope the City wouldn't be opposed, especially since the newest big box estate at Barrhaven has been laid out to "allow" it in the future (as an aside, doesn't this strike anyone as a teensy bit odd?). Anyhow, it would appear that the only group of the three that you list that would be opposed to parking lot intensification tomorrow morning at 9 am is ... industry.

This is what gets me about intensification as it actually plays out. What's so special about a few dozen acres along the oldest streets in the city that calls for them to be intensively built up while there exists much larger tracts of land - often not far away (I can name several around here - will someone please redevelop that *@#&^! parking lot north of Westboro Transitway Station with a nice 12-storey mixed use development? Please? bring it on! anyone?) - that escape to continue on as parking lot? You know, big picture? Canadian Tire just built a new store on Carling near Churchill. It replaced a parking lot with a 2-storey store. Yippee. It's a start, but where are the other 6+ storeys that site could have supported with ease?

Sometimes I am totally mystified by what gets built. A self-storage building is now going up near Bank and Hunt Club, surrounded by retail, condos and offices. It is within walking distance of the Transitway and future LRT. What a waste of that land! Is this the type of intensification that we are looking for? Surely, self-storage could have been built in some industrial park instead of such a prominent location so close to rapid transit.

The worst thing, they unnecessarily removed a row of mature spruce trees that existed right on the boundary of the property. Why couldn't a 6 or 8 foot buffer have been left to protect those trees when the building is being constructed elsewhere on that lot? I guess they were simply going to get in the way of construction equipment and it was going to be easier just to get rid of them. Those trees can never be replaced and had been a beautiful feature of that location for decades.

[clynnog]

Sometimes I am totally mystified by what gets built. A self-storage building is now going up near Bank and Hunt Club, surrounded by retail, condos and offices.


That self storage company has big expansion/building plans in Ottawa. They run a facility near Jetform Park and they just opened one near Prince of Wales/Hunt Club. They are building in Kanata behind Canadian Tire, they are going to build on the old Capital Dodge site and they pile drove the land at Bank/Hunt Club. Their business model is based on exposure and not to be buried away in the back of an industrial park.

I'm not saying if it is right or not....I am just stating the facts.

[Dado]

Sometimes I am totally mystified by what gets built. A self-storage building is now going up near Bank and Hunt Club, surrounded by retail, condos and offices. It is within walking distance of the Transitway and future LRT. What a waste of that land! Is this the type of intensification that we are looking for? Surely, self-storage could have been built in some industrial park instead of such a prominent location so close to rapid transit.
Maybe it's to provide storage space for all those condo dwellers who find they don't have enough room for all their stuff but still want it nearby... :)


The worst thing, they unnecessarily removed a row of mature spruce trees that existed right on the boundary of the property. Why couldn't a 6 or 8 foot buffer have been left to protect those trees when the building is being constructed elsewhere on that lot? I guess they were simply going to get in the way of construction equipment and it was going to be easier just to get rid of them. Those trees can never be replaced and had been a beautiful feature of that location for decades.

That's the kind of thing that really perturbs me about modern construction methods. Everything that ever was is razed and replaced. I was cycling through Kanata a few weeks back on my way back from a ride in the country and in the area of Kanata Rd and Goulbourn Forced Road there's a new subdivision going in. It's on rocky shield and while it's a bit of a shame to see woods developed, it's better than plowing under farmland in the grand scheme of things. But what got me was the fact that there was not a single tree left standing from what used to be forest. Surely to goodness some of the trees in the future backyards or along the lot lines and beside the future roads could be left in place.

[Luker]

Not in Ottawa. Logic.

[Richard Eade]

I agree that 'Infill' has lost a lot of its meaning in the recent years.
In this picture, you can see the original mid-50s houses and their trees. Behind them is a development which went in in the early 80s. It is a neighbourhood of garages with attached houses in the back.:( Note that the trees and bushes between the two belong mostly to the older properties. There just isn't the space for large trees on the small lots.
Then, notice the re-development which happened in the early 2000s! It is a lot-line to lot-line single home. Huge resources for one family.
http://REade.fileave.com/Infill/Infill-Example.jpg

But this discussion does seem to be getting away from Greenbelt Development.:)

[lrt's friend]

This is exactly what has happened in our community except oversized houses tend to placed on tiny lots, making them look totally ridiculous with absolutely no back yard. Infill housing has resulted in the removal of almost all trees and the streetscape is now dominated by garages, driveways and cars parked in front of the houses just as demonstrated in the photo. The original 1950s housing had well treed lots and cars and garages tucked in to the sides and rears of the houses. Infilling has certainly intensified the community but it has also become a lot less attractive, despite the more upscale nature of the newer housing.

I would take the appearance of older neighbourhoods any day, with on-street parking, garages behind the houses accessed by narrow driveways and tree lined streets.

[city-dweller]

First, hello to those in this city forum. I have lived in Ottawa for one year, but I am from Vancouver. Thanks for the link waterloowarrior.

First I have issue with the some of the language(in the link):

"The strongest argument in favour of developing portions of the Greenbelt is to foster “sustainable development”. "

Just so were clear on my interpretation of sustainable development: -development that balances social, economic, environmental demands today without sacrificing the ability to meet future needs.

Fostering more sustainable development by densifying city areas is the right approach, but why the protected green belt? The outlying communities should be densified with rapid transit connecting them to each other and the inner urban area. With no stopping between inner and outer urban areas, a high speed (pick your favorite technology) would be better. I believe the continued expansion beyond the greenbelt in the 70s was a mistake, but the residents of these areas shouldn't have to suffer(commute etc). The housing and commute issues are driving this agenda on the political side.(will be popular with many of these residents)

The need for this land in the future in its current state is evident (food prices). I would call the proposal's environmental impacts understated with no mention of mitigation of heat island effect and carbon sink. I hope the environmental assessment will be about whether an area should be developed or not, and not just what mitigation is necessary for approval.

The social element should focus on more affordable housing stock in the inner urban area. Less commuting = more time at work or home. More people will still be driving from these communities given the current or proposed infrastructure.

The economics are simple. Many people can not afford to live close to where they work. Building new developments on existing city infrastructure as proposed has lower marginal cost and maximizes the utility (no pun intended:) ) Greenbelt is irrelevant in this calculation. The city wants to increase tax base, which is not bad. Arguing lack of tax base from these areas as a burden is erroneous. Create higher densities on either side. To be fair, most Canadian cities are in great need in infrastructure investment without adequate revenue sources.

I mention a few things here. Many items in the report(webpage) show positive economic, social and potentially environmental outcomes. Just because the report covers all three subject areas does not make it sustainable development. Urban development of land is linear we use the land to build on and recycle the built environment (eg. brownfields), but we do not return the land for 'green use'. This is land needed as is in the future.

Note: The transportation plan should be incorporated with any land-use development plans.

[eemy]

^ I think the biggest argument in favour of developing select parts of the Greenbelt is that its alternative would not be infill and intensification within the Greenbelt, but continued greenfield development beyond the Greenbelt. At least the Greenbelt land already has easy access to services and transportation infrastructure.

I suppose you could argue that the city could restrict the amount of lower density development occurring on greenfield sites and require all new development to be infill and intensification; however, there are two majors problems with this approach:

1) Neighbouring municipalities, particularly Carleton Place and Rockland and Gatineau to a certain extent, would probably draw more development away from Ottawa itself as a result.

2) The city is required to have a 10 year supply of land available for development. I believe there is/was an OMB case regarding this issue where developers were challenging the amount of land the city had made available for development. I don't know the outcome, but I have a feeling that if all greenfield development were halted, the OMB would side with developers, and development would go ahead anyway.

[waterloowarrior]

HAVE YOUR SAY ABOUT THE GREENBELT’S FUTURE!
Public Consultation

The Greenbelt consists of over 20,000 hectares of green space, forming a crescent‐shaped band that surrounds the nation’s capital. It is a living symbol of Canada’s rural landscape and ecologically sensitive areas — with a mix of farms, forests and wetlands — which also provides important space for recreational uses, federal institutions and research facilities.

The Greenbelt is like an “Emerald Necklace” and exists as a living war memorial to the Canadians who gave their lives in the Second World War.
Starting at Shirleys Bay just north of Kanata, it circles down through Stony Swamp and Pinhey Forest, then continues east through the experimental farm, where it arcs back northward through Mer Bleue and then follows Green’s Creek to the Ottawa River. The Greenbelt reaches over a distance of 45 kilometers and ranges in width from two to ten kilometers.

The National Capital Commission (NCC) has begun a review of the 1996 Greenbelt Master Plan, which guides how the Greenbelt is used, managed and protected, now and in the future.

Join the discussion!

As a very first consultation, the NCC wants to inform and engage citizens while assessing the Greenbelt’s existing conditions. We want to know what you think the Greenbelt’s greatest features are, and what you see as the pressures and trends that should be considered when planning the Greenbelt of the future.

NCC staff will be at the following locations to provide information, answer questions and receive your comments:

Thursday, June 11, 2009
World Exchange Plaza, 11 am to 2 pm
Billings Bridge Shopping Centre, 3 pm to 7 pm

Friday, June 12, 2009
Rideau Centre, 11 am to 2 pm
Bayshore Shopping Centre, 3 pm to 9 pm

Saturday, June 13, 2009
St. Laurent Shopping Centre, 9:30 am to 9 pm

Several consultations will take place until the approval of the final Master Plan, planned in the fall of 2011. The next public
consultation, planned in the fall of 2009, will consist in public workshops on the vision statement for the Greenbelt of the future.

All relevant information, including a questionnaire, is also available through the NCC’s website. Please send your comments and
completed questionnaires by June 22, 2009, via mail or email to the
appropriate address listed below.

National Capital Commission Telephone: 613‐239‐5000
Public Affairs TTY: 613‐239‐5090
202–40 Elgin Street Email: info@ncc‐ccn.ca
Ottawa ON K1P 1C7 Website:

http://www.capitaleducanada.gc.ca/bins/ncc_web_content_page.asp?cid=16300-20446-113585&lang=1

[eternallyme]

There are four areas of the Greenbelt that I think should be opened for development:

1) The area surrounding Bayshore, Bells Corners and Crystal Beach, east of the railway tracks and north of Richmond Road, south of the Queensway and in the Moodie Drive area. It should be a mix of very high-density residential (i.e. similar to the Bayshore area) in the eastern part, and industrial in the western part. The area west of Nortel should not be touched, nor should the equestrian park.

2) The area south of Fallowfield Road and east of Woodroffe Avenue. It should be designated industrial/institutional to go along with the new RCMP Headquarters. Perhaps DND HQ?

3) The area surrounding the airport to the north and east, along the future transit corridor. It should be zoned commercial, for airport travel uses.

4) The area south of Hunt Club, along/east of Conroy, west of Highway 417 and north of the forest preserve (NOT including it!). It should be residential west of Hawthorne and industrial east of Hawthorne, to match up with the areas to the north of Hunt Club (and its projected alignment). It would also fit better with my thought of a rapid transit (LRT?) corridor along Hunt Club.

None of them are very valuable greenspace, and all of them are partially developed or would be advantageous for development over the next 30 years.

[adam-machiavelli]

A fellow student in my planning school is currently conducting a review of the ecological significance of different parts of the Greenbelt. Come next year, expect a big fuss over the results.

Also, the strategic elements of DND HQ are already being moved to Ogilvie & Blair within the next 10 years. The Federal Government now realizes moving RCMP HQ so far out was a big mistake and so pretty much all future moves of federal government offices will be within the Greenbelt.

I think the NCC's latest real estate strategy is very good: sell valuable small plots on the inside edge of the greenbelt and use the money to buy cheap big plots on the outside edge. In case you haven't noticed, the primary example of this is the NCC's sale of lots along Hunt Club and at the south end of Blossom Park and subsequent purchase of vast tracts of the Mer Bleue Bog.

[waterloowarrior]

there's info here from the June 09 Greenbelt consultations
http://www.canadascapital.gc.ca/bins/ncc_web_content_page.asp?cid=16300-20446-113585-125385&lang=1

this one is especially interesting.. a slideshow showing the evolution of land acquisitions and disposals in the Greenbelt between 1951 and 2008.
http://www.canadascapital.gc.ca/greenbeltMaps/flash/Greenbelt_SlideShow.html

[RTWAP]

I just wanted to weigh in on this topic. I would like to see some of the lands developed, but I wouldn't trust the typical developer to do it. I'd love to see Canada Lands Corp. handle the development. They know how to build actual communities with engaging streetscapes instead of suburban garage montages.

Also, I had the rare luxury to grow up near a small enclosed wood (80,000 sq feet) and it was great. If they do develop, I hope they take the opportunity to plant some urban forests and let the land revert to nature. Those islands of nature can be absolute treasures for kids.

And 20-25% sounds about right. Leave all the non-farmland untouched, and provide for buffers and connecting channels as required to ensure wildlife doesn't get stranded.

If the city ever decides to use the existing rail lines in the west end for transit then park-n-rides at baseline&richmond (fed from the 416) and at 417&Moodie would be no-brainers.

And the block bounded by Woodroffe, Greenbank, Fallowfield and Hunt Club is crying out to be used for something other than corn.

[canadave]

A fellow student in my planning school is currently conducting a review of the ecological significance of different parts of the Greenbelt.

I can't wait to hear how beneficial to the environment the airport is. ;)

[waterloowarrior]

got this from OPPI

Help Us Create a Proud Future for Canada’s Capital Greenbelt!
By: Jean-Francois Morin
Printer Friendly Version

As Canadians, we are blessed with 20,350 hectares of publicly owned natural, agricultural and rural lands that surround Canada’s Capital. The National Capital Greenbelt, owned and managed by the National Capital Commission (NCC), was first imagined by the 1950 Gréber Plan and was conceived as a means to limit urban sprawl, protect Canada’s Capital countryside and provide home for large institutions.

Greenbelt 2060 Vision Workshop

The NCC is currently updating the 1996 Master Plan that guides the management of the National Capital Greenbelt. On November 25th and 26th national and international experts and stakeholders will participate in an in-depth vision session.

Some topics covered:

What does the Greenbelt represent for Canadians across the country?
How might the Greenbelt contribute to quality of life, community sustainability and relief of urban sprawl?
What vision should guide the Greenbelt to the year 2060?

Share your Ideas during the Vision Workshop!

The NCC wants to hear your thoughts on the future of the National Capital Greenbelt. From November 25 to January 15, join in the discussion by viewing webcasts of the Vision Workshop presentations and by sharing your ideas on our online forum.

Public consultation meetings in the Capital region will take place early in December. For more information, please contact us at:
1-800-465-1867
ATS: 1-866-661-3530
info@ncc-ccn.ca
www.canadascapital.gc.ca/greenbelt

[RTWAP]

I hope they sell most of the farmland in the Greenbelt to CLC for intense development.

On a related note, does anyone else think the Experimental Farm should be changed? I think they should develop the stretch between Merivale and Fisher, and use the proceeds to enhance the Agricultural museum, and turn the area between Prince of Wales and Fisher into a large urban park (Central Park-ish), augmenting the Arboretum and Gardens.

That's an area that could greatly benefit from a design competition.

[Kitchissippi]

I doubt that significant portions of the Greenbelt will be sold off, nor should it be. Assembling a similar thing would be near impossible in this day and age and the NCC would not give up on this concept just because of the sentiments of the day.

A good chunk of the Experimental farm was sold not too far back and Ashcroft squandered it on that atrocious development called Central Park.

The NCC gets bashed a lot but I think they have been relatively good stewards of the Greenbelt I doubt the city nor the provincial government could ever do a better job.

I'm a big fan of the Greenbelt. I believe that for intensification to be sustainable, it has to be balanced with dilution elsewhere, where the landscape and environment have a chance to breathe. A good analogy for this would be storm water ponds -- it used to be that storm water concentrated with pollutants was flushed out into the rivers as soon as possible, but now the wisdom is to hold it and let nature deal with it one small bite at a time. I hope the Greenbelt continues to play an ecological role in the far future.

[RTWAP]

I doubt that significant portions of the Greenbelt will be sold off, nor should it be. Assembling a similar thing would be near impossible in this day and age and the NCC would not give up on this concept just because of the sentiments of the day.

A good chunk of the Experimental farm was sold not too far back and Ashcroft squandered it on that atrocious development called Central Park.

The NCC gets bashed a lot but I think they have been relatively good stewards of the Greenbelt I doubt the city nor the provincial government could ever do a better job.

I'm a big fan of the Greenbelt. I believe that for intensification to be sustainable, it has to be balanced with dilution elsewhere, where the landscape and environment have a chance to breathe. A good analogy for this would be storm water ponds -- it used to be that storm water concentrated with pollutants was flushed out into the rivers as soon as possible, but now the wisdom is to hold it and let nature deal with it one small bite at a time. I hope the Greenbelt continues to play an ecological role in the far future.

Do you feel the same way about the farm portions of the Greenbelt as you do about the natural areas?

I would like to see development of the farm portions. I'd establish buffers and connections for the natural areas to ensure they continue to thrive. I'd also convert some of the existing farmland back to forest. When I was growing up in Bayshore, we had farmland nearby that contributed nothing to our neighbourhood. But we also had an urban forest, bounded by streets and paths, with an abandoned house among the trees. It was a very enriching childhood environment. I'd love to see a deliberate attempt to create something like that.

Regarding Central Park, I agree that it was terrible. Who had the not so brilliant idea to just sell the land to a develop and let them do whatever they wanted. If they develop more of the farm they should not just sell it off to a developer. Use the Canada Lands approach. Create a development plan and then let builders build to those plans.

I guess it comes down to land use. I don't think farming in the middle of the city is a good use. It provides a pleasant view, perhaps a little monotonous though. But to me it makes no sense to have wide open spaces and not be able to use them for any public activity.

Farming is the lowest intensity industrial use ever. Farms in the city should be intensified and farms outside the urban area should be protected from encroachment.

EDIT: For example, http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&hq=&ll=45.306768,-75.764122&spn=0.052035,0.110378&t=h&z=13

There is a transit line running down Woodroffe. There might be a large public institution at the SW corner of Woodroffe and Hunt Club if the Civic Hospital does end up moving there. But the whole square bounded by Fallowfield, Cedarview, Hunt Club and Woodroffe would be a much better place to develop than the equivalent amount of farmland west of Stittsville. Put in high density development along Woodroffe, with density varying in proximity to the major roads . Follow the path of the stream through the area with a ribbon park and landscaped SWM features. Keep the forested sections as urban forests.

[Kitchissippi]

Farming is the lowest intensity industrial use ever. Farms in the city should be intensified and farms outside the urban area should be protected from encroachment.

EDIT: For example, http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&hq=&ll=45.306768,-75.764122&spn=0.052035,0.110378&t=h&z=13


A lot of those fields are Agriculture Canada's. Much like the Experimental Farm, it is a vital research facility that helps keep the Capital a centre for agricultural technology, the same way the NRC has helped attract the high tech industry here.

The fact that these fields are surrounded by urban areas is actually an advantage, as it isolates conditions and avoids contamination from and to surrounding agricultural areas. As for the Experimental Farm, it has a rich history of developing wheat and Canola strains that were crucial in making the Prairies what they are now. With regards to public use, there is something magical about riding a bicycle through the farm, it's like a micro vacation. Reducing it would also make the Agriculture Museum into a pointless showcase where feed and produce would have to be trucked in. If anything, it should be a reminder of how much land it takes to feed a city.

If the Greenbelt and Experimental Farm were ever to be rethought, it should be because of some important use, not something as banal as more housing.

As an aside, there are so many "hidden" things about the Capital that Ottawans fail to appreciate. For example, how many of us know that the Olympic Medals (http://www.mint.ca/store/mint/learn/medals-4400016) were all fabricated here with talent and skill from the local colleges? It makes one realize Ottawa is more than just politics and bureaucracy, and it's the little things we take for granted that raises it above the ordinary. Why can't we be proud of the fact that we have a farm in the middle of the city?

[RTWAP]

A lot of those fields are Agriculture Canada's. Much like the Experimental Farm, it is a vital research facility that helps keep the Capital a centre for agricultural technology, the same way the NRC has helped attract the high tech industry here.

The fact that these fields are surrounded by urban areas is actually an advantage, as it isolates conditions and avoids contamination from and to surrounding agricultural areas. As for the Experimental Farm, it has a rich history of developing wheat and Canola strains that were crucial in making the Prairies what they are now. With regards to public use, there is something magical about riding a bicycle through the farm, it's like a micro vacation. Reducing it would also make the Agriculture Museum into a pointless showcase where feed and produce would have to be trucked in. If anything, it should be a reminder of how much land it takes to feed a city.

If the Greenbelt and Experimental Farm were ever to be rethought, it should be because of some important use, not something as banal as more housing.

As an aside, there are so many "hidden" things about the Capital that Ottawans fail to appreciate. For example, how many of us know that the Olympic Medals (http://www.mint.ca/store/mint/learn/medals-4400016) were all fabricated here with talent and skill from the local colleges? It makes one realize Ottawa is more than just politics and bureaucracy, and it's the little things we take for granted that raises it above the ordinary. Why can't we be proud of the fact that we have a farm in the middle of the city?

Proud? Hmmm... I always thought it was kinda cool, in a quirky way, but proud? No.

I lived on Fisher and biked and jogged through the Farm countless times. It's still not a good use of the land. I'm familiar with the history, but that doesn't mean it should remain the same forever. Things change over time. As far as I'm concerned there are really only two bad ways of managing it. Either try to deny all change, or let change happen uncontrollably. It's much better to have a vision and move in that direction. If the farm property east of Fisher were turned into a park, with the Agriculture Museum as an integral component, then it could be a real jewel for the city. One that people use and enjoy.

In the Inner City podcast that Ken Gray did with Diane Deans (September'09) she made a good point. The Greenbelt was intended to make a positive change to the environment. But it's single biggest effect right now is to promote sprawl in the areas beyond, and thereby extend the commute of a significant portion of the city population. The Greenbelt causes the release of more pollution and greenhouse gases. It's a shame.

[Kitchissippi]

In the Inner City podcast that Ken Gray did with Diane Deans (September'09) she made a good point. The Greenbelt was intended to make a positive change to the environment. But it's single biggest effect right now is to promote sprawl in the areas beyond, and thereby extend the commute of a significant portion of the city population. The Greenbelt causes the release of more pollution and greenhouse gases. It's a shame.

THe Greenbelt does NOT cause sprawl and the release of more pollution and greenhouse gases. That's clearly caused by poor planning decisions and people's bad habit of driving everywhere. In fact, the answer to offsetting the pollution and carbon emissions could very well lie in keeping the Greenbelt green. If commuting is the problem then solve it by extending less polluting electric LRT beyond the Greenbelt, and stop widening the roads. It seems to me, attacking the Greenbelt is yet another way for Ottawa city hall to avoid admitting its responsibilities and simply blame things on the NCC's decisions.

Are the green open spaces and farms that offensive? No.
Are there plenty of ugly, rundown areas within the city that should be redeveloped? Yes.
Is there enough land for development for years if we use it wisely? Yes.

BTW, if that's the same Diane Deans who was on the news the other night referring to the LRT project as a "$2.1 billion downtown tunnel", she should get her facts right about the city she's part of running before she comments on something beyond her jurisdiction.

[RTWAP]

THe Greenbelt does NOT cause sprawl and the release of more pollution and greenhouse gases. That's clearly caused by poor planning decisions and people's bad habit of driving everywhere. In fact, the answer to offsetting the pollution and carbon emissions could very well lie in keeping the Greenbelt green. If commuting is the problem then solve it by extending less polluting electric LRT beyond the Greenbelt, and stop widening the roads. It seems to me, attacking the Greenbelt is yet another way for Ottawa city hall to avoid admitting its responsibilities and simply blame things on the NCC's decisions.

Are the green open spaces and farms that offensive? No.
Are there plenty of ugly, rundown areas within the city that should be redeveloped? Yes.
Is there enough land for development for years if we use it wisely? Yes.


Are you saying that there is enough development land inside the greenbelt to last 10 years? If you are, do you have anything to back that up?

I'm in favour of infill and intensification, but I think that it's not the total solution to a growing population and growing demand for housing. Assuming that there is some portion of development that will occur in what is currently farm fields, why would you want that development to be at the fringes of the city when you could intensify the Greenbelt?

To be clear, I'm not suggesting they just sell the whole thing off to Ashcroft et al. But if they set very aggressive targets for intensity, and mandated a transit-oriented development then I would be in favour. I don't want Barrhaven North, and if that's the only current option then I would keep the land as it is until the situation changes.

What bothers me is people like John Baird who dismiss the idea out of hand as a complete non-starter. Protecting those suburban fields instead of rural fields seems to me to be the suburban large lot fantasy writ large.

[waterloowarrior]

Here's the agenda for the greenbelt forum
http://www.canadascapital.gc.ca/bins/ncc_web_content_page.asp?cid=16300-20446-113585-113594-130745&lang=1

[waterloowarrior]

just a reminder for those interested, there is a National Public Forum on the Greenbelt tomorrow (Wednesday) between 7:00 p.m. to 9:15 p.m. at the National Arts Center (Panorama Room), 53 Elgin Street in Ottawa

the presentations from sessions during the day on Wednesday and Thursday in the links above will be webcasted

[waterloowarrior]

archived webcast and presentations are now available at the link two posts above

[rakerman]

this is a bit off-topic, but is there a good map that shows clearly defined boundaries of the greenbelt?

There's this NCC one which is... ok, but I'd like to be able to see it in Bing or Google Maps.

http://www.canadascapital.gc.ca/bins/ncc_web_content_page.asp?cid=16300-20446-113585-125385&lang=1

[waterloowarrior]

more greenbelt events next week
http://www.canadascapital.gc.ca/bins/ncc_web_content_page.asp?cid=16300-20446-113585-113594-133665&lang1&utm_source=ncc&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=home_GreenbeltConsultation_EN&lang=1

[waterloowarrior]

ken gray's blog has a bunch of discussion about the future of the greenbelt
http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/bulldog/archive/2010/01/20/two-opinions-on-the-greenbelt.aspx#comments

also there's an RFP out for the review of the 1999 Plan for Canada's Capital

http://www.merx.com/English/SUPPLIER_Menu.asp?WCE=Show&TAB=1&PORTAL=MERX&State=7&searchtype=remotesearch&id=189460&src=osr&FED_ONLY=0&ACTION=NEXT&rowcount=220&lastpage=22&hcode=uCGF7iB5B1A91gqAumy3Qg%3d%3d

[bcmom]

and support whatever you think is the best plan. From what I have read "no development at all" folks are making their voice heard far more loudly than those who would favour limited development.
Is there not an argument to be made that the Greenbelt has driven up the price of land in the core, thus impacting the supply of affordable housing in the city?

[bcmom]

http://www.canadascapital.gc.ca/bins/ncc_web_content_page.asp?cid=16300-20446-113585-113594-133665&lang=1

[acottawa]

I'm not sure I trust the NCC to handle development on the greenbelt. The recent experience with the federal government selling off greenspace (Central Park, Le Plateau, or even the domicile development in Bell's Corners) is more generic sprawl. I would rather they sit on it for another 20 years, maybe by then either NCC management or local developers will be adopt a more creative approach.

I'm not sure developping the greenbelt would have any effect on property prices. Whatever large developers end up with the land would release it a little bit at a time to keep prices high.

[RTWAP]

I'm not sure I trust the NCC to handle development on the greenbelt. The recent experience with the federal government selling off greenspace (Central Park, Le Plateau, or even the domicile development in Bell's Corners) is more generic sprawl. I would rather they sit on it for another 20 years, maybe by then either NCC management or local developers will be adopt a more creative approach.

I'm not sure developping the greenbelt would have any effect on property prices. Whatever large developers end up with the land would release it a little bit at a time to keep prices high.

While I support some judicious development, I agree that the NCC should not be handling it. They should either pass the land to Canada Lands Corp. or create a new entity with participation from the city and local, regional, and national planning experts to design an oversee the creation of a new dense neighbourhood built around new high-speed transit lines.

[eternallyme]

and support whatever you think is the best plan. From what I have read "no development at all" folks are making their voice heard far more loudly than those who would favour limited development.
Is there not an argument to be made that the Greenbelt has driven up the price of land in the core, thus impacting the supply of affordable housing in the city?

In Ottawa's case, not really since there are few restrictions on development outside the Greenbelt, and Ottawa was never really a high-cost market for homebuyers. Outside the Greenbelt, the developers should be given the onus, planning any land they want, and then subject to approval and hearings.

There are some Greenbelt areas, though, that have little value compared to development potential:

1) Southwest of Bayshore, east of Highway 416 - The only acceptable design there, IMO, is high-density residential (expansion of the Bayshore area). A pedestrian bridge across Highway 417 would be necessary.

2) Northeast Barrhaven - Combined with the new RCMP HQ, it would be a good institutional/industrial area, potentially opening the way for redevelopment elsewhere in the city. Maybe a new DND HQ?

3) Airport area - This would be a good place for amenities for air travellers to improve the airport. It would be one rapid transit station (or a 3 minute drive) away from the terminal, and would be limited to commercial amenities such as hotels and convention facilities.

4) Southeast Hunt Club - This ties into my idea for a Hunt Club transportation corridor, and also makes use of the protection for rapid transit in the expanded median. It would be north of the protected forest area. The section west of Hawthorne would be residential, and east of Hawthorne industrial.

The more environmentally sensitive Greenbelt areas, IMO, are:

1) Mer Bleue - no one in their right minds would develop that!
2) Stony Swamp
3) Green's Creek area
4) Forest area at Leitrim well south of Hunt Club
5) Hilly forest between Kanata and Bayshore

[RTWAP]

In Ottawa's case, not really since there are few restrictions on development outside the Greenbelt, and Ottawa was never really a high-cost market for homebuyers. Outside the Greenbelt, the developers should be given the onus, planning any land they want, and then subject to approval and hearings.

There are some Greenbelt areas, though, that have little value compared to development potential:

1) Southwest of Bayshore, east of Highway 416 - The only acceptable design there, IMO, is high-density residential (expansion of the Bayshore area). A pedestrian bridge across Highway 417 would be necessary.

2) Northeast Barrhaven - Combined with the new RCMP HQ, it would be a good institutional/industrial area, potentially opening the way for redevelopment elsewhere in the city. Maybe a new DND HQ?

3) Airport area - This would be a good place for amenities for air travellers to improve the airport. It would be one rapid transit station (or a 3 minute drive) away from the terminal, and would be limited to commercial amenities such as hotels and convention facilities.

4) Southeast Hunt Club - This ties into my idea for a Hunt Club transportation corridor, and also makes use of the protection for rapid transit in the expanded median. It would be north of the protected forest area. The section west of Hawthorne would be residential, and east of Hawthorne industrial.

The more environmentally sensitive Greenbelt areas, IMO, are:

1) Mer Bleue - no one in their right minds would develop that!
2) Stony Swamp
3) Green's Creek area
4) Forest area at Leitrim well south of Hunt Club
5) Hilly forest between Kanata and Bayshore

In your development area #1, I'd add that there is plenty of unremarkable farmland between Kanata and Bayshore that should be converted to a mix of development land and natural land. Most of it is west of the 416. The escarpment (hilly forest) should be protected, and perhaps additional buffer lands and nature corridors recovered from the current adjacent agricultural lands.

The area north of Barrhaven between Cedarview and the Rideau River would make a great high-density mixed use suburb. It has the size to support a real mixture of live/work/play with critical mass for each. If that area was developed in conjunction with the future extension of rapid rail south of Hunt Club to Barrhaven then it could benefit from TOD right from the start. It would probably require re-routing the transit line west from beside Woodroffe to a more cross country route that could gain maximum TOD benefit by exposing more development land to the rapid rail benefits.

[eternallyme]

In your development area #1, I'd add that there is plenty of unremarkable farmland between Kanata and Bayshore that should be converted to a mix of development land and natural land. Most of it is west of the 416. The escarpment (hilly forest) should be protected, and perhaps additional buffer lands and nature corridors recovered from the current adjacent agricultural lands.

The area north of Barrhaven between Cedarview and the Rideau River would make a great high-density mixed use suburb. It has the size to support a real mixture of live/work/play with critical mass for each. If that area was developed in conjunction with the future extension of rapid rail south of Hunt Club to Barrhaven then it could benefit from TOD right from the start. It would probably require re-routing the transit line west from beside Woodroffe to a more cross country route that could gain maximum TOD benefit by exposing more development land to the rapid rail benefits.

I disagree on the section north of Barrhaven even though it is definitely not environmentally-sensitive, that is the Agriculture Canada lands and if they want to ever give it up, they could move the Experimental Farm there (with a main visitors entrance at Fallowfield Station fo convenient transit access) while converting the existing farm to a central park.

As for other lands between Bayshore and Kanata, I thought about them and it might be workable for industrial zoning, like more Nortel campuses, but those may be going empty anyway.

[waterloowarrior]

I think all or almost of the farmland east of Woodroffe is privately farmed (leased to farmers by NCC). The farmland north of Fallowfield between Greenbank and Woodroffe was purchased by the NCC in 2000 (not including the large research complex and NRC site). I assume that Agriculture Canada still owns the land west of Greenbank.

[RTWAP]

I disagree on the section north of Barrhaven even though it is definitely not environmentally-sensitive, that is the Agriculture Canada lands and if they want to ever give it up, they could move the Experimental Farm there (with a main visitors entrance at Fallowfield Station fo convenient transit access) while converting the existing farm to a central park.

I like the Central Park idea. I posted a fair bit in that thread. :)

I don't understand why you'd want to devote that much land inside the urban boundary to factory farming. If they wanted a small demonstration farm as part of a museum then sure, but I'd rather have that as an Experimental Farm retaining part of the Central Park.

As for other lands between Bayshore and Kanata, I thought about them and it might be workable for industrial zoning, like more Nortel campuses, but those may be going empty anyway.

Why industrial? Why not mixed use? The Nortel Campus is a good start on the work component of mixed use hub. Build some highrises residential and office where some of the parking lots currently are, and build residential and retail on the adjacent lands.

[RTWAP]

I don't know if anyone else attended any of the forums. I went to Sportsplex for a bit. I asked about the justification for having agricultural land protected inside the urban boundary. I was directed to have a conversation with both an NCC staffer and someone from the Friends of the Greenbelt group (or whatever they're called). Their argument was that farms are good. As though anyone proposing development of those farmlands would do so because they think farms are bad or something.

I pointed out that I would rather have X acres of farmland inside the urban boundary, on a rapid transit line, be developed at high density instead of 2X or 3X acres of farmland outside the urban boundary. Their response was that the farmland outside the boundary was much lower quality, while the farmland that happened to be at the city limits in the 60's was much superior. I'm having trouble believing that.

They also stated that provincial rules prevent the conversion of farmland to land used for development. We know that is false. There are restrictions and hoops you need to jump through, but the city keeps growing nonetheless.

[Dado]

Looking on Google Earth, a lot of the Greenbelt isn't farmland at all. The greatest extent of farmland in the Greenbelt is in Nepean between the Rideau River and Hwy 416. There are smaller concentrations north of Bells Corners and east of Kanata. In the east there's also some between Mer Bleue and Hwy 417 and a peculiar pocket on the Ottawa River between the Rockcliffe Parkway and Orleans.

I'm not quite willing to say we should turn all this farmland into development (and the largest section in Nepean certainly appears fertile enough) but the way it's being used leaves much to be desired. If this is good farmland, really it should be growing intensive high-value crops, perhaps even under greenhouses; instead it's mainly extensive crops (with a few notable exceptions in the form of berry and vegetable farms around Bells Corners - look in particular at the farm between Holly Acres, Richmond and Hwy 416 on Google Streetview for an example of what we should be seeing a lot more of). The farmland of the Greenbelt has the advantage of being close to a large labour market - incredibly, it would actually be possible for farm workers to arrive by municipal transit. Yet the NCC seems to manage it like some kind of satiated feudal landlord who's happy to receive a standard rent and not seek to improve returns or invest in the land.


As far as development of the Greenbelt generally is concerned, I'd start by looking for the bits and pieces of outright wasted land first, like opposite the Nortel lab on Moodie or the irregular parcels of land around the Queensway Carleton Hospital. This would be a far less controversial place to start. After that, I'd suggest examining the forested bits of the Greenbelt rather than the farmed portions. Provincially, we've got a lot more forest than farmland so we can much more easily afford to lose forest for development than farmland, although forest seems to give people more of a warm and fuzzy feeling than does farmland. In Nepean around the Sportsplex for example it would be possible to develop well over 100 ha of land in close proximity to the SW Transitway. Another spot is south of Blackburn Hamlet overlooking the creek valley, which will be served by the Cumberland Transitway, also encompassing well over 100 ha. All tolled, that's something like a combined 250 ha, which compares to the ~220 ha that were added in Kanata West in the last Official Plan update. These are the kind of opportunities we should looking at first rather than going straight for the jugular of building over farmland.

[waterloowarrior]

you can see a map of the soil capability for agriculture here (http://www.canadascapital.gc.ca/data/2/rec_docs/22439_Greenbelt_Soils.pdf). Class 1-3 is considered Prime Agriculture and has increased protection under the Provincial Policy Statement.

[waterloowarrior]

Consultants tell city: tighten your Greenbelt
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Consultants+tell+city+tighten+your+Greenbelt/3033986/story.html
Ottawans sure to balk at logical solution to lack of land needed to attract new employers

BY RANDALL DENLEY, THE OTTAWA CITIZEN MAY 16, 2010 12:02 AM


A new study done for the City of Ottawa invites councillors to choose between logic and worshipping a sacred cow. Anyone want to guess which way they will go?

The report by consultants Metropolitan Knowledge International says the city is short of employment land that has good access to transportation and can be developed at an economically feasible cost. This is a critical problem as the city prepares its new economic-development strategy. Part of the solution, the consultants say, is to make available Greenbelt lands adjacent to Highway 417 and around the Ottawa International Airport. The city needs to make this point now, the consultants say, as the National Capital Commission is developing its new Greenbelt master plan.

This, of course, is heresy. Every square inch of the Greenbelt is sacred to most people in Ottawa. Sure, the Greenbelt does include such slightly non-natural uses as the airport and the entire community of Blackburn Hamlet, but it’s critical that the rest be preserved. For Ottawans, driving on a four-lane highway through government-owned fields is an important aesthetic experience, one of the top ways to commune with nature without leaving your vehicle.

It’s easy to tell these consultants are from Toronto. No one in Ottawa would make such a logical suggestion. They don’t know that Ottawans think that farming is a good use for land in the centre of their city. That’s also an idea endorsed by NCC chief executive officer Marie Lemay, who is interested in some kind of more relevant or interesting farming taking place on these valuable lands. What other city sees farming as an inner-city development option? Yes, people like it, but it’s simply not a realistic way to plan a city.

The city is beginning to wake up to the challenge of broadening the economy, but there is no use talking about attracting new employers if there is no place for them to locate. The total acreage nominally available for light industrial development has lulled people into thinking there is land to accommodate new employers, but too much of it consists of expensive and tough-to-develop parcels inside the Greenbelt or unserviced land farther out, the consultants say.

The problem has become acute because short-sighted councillors keep redesignating employment land for residential and commercial

uses.

Ottawa has lost approximately 35 per cent of its vacant employment land since amalgamation due to conversion to other uses. That has contributed to a land shortage that makes much of what’s left too expensive to develop.

The solution, the consultants say, is exactly what logic and a map would suggest. Vast tracts of land along the 417 in the east and west ends of the city are perfectly suited for development.

“Ottawa’s future economic growth is dependent upon access to lands along the 417 corridor to serve as a natural extension of the Ottawa and Hawthorne business parks, which are at or near capacity and landlocked by the Greenbelt,” the report states.

The consultants challenge yet another favourite Ottawa viewpoint when they say that the industrial parks necessary for employment expansion require good roads, not light-rail transit lines. Some councillors want to stop building roads altogether, but businesses rely on good road connections. By suggesting development along highways 417 and 416, the consultants are saying we need to do far more with the roads we already have.

The land around the airport is another prime opportunity. There are 860 hectares of federally owned land under the jurisdiction of the airport authority, but there is no plan to maximize their industrial and commercial potential. The lands aren’t even properly serviced.

“We have no idea what the economic potential of the airport lands are,” says Councillor Peter Hume, chairman of the planning committee.

To really get anything done in Ottawa, one requires intelligent involvement by either the federal government or its agencies. That’s a problem. The consultants highlight the disconnect between federal actions and good land use policies. For example, the federal government has done nothing to intensify development in its outmoded office campuses at Tunney’s Pasture and Confederation Heights. These are prime revenue-generating and intensification targets, but the government has no particular motivation to act.

The least we should expect from our councillors is that they mount effective pressure to get the feds to assist with economic development in Ottawa, not block it. If councillors follow staff’s advice, they will duck all these issues entirely when the consultants’ work comes to the next meeting of the planning committee. Staff want the report simply to be received and forwarded as another piece of information for the economic strategy.

That’s not good enough, Hume says. “This should be a major point of discussion for us.” If this city is serious about economic development, “Ottawa has to lead.”

Councillors need to address this issue, even if it means challenging some popular local perceptions. If they don’t, they will be limiting the city’s economic future.

[adam-machiavelli]

Denley co-opts this so-called consultant's report as if it's his new bible. When they said Ottawa should replace the Greenbelt with business parks, I threw this report in the psychlogical trash bin of my mind. While it is true that many cities lack comprehensive goods movement plans, they should not take precedent over the movement of people and equitable human access to the city.

[waterloowarrior]

From what I know of the consultant, they are more of a traditional firm, not really the type to propose a rethink of the employment lands model... it's great that the province and city are protecting land for employment, but this should only really be for industrial development and things that rely on trucking for example. Office-type development should really be more integrated into the community, most business parks are isolated and hard to get to in any other mode but the car. If we give up part of the greenbelt just to create more office parks, that would be a waste IMO.

[Dado]

:previous:

I agree.

Whatever faults the Greenbelt has, it seems a bit of a cop-out to use it to address bad planning elsewhere in the city. I find it hard to believe that between Kanata Centrum, Barrhaven Town Centre and the area around Place d'Orléans as well as existing underused federal sites within the Greenbelt that we can't find enough employment land. What we really need is a three-level strategy to actually start doing something with them. It also seems a bit much to blame Council in the way Denley has here:

"The problem has become acute because short-sighted councillors keep redesignating employment land for residential and commercial uses."

And out of curiosity who recommended this? Did councillors just go out on a whim and do this?

As for the contention that the Greenbelt is "in the centre of the city" I would point out that the distance from downtown Ottawa to Stittsville is roughly the same as that between The Hague and Rotterdam in the Netherlands. Between them is a swathe of farmland similar in size to the western Greenbelt and another city, Delft. Different contexts to be sure, but it does put things in perspective, too.


Fwiw, one of the firm's directors is the Chairman and CEO of McCormick Rankin International...

[waterloowarrior]

You can see some of the background and phase 1 of the study here (I am assuming Mr. Denley is referring to Phase 2)
http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2009/01-27/ACS2009-PTE-ECO-0003%20IPD.htm

I like that example you gave. Makes you think about extending LRT to the suburbs versus regional rail and gives you perspective on how big our region is. When in Holland I took a regional train from Amsterdam to Haarlem, took about 15 minutes and was really only about as far as downtown to Barrhaven.

One of the planners at the firm taught a course at Waterloo, which was one of my favourite courses.... journal articles and planning theory are an important foundation, but his course was about what most planners actually do in practice, which was a bit of a reality check compared to a few of my courses ;)

[eternallyme]

The airport lands should be considered in a new category that I would create called the Airport Special Development Area. It would include all the Greenbelt land north and east of the airport, with Hunt Club Road as the northern boundary, Albion Road as the eastern boundary and the private access road about 750m south of Lester Road as the southern boundary.

The area should be designed as follows:

1) A transit station should be located just north of Lester Road along the old rail corridor. TOD policies - including an internationally-themed mainstreet corridor (as a G8 capital, such a gateway should be a cornerstone) - should be built in that immediate area with hotels replacing houses for the mixed-use buildings (taking advantage of being 1 LRT stop away from the airport), along with restaurants, small shops and convention facilities. Strict zoning policies would be applied to ensure only such businesses are permitted.

2) A business park (expansion of the existing/divided aerospace park with the former CFB Uplands lands) should be considered for the area west of the Airport Parkway and east of Uplands Drive. It should be connected to the main international area by a pedestrian overpass.

3) The southeast section south of Lester Road should be kept as federal industrial lands, with the idea that the NRC could consolidate operations there.

[Dado]

I like that example you gave. Makes you think about extending LRT to the suburbs versus regional rail and gives you perspective on how big our region is. When in Holland I took a regional train from Amsterdam to Haarlem, took about 15 minutes and was really only about as far as downtown to Barrhaven.

Thanks.

Just so everyone knows what we're talking about, here are a few Google Earth screens of the region west of Amsterdam, the western Ottawa region and the Rotterdam-The Hague region at approximately the same scale.

http://sites.google.com/site/ottawadado/files/Amsterdam_20km-GoogleEarth.jpg

http://sites.google.com/site/ottawadado/files/Ottawa_20km-GoogleEarth.jpg

http://sites.google.com/site/ottawadado/files/Rotterdam-Den_Haag_20km-GoogleEarth.jpg

Btw, the land uses near Westland and Lansingerland are greenhouses. If we've got all this prime agricultural land in the "centre" of our city, perhaps we should start farming it seriously rather than growing crops of corn and hay. What other city in North America (other than Detroit...) has such an opportunity to grow high value crops within its borders with enough labour nearby to make intensive agriculture viable?

[waterloowarrior]

Great images, it really does give you a different perspective. That Schiphol runway in the middle of nowhere is kind of weird!

Here's a link to the staff report Mr. Denley is talking about
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2010/05-25/4%20-%20ACS2010-ICS-CSS-0006%20-%20Employment%20Lands%20Strategy%20revised.htm

and the MKI strategy on employment lands
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2010/05-25/4%20-%20Doc%201%20-%20FINAL%20Employment%20Lands%20Strategy%20Document.pdf

[waterloowarrior]

Proposed vision statement: "The greenbelt of the future will forever sustain dynamtic natural systems of living and interconnected lands and waters that enrich life in Canada's Capital Region and reflect Canadians' timeless appreciation of our natural environment."

Approved in principle, will be revised based on board input and come back to the board in the fall

Public consultation was strongly opposed to any new development in the Greenbelt

[RTWAP]

Proposed vision statement: "The greenbelt of the future will forever sustain dynamtic natural systems of living and interconnected lands and waters that enrich life in Canada's Capital Region and reflect Canadians' timeless appreciation of our natural environment."

Approved in principle, will be revised based on board input and come back to the board in the fall

Public consultation was strongly opposed to any new development in the Greenbelt

The whole thing pisses me off. If you ask people whether they want the Greenbelt developed, they imagine cutting down trees, eliminating natural parklands and things like that.

I wish they'd ask people whether they think we should build new development on farmland in the Greenbelt, or on farmland beyond the far suburbs.

[Dado]

I don't agree with your Greenbelt comment, since it is mostly responsible for Ottawa's sprawl.

Where is this idea that the Greenbelt is responsible or is the cause of Ottawa's sprawl coming from? It's not like that without the Greenbelt we wouldn't have had any sprawl - it just would have been in the lands of the Greenbelt instead of beyond them, and that development would probably have started sooner than it did with the Greenbelt in place.

The Greenbelt might be the cause of extra costs associated with the sprawl beyond the Greenbelt compared to what would have been sprawl within it, but it is not the cause of the sprawl itself.

The cause of the sprawl was low density development inside the Greenbelt and piercing the Greenbelt with freeways and high capacity roadways, along with the usual generalities of consumer demand, fear of cities getting nuked and going to pot, etc. Other specific causes are fragmented planning and governance, and the blame for that lies with the Province for not altering municipal boundaries to reflect the reality of the Greenbelt. It's possible that a lot of the early unserviced low density growth in 'inner' Nepean would have been avoided had the old City of Ottawa been in charge of everything inside the Greenbelt.

Maybe the Greenbelt should have been made even bigger - say all the way to the ridge around Stittsville to the west, the Jock River valley to the south (roughly Richmond - Brophy Drive - Bankfield Rd - Manotick - Mitch Owens Road - Vars) and Beckett Creek to the east. That would have really pushed up the cost of sprawling beyond it and would have increased the pressure to properly use the land within the Greenbelt. It would also have effectively extinguished Nepean, March/Kanata, Goulbourn and Gloucester as entities, all of which did their bit to promote unsustainable development.

The Greenbelt does not explain why the Township of March became just another suburb without any discernible centre, all the ballyhooing of Bill Teron aside. If anything, it should have been a factor militating against what eventually happened because the forced separation from Ottawa should have led them to think a bit bigger. They had a pretty good opportunity to take advantage of the lack of development and plan themselves out as a whole new satellite city with an identifiable downtown. March/Kanata could have been Ottawa's version of Paris's La Défense, with a downtown perched on top of the Carp Ridge. Instead, they just let development sprawl out along the Greenbelt boundary without any overall plan. Goulbourn did the same thing, eventually turning their sprawl over to March as part of the newly-formed Kanata.


We often use the Greenbelt as a shorthand for the city vs the suburbs, but the reality is that inside the Greenbelt is a whole lot of suburbia, and some of it is far worse in many ways than suburbia outside the Greenbelt. Basically anything that was developed in the former Township of Nepean inside the Greenbelt is a planning mess, and even a lot done in the old City of Ottawa postwar is not a lot better.


If the city had it's way, do you think the Greenbelt would have existed?

Now what do you mean by "city" since at the time of the Greenbelt's formation there was no overall city government. There was the old City of Ottawa and there were the surrounding townships in Carleton County. The RMOC did not yet exist at the time. The Greenbelt was taken almost entirely from lands in Carleton County (just a little of old Ottawa at Uplands airbase - so it was already in federal hands - nominally qualifies as Greenbelt) so the old City of Ottawa really wouldn't have had anything to say about it. They might actually have favoured it.


We have to be very careful about this. We don't want to destroy the green character of the city, which so many people from elsewhere admire about Ottawa. Filling in the Greenbelt, but refusing to build on the Alta Vista Parkway corridor or Airport Parkway corridor is hypocritical. They all have their origins from the Greber Plan. There is also limited advantage by filling in the Greenbelt with tract housing and big box stores, which is almost certainly the outcome.

Several members of my family lost their land as a result of the implementation of the Greber Plan and the Greenbelt and consequently they lost their opportunities to sell that land when its value increased as development moved out towards their land. There is a well known case of the Woodburn family who lived on Innes Road for generations, who lost their land to the Greenbelt and then were kicked off that land in order for the NCC to sell that land for big box development. A perfect example of injustice plus the likely outcome of 'paving' over the Greenbelt.

In Britain they deal with this issue by the state expropriating all undeveloped land for development from its original owners at its value as farmland or whatever it is. That way no one wins a locational lottery. Any land value uplift goes to the state, which is used to fund improvements for the development itself. After all, why should a family in Nepean luck out compared to a family in West Carleton somewhere simply because of where their ancestors were given land grants? Another advantage is that this way of planning puts an end to land speculation beyond the urban boundary because it doesn't matter what a speculator pays for it; the state will simply expropriate it at its economic value.

[Uhuniau]

Where is this idea that the Greenbelt is responsible or is the cause of Ottawa's sprawl coming from? It's not like that without the Greenbelt we wouldn't have had any sprawl - it just would have been in the lands of the Greenbelt instead of beyond them, and that development would probably have started sooner than it did with the Greenbelt in place.

The Greenbelt might be the cause of extra costs associated with the sprawl beyond the Greenbelt compared to what would have been sprawl within it, but it is not the cause of the sprawl itself.

The Brownbelt ensured that the new suburban crap built beyond it would be exceptionally auto-dependent and auto-oriented externally — you really needed, and mostly do need, a car to travel between the outside-Brownbelt developments and the older city — and thereby ensured that they would be auto-dependent and auto-oriented internally, too.

I agree that there would be the same amount of sprawl, more or less, on what is now Brownbelt land, but at least by being built immediately contiguous to existing city, the existing infrastructure could have been logically extended, and the 1950s-style sprawl, which we are still building in the 20th century, could have had some hope of being remediated in the future. With the Brownbelt, and the way we have built those crap suburbs, there is absolutely no chance that they will ever be anything but crapurbs. And the Brownbelt adds major costs to the operation and capital cost of existing and future infrastructure work that is needed for those crapurbs to function, let alone do anything to them that might make them less crapurban.

Once a Farrhaven, always a Farrhaven.

[Ottawan]

Where is this idea that the Greenbelt is responsible or is the cause of Ottawa's sprawl coming from? It's not like that without the Greenbelt we wouldn't have had any sprawl - it just would have been in the lands of the Greenbelt instead of beyond them, and that development would probably have started sooner than it did with the Greenbelt in place.

The Greenbelt might be the cause of extra costs associated with the sprawl beyond the Greenbelt compared to what would have been sprawl within it, but it is not the cause of the sprawl itself.

Hear hear!

I think Dado has it completely right. He also highlights in his post something that is a big problem and often neglected: the extremely poorly designed interior suburbs (those within the Greenbelt). While we on this forum, and bureaucrats at the city, tend to focus on issues relating to intensification in the core (and select desirable central neighbourhoods) and on development of new suburban communities, now essentially all located outside the Greenbelt, finding ways to encourage intensification and find solutions to the ailments of the inner suburbs (old Nepean, old Gloucester, south parts of old Ottawa) is very important.

[Acajack]

Hear hear!

I think Dado has it completely right. He also highlights in his post something that is a big problem and often neglected: the extremely poorly designed interior suburbs (those within the Greenbelt). While we on this forum, and bureaucrats at the city, tend to focus on issues relating to intensification in the core (and select desirable central neighbourhoods) and on development of new suburban communities, now essentially all located outside the Greenbelt, finding ways to encourage intensification and find solutions to the ailments of the inner suburbs (old Nepean, old Gloucester, south parts of old Ottawa) is very important.

Excellent points by Dado and Ottawan. Downtown will be fine. It is well on its way. This is a mirror of the situation in many North American cities these days due to two factors: 1) municipalities have finally realized that downtown is their "public face" and 2) a certain affluent demographic is now smitten by urban living.

As for the Barrhavens and Kanatas of the world, well all know what is going there. In spite of the doom and gloom from James Kunstler et al., they will likely continue on as before.

However, as has been accurately pointed out, it's the places that are caught in between that might be in for rough times. They have neither the shiny newness of the new burbs NOR the bright lights and amenities of downtown going for them. Their urban design is every bit as banal as the suburbs and they have none of the city centre's pizzazz. Everything just looks worn out and passé in these areas. The land of rusty strip mall parking lot posts...

Elmvale Acres, Herongate, Overbrook, Bayshore, etc. come to mind.

[lrt's friend]

I think we have to accept the past and live with it. It is a reflection of the times in which these neighbourhoods were built. We should not make blanket statements that these older neighbourhoods are bad places because they are not. Sure, they may be older and some of the housing stock could use renovation and by today's standards, the density is too low. These neighbourhoods will be fixed up just as has happened in the Glebes and Westboros and other parts of pre-war Ottawa. There time will come as well. The concept of intensifying Emvale Acres and Alta Vista and others is not the answer either as it will destroy the character of those communities and those who live there will fight tooth and nail against it. The retail areas from that era were horrible as they were developed in a haphazard way and with few, if any design controls. Is what we are doing today that much better? Look at all those Big Box developments.

We have to understand that those neighbourhoods from the post-war era had to be built, and built fast. There was a severe housing shortage at the end of the war. People were desparate. There were families living in tents, and thousands in old barracks and there were protest marches demanding housing. Housing had to be erected quickly and that meant that neighbourhoods were built lacking many services that are expected today. There were no sidewalks, and in many cases, the streets weren't paved. Many areas were beyond the reach of water and sewer services and therefore had to built with extra large lots to accomodate wells and septic beds.

Of course, it was also a reflection of the returning war veterans who wanted a quieter life away from the grime of the city, and there was indeed a lot of grime. Downtown Ottawa was a filthy place back then. Lots of dilapidated buildings, and everybody was still burning coal. Then add in all the steam trains that choked downtown Ottawa blowing up soot everywhere. Just remember the poisonous smog incidents in London around 1950 and this gives you an idea of how bad the grime was getting. If you look at downtown Ottawa today, and complain about those horrid office blocks built in the 1950s and 1960s, just remember what they replaced was even worse. In most cases, a jumble of ramshackle old buildings of little merit.

I guess we should not be so critical of what was done in the past as they were considered an improvement over what had been done before that. Although the Glebe is now considered a highly desireable neighbourhood today, it probably looked rather tattered in 1960 before the gentrification took place.

[Uhuniau]

The concept of intensifying Emvale Acres and Alta Vista and others is not the answer either as it will destroy the character of those communities

And? How is that a bad thing?

Pre-war communities have had to accept change. Why should post-war built-up areas be immune from change, in the name of preserving their precious, precious, "character"?

[Uhuniau]

Elmvale Acres, Herongate, Overbrook, Bayshore, etc. come to mind.

Overbrook has pretty good "bones", and like Vanier is probably bound for a lot of redevelopment and gentrification in the next couple of decades, until the NIMBY reaction kicks in.

As for the others, though, yeah. Some areas could do well, though: Carling, from Lincoln Fields to the hospitals, has humungous potential, especially if (big if) a proper transit project were built along that axis. The Lincoln Fields wasteland itself, Carlingwood, and Westgate, are all major redevelopment opportunities that could keep those older inner-burbs from turning into the dreary grey belt that Elmvale and Herongate are rapidly becoming.

[lrt's friend]

And? How is that a bad thing?

Pre-war communities have had to accept change. Why should post-war built-up areas be immune from change, in the name of preserving their precious, precious, "character"?


There are lots of resistance in those older neighbourhoods. Also, intensification is mostly restricted to small pockets of land, usually on major roadways. The same will apply to Elmvale Acres and Herongate. You will not see brick homes on backstreets in Elmvale Acres being torn down to be replaced by high rises or even stacked town houses.

[Acajack]

We should not make blanket statements that these older neighbourhoods are bad places because they are not.

I wasn't labelling them as "bad". I am actually sympathetic to their plight. And although I agree with you that eventually they will improve, things will probably get worse there before they get better. Unfortunately.

I actually live right on the edge of a large area that is exactly like this in Gatineau.

[lrt's friend]

I wasn't labelling them as "bad". I am actually sympathetic to their plight. And although I agree with you that eventually they will improve, things will probably get worse there before they get better. Unfortunately.

I actually live right on the edge of a large area that is exactly like this in Gatineau.

And that is the way it always has been and always will be.

[Acajack]

There are lots of resistance in those older neighbourhoods. Also, intensification is mostly restricted to small pockets of land, usually on major roadways. The same will apply to Elmvale Acres and Herongate. You will not see brick homes on backstreets in Elmvale Acres being torn down to be replaced by high rises or even stacked town houses.

True. You won't see the disappearance of single-family homes on a large scale. But what you will see is a slow but sure increase in population density, as dead malls and other properties are converted to higher density uses. The old stuff may not change much, but the high price of land will mean that anything new that is built will be much higher density than the classic bungalows on 60-foot lots. This can only mean more people living in a given area, which may go from being 90% single-family low density to only 50 or 60%.

And more people living in a given area will also lead to more "proximity businesses" (sorry for the bad translation) that more people from the neighbourhood can walk to.

Such a transition may not be possible in Cumberland Estates or Greely where everyone lives on one-acre lots, but certainly most of the city and suburban areas where lots are typically 50 or 60 feet wide are not really that far away from an acceptable density that makes viable a café or pub that you can actually walk to from your detached house.

[c_speed3108]

I think we have to accept the past and live with it. It is a reflection of the times in which these neighbourhoods were built. We should not make blanket statements that these older neighbourhoods are bad places because they are not. Sure, they may be older and some of the housing stock could use renovation and by today's standards, the density is too low. These neighbourhoods will be fixed up just as has happened in the Glebes and Westboros and other parts of pre-war Ottawa. There time will come as well. The concept of intensifying Emvale Acres and Alta Vista and others is not the answer either as it will destroy the character of those communities and those who live there will fight tooth and nail against it. The retail areas from that era were horrible as they were developed in a haphazard way and with few, if any design controls. Is what we are doing today that much better? Look at all those Big Box developments.

We have to understand that those neighbourhoods from the post-war era had to be built, and built fast. There was a severe housing shortage at the end of the war. People were desparate. There were families living in tents, and thousands in old barracks and there were protest marches demanding housing. Housing had to be erected quickly and that meant that neighbourhoods were built lacking many services that are expected today. There were no sidewalks, and in many cases, the streets weren't paved. Many areas were beyond the reach of water and sewer services and therefore had to built with extra large lots to accomodate wells and septic beds.

Of course, it was also a reflection of the returning war veterans who wanted a quieter life away from the grime of the city, and there was indeed a lot of grime. Downtown Ottawa was a filthy place back then. Lots of dilapidated buildings, and everybody was still burning coal. Then add in all the steam trains that choked downtown Ottawa blowing up soot everywhere. Just remember the poisonous smog incidents in London around 1950 and this gives you an idea of how bad the grime was getting. If you look at downtown Ottawa today, and complain about those horrid office blocks built in the 1950s and 1960s, just remember what they replaced was even worse. In most cases, a jumble of ramshackle old buildings of little merit.

I guess we should not be so critical of what was done in the past as they were considered an improvement over what had been done before that. Although the Glebe is now considered a highly desireable neighbourhood today, it probably looked rather tattered in 1960 before the gentrification took place.

I absolutely love many of the just post-war neighbourhoods! They are really nice. Many of the basic A-frame houses have been expanded (as they were designed to be) into a wide variety of unique homes. The homes are reasonable sized single family homes...not McMansions. Most of single car garages on single driveways allow a family to have a car but not three. I feel most families should be able to function with one vehicle plus public transit. They are on reasonable lots. Not huge things but big enough that neighbours don't directly look down on you.

I have a condo now as I am single but I would love have a family in such a house. Those neighbourhoods are beautiful. On must of the residential streets you don't really need sidewalks since they are not busy streets.

[lrt's friend]

Such a transition may not be possible in Cumberland Estates or Greely where everyone lives on one-acre lots, but certainly most of the city and suburban areas where lots are typically 50 or 60 feet wide are not really that far away from an acceptable density that makes viable a café or pub that you can actually walk to from your detached house.


My neighbourhood has been a case study of infill housing. From an original population of 2,500 in the 1950s and 1960s to around 15,000 today, you would be surprised how difficult it is to establish a cafe or pub in the community. The challenge is that everybody is so used to driving everywhere, they wouldn't think of walking to such a business within the community. There needs to be a whole lifestyle change and we are long way from that.

[citizen j]

There are lots of resistance in those older neighbourhoods. Also, intensification is mostly restricted to small pockets of land, usually on major roadways. The same will apply to Elmvale Acres and Herongate. You will not see brick homes on backstreets in Elmvale Acres being torn down to be replaced by high rises or even stacked town houses.

Maybe not this year or in this decade, even. But add enough people to a city and as the price of land increases, so does the motivation to re-create inner neighbourhoods. This is currently happening in typical 1960s tract-house neighbourhoods in North York, where whole blocks of single-family dwellings are being razed and refilled with three- and four-storey townhouses marketed to a demographic consistent with the existing demographics of the neighbourhood. That is to say, one 2000 square foot house is torn down and replaced by six 2000 sq. ft townhouses. Done right, this intensification improves the "character" of the neighourhood in many ways.

[eemy]

I actually lived in in the Elmvale Acres area, albeit 10 years ago. As a community, it functioned remarkably well - the mall itself, though nothing remarkable, was central to the community and was always relatively busy. It had remarkably good transit access, and most kids I went to school with walked or took transit to school. (Commuting pattern in 2006 - 51% car, 26% transit - likely due to economic conditions as much as planning) Its street network is also surprisingly grid-like for a post-war suburb and it was never a challenge moving through the neighbourhood on foot.

I expect that most of its problems are more social then planning problems - associated with higher rates of poverty due to the availability of affordable housing. There was a definite split between the single-family housing, which was generally quite WASPish, and the higher-density apartment dwellings which were overwhelmingly composed of recent immigrants. Redeveloping the area wouldn't solve any problems - it would likely push out the lower-income families b/c physically improving an area invariably makes it unaffordable to them - whether intended or not by the planners.

[waterloowarrior]

Interesting upcoming study

http://www.merx.com/English/SUPPLIER_Menu.asp?WCE=Show&TAB=1&PORTAL=MERX&State=7&id=215493&src=osr&FED_ONLY=0&ACTION=NEXT&rowcount=2000&lastpage=200&MoreResults=&PUBSORT=0&CLOSESORT=0&IS_SME=Y&hcode=IUJmUfrZzZ%2fL3OSyAra9PQ%3d%3d

Study -Assess cumulative effects of transportation infrastructures on the Greenbelt

Joint Study to Assess Cumulative Effects of Transportation Infrastructures on the National Capital Greenbelt

The National Capital Commission and the City of Ottawa are collaboratively seeking consultative services for the Joint Comprehensive Study to Assess Cumulative Effects of Transportation Infrastructure on Greenbelt Lands. The study will be initiated in early 2011 with completion in autumn 2011, with a duration estimated between four (4) and six (6) months. The proponent is expected to begin work immediately upon award of contract.

One of the major impacts of transportation infrastructure is landscape fragmentation. The challenge for the NCC and the City is to adapt existing and future land use management and transportation planning strategies to produce an ecologically adapted, safe and sustainable transportation system within the Greenbelt. Therefore a strategy must be put in place for accommodating future transportation infrastructure that seeks, where possible, to maintain and, to promote Greenbelt landscape connectivity.

This collaborative study will create an evaluation framework that supports NCC and City management objectives by establishing criteria to assess the sensitivity of the Greenbelt in relation to the City’s 2008 TMP, for inclusion in the present Greenbelt Master Plan review process.

The NCC will be responsible for the procurement process of this request for proposals, and will be the administrator of the contract on behalf of the City of Ottawa and the National Capital Commission.

All questions and requests for clarifications during the tendering period must be submitted in writing to the National Capital Commission, to the attention of Nicole Galipeau, Senior Contract Officer at fax no. 613-239-5007 or by e-mail nicole.galipeau@ncc-ccn.ca. Deadline for questions is March 31, 2011 at 11:00 a.m. Ottawa time. Questions received after the date and time indicated will not receive a response. Answers to any question that may impact on the project scope, fee, or any other contractual issue will be forwarded, by addendum to all proponents. In this regard, proponents are advised that the only information related to this project that will be contractually binding is the information issued by the National Capital Commission in the form of an Addendum.

To be considered, your proposal must be received no later than 3 p.m. Ottawa time on April 12, 2011 at the National Capital Commission, 3rd Floor Service Centre, 40 Elgin Street in Ottawa, Canada, K1P 1C7, with a reference to tender file #NG073. Faxed, email or late submissions will not be accepted. Proposals may be submitted in French or in English.

Note that amounts quoted in this RFP are in Canadian dollars. Payment is net is 30 days.

There will be no public opening for this Request for Proposal.

This procurement process is subject to Chapter Five of the Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT).

Request for Proposal documents can be obtained from MERX.

[Ottawan]

NCC opens door to selling Greenbelt Parcels
Public consultations to precede any divestment
[OBJ - April 20, 2011]

The National Capital Commission is raising the prospect of selling or leasing out four plots of land that provide “limited contribution to (the) current Greenbelt.”

That possibility was one of three land-use scenarios presented to the Crown corporation’s board of directors earlier this month as part of the NCC’s review of its primary planning document for the Greenbelt.

A spokesperson refused to specify the size of the parcels, which are presently off-limit for development, or to name their exact location, but did provide a map that plots the four land areas, all of which are near the northern edges of the Greenbelt. They are located:

1. Immediately west of the southbound Highway 416 on-ramp, at Richmond Road;

2. South of West Hunt Club Road and west of Woodroffe Avenue;

3. South of Hunt Club Road, east of Conroy Road;

4. North of Walkley Road, west of Highway 417.

The potential sale of these lands is likely to grab the attention of the city’s developers.

With a well-documented shortage of industrial land suitable for development, some industry representatives say the NCC should release some of its land in the vicinity of established business parks.

A 2009 report by Metropolitan Knowledge International, commissioned by the city, recommended the municipality make the NCC aware of the “strong market appeal of certain lands” for employment-related development.

If any land is sold or leased, the NCC says the proceeds would go towards acquiring additional land for the Greenbelt. Several areas, predominantly to the south of the existing Greenbelt boundaries, are identified as future growth areas.

The NCC expects to launch a round of consultations in May or June. The concept plans will then be presented to the NCC advisory committee on planning, design and realty, as well as the NCC board, in the fall.

An updated master plan for the Greenbelt is expected to be adopted by fall 2012


Looks like some development might happen... I'd rather it be high density office/residential built around transit nodes (especially feasible for both Hunt Club portions) than for it to be industrial. Sure Ottawa needs industrial parks, but let's have them in less prime locations please.

[eternallyme]

Looks like some development might happen... I'd rather it be high density office/residential built around transit nodes (especially feasible for both Hunt Club portions) than for it to be industrial. Sure Ottawa needs industrial parks, but let's have them in less prime locations please.

The Bayshore area parcel would be prime for high-density apartments since it is already a fairly high-density area.

The Hunt Club portion in the east I would widen the Hunt Club ROW, build a freeway/LRT corridor and span it with planned communities with the greatest densities at the new stations. Such could also apply at the southwest Hunt Club area.

One other area I would sell off is the airport area, but make it conditional on a well-structured plan. Make it an international gateway area.

[S-Man]

There's definitely a lot of greenbelt land that could be developed. It's too bad the NCC didn't snap up the non-developed portions of the South March Highlands in lieu of selling off some flat, featureless parcel next to a four-lane arterial. Of course, the SMH was nice to look at, but in the bureaucratic mind of the NCC, the greenbelt is nice to think about, as it is almost holy.

[Harley613]

it's a shame really that they (ncc) are still so caught up in the greber plan. it would be so wonderful if they had acquired the south march highlands and also look at other beautiful outlands worth preservation instead of clawing and grasping at the existing greenbelt, half of which is farmland and really truly 100% pointless as greenspace. they need to stop drinking jacques greber's vintage 1950 koolaid. keep the beautiful parts of the greenbelt, sell off the farmland (density close to the core is win-win for everyone!) and acquire new and beautiful lands outside the existing plan.

[Ottawan]

Remember the purpose of the NCC. They exist for the sole purpose of looking after/improving the capital of Canada, not the City of Ottawa. It would be perverse for them to have bought the SMH - what value does this land out in Kanata have to Canadians as a whole??? If arguably it does (biodiversity, unique nature of the ecosystem, endangered species, whatever), this is certainly no different an importance than similar plots elsewhere in the country, and should be covered by Parks Canada rather than the NCC.

The Greenbelt, whether you agree with it or not, is justified on federal grounds. The reasons may seem lame, but they are coherant: a belt of farmland and wilderness that must be passed through to enter the capital, representing the agrarian and rural life of Canadians. It is to be used for national priorities (this is how research labs & agricultural research land has been built there) and for transportation purposes (the airport, in future perhaps HSR) that connect the capital to the rest of the country.

The Greenbelt could continue to serve these purposes even with chunks sold off, but I think it's appropriate to use the money raised from that to serve other Federal priorities in Ottawa, whether that be improving the Greenbelt through purchase of more important lands, or potentially otherwise. What it should not do is use these proceeds to bail out/scapegoat what are City problems. If the SMH land in Kanata was to be saved, the only appropriate body to do so would have been the City.

[Mrs. Jellybean]

When they say, west of the 416 southbound on ramp at Richmond Road, are they talking about the land now occupied by the Silver Spring farm? Or the small vacant parcel on the southeast side of that corner? Both are bounded by the freight tracks.
They will have to edit the paper though to say, west of "Lloyd Francis Boulevard":rolleyes:
If anyone knows or could send a link that would be great:)

[Harley613]

Remember the purpose of the NCC. They exist for the sole purpose of looking after/improving the capital of Canada, not the City of Ottawa. It would be perverse for them to have bought the SMH - what value does this land out in Kanata have to Canadians as a whole??? If arguably it does (biodiversity, unique nature of the ecosystem, endangered species, whatever), this is certainly no different an importance than similar plots elsewhere in the country, and should be covered by Parks Canada rather than the NCC.

I disagree. The SMH was very much an asset to the capital, and is actually closer than 90% of gatineau park. Ottawa is over twice the size they predicted for this time back then. You aren't thinking BIG enough. My whole point is they should start thinking bigger as well. Why limit the distance of NCC administered lands so much? I think they should push out and acquire more diverse lands and promote and protect them as assets of the capital, and dump some of agricultural land that could improve density in the core, saving the city hundreds of millions in infrastructure extension as it grows. The central experimental farm is lovely and should be preserved, but the farrmland around bells corners and between hunt club and barrhaven (for example) is really a big huge waste, and a mistake...in my opinion it has to go. In the 2006 census there were 1,451,000 people in the CMA. When the greber plan was made there were only 200,000 and change.....

[reidjr]

I disagree. The SMH was very much an asset to the capital, and is actually closer than 90% of gatineau park. Ottawa is over twice the size they predicted for this time back then. You aren't thinking BIG enough. My whole point is they should start thinking bigger as well. Why limit the distance of NCC administered lands so much? I think they should push out and acquire more diverse lands and promote and protect them as assets of the capital, and dump some of agricultural land that could improve density in the core, saving the city hundreds of millions in infrastructure extension as it grows. The central experimental farm is lovely and should be preserved, but the farrmland around bells corners and between hunt club and barrhaven (for example) is really a big huge waste, and a mistake...in my opinion it has to go. In the 2006 census there were 1,451,000 people in the CMA. When the greber plan was made there were only 200,000 and change.....

I live in bells corners and as it is now our systems be it roads etc face very heavy use now if you add another 100.000 people that is going to make thing worse on the current system be it roads etc.I am not aginst the devlopement but before we do that we need to update our current system roads/water etc then we can work on the green belt.

[S-Man]

I agree with Harley that this NCC needs to adapt its thinking to the 21st century, where there are 300,000 people living outside the Greenbelt, but still within the City of Ottawa. I'm sure in the 50s and 60s, the idea that the first twinklings of orleans, kanata and barrhaven were as much a part of Ottawa as Nepean and Alta Vista, etc was ludicris (rap spelling in lieu of).
40-50 years later the city is what it is. It has satellites within its boundaries, and in those satellites are some stuff worth saving. The NCC needs to get its head out of the past - embrace the outskirts while relinquishing its grip on the core a little bit.

[RTWAP]

I live in bells corners and as it is now our systems be it roads etc face very heavy use now if you add another 100.000 people that is going to make thing worse on the current system be it roads etc.I am not aginst the devlopement but before we do that we need to update our current system roads/water etc then we can work on the green belt.

If they developed the area around the 417 east of Moodie then the additional peak traffic wouldn't be going through BC, it would be even closer to the highway (where there's less congestion).

EDIT: But it would mean more off-peak traffic, which is a good thing. More people means more retail variety, better restaurants, more services, and less chance of schools being closed.

[reidjr]

If they developed the area around the 417 east of Moodie then the additional peak traffic wouldn't be going through BC, it would be even closer to the highway (where there's less congestion).

EDIT: But it would mean more off-peak traffic, which is a good thing. More people means more retail variety, better restaurants, more services, and less chance of schools being closed.

But thats part of the probleam i live in bc traffic right now as it is is not great of course rush hour is the worst but even non peak times traffic over the past 6 months has got worse.Unless major improvements are made i really don't think bc can handle much more traffic and with dnd moving into north campus that will even add to the traffic.

[McC]

But thats part of the probleam i live in bc traffic right now as it is is not great of course rush hour is the worst but even non peak times traffic over the past 6 months has got worse.Unless major improvements are made i really don't think bc can handle much more traffic and with dnd moving into north campus that will even add to the traffic.

this from a guy who thinks it should be okay to build 20+ storey buildings in people's backyards anywhere else in the city, no matter what the streets/infrastructure are like? nice reidjr, real nice.