Ottawa's Central Experimental Farm

[Richard Eade]

Exactly who would be expected to pay the hundreds of millions (or, more likely, Billions) of dollars to design and develop a ‘Central Park’?

Leave the farm alone. It serves a purpose – even if some don’t agree. Remember, there are also those who think that professional sports are a total waste and would gladly give up sport facilities for residential towers. ‘Live and let live.’ Even if this particular facility means little to you, personally. There are lots of sites that could be developed for towers that do not impact the farm’s work.

That said; I do not believe that this particular site, at Carling and Parkdale, would significantly, detrimentally, affect the farm. Yes, it will cast some shadow onto some areas of the farm, but I would need to see actual scientific evidence that that would significantly impact the work. Greenhouses can be heated and lit – although I think that it will cost much more than a few hundred dollars to do so. And one of the goals of the Central Experimental Farm is to study urban-farm interactions, so this might actually be a positive.

Of course, the idea that the farm should simply be moved out of the city, to be among other (commercial) farms is laughable. This is an EXPERIMENTAL farm. Being isolated by an encompassing city is a good thing. If test crops were introduced out of a (semi-) controlled environment, there is a very real probability that there could be contamination of surrounding farms. This farm is a laboratory. It must remain isolated.

[J.OT13]

Parts of the farm could be repurposed as a park/destination, but not the entire thing. It would be quite an out of the way spot for a central park. If people think the park plan at LeBreton is a waste, this would be far worse.

[Harley613]

crosspost

Originally Posted by Harley613

I just ran my own comprehensive shadow study using http://shadowcalculator.eu . An 89 Metre building here would come closest to throwing shade on the greenhouse next to the ornamental gardens just before sunset on days right around August 19th, but it doesn't quite make it. There is no time of day on any day of the year where these buildings would cast any shadow on any of the three greenhouse areas of the experimental farm.

[rocketphish]

City, feds aim to defuse future spats over Experimental Farm shadows
It's only a matter of time before there's more development near farm, councillors say

Elyse Skura · CBC News
Posted: Jun 23, 2024 4:00 AM EDT | Last Updated: 6 hours ago



The City of Ottawa and the federal government have begun a year-long process to find some middle ground between promoting denser development at a vital artery, and choking off research exploring ways to protect food production against such forces as climate change.

A working group involving staff from the city, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) and the National Capital Commission (NCC) is tasked with coming up with recommendations to mitigate the effect of development on the farm's research.

"There certainly is an opportunity for tension, or competing interests," Derrick Moodie, the city's director of planning, told city councillors Wednesday.

"But our goal through the exercise is to identify ways to achieve our goals and objectives ... which speak to density or creating that critical mass along the [bus rapid transit corridor] that will be sustainable, without having a significant impact on the farm."

The group is so far getting along well, Moodie added, noting it aims to arrive at a consensus by June 2025.

Tensions reached a head last summer when councillors approved a pair of residential towers along Carling Avenue for a second time, after inadvertantly snubbing AAFC with the first attempt.

Stefanie Beck, who at the time was deputy minister for the department, called it "ironic" that developers were promoting a view of the farm since too much development could lead to its demise.

The debate has at times revolved around which experts to believe, as developer-hired consultants clashed with federal scientists.

The city hopes to defuse future disagreements by spending $50,000 on an independent study.

That led councillors to ask what the federal government is contributing, especially since no one from AAFC raised concerns when staff classified the farm as a "green space" during the official plan process.

"Either this land is of critical importance for agriculture research or it isn't. And they have significant tools available to them. So the question is, why aren't they using those tools," asked Coun. Riley Brockington, whose River ward borders the farm.

"We're really going to see significant growth in the City of Ottawa over the next 30 years. We know at least 400,000 people are coming. The time is now."

Protective legislation has been a matter of discussion since the late NPD MP Paul Dewar pushed for a law to protect Gatineau Park from builders, Brockington said.

Many around the committee table have been less than sympathetic to the plight of scientists, musing at times about options to redevelop the farm itself, and repeating the city's conclusion that any challenge to these development projects would fail based on a lack of legal right to sunlight.

But the pressure from the public has been impossible to ignore.

"I think that the concern that some people have is that if you compromise one type of research on the farm, that the federal government may start to think, this isn't land that we can use for research at all,'' said Coun. Jeff Leiper, who chairs the planning committee.

"I don't think that that is a realistic outcome."

Recent suggestions by community groups to pause all nearby development approvals likewise feels like the "nuclear option," and would almost certainly fail to receive council support, Leiper said.

With housing pressures mounting and interest rate changes providing a ray of hope to developers, Brockington said this is the moment to act.

"It's a matter of time," he said. "That's why I want this working group to meet, have those discussions and come to some sort of an agreement."

AAFC declined CBC's request for an interview, but provided a written statement saying it's pleased to be part of the working group and remains committed to ensuring the integrity of research at the farm is not undermined.

Asked about the possibility of federal legislature to increase protections, a spokesperson wrote: "Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada will continue to support the Ottawa Research and Development Centre, located at the Central Experimental Farm, and the valuable agricultural research being conducted there, which is vital to food security in Canada and around the world."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottaw...dows-1.7239957

[FrostyMug]

I don't understand why the Feds are insisting that they can only do their research on this property? There isn't suitable land within 50 km of the urban boundary that could be used for the same purpose without the "threat" of lost sunlight? However, at the same time if it were to move I'm sure there would be many looking to develop this same space. To me it's Ottawa's opportunity to have our own "Central Park" similar to New York. The Agriculture Museum should even stay as part of that parkland.

[NOWINYOW]

Lots of cities have large urban parks. I can't think of another city that has an operational farm central within the city.

Instead of cheering on high rises at every corner, how about developing ways to market the Experimental Farm as a tourist attraction? People go to NY with Central Park as a bucket list destination. No reason something similar can't be designed with Experimental Farm.

I'm sure over the last 100 years or so, developers and city councillors have tried to redevelop Central Park into residential/commercial space. What a shame if they had succeeded.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by NOWINYOW

Lots of cities have large urban parks. I can't think of another city that has an operational farm central within the city.

Instead of cheering on high rises at every corner, how about developing ways to market the Experimental Farm as a tourist attraction? People go to NY with Central Park as a bucket list destination. No reason something similar can't be designed with Experimental Farm.

I'm sure over the last 100 years or so, developers and city councillors have tried to redevelop Central Park into residential/commercial space. What a shame if they had succeeded.

Pretoria, South Africa.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

City, feds aim to defuse future spats over Experimental Farm shadows
It's only a matter of time before there's more development near farm, councillors say

Elyse Skura · CBC News
Posted: Jun 23, 2024 4:00 AM EDT | Last Updated: 6 hours ago



The City of Ottawa and the federal government have begun a year-long process to find some middle ground between promoting denser development at a vital artery, and choking off research exploring ways to protect food production against such forces as climate change.

A working group involving staff from the city, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) and the National Capital Commission (NCC) is tasked with coming up with recommendations to mitigate the effect of development on the farm's research.

"There certainly is an opportunity for tension, or competing interests," Derrick Moodie, the city's director of planning, told city councillors Wednesday.

"But our goal through the exercise is to identify ways to achieve our goals and objectives ... which speak to density or creating that critical mass along the [bus rapid transit corridor] that will be sustainable, without having a significant impact on the farm."

The group is so far getting along well, Moodie added, noting it aims to arrive at a consensus by June 2025.

Tensions reached a head last summer when councillors approved a pair of residential towers along Carling Avenue for a second time, after inadvertantly snubbing AAFC with the first attempt.

Stefanie Beck, who at the time was deputy minister for the department, called it "ironic" that developers were promoting a view of the farm since too much development could lead to its demise.

The debate has at times revolved around which experts to believe, as developer-hired consultants clashed with federal scientists.

The city hopes to defuse future disagreements by spending $50,000 on an independent study.

That led councillors to ask what the federal government is contributing, especially since no one from AAFC raised concerns when staff classified the farm as a "green space" during the official plan process.

"Either this land is of critical importance for agriculture research or it isn't. And they have significant tools available to them. So the question is, why aren't they using those tools," asked Coun. Riley Brockington, whose River ward borders the farm.

"We're really going to see significant growth in the City of Ottawa over the next 30 years. We know at least 400,000 people are coming. The time is now."

Protective legislation has been a matter of discussion since the late NPD MP Paul Dewar pushed for a law to protect Gatineau Park from builders, Brockington said.

Many around the committee table have been less than sympathetic to the plight of scientists, musing at times about options to redevelop the farm itself, and repeating the city's conclusion that any challenge to these development projects would fail based on a lack of legal right to sunlight.

But the pressure from the public has been impossible to ignore.

"I think that the concern that some people have is that if you compromise one type of research on the farm, that the federal government may start to think, this isn't land that we can use for research at all,'' said Coun. Jeff Leiper, who chairs the planning committee.

"I don't think that that is a realistic outcome."

Recent suggestions by community groups to pause all nearby development approvals likewise feels like the "nuclear option," and would almost certainly fail to receive council support, Leiper said.

With housing pressures mounting and interest rate changes providing a ray of hope to developers, Brockington said this is the moment to act.

"It's a matter of time," he said. "That's why I want this working group to meet, have those discussions and come to some sort of an agreement."

AAFC declined CBC's request for an interview, but provided a written statement saying it's pleased to be part of the working group and remains committed to ensuring the integrity of research at the farm is not undermined.

Asked about the possibility of federal legislature to increase protections, a spokesperson wrote: "Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada will continue to support the Ottawa Research and Development Centre, located at the Central Experimental Farm, and the valuable agricultural research being conducted there, which is vital to food security in Canada and around the world."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottaw...dows-1.7239957

Just show the people that insist on the Experimental farm what Option B looks like and i'm sure there opposition will disapear overnight.

Option B being the density targets for the LOCAL neighbourhood remains EXACTLY the same, and the removed density is just added as height to lots far enough from the farm to remove the supposed shadow concern.

Mind you that won't satisfy the "scientists" in this case as FOI reports have shown that they have concerns with ANY increase in density due to its accompanying pedestrian traffic....which btw eliminates any idea of trying to make the CEF a "tourist" attraction moot....

Essentially they want the area to remain low density sprawl, and not encourage anyone to visit or pass through....so how about Option C the farm is moved sooner rather then later.

[J.OT13]

I trust Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to come up with a height and form that would minimize shadowing impacts on the Farm. None of us here, as far as I know, as agriculture scientists. We don't know what kind of research is going on at the Farm, we don't know the timelines or the importance of soil conditions etc...

This is not NIMBYism. When Brockington asked the scientists what height would be acceptable, they said they could not give a number without studying the question, but gave a rough estimate of 12 floors (more or less). They never said everything needs to stay low density or that pedestrians would kill the Farm. Scientists that work with facts, not feelings.

I agree we should not just listen to the locals who use the Farm as an excuse, but we should listen to the scientists. Food insecurity due to climate change is a serious crisis, just as the affordable housing crisis is as well. We have plenty of big empty Federal fields like Tunney's and Confederation Heights. We just have one Central Experimental Farm.

Maybe it's not a bad idea for Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to plan an exit strategy. I hope this year long discussion gives us some timelines.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by FrostyMug

I don't understand why the Feds are insisting that they can only do their research on this property?

The issue is with diachronic research - long-term studies and comparative data going back decades.

I think it's an overblown concern, but at least now there'll be like data and 5h1t.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

The issue is with diachronic research - long-term studies and comparative data going back decades.

I think it's an overblown concern, but at least now there'll be like data and 5h1t.

It's not like there hasn't been changes besides shade to this area. They do important research but I really don't beleive the vast majority and most important couldnt be done elsewhere and this turned into housing with a huge windfall for the Govt. And make the edges community gardens to keep the continuity.

[lrt's friend]

First, the Central Experimental Farm is one of the things that makes Ottawa distinctive.

Second, anybody who thinks the CEF should be converted into a Central Park is living in technicolor. Who is going to fund it? Who is going to maintain it? What about the Nimbys? Remember the Botanical Garden fiasco, when all the elite got on their high horses? Remember the windmill that was being donated by the Dutch government with thanks for liberating the Netherlands for the 50th anniversary. Where did it get built? Nowhere.

All we will get is weed patches and more of the same old subdivisions, like neighbouring City Park, which used to be part of the CEF.

Listen everybody, all we want to do is degrade our city, just like we have little interest in heritage and our historic architecture.

Why do we need that land for housing when after 60 years, we still haven't rebuilt Lebreton Flats?

[kwoldtimer]

Zone the neighbourhoods surrounding the neighbourhood for six storeys. Problem solved.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Zone the neighbourhoods surrounding the neighbourhood for six storeys. Problem solved.

Developers buy land and twist city arms to exceed zoning limits in order to increase their profit margin. We see it all the time.

Six storeys actually provides density with a human scale, like in Europe.

[J.OT13]

I guess this is an example of lack of fairness for Ottawa. The Experimental Farm wants a study on the impact of towers on the research (which is fair), but the City of Ottawa has to pay for it (which is unfair).

La Ville d’Ottawa paie à elle seule une étude portant sur la Ferme expérimentale

Par Charles-Antoine Gagnon, leDroit
21 août 2024

Le gouvernement fédéral n’a pas l’intention de participer financièrement à une étude sur l’avenir de la Ferme expérimentale bien que l’examen «profitera à Agriculture et Agroalimentaire Canada (AAC) et à ses recherches».

La Ville d’Ottawa prévoit dépenser jusqu’à 50 000 $ pour une étude sur les impacts de l’ombrage créé par la construction de tours d’habitation adjacentes à la Ferme. La Ville a approuvé la construction d’immeubles, malgré l’opposition exprimée par AAC.

«Les possibilités de partage des coûts ont été discutées lors d’une réunion du personnel du Groupe de travail portant sur la Ferme expérimentale centrale (FEC) en avril 2024. Le ministère Agriculture et Agroalimentaire Canada (AAC) a répondu que, malgré toute l’importance de cette question pour lui, il ne pouvait pas contribuer au financement de l’étude», a indiqué une réponse du personnel administratif de la Ville d’Ottawa dans un document qui sera présenté le 28 août à la réunion du Comité de la planification et du logement.

«La Commission de la capitale nationale (CCN) a également indiqué que cela dépassait la portée de son rôle consultatif. Toutefois, AAC s’est engagé à fournir une contribution en nature, soit le temps du personnel, de l’information, de la cartographie et un soutien en géomatique», a continué la Ville.

Un groupe de travail composé de la Ville, d’AAC et de la CCN a été créé. Des recommandations en matière de modifications des politiques devraient être présentées dans le deuxième trimestre de 2025 en lien avec l’étude qui apportera des informations additionnelles sur les paramètres de hauteur des bâtiments à venir à proximité de la Ferme.

https://www.ledroit.com/actualites/a...F72M3NK3JNGKM/

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I guess this is an example of lack of fairness for Ottawa. The Experimental Farm wants a study on the impact of towers on the research (which is fair), but the City of Ottawa has to pay for it (which is unfair).

I am not sure why we are even considering paying for this. The NCC basically told the city to pound sand on closing routes to traffic. We should do the same on this issue if we consider housing more important than studying seeds in the centre of a city. If they decide to move the farm we can deal with the loss of a few jobs. I guess losing the museum would be unfortunate but otherwise it is not something that is benefical to the city considering the unusable green space as we need housing.

[Uhuniau]

Just imagine how vibrant Ottawa would be if we just tore down all the buildings and replaced them with grass and plants.