Quote:
Originally Posted by Williamoforange
"Existing low-density zoning, including areas currently dominated by single-family homes, will see new six-storey market rental buildings, and allowances for 12 to 18-storey towers with below-market rental homes in strategic locations."
They are also allowing 6 stories in the currently low-rise area, something Ottawa is not. Along with 12 stories in other locations inside the study boundary. A boundary if you extended it from the confed line would include well most of the kitchisippi ward. The local councillor couldn't even agree that Sherborne was a minor corridor. So if we comparing whos actually allowing more of what most Nimbys define as "character" to be destroyed it's not ottawa.
Lastly, Would you also take the test of the rezoning as well? Or just the part that protects what you like?
|
We need to densify SFH areas as well. The City's blanket rezoning of R4 mostly include areas nowhere near rapid transit, while protecting others that are walking distance.
That said, we need far higher standards. If we rezone early to mid-century SFH areas, better quality materials, green roofs, rain water collection, affordable housing should all be mandatory. A lot of trees and lawns would be lost, and so we have to compensate somehow. Parking should be limited or eliminated. A certain amount of retail should be required.
The immediate area (say 50-60 meters) of stations should be zoned for 30-50 floors. Step-down to 4-6 floors on traditional main streets. Same north of Richmond between Golden and Lincoln Fields.
South of Byron, along the entire stretch, I believe there should be different considerations. That's where those impositions come in for more environmental protection, affordable housing and retail. Secondary north-south streets like Parkdale, Hamilton, Churchill, Woodroffe should allow for 6-8 floors. Sherbourne that leads directly to a station should be zoned for 4 floors, with some retail. Minor streets around could handle 3 floors. Montreal proves that we can have high density without mid to high-rises everywhere.
I don't like seeing these old homes demolished as the construction back then was far superior. Solid wood, brick all around, copper pipes. They were built to last unlike the cheap chip-board and vinyl siding junk we have today. And the lots provided an excellent tree canopy and natural drainage. If we are to demolish these, we need to ensure that what is built is of the same quality and adds modern extras to compensate for the loss of greenery, like those green roofs and water recovery systems. A lot-line to lot-line metal box with a plain flat roof won't do. I'd also like to see better recycling of the old material. In a lot of cases, the wood could be reused in other projects or transformed. All metal (electrical and plumbing) can be recycled. The brick can be reused or recycled. Everything needs to be diverted from the landfills.
Governments focus too much on reducing GHGs when it comes to the climate emergency, yet completely ignore the problems with poor quality construction and waste.
Threaded Mode