Comparing Ottawa/Gatineau to other cities

[OTSkyline]

I don't know why we need such strict height restrictions either...

Housing costs (prices/rents) are high and continuously increase due to demand and not enough building starts. The area is central, served by LRT, bus routes, parkways, near retail, office and many amenities. If it doesn't interfere with Parliament sightlines, why have these 20, 30, 40 floor limits? Why couldn't this area house a 50 or 60fl story tower? Let the market dictate the height.

Meanwhile.. this 55fl tower is being proposed/built in Kitchener.

[Richard Eade]

I'm curious. When did it become customary to create renderings with a reverse perspective? I've noticed that most tower renderings are now sporting an inverted-pyramid look. Is there some benefit to such distortion?

[Catenary]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

I'm curious. When did it become customary to create renderings with a reverse perspective? I've noticed that most tower renderings are now sporting an inverted-pyramid look. Is there some benefit to such distortion?

This is an illusion - it's not a reverse pyramid, if you measure it is the same width the entire way up. It's an isometric view instead of a perspective view, which is likely what most 3D building software generates.

[OTownandDown]

Don't they just move the natural convergence points inwards a bit to give the roof line a bit more of a pointy pop than what is expected in reality, for DRAMA? Otherwise it's fairly realistic, to me.

[zzptichka]

But we already have a 65-floor tower at 900 Albert Street just around the corner. Not enough imaginary towers for y'all?

[GeoNerd]

I wouldn’t be too envious of Kitchener-Waterloo building any tall buildings for a number of reasons.

• Tall buildings don’t make cities great. Just look at Mississauga and Calgary. They’ve focused on creating tall buildings their identity, yet there isn’t much else to them as a city.

• Kitchener has built out to their urban boundary. They only have small small pockets of land left to develop. They have no other options for growth except upwards. Waterloo has even less developable land remaining. If Ottawa had strong leadership that wasn’t compromised by developers, that keep pushing the urban boundary further and further out, we too could build upwards more.

• KW is a boring little backwater town. A sleepy exurb where nothing much happens. It can contribute almost all of its growth to people getting priced out of the GTA. Trust me, you wouldn’t want to live there.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by GeoNerd

I wouldn’t be too envious of Kitchener-Waterloo building any tall buildings for a number of reasons.

• Tall buildings don’t make cities great. Just look at Mississauga and Calgary. They’ve focused on creating tall buildings their identity, yet there isn’t much else to them as a city.

• Kitchener has built out to their urban boundary. They only have small small pockets of land left to develop. They have no other options for growth except upwards. Waterloo has even less developable land remaining. If Ottawa had strong leadership that wasn’t compromised by developers, that keep pushing the urban boundary further and further out, we too could build upwards more.

• KW is a boring little backwater town. A sleepy exurb where nothing much happens. It can contribute almost all of its growth to people getting priced out of the GTA. Trust me, you wouldn’t want to live there.

I agree with some of your comments on Kitchener-Waterloo, but this is the first time that I have ever heard it called a sleepy exurb that owes its growth to out-migration from the GTA. None of that is remotely true. It's growth is largely based on the fact that it has a world-class research university and what is probably the most entreprenurial tech scene in the country. Plus, a very small proportion of the workforce commutes to Toronto.

That said, you are right that tall buildings don't make a great urban environment of their own accord. The pattern in K-W has been to approve tall buildings with little street presence or transition to adjacent neighbourhoods. The result is a bunch of high-rise islands that are not walkable and have residents who are every bit as car-dependent as the majority of K-W people. There is a tonne of construction, but apart from a few exceptions downtown, it appears to be a huge missed opportunity. The changes are not fundamentally altering the suburban nature of the cities. I see K-W is more of a cautionary tale than a place to emulate.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by phil235

I agree with some of your comments on Kitchener-Waterloo, but this is the first time that I have ever heard it called a sleepy exurb that owes its growth to out-migration from the GTA. None of that is remotely true. It's growth is largely based on the fact that it has a world-class research university and what is probably the most entreprenurial tech scene in the country. Plus, a very small proportion of the workforce commutes to Toronto.

That said, you are right that tall buildings don't make a great urban environment of their own accord. The pattern in K-W has been to approve tall buildings with little street presence or transition to adjacent neighbourhoods. The result is a bunch of high-rise islands that are not walkable and have residents who are every bit as car-dependent as the majority of K-W people. There is a tonne of construction, but apart from a few exceptions downtown, it appears to be a huge missed opportunity. The changes are not fundamentally altering the suburban nature of the cities. I see K-W is more of a cautionary tale than a place to emulate.

"transition to adjacent neighbourhoods"

If the goal is intensification a transition to the historical is both unneeded and against the goal...You can't both alter the suburban nature of a neighbourhood & pay homage through transition to it.... so don't be a hypocrite.

Secondly aren't most of the tall building in Kitchener within 500m of the LRT, which goes through the central core & bookend with two large malls.

All of which is significantly better then option 2 suburban sprawl, or Option 3 further exurban sprawl, and don't say missing middle as your own comment goes against that in the idea of a transition to low density.

So your dissing tall buildings for not making "great cities" as if its the worse option available. So how about we allow density in the urban core at w.e height can be provided for, and worry about that "streetscape" issue instead.

[Djeffery]

I might be biased but I think London has a lot nicer looking skyline. And while I might be a bit jealous of KW's highway, I find it doesn't really take me where I want to go anyway. At least they did an LRT, London can't even do BRT right. Now I live in Woodstock so I get the best of both, only a half hour away.

[GeoNerd]

Originally Posted by phil235

I agree with some of your comments on Kitchener-Waterloo, but this is the first time that I have ever heard it called a sleepy exurb that owes its growth to out-migration from the GTA. None of that is remotely true. It's growth is largely based on the fact that it has a world-class research university and what is probably the most entreprenurial tech scene in the country. Plus, a very small proportion of the workforce commutes to Toronto.

That said, you are right that tall buildings don't make a great urban environment of their own accord. The pattern in K-W has been to approve tall buildings with little street presence or transition to adjacent neighbourhoods. The result is a bunch of high-rise islands that are not walkable and have residents who are every bit as car-dependent as the majority of K-W people. There is a tonne of construction, but apart from a few exceptions downtown, it appears to be a huge missed opportunity. The changes are not fundamentally altering the suburban nature of the cities. I see K-W is more of a cautionary tale than a place to emulate.

I’m not sure where you are getting your information from, or if it’s just made up. But what you said is not even remotely true or accurate.

It is a widely accepted fact that Kitchener-Waterloo’s population explosion is directly related to the exodus of the unaffordable Toronto market.

While its university has gained notoriety in recent years, it’s still a minuscule tech market in comparison to Toronto, Ottawa, and other larger cities. Its ranks close to Quebec City on tech market rankings.

KW is a sleepy exurb, that relies on proximity to Toronto for services, entertainment, transportation, and growth. Growth that can be largely attributed to residents leaving the GTA in search of a more affordable lifestyle. That is a plain fact backed by real data.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by GeoNerd

I’m not sure where you are getting your information from, or if it’s just made up. But what you said is not even remotely true or accurate.

It is a widely accepted fact that Kitchener-Waterloo’s population explosion is directly related to the exodus of the unaffordable Toronto market.

While its university has gained notoriety in recent years, it’s still a minuscule tech market in comparison to Toronto, Ottawa, and other larger cities. Its ranks close to Quebec City on tech market rankings.

KW is a sleepy exurb, that relies on proximity to Toronto for services, entertainment, transportation, and growth. Growth that can be largely attributed to residents leaving the GTA in search of a more affordable lifestyle. That is a plain fact backed by real data.

Perhaps we have different definitions of exurbs, but mine would not include a historically independent population centre of 600,000 with a significant manufacturing base, several major post-secondary institutions and all the amenities you would expect in a city of that size. Exactly what services do you think K-W residents rely on Toronto for? I've actually lived there - that's where I'm getting my information from. What are you basing your sweeping statements on?

At very least you would expect residents of an exurb to largely be commuters. In the case of Waterloo region, only 13.6% of people work outside of the region, and of those almost 40% just go to Guelph or Wellington County. Less than 3% of total commuters go to the GTA. https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/r...ing-ACCESS.pdf. Are you really claiming that those are the commuting patterns of an exurb that is fully dependent on Toronto?

Our definitions of "fact" are also different it appears. Or of what is "widely accepted". You provided a bunch of links that include anecdotal commentary on people moving from Toronto to K-W, but absolutely nothing that suggests that migration from Toronto is responsible for a "population explosion" in K-W. (Or that there was actually a population explosion at all.)

Here is a graph of historical population growth for the Kitchener CMA: https://www.macrotrends.net/global-m...loo/population As you can see, population growth has been between 1 and 2% every year since 1992. There is no population explosion, and the growth rate has actually been relatively constant and slower than historical averages over the past two decades. As for where they come from, in 2022, one of the highest years on record, net migration from the GTA as a whole accounted for about 17% of K-W's population growth: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1...pid=1710014801 I don't know about you, but when 83% of the region's population growth comes from other sources, I don't largely attribute it to migration from the GTA.

If you think that the University of Waterloo has only gained notoriety in the tech sector in recent years, you really haven't been paying attention.

[GeoNerd]

Your response is both humorously false, and bordering on delusional.

You were given referenced facts, and all you were able to respond with was a tantrum like rebuttal that “I’ve actually lived there” followed by nonsense red herring arguments. But guess what, I also lived, worked, and studied there for almost 8 years. So your entire tantrum is a moot point.

Manufacturing base? Are you joking? Like most of SW Ontario, the majority of that industry has left. The “Several post-secondary institutions” again can be attributed directly to its proximity to Canada’s largest metropolitan area. Do you actually believe that region could support these schools without the massive influx of students from the GTA and international students?

Whether you believe in facts or not, the population is experiencing a boom. The annual growth rate is closer to 4-5% and the second fastest growing CMA in the nation. Not the 1% you claim. If you were my student and you provided a trash reference such as a Macrotrend link, I would immediately fail you. Even a freshman straight out of high school should know better. Also, I would consider 1/5 new residents arriving from the GTA (which is likely a huge underestimate) a significant amount.

In conclusion I’m done talking about some provincial nothing burger of a town. For whatever reason you seem to be overly sensitive and emotional about this. All I said was nobody in Ottawa should be envious of Kitchener for building tall buildings, as it pales in comparison to a real city. If you actually believe that KW doesn’t rely on Toronto for many things including a large portion of its growth, then you cannot be helped. But it wasn’t necessary to have a public meltdown over it.