Ādisōke [Ottawa's New Central Library] | U/C

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I hate to be blunt about this but our Central Library has been a daytime homeless shelter for many years. We now plan to move it to the opposite end of downtown from where the shelters are located. Is this a bit of social engineering going on here? I think that generally speaking it is good idea to give homeless people a warm and quiet place to go during the day, otherwise, what will these people be doing? I am thinking, up to no good. I know we don't like to talk about such things, but are their unintended consequences possible?

I think this gets to my earlier point about what a central library is for in an increasingly post-book era. The traditional role of a central library was to house the reference collection, so you had lots of stacks and big reading rooms.

Is it supposed to draw people from all over the city with innovative programming or cool architecture? Is it supposed to be a branch library for people who live/work downtown? Is to provide services to people with socioeconomic challenges? Is it Ottawa me-too-ism and it is being built because other cities have built libraries recently?

Whatever the current library's faults, it is conveniently located for downtown workers, somewhat conveniently located for downtown residents, conveniently located for the homeless and fairly easy for suburban/rural residents to get to (as long as they don't come during rush hour). The proposed location could be a nice setting (with the escarpment in the background and potential good views of the Gatineau Hills and River) but is pretty much LRT-only for access, which may discourage a lot of people.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Arcologist

130,000 sq.ft is far too small. Ottawa is a much bigger city than Halifax, and it just opened a 120k sq.ft facility, whereas Calgary, which is comparable in size to Ottawa, is building a new library at 240k sq. ft.

Why are we aiming for something so small?

Classic Ottawa. Compare our Convention Centre to other cities with newer or u/c buildings;

Ottawa: 192,000 sqft for 1.4 million people

Québec City: 232,000 sqft for 780,000 people
Winnipeg: 340,000 sqft for 730,000 people
Vancouver: 471,000 sqft for 2.4 million people

Sure Edmonton and Calgary are far behind (144,000 sqft and 122,000 sqft respectively), but those are old facilities.

http://www.conventioncentrescanada.com/members_centres/calgary.html

LRT is another example; Ottawa's day 1 ridership will be significantly higher than Edmonton's, but our tunnel platforms are 5 meters shorter.

[lrt's friend]

Are you suggestion that due to some inherent criminality that when deprived of a library to sleep in homeless people will turn to lawlessness? I don't think anything bad is going to happen in Ottawa to anyone because the library is moved to another location.

I am not saying lawlessness, but if it is too far for them to go from the shelters, what are they going to be doing instead? More nuisance panhandling? More congregating of homeless people like used to happen at Rideau Street bus mall before it was demolished? Eliminating a place where homeless people can get away from drug dealing and alcoholism, even for 8 hours a day? Or are we going to see more homeless people shifting over to residential areas of west downtown? I don't know but there will be some shift of behaviour.

Lyon or Kent are probably better from a public transportation/ cycling perspective, and due to it's location there are a decent amount of people who can walk here, especially if the rest of downtown and LeBreton are redeveloped. I don't think there are too many other decent places to locate it presently. Your concerns are too focused on a car-centric way of thinking, though. The goal of this library isn't to make it accessible to everyone in Ottawa, much like most things in the city aren't accessible to everyone. A new library (other than being an election promise) is to provide a new space for people that is significant enough to rejuvenate the downtown and make Ottawa seem like a much more interesting, progressive city than it is. It isn't intended to be a new building for everyone all over the city, just like the current main branch. If you live a car-dependent lifestyle in the suburbs than this library won't be useful for you (much like Shenkman Arts Centre isn't accessible for most). It would be counterproductive to try to accommodate all Ottawans by giving good access for their cars. It's smarter to keep it centrally where the city hopes to encourage population growth, with good cycling access and within proximity to a transit line that they can eventually build on. If some suburbanites feel shafted, then they can move someplace else where they can more easily get to the library.

The question remains whether we are simply building a downtown community branch of the library or are we wanting to use the library as a city-wide draw to enliven downtown? If it is just going to be another community branch then yes, you can limit accessibility to mainly transit, walking and cycling. But I believe this project is intended to bring people back to downtown. I think that was the intent in Vancouver, Calgary and Halifax.

I can tell you that I use the downtown branch of the library more often than my neighbourhood branch because it has resources that a local branch does not. I expect this will be even more the case in the future.

I am not saying that we should make this library primarily accessible by car. My only point, was that there should be some reasonable accessibility. The Metcalfe Street location has a good amount of on-street parking and underground parking nearby, which is particularly useful on weekends, when transit service is limited. I try to use transit to go downtown whenever possible, but I don't always have the luxury of spending 2 hours on a round trip by transit.

I should point out that the Bronson location was recommended partly because of its accessibility by all means of transportation. I am saying that it is less accessible than the current location. That is all.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I think this gets to my earlier point about what a central library is for in an increasingly post-book era. The traditional role of a central library was to house the reference collection, so you had lots of stacks and big reading rooms.

Is it supposed to draw people from all over the city with innovative programming or cool architecture? Is it supposed to be a branch library for people who live/work downtown? Is to provide services to people with socioeconomic challenges? Is it Ottawa me-too-ism and it is being built because other cities have built libraries recently?

Whatever the current library's faults, it is conveniently located for downtown workers, somewhat conveniently located for downtown residents, conveniently located for the homeless and fairly easy for suburban/rural residents to get to (as long as they don't come during rush hour). The proposed location could be a nice setting (with the escarpment in the background and potential good views of the Gatineau Hills and River) but is pretty much LRT-only for access, which may discourage a lot of people.

I think you say it better than I did. Particularly the bolded part, which illustrates a problem in the thinking at City Hall. The assumption that being on the Confederation Line makes it sufficiently accessible. While other parts of downtown (where people actually go to work and shop will continue to be served by many bus routes), this area will be served pretty well only by Confederation Line.

[Urbanarchit]

*

[lrt's friend]

In trying to bring people back to downtown that isn't about trying to get suburbanites to visit the downtown to patronize local services, but to make people want to live there. Therefore the library would be best as a local branch that serves the thousands who live downtown. One of the worst things that happened to cities was suburbanization. People bought property far away from the city (something to this day is stigmatized) and were capable of travelling to due to an increase in cars. This exodus caused many cities (American cities were hit worse) destroyed the downtown and made it undesirable for anything more than just office jobs. Nowadays, the goal is to undo suburbanization by getting people to live centrally, and part of that is providing reasons, such as local businesses, jobs, and various other amenities. It isn't about trying to make downtown appealing to suburbanites because appealing to people who live far away and require a car would overrun the downtown and make it unsafe and unpleasant to live in. The new library would be a local branch that everyone in the city could admire and want to visit, but by limiting means of access it would encourage people to reconsider where and how they live, and maybe even choose to live closer to the library if it's something as important to them.

If there are people with a disability that requires use of a motor vehicle, then I can definitely support some sort of accommodation. By I lose my ability to be sympathetic to people who choose to live in Kanata and want to come to the library. At some point one has to acknowledge the decisions they made and decide what is more important to them. The main purpose of locating the library downtown is it's being central and therefore accessible to most to an extent. But oftentimes trying to accommodate everyone is impossible because someone loses out, usually the cyclists and pedestrians.

I have spoken about my recent trip to Europe that does provide an alternate model. It is not about making downtowns difficult to access but to provide alternate methods of transport, ie. subways and tramways with wide coverage.

We want to make the downtown area an attractive place to live. Fair enough. But this is not going to create the thriving downtowns that we see in Europe or in Toronto or Montreal. Efficient transport is the key.

The most liveable cities allow people to move around so that everybody has at least opportunity to enjoy the various attractions that exist. When we suggest otherwise, we start talking just like Glebeites did a few years ago when they wanted to assume Lansdowne Park as their community park but funded by the taxpayers at large.

The question remains, do we really want people to come downtown? I think this is a reasonable question and your answer leaves me feeling very uncertain. Yet, we have our major festivals downtown and Canada Day and people like myself wanted Lansdowne Park redeveloped and we want our NHL arena on Lebreton Flats. I see all of these things have city wide appeal. Indeed, their success is dependent on it. A central library is somewhat different, but when you see exciting people places that are being built in other cities, they are being created with a more city-wide appeal than what they replaced.

Building major attractions downtown is more than just attracting people to live downtown, it is about making people to want to come downtown. To make downtown the meeting place of the city as it was until World War II. To make downtown the centre of the action.

If it is intended to simply create a community which sneers at suburbanites, then you have lost my support to spend one red cent of my tax money.

Most everybody do not appreciate being judged about their choices on where they live. It is a very complicated choice for most people.

Realistically, it is impossible for everybody to live downtown.

[Urbanarchit]

*

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I am not saying lawlessness, but if it is too far for them to go from the shelters, what are they going to be doing instead? More nuisance panhandling? More congregating of homeless people like used to happen at Rideau Street bus mall before it was demolished? Eliminating a place where homeless people can get away from drug dealing and alcoholism, even for 8 hours a day? Or are we going to see more homeless people shifting over to residential areas of west downtown? I don't know but there will be some shift of behaviour.

Given the recent shift to housing-first models and improved responses to mental health issues (both social and medical), homelessness is expected to decline significantly in the coming years. Medicine Hat eliminated homelessness recently by following the same housing-first approach that has now been adopted throughout Ontario.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The question remains whether we are simply building a downtown community branch of the library or are we wanting to use the library as a city-wide draw to enliven downtown? If it is just going to be another community branch then yes, you can limit accessibility to mainly transit, walking and cycling. But I believe this project is intended to bring people back to downtown. I think that was the intent in Vancouver, Calgary and Halifax.

The Rideau Centre and a future Sens arena will both bring people downtown a lot more than a library will. I think we also overestimate this problem; lots of people go downtown a lot in this city; just look at how busy Rideau and Bank are on weekends.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

which is particularly useful on weekends, when transit service is limited. I try to use transit to go downtown whenever possible, but I don't always have the luxury of spending 2 hours on a round trip by transit.

On weekends it's easy as pie to find spaces at the park & rides which offer a hell of a lot of a faster trip than 2 hours round.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

While other parts of downtown (where people actually go to work and shop will continue to be served by many bus routes)

Many truncated bus routes with inconvenient connections to the LRT and to one another, yes, thanks to the transit-planning genius of exceptionally well-paid people who don't regularly use the transit system that they plan.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by defishel

But the amount of money the city currently spends to keep the suburbs manageable leaves less money to be spent on necessary infrastructure the downtown needs.

And most of that expense stems from the kinds of design choices and approvals of the kinds of developments, in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and 00s, that the city continues to make.

There is nothing inherently less wasteful about the kind of suburban crap that the city has approved in this decade, than the kind of suburban crap the former municipalities did in decades past. The same loopy-swirly layouts and the same mass-segregation prevails, and the developers have the city convinced - despite significant evidence to the contrary - that there's no market for anything else.

And then people wonder why municipal services cost so much, and why their taxes are "so high".

They're not, really, and the suburbanites are getting the clean end of the stick. Imagine the howls if they had to pay the true cost of their freight.

But suburbanites, if you want to hold the line on taxes, stop building more suburban crap like the suburban crap you live in, and allow existing suburban crap to become more urban. Pretty simple.

We could make different public-policy choices starting today. But we don't. And we never, ever, will. The city will never adhere to its own supposed planning principles, and will continue to approve sprawl.

Twas ever thus since the war. And forever will be.

You're welcome, suburbanites. Enjoy my taxes. I don't.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Given the recent shift to housing-first models and improved responses to mental health issues (both social and medical), homelessness is expected to decline significantly in the coming years. Medicine Hat eliminated homelessness recently by following the same housing-first approach that has now been adopted throughout Ontario.

The Rideau Centre and a future Sens arena will both bring people downtown a lot more than a library will. I think we also overestimate this problem; lots of people go downtown a lot in this city; just look at how busy Rideau and Bank are on weekends.

On weekends it's easy as pie to find spaces at the park & rides which offer a hell of a lot of a faster trip than 2 hours round.

When people refer to the homeless they usually don't mean it literally -they are referring to the people with addiction and mental health issues that hang around downtown. While housing first is a good program, the library clients people refer to as "homeless" will still be around.

I can't see a suburban family driving to a park 'n ride, paying close to $20 in transit fare to go to the library when most of the suburbs have large, nice branches with free parking.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I can't see a suburban family driving to a park 'n ride, paying close to $20 in transit fare to go to the library when most of the suburbs have large, nice branches with free parking.

Whatever it is this library ends up being, 'suburban families' are probably not the target demographic.

[lrt's friend]

We had our chance to change the orientation of suburban development with the N-S LRT plan. This would have connected all the southern growth areas (now the fastest growing in the city) with fast, frequent and efficient transit service to downtown. We rejected that model and we have created a true mess, with road congestion everywhere in the southern tier of the city and leading towards the centre of the city. We are really playing lip service to real improvement in design. We cannot reform suburban design without an alternative transportation model. We have specifically and deliberately chosen to reject that alternative. We spent millions to reject it. We will be spending billions on the Confederation Line but in comparison, the N-S project would have better served the southern suburbs than the Confederation Line will ever do so in the east and west ends. And the price comparison is remarkable with the price tag being only $900M compared several billion.

We tell people not to drive but then we give them no alternatives. How do we really expect change to occur? And we talk about affordability, well look at what I just said. And the price of not building it will be hundreds of millions needed for road expansions. Then we offer to create a rickety alternative that will never work well and again, we will spending a ton of money on a that system that will be unreliable, and always deliver second class service. I am referring to the Trillium Line.

We want to create amenities downtown that are world class (well maybe second class as that is the way Ottawa seems to do things) that people will want to use, but then not offer good transportation access. Yes, there are local libraries but the central library will offer a range of services and presumably events that will be offered nowhere else. There has to be a way to get there that will not be a total pain in the neck.

As I said many times, we complain about suburban design but we have created a transportation network that limits design choices. If there is no usable and efficient transit, then everybody will be driving, which creates the big box malls with the acres of parking, which makes the pedestrian and cycling environment hostile and then we wonder why people want to live on curly-cue streets to get away from the traffic that we created without efficient transit.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We had our chance to change the orientation of suburban development with the N-S LRT plan. This would have connected all the southern growth areas (now the fastest growing in the city) with fast, frequent and efficient transit service to downtown. We rejected that model and we have created a true mess, with road congestion everywhere in the southern tier of the city and leading towards the centre of the city. We are really playing lip service to real improvement in design. We cannot reform suburban design without an alternative transportation model. We have specifically and deliberately chosen to reject that alternative. We spent millions to reject it. We will be spending billions on the Confederation Line but in comparison, the N-S project would have better served the southern suburbs than the Confederation Line will ever do so in the east and west ends. And the price comparison is remarkable with the price tag being only $900M compared several billion.

We tell people not to drive but then we give them no alternatives. How do we really expect change to occur? And we talk about affordability, well look at what I just said. And the price of not building it will be hundreds of millions needed for road expansions. Then we offer to create a rickety alternative that will never work well and again, we will spending a ton of money on a that system that will be unreliable, and always deliver second class service. I am referring to the Trillium Line.

We want to create amenities downtown that are world class (well maybe second class as that is the way Ottawa seems to do things) that people will want to use, but then not offer good transportation access. Yes, there are local libraries but the central library will offer a range of services and presumably events that will be offered nowhere else. There has to be a way to get there that will not be a total pain in the neck.

As I said many times, we complain about suburban design but we have created a transportation network that limits design choices. If there is no usable and efficient transit, then everybody will be driving, which creates the big box malls with the acres of parking, which makes the pedestrian and cycling environment hostile and then we wonder why people want to live on curly-cue streets to get away from the traffic that we created without efficient transit.

In hindsight, the fatal mistake made by Ottawa's politicians in 2003-2006 was to put the N-S LRT project ahead of the project that would later be named the Confederation Line. Most of the city's people are on the E-W axis, so they were angry at the perception of a line to service a future development area, to the ignorance of their own commutes. They should have both designed & approved at the same time.

To be fair about the pricing, the cost would have been a lot greater than $900M once the tunnel became a thing... the proposed streetcar layout would have been a disaster.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Whatever it is this library ends up being, 'suburban families' are probably not the target demographic.

Yes, for the most part you are correct. I will be an exception. However, downtown workers who live in the suburbs may (and probably do) pop into the library before heading home. Relocating to the western edge of downtown will pretty well eliminate that possibility.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

In hindsight, the fatal mistake made by Ottawa's politicians in 2003-2006 was to put the N-S LRT project ahead of the project that would later be named the Confederation Line. Most of the city's people are on the E-W axis, so they were angry at the perception of a line to service a future development area, to the ignorance of their own commutes. They should have both designed & approved at the same time.

To be fair about the pricing, the cost would have been a lot greater than $900M once the tunnel became a thing... the proposed streetcar layout would have been a disaster.

You are creating revisionist history. Remember that O-Train was a trial service. When it succeeded so well, the desire was to end the trial and upgrade to a permanent system. Look at what is happening as we perpetuate the trial system. A mess. The N-S LRT project was an enormous step forward, and was all that the city could press for funding at the time. It would have been the biggest capital project in city history (now replaced by the Confederation Line). Yes, the downtown streetcar would have caused some problems (it would have had to be managed) but that alone would have quickly pushed the tunnel project forward. The time lines may have even been the same. We also forget that the N-S project was intended to push road expansion back by several years. Get transit in and people using it and make it more desirable than the inadequate road network that exists in the area. Give transit priority. That was all part of the rationale. It was also to be the demonstration that full-fledge LRT would be successful in Ottawa before the much more expensive east-west route was started. It would have created momentum and justification to spend much more. Remember, completion was scheduled for 2009-2010. Long before what we are doing today could ever be completed on even a minimal route.

Some have argued that the downtown streetcar would have been a waste. I disagree. It could have become that focal point of an urban LRT or streetcar network that so many want but is now pretty well dead. The Confederation Line and the tunnel can never do that. By its very nature, of being truly 100% rapid transit makes branched service much less desirable. We have all heard the arguments about every train being the right train so that platforms are not overwhelmed, etc. If you want good urban service however, interlining downtown is needed as is done in so many European cities and that is best done on the surface.

[McC]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Some have argued that the downtown streetcar would have been a waste.

not a waste: a mess; because there was no plan to extend the line to Hurdman and impose transfers at either end of the core, so the trains were to have thousands of buses (not to mention cars and delivery vans accessing and egressing the office buildings) weaving around them. It would have been a disaster from day one.

But now, with the Transitway being replaced, and those buses all gone from the core, a 2-way surface alignment on Slater could work very well for a revised version of the 2003 NS and Carling-Rideau LRT lines. Skip Bayview station and use the slow curve through City Centre in conjunction with the development of that site, follow the south side of Albert St (transfer to Confederation Line at Pimisi), up the old ramp to Slater, cross Mackenzie-King Bridge, down Waller, then Besserer, curve through the empty lot between Claridge Plaza and the old Quality Hotel in conjunction with that development, and keep going east down Rideau-Montreal all the way out to Blair or even further.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

You are creating revisionist history. Remember that O-Train was a trial service. When it succeeded so well, the desire was to end the trial and upgrade to a permanent system. Look at what is happening as we perpetuate the trial system. A mess. The N-S LRT project was an enormous step forward, and was all that the city could press for funding at the time. It would have been the biggest capital project in city history (now replaced by the Confederation Line). Yes, the downtown streetcar would have caused some problems (it would have had to be managed) but that alone would have quickly pushed the tunnel project forward. The time lines may have even been the same. We also forget that the N-S project was intended to push road expansion back by several years. Get transit in and people using it and make it more desirable than the inadequate road network that exists in the area. Give transit priority. That was all part of the rationale. It was also to be the demonstration that full-fledge LRT would be successful in Ottawa before the much more expensive east-west route was started. It would have created momentum and justification to spend much more. Remember, completion was scheduled for 2009-2010. Long before what we are doing today could ever be completed on even a minimal route.

Some have argued that the downtown streetcar would have been a waste. I disagree. It could have become that focal point of an urban LRT or streetcar network that so many want but is now pretty well dead. The Confederation Line and the tunnel can never do that. By its very nature, of being truly 100% rapid transit makes branched service much less desirable. We have all heard the arguments about every train being the right train so that platforms are not overwhelmed, etc. If you want good urban service however, interlining downtown is needed as is done in so many European cities and that is best done on the surface.

Oh don't get me wrong, I agree with you. I was pointing out that the project was almost guaranteed to be a political failure without E-W being at least tied for first.

As for the downtown streetcar, it would have been really nice to have, just not as the downtown segment of a major long-distance high-capacity rapid transit line. If we had built that streetcar, used it as the N-S LRT route for a few years then moved N-S LRT into the tunnel, that streetcar could have been easily repurposed as a downtown local route with future extensions into Gatineau and Rideau Street. Toronto has demonstrated the value of streetcars as local routes.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Oh don't get me wrong, I agree with you. I was pointing out that the project was almost guaranteed to be a political failure without E-W being at least tied for first.

As for the downtown streetcar, it would have been really nice to have, just not as the downtown segment of a major long-distance high-capacity rapid transit line. If we had built that streetcar, used it as the N-S LRT route for a few years then moved N-S LRT into the tunnel, that streetcar could have been easily repurposed as a downtown local route with future extensions into Gatineau and Rideau Street. Toronto has demonstrated the value of streetcars as local routes.

Surprise, surprise, we agree. And yes, if it had been done that way, we probably wouldn't have cheaped out by eliminating the connections between the Confederation Line and the Trillium Line. And if we did that, the downtown streetcar could have been rerouted over to Hull to serve the office there, the museums and the Windmill project. There is Phase 1 of my Rockcliffe idea. Nothing would have been wasted. Think of the $96M that Larry O'Brien threw out the window and what it could have bought, the Hull extension?

[rocketphish]

Don't move Ottawa central library out of downtown core, union says

CBC News Posted: Jun 09, 2015 10:22 AM ET Last Updated: Jun 09, 2015 11:21 AM ET

The union representing library workers is questioning the city's planned location for a new main branch of the public library, saying a recent report's preferred location takes the facility away from the downtown core.

Last week the Ottawa Public Library board released a consultant's report suggesting the city should build a new 132,000 square foot library rather than try to refurbish the existing library at 120 Metcalfe Street.

The report suggested a number of potential locations, but suggested 557 Wellington Street — at Commisioner Street near LeBreton Flats — was the preferred location.

Canadian Union of Public Employees national representative Susan Arab said the public hasn't been consulted enough on the proposed location.

"[They picked a] location that is really outside the downtown core and we don't believe there has been enough actual discussion with the main users of this branch to determine whether that's actually going to meet their needs," said Arab.

The report's definition of the central area of the city took into consideration the development of the Confederation light rail transit line in determining a broad area, and stretches from the site of the future Bayview light rail station to King Edward Avenue.

The report also considered future potential developments in downtown west, like Claridge lands in LeBreton Flats and the proposed Windmill Developments plans for the Chaudière and Albert islands, in determining the boundaries of the central area.

But Arab says many seniors have already downsized and moved back to the downtown core so they can be close to services like the library.

"There's been a lot of effort to make the downtown core dense… so it's important that those services remain here so that they can have access to them," she said.

Arab also wants more publicly funded options, and said the public-private partnerships under discussion are being determined without public consultation.

"We don't think the whole area of financing has been discussed enough and we don't think the area of location has been discussed enough," she said.

Arab's group organized a public forum Monday night to address some of these concerns.

The Ottawa Public Library Board is voting Tuesday on whether to proceed with the report's recommendations.


A look at what the city considers the central area of Ottawa in determining the location of the central branch of the public library. (City of Ottawa)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/don...ut-of-downtown-core-union-says-1.3105778