New Ottawa Civic Hospital [930 Carling Ave + 520 Preston St] | U/C

[rocketphish]

Originally Posted by Buggys

Is # 11 the site of the former Carling building, or much bigger than the old building grounds?

Yes, #11 is the site of the old Sir John Carling Building, and the grounds immediately surrounding it, as well as the adjoining federal land immediately to the east (that many people think is a city park).

I personally think that this is the best site, as it is close to the old site (which makes for an easy transition), it's very close to the Ottawa downtown area, it's on the O-Train line with a station right across the street for easy public access, it isn't being used by anything useful right now and there are no plans for it yet, and it has views of and easy walking access to some beautiful treed grounds across the street, which has been proven to have a beneficial impact on health.

Yes, there's a height difference between the two sides of the site, but I think that creative architects and engineers can avoid constructing anything along the old fault line, instead placing the main hospital buildings on the upper level (where the Carling building used to be) and placing auxiliary buildings and/or parking on the lower level to the east. In fact leaving the treed escarpment between the two halves could be a design feature and buildings on both sides could be connected by a couple of overhead walkways.

I don't think that the fact that an old fault line is on the site is overly important. If a major earthquake ever occurred here, the existing Civic campus and sites #9 and #10 would surely be affected as well. And that hasn't concerned anybody yet that I'm aware of.

[acottawa]

It's not really clear to me what we're protecting with the farm. Is it the rural-ish appearance? Is it just that people like a big open space? Is it to commemorate past achievements of the farm?

The national historic site designation states it is "A rare example of a farm within a city; the site of significant scientific contributions to agriculture"

To meet these criteria the farm could be smaller than its current size with a visitor centre that would highlight the "significant scientific contributions to agriculture"

Defenders of the farm tend to be pretty vague about its scientific value, with a lot of emphasis placed on the urban micro-climate, although the fields seem to simulate rural field agriculture, not agriculture that might occur in an urban area. And, as several people have pointed out, there is probably a trend to undertaking agricultural experiments in controlled settings.

I'm also aware that other countries and institutions are able to conduct agricultural research without having a farm in the middle of their capital city.

I'm not super keen on developing the farm in the short term, to me it is useful to have some land inside the city available for potential future use, but I also don't see the point of dying in the ditch over every field, particularly if it means moving the hospital to Nepean or trying to break it up into little parcels of land.

[lrt's friend]

Why does the Civic Hospital need 90 or 100 acres (a new site plus the existing site)? What is the plan for the existing site? I presume the original hospital buildings have heritage status. If not, they should. Obviously, the more modern buildings can be demolished if they so choose.

We need to understand that we are dealing with a 'National Historic Site' and we should not take this lightly. I do not understand why this is not important. It has been a major consideration in blocking a National Botanical Gardens, a purpose that is part of the CEF mandate.

I have already asked why some of the more specialized services cannot be relocated to the General site, but even then, why cannot we use the Booth Street location (which is to be redeveloped anyways) in combination with the former temporary building site at Carling and Preston, which was never part of the CEF? These two sites are within walking distance of each other.

There are creative solutions that do not require CEF land.

Finally, what are we actually building that requires so much additional land? Is this some giant mega-hospital that we are building? Can this not be spread out amongst the various other hospital sites across the city?

This city has grown tremendously in the last 50 years, but there are no plans to build a hospital in any of our major suburbs, where populations are already exceeding 100,000.

We talk about the centre of the city not having a hospital (I am not suggesting that) but what about the growing parts of the city that may have extended travel times to the existing hospitals. And with congestion getting increasingly worse.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by acottawa

It's not really clear to me what we're protecting with the farm. Is it the rural-ish appearance? Is it just that people like a big open space? Is it to commemorate past achievements of the farm?

The national historic site designation states it is "A rare example of a farm within a city; the site of significant scientific contributions to agriculture"

To meet these criteria the farm could be smaller than its current size with a visitor centre that would highlight the "significant scientific contributions to agriculture"

Defenders of the farm tend to be pretty vague about its scientific value, with a lot of emphasis placed on the urban micro-climate, although the fields seem to simulate rural field agriculture, not agriculture that might occur in an urban area. And, as several people have pointed out, there is probably a trend to undertaking agricultural experiments in controlled settings.

I'm also aware that other countries and institutions are able to conduct agricultural research without having a farm in the middle of their capital city.

I'm not super keen on developing the farm in the short term, to me it is useful to have some land inside the city available for potential future use, but I also don't see the point of dying in the ditch over every field, particularly if it means moving the hospital to Nepean or trying to break it up into little parcels of land.

Exactly. The most ridiculous claim is the Central Farm won a Nobel prize.
Other than the Ag museum it is inaccessible to the public and as such in no way equivalent to other city's green space.

Reading this thread and the very helpful maps I think the plan might actually be to choose another part of the farm. Opponenets made the claim that this section is the most important piece. The least valuable of the 4 farm sites could be chosen as a "compromise"

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by acottawa

It's not really clear to me what we're protecting with the farm. Is it the rural-ish appearance? Is it just that people like a big open space? Is it to commemorate past achievements of the farm?

The national historic site designation states it is "A rare example of a farm within a city; the site of significant scientific contributions to agriculture"

To meet these criteria the farm could be smaller than its current size with a visitor centre that would highlight the "significant scientific contributions to agriculture"

Defenders of the farm tend to be pretty vague about its scientific value, with a lot of emphasis placed on the urban micro-climate, although the fields seem to simulate rural field agriculture, not agriculture that might occur in an urban area. And, as several people have pointed out, there is probably a trend to undertaking agricultural experiments in controlled settings.

I'm also aware that other countries and institutions are able to conduct agricultural research without having a farm in the middle of their capital city.

I'm not super keen on developing the farm in the short term, to me it is useful to have some land inside the city available for potential future use, but I also don't see the point of dying in the ditch over every field, particularly if it means moving the hospital to Nepean or trying to break it up into little parcels of land.

I believe there is a perfect example that has been pointed out previously of an Experimental Farm located just outside of Washington DC, which although not in the city proper is now completely surrounding by development. These experimental stations involve lengthy research often covering decades and require a critical mass of land. The research station in Maryland has almost as lengthy history as the CEF. These facilities are not relocated on a whim. Also, it is incorrect to assume that all research is done in a lab. There needs to be field trials and the need for segregated testing grows more important everyday as we move towards genetic modification of crops. This is a major concern to the public regarding food safety.

In addition, the National Arboretum is also located within the city proper of Washington DC.

Arboretums, Botanical Gardens and Agricultural Research Stations are not moved on a whim. They are always an asset to the area where they are located.

Furthermore, if you slice away land from these facilities, at some point they cease to function in a useful way. These facilities require substantial land in which to do their work.

I am appalled that we are prepared to pilfer away such an asset of this city. It also is a sad reflection of how far much of the population has become separated from Agriculture, which is critical to all our lives. So many don't have a clue of how our food is grown.

[eemy]

I also have a concern about opening up so much land for development. There are already several large tracts of land slated for development or redevelopment within the Greenbelt. Ottawa doesn't *need* this land.

Just look at what the Ottawa Hospital is proposing. They can only get away with their proposal because they're assuming the CEF is open for consideration, which is shouldn't be. If it never existed and if there was a preexisting neighbourhood there, the hospital wouldn't be proposing acres of parking lots and 90 acres wouldn't be a prerequisite. They would build the hospital within the constraints of the city, like they do in every other city in the world.

In my view, the CEF is irreplaceable, so you have to have a very good reason to make its land available for redevelopment. And it should be studied carefully and the public should be consulted. You chop off a bit now for the hospital, and I guarantee that some other agency or institution will be lining up to do the same, because building on vacant greenfields in the middle of the city will always be more attractive than figuring out what to do with existing sites. How is that going to impact the development potential of, say, Lebreton Flats? If I were the YMCA, I know what my first choice would be.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

You chop off a bit now for the hospital, and I guarantee that some other agency or institution will be lining up to do the same, because building on vacant greenfields in the middle of the city will always be more attractive than figuring out what to do with existing sites.

But that process has been underway for the farm's entire existence. The Agriculture Museum, the Scenic Driveway, the apartment buildings on Fisher, all of the Agriculture Canada buildings, the fletcher wildlife garden, the helipad, the telephone exchange (I assume that's what the Bell building is) and the dominion observatory were all carved out of the farm's land as new needs or ideas arrived.

I agree with those that say the hospital's request for space seems excessively large and their proposal should be scrutinized and I certainly don't want to see surface parking, but this isn't any old request. The current hospital is across the street from the farm (and has been for a century). If they build the new campus across the street it can be done in stages and facilities that have popped up nearby can stay (and people that have made life decisions based on the hospital's location can stay). If they are forced to relocate to Tunney's or Nepean then it will be a more complicated process.

If the research fields are in fact sacred, or involved in research that can only be done in their current location and nowhere else in the country (highly doubtful in my view) then there is a large swath of land on the North Side of carling currently taken up by government buildings, lawn and parking lots that could be a good location for the hospital.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by acottawa

But that process has been underway for the farm's entire existence. The Agriculture Museum, the Scenic Driveway, the apartment buildings on Fisher, all of the Agriculture Canada buildings, the fletcher wildlife garden, the helipad, the telephone exchange (I assume that's what the Bell building is) and the dominion observatory were all carved out of the farm's land as new needs or ideas arrived.

I agree with those that say the hospital's request for space seems excessively large and their proposal should be scrutinized and I certainly don't want to see surface parking, but this isn't any old request. The current hospital is across the street from the farm (and has been for a century). If they build the new campus across the street it can be done in stages and facilities that have popped up nearby can stay (and people that have made life decisions based on the hospital's location can stay). If they are forced to relocate to Tunney's or Nepean then it will be a more complicated process.

If the research fields are in fact sacred, or involved in research that can only be done in their current location and nowhere else in the country (highly doubtful in my view) then there is a large swath of land on the North Side of carling currently taken up by government buildings, lawn and parking lots that could be a good location for the hospital.

The whole problem is that the CEF site is the easy solution. Of course, that is the preferred site. Building surface parking lots, spreading out, is also part of the easy solution.

I consider the CEF a very special part of the city. I have biked through it countless times. It is an oasis in the urban sprawl. Yes, there have been changes over the years but the nature of those changes mostly enhanced the site as part of its primary purpose.

A hospital is not consistent with that purpose. It urbanizes a site that was not intended to be urban.

[OTSkyline]

"an oasis in the urban sprawl" can I have the rose-coloured glasses you wear? The farm is nothing but large open swaths of land, nothing else. You want to see an Oasis in the heart of a city, go visit Central Park or its cousins elsewhere in the world. With its reservoir, lake, outdoor theater, monuments, trails, lookout spots, spots fields, THAT is an oasis and a space very much loved by residents and tourists alike and a space that all can actively use and enjoy. No one actively uses or enjoys the CEF, you can drive or bike through it but that's about it. Nothing really to see or do there.

Now, if the Hospital is asking for too much space because they want to include too much surface parking and so on, then I too agree that the plan should be scrutinized and the development scaled back to me more reasonable and dense; like a central urban hospital should be (look at Toronto and Montreal for inspiration). I'm also not saying let's open the redevelopment of the entire farm for single family homes and big box centers either, that's not the point...

Ottawa already has the stupid Greenbelt, a large swath of land around the inner city that failed its original purpose and now just serves as a vast "no-man's land" which just causes trouble and money (longer commutes, and more expenses in order to expand services and utilities across km's of fields to reach the suburbs. If the CEF is so important to conduct research or such, then we should move it to the greenbelt IMO. We already have too much space reserved for grass in Ottawa.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The whole problem is that the CEF site is the easy solution. Of course, that is the preferred site. Building surface parking lots, spreading out, is also part of the easy solution.

I consider the CEF a very special part of the city. I have biked through it countless times. It is an oasis in the urban sprawl. Yes, there have been changes over the years but the nature of those changes mostly enhanced the site as part of its primary purpose.

A hospital is not consistent with that purpose. It urbanizes a site that was not intended to be urban.

I agree the CEF is an easy solution, but I'm not sure it is a worse solution than harder solution. The usual tactic for an urban hospital is to buy up neighbouring houses and buildings and once enough have been assembled they demolish them to build an expansion. The CEF is much cheaper, much less disruptive on the neighbourhood and allows the site to be designed from the bottom up to maximize its effectiveness as a hospital.

But I think this goes back to the earlier point I raised. What about the CEF are we protecting? If it is supposed to be an oasis then most of its current uses (government buildings, parking, parkway, helipad, museum, greenhouses) are incompatible with that use and the research fields present a limited oasis (few trees, few variations in the landscape, no water, limited shade). If it is supposed to show urban dwellers what a farm is like (say like the riverdale farm) then its rows and rows of cereal crops present a very limited slice of what agriculture looks like (no ponds, no meadows, no woodlots, limited livestock, no orchard, few vegetables).

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I agree the CEF is an easy solution, but I'm not sure it is a worse solution than harder solution. The usual tactic for an urban hospital is to buy up neighbouring houses and buildings and once enough have been assembled they demolish them to build an expansion. The CEF is much cheaper, much less disruptive on the neighbourhood and allows the site to be designed from the bottom up to maximize its effectiveness as a hospital.

But I think this goes back to the earlier point I raised. What about the CEF are we protecting? If it is supposed to be an oasis then most of its current uses (government buildings, parking, parkway, helipad, museum, greenhouses) are incompatible with that use and the research fields present a limited oasis (few trees, few variations in the landscape, no water, limited shade). If it is supposed to show urban dwellers what a farm is like (say like the riverdale farm) then its rows and rows of cereal crops present a very limited slice of what agriculture looks like (no ponds, no meadows, no woodlots, limited livestock, no orchard, few vegetables).

You have a very simplistic view of the CEF. It has served many purposes all related to Agriculture. Whether research fields, greenhouses, labs, barns, offices, museums etc., it all falls within the mandate of the CEF. It formerly housed the headquarters of Agriculture Canada, which is now just off the CEF at Merivale and Baseline. Maybe someday it will move back and why not? I am not sure why you pigeon hole this so much.

Maybe you find it unacceptable to have the CEF where it is but this has been part of the heritage of Ottawa since the 1880s and many people love this place as I do.

I am not sure why you are saying that the logical alternative is to buy up housing around the Civic. There are other choices. I know it is cheaper because it is green field development but look at the Sandy Hill Tunnel. Is that the cheapest alternative. Not by a long shot. In that case, a local neighbourhood stopped the much cheaper alternative. In this case, we are talking about National Historic Site, something of both national and local significance. A place that is used by the public regularly. Far less stopped the Kettle island bridge.

[zzptichka]

Originally Posted by OTSkyline

Ottawa already has the stupid Greenbelt, a large swath of land around the inner city that failed its original purpose and now just serves as a vast "no-man's land" which just causes trouble and money (longer commutes, and more expenses in order to expand services and utilities across km's of fields to reach the suburbs. If the CEF is so important to conduct research or such, then we should move it to the greenbelt IMO. We already have too much space reserved for grass in Ottawa.

We already have too much space reserved for surface parking lots and ugly crumbling office buildings in much better locations with better transit accessibility than CEF. Why not develop that first before paving over more grass.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by OTSkyline

"an oasis in the urban sprawl" can I have the rose-coloured glasses you wear? The farm is nothing but large open swaths of land, nothing else. You want to see an Oasis in the heart of a city, go visit Central Park or its cousins elsewhere in the world. With its reservoir, lake, outdoor theater, monuments, trails, lookout spots, spots fields, THAT is an oasis and a space very much loved by residents and tourists alike and a space that all can actively use and enjoy. No one actively uses or enjoys the CEF, you can drive or bike through it but that's about it. Nothing really to see or do there.

Now, if the Hospital is asking for too much space because they want to include too much surface parking and so on, then I too agree that the plan should be scrutinized and the development scaled back to me more reasonable and dense; like a central urban hospital should be (look at Toronto and Montreal for inspiration). I'm also not saying let's open the redevelopment of the entire farm for single family homes and big box centers either, that's not the point...

Ottawa already has the stupid Greenbelt, a large swath of land around the inner city that failed its original purpose and now just serves as a vast "no-man's land" which just causes trouble and money (longer commutes, and more expenses in order to expand services and utilities across km's of fields to reach the suburbs. If the CEF is so important to conduct research or such, then we should move it to the greenbelt IMO. We already have too much space reserved for grass in Ottawa.

Do you not realize that Ottawa's parks and conservation areas are envied by countless visitors to this city? It is sad that there is a lack of appreciation for what we have and for what we cannot replace if we choose to pave it over. I am all for improving derelict and vacant locations such as Lebreton Flats and the old Rockcliffe air base but this was purpose built for what it is today.

As I have already said, you can not move the CEF. These kinds of institutions are located where they are for decades or longer for a reason. If we so choose to pave it over, we will simply lose it entirely. It will not be rebuilt in the Greenbelt. That will never happen. I guarantee it. Where would you find the right location, the right soil, and who would pay to develop a new location? It will be an outright loss to Ottawa. The research will be moved elsewhere, to another similar facility well away from Ottawa.

I know ubanists love their concrete but a great city also appreciates its green spaces and doesn't blow it away.

There is no need to compare it with Central Park in New York. That is a unique place as is Mount Royal in Montreal and Golden Gate Park in San Francisco. Great green spaces are all different. But if we get rid of this one, there is no large tracts of land left inside the Greenbelt. There will be no opportunity to improve it for the future. Once you build on it, you cannot get it back.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

You have a very simplistic view of the CEF. It has served many purposes all related to Agriculture. Whether research fields, greenhouses, labs, barns, offices, museums etc., it all falls within the mandate of the CEF. It formerly housed the headquarters of Agriculture Canada, which is now just off the CEF at Merivale and Baseline. Maybe someday it will move back and why not? I am not sure why you pigeon hole this so much.

So the Government could build a complex of buildings and parking (which basically describes the NE quadrant of the CEF) and as long as they are related to agriculture that's ok? But if the Government builds a complex of buildings and parking that is not about agriculture then that ruins the historic site?

To me the site should be a mix of public uses (like the greenbelt) which could include agricultural uses but also other public functions (hospital, park, botanical garden, demonstration farm, community garden)

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Good Grief, destroy a major part of Ottawa history for another second rate neighbourhood. Absolutely not.

Maybe we should do likewise and demolish Old Fort Henry in Kingston and all the green space surrounding it for a similar use.

Uh... there is a huge difference between the two-hundred year old structure that is Fort Henry and the huge corn field that is the Experimental Farm. Fort Henry is irreplaceable and unique. The Farm is just one of countless giant farms throughout Southern Ontario.

Only in Ottawa is a generic corn field considered a key piece of heritage.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

As I have already said, you can not move the CEF.

Sure you can. It's just a farm field. It can be basically anywhere. The only things that would be really hard to move are the genetics labs in the northern stretch along Carling (in the Neatby building and environs). The government could easily retain that little corner of the farm that makes up maybe 10% of the land at most and sell off the rest.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

If we so choose to pave it over, we will simply lose it entirely. It will not be rebuilt in the Greenbelt. That will never happen. I guarantee it. Where would you find the right location, the right soil

There are dozens of possible sites in Eastern Ontario, including at least three that could work in the Greenbelt (the existing AgCan facility near Barrhaven, the land north of the 174, and the Ramsayville area).

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

, and who would pay to develop a new location?

It could be very easily financed by selling off the existing CEF grounds. The market value of the the CEF lands is at least ten times the cost of putting a new one in the Greenbelt, assuming the gene labs along Carling are retained.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

It will be an outright loss to Ottawa. The research will be moved elsewhere, to another similar facility well away from Ottawa.

If the CEF was to be sold off, it's highly likely it would remain in Ottawa. Ag-Can already has 19 other agricultural research centres across the country, with the reasoning being to have one in every major agricultural region. For this reason, a CEF replacement would have to be constructed in Eastern Ontario, and the Ottawa Greenbelt is by far the most ideal location in Eastern Ontario for such a new facility due to the large concentration of government-owned prime agricultural land.

In this scenario, AAFC's HQ would probably relocate downtown or to Tunney's with the new Greenbelt CEF being for research only, as many of the administrative functions don't have to be in the same facility as research and it would be cheaper to move them into existing office space than build new office space in a new CEF.

I've probably mentioned this before, but I've got inside insight on this file; I work for AAFC, specifically in the division that handles departmental requirements for the CEF. My co-workers and I have brainstormed this scenario many times and we all think it's a great idea. It would be much better for the department as it would allow us to significantly improve the quality of our research while decreasing costs considerably.

[passwordisnt123]

Whether you support the Central Experimental Farm or not, can we at least agree to stop conflating it with urban parks and the National Arboritum? For starters, as others have pointed out, the Central Experimental Farm is, well, a farm. It's not a park. It has no resemblance to urban greenspaces that are actually truly treasured like Munich's massive urban park with a major water feature or St. James Park in London.

Incidentally, there is a handy trick I like to use for figuring out whether something is truly treasured by the people or not: if a massive debate erupts about whether the thing in question is even worth keeping every time the subject comes up, I think maybe we might take that as an indicator that some people may like the thing but the thing itself isn't really universally treasured. Mention Central Park in conversation and precisely nobody with any credibility proposes digging it up because it's actually universally beloved and treasured. Mention the CEF and, well, *gestures and points wildly around this forum*

Second — and this point really can't be stressed enough — there's a bloody ugly wire fence surrounding the Central Experimental Farm to keep people out in exactly the same way that other urban parks and "treasured" urban spaces don't. Putting a fence around an open natural space in the middle of a city is an abomination and an affront to basic decency.

I think reasonable people can disagree over whether the benefits of giving up a small portion of the CEF for a new hospital outweighs the negatives. I also think reasonable people can disagree over whether converting the CEF into a true urban central park is a good idea. But is there really anybody on this forum who would seriously oppose locating the new hospital in the Northeast corner of the farm where the John Carling building stood up until the very recent past?

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Defenders of the farm tend to be pretty vague about its scientific value, with a lot of emphasis placed on the urban micro-climate, although the fields seem to simulate rural field agriculture, not agriculture that might occur in an urban area. And, as several people have pointed out, there is probably a trend to undertaking agricultural experiments in controlled settings.

The scientific value is in long-term longitudinal data.

I wouldn't mind seeing some parts of the farm sacrificed to URBAN land uses (not suburban crap), but it would have to be very judiciously-selected parcels.

In either event, my preference would be for Tunney's or Booth, John carling, redeveloping the existing footprint, and then a farm-field location if absolutely necessary.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by OTSkyline

We already have too much space reserved for grass in Ottawa.

BRB, getting that put on a t-shirt.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I know ubanists love their concrete but a great city also appreciates its green spaces and doesn't blow it away.

A truly great city knows the difference between green space of value, and green space for green space's sake.

Ottawa has way too much of the latter and not nearly enough of the former. The former is arrived at by building green spaces that are integrated with the urban fabric of the city - Confederation Park, Major's Hill, Dundonald, Minto.

The latter is the ass-to-the-city useless parkways that have cut Ottawa, a great river-city-capital, off from its own river, the Sprawl Belt, and almost every single god-awful dead-space suburban park that Ottawa has built since the second world war.

It's so easy to build nice city. Why do we make it so hard?