NCC - General Updates

[lrt's friend]

Note the comments about the park system and even the Greenbelt. From an outsider, it is a significant asset to the city. We often say otherwise. We shouldn't wish away our assets.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Note the comments about the park system and even the Greenbelt. From an outsider, it is a significant asset to the city. We often say otherwise. We shouldn't wish away our assets.

Other than a few restricted cases, there is nothing about the Brownbelt that makes in an asset. It is a liability that causes unnecessary and large increases to Ottawa's costs of simply existing.

Brownbelts are dumb ideas.

[passwordisnt123]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Other than a few restricted cases, there is nothing about the Brownbelt that makes in an asset. It is a liability that causes unnecessary and large increases to Ottawa's costs of simply existing.

Brownbelts are dumb ideas.

We get that that's your opinion. But a lot of acknowledged experts in this area, including the one interviewed in that article, seem to have a different opinion.

(Your point about the Market though and it thriving because of the NCC's lack of influence, is well-taken and I think basically accurate).

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Other than a few restricted cases, there is nothing about the Brownbelt that makes in an asset. It is a liability that causes unnecessary and large increases to Ottawa's costs of simply existing.

Brownbelts are dumb ideas.

Funny how the GTA added one.

As someone who lives within walking distance of the Greenbelt, there are a lot amenities that come with it. In our area, walking trails, tobogganing, dog walks, ski trails. Paving everything over makes this sort of thing much more inaccessible for city dwellers.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by passwordisnt123

We get that that's your opinion. But a lot of acknowledged experts in this area, including the one interviewed in that article, seem to have a different opinion.

Indeed. Experts who have never had to run thousands of vehicle-kms a day through unpopulated junk "green" space with zero revenue attached, or municipal water services, or sewers, or regular roads, or garbage and recycling services, etc., etc., etc.

Experts love pointless stupid greenspace and brownbelts. Experts also love modern architecture where you can't tell where the friggin' door of the building is.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Funny how the GTA added one.

Yip. Also not the best idea. However, the GTA one also doesn't really add to the municipal costs of any given municipality like the Ottawa Brownbelt does, given its scale.

As someone who lives within walking distance of the Greenbelt, there are a lot amenities that come with it. In our area, walking trails, tobogganing, dog walks, ski trails. Paving everything over makes this sort of thing much more inaccessible for city dwellers.

So protect those uses and genuinely ecologically important areas like Mer Bleue.

But most of the greenbelt is junk greenspace. It was reserved, at the time, for future development, and has only become sacred pointless stupid greenspace by virtue of Ottawans repeating myths to themselves and the NCC insisting on some imaginary national importance that no one in Moose Jaw or Miramichi cares about.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Yip. Also not the best idea. However, the GTA one also doesn't really add to the municipal costs of any given municipality like the Ottawa Brownbelt does, given its scale.



So protect those uses and genuinely ecologically important areas like Mer Bleue.

But most of the greenbelt is junk greenspace. It was reserved, at the time, for future development, and has only become sacred pointless stupid greenspace by virtue of Ottawans repeating myths to themselves and the NCC insisting on some imaginary national importance that no one in Moose Jaw or Miramichi cares about.

The Greenbelt was not reserved for future development.

It is funny that nobody cares when two experts from Washington DC cared enough to comment on it in a positive manner.

[1overcosc]

I think the Greenbelt is simply too big. Far too much of it is preserved space that serves very little purpose--no recreational purpose, no ecological one.. it's just there. A patch of grass and maybe a shrub or two, but nothing of any value really. The same criticism can be said of much of Ottawa's green space--far too much quantity, far too little quality.

There are definitely areas of the Greenbelt that can and should be redeveloped. In 2008, the city did a study on the matter and found that about a quarter of the Greenbelt could be redeveloped without any substantial harm to its character or ecological value:

(http://pondpine.blogspot.ca/2008/06/ottawa-greenbelt-development-under.html)

That study estimated the value of those developable lands at $1.6 billion. It could be as high as $2 billion today.

If even a portion of those funds were used to improve our greenspaces to actually having a functional purpose beyond letting people lie down on grass, it would have a massive net improvement on the quality of greenspace in this city.

[passwordisnt123]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Indeed. Experts who have never had to run thousands of vehicle-kms a day through unpopulated junk "green" space with zero revenue attached, or municipal water services, or sewers, or regular roads, or garbage and recycling services, etc., etc., etc.

Experts love pointless stupid greenspace and brownbelts. Experts also love modern architecture where you can't tell where the friggin' door of the building is.

So everybody who disagrees with you, even acknowledged experts, are simply people who don't know what it's like to drive across the Greenbelt?

That seems like a somewhat arrogant position to take, don't you think?

[lrt's friend]

Selling the Greenbelt may net the government a lot of money, but at the expense of the private sector. It is nice to talk about how that money would be spent but it is unlikely that it would be used to improve remaining green space. A net loss to the city.

[1overcosc]

I would only support such a sale on the condition that a portion (say $400M) of the proceeds be invested in improved amenities in green space areas throughout the urban area. And given how much Ottawa's public are known to care about their green space, any government pushing for that idea is probably going to be forced to make such a commitment.

Even if every cent just went to the federal government's treasury I would argue it would still be of net benefit to the city to have that much land opened up within the existing urban boundary, given how the Greenbelt doesn't need to be nearly as big as it is now to have value to the city as a protected zone.

With that 25% of the Greenbelt opened up, the city could make a case for the urban boundary to remain frozen for quite some time.

I'd much rather the space between Orleans and Blackburn Hamlet be developed as housing than to have sprawl push further into Cumberland.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Selling the Greenbelt may net the government a lot of money, but at the expense of the private sector. It is nice to talk about how that money would be spent but it is unlikely that it would be used to improve remaining green space. A net loss to the city.

How so?

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

How so?

If the federal government began selling this land, it would be at the expense of private land owners who would otherwise sell their land. Also the developers who had already purchased land would not be able to develop it because locations closer to the city would be more attractive to build on first. In other words, all that money going to private land owners would instead go to the federal treasury.

[lrt's friend]

I'd much rather the space between Orleans and Blackburn Hamlet be developed as housing than to have sprawl push further into Cumberland.

I highly doubt that the residents of Blackburn Hamlet would agree with you. The same would apply to Bell's Corners. Both were designed as island communities from Day one.

In any event, this is not going to happen as this would be a total repudiation of the Greber Plan that the federal government invested so much money in. At this point, it would be much better and more realistic to improve the amenities that exist within the Greenbelt.

[acottawa]

I think part of the challenge of the greenbelt is that it was designed to contain sprawl. It was an epic fail in that regard and people are trying to retcon all sorts of reasons why it is supposed to be there.

The ecologically interesting areas (mer bleue, etc) are so I am not certain there is much value in it being a belt (as opposed to a number of conservation areas).

I suppose it is kind of neat to be able to drive down Anderson road and see a rural-ish landscape only a few minutes from downtown.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I think part of the challenge of the greenbelt is that it was designed to contain sprawl. It was an epic fail in that regard and people are trying to retcon all sorts of reasons why it is supposed to be there.

The ecologically interesting areas (mer bleue, etc) are so I am not certain there is much value in it being a belt (as opposed to a number of conservation areas).

I suppose it is kind of neat to be able to drive down Anderson road and see a rural-ish landscape only a few minutes from downtown.

It seems to me that Anderson Road is a poor example as it runs right through the Mer Bleue ecosystem although the most central portion of the bog is to the east.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by passwordisnt123

So everybody who disagrees with you, even acknowledged experts, are simply people who don't know what it's like to drive across the Greenbelt?

That seems like a somewhat arrogant position to take, don't you think?

No less and no more arrogant than clinging religously to outdated and disproven Radiant Garden City Beautiful thinking from the 1930s, no.

I am just as much an "expert" as these self-styled "experts". So are you.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

If the federal government began selling this land, it would be at the expense of private land owners who would otherwise sell their land. Also the developers who had already purchased land would not be able to develop it because locations closer to the city would be more attractive to build on first. In other words, all that money going to private land owners would instead go to the federal treasury.

I don't see that as a problem. Governments can buy or otherwise acquire, and dispose of, real property. It's one of the things they do.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

I would only support such a sale on the condition that a portion (say $400M) of the proceeds be invested in improved amenities in green space areas throughout the urban area.

What kind of amenities?

I'd much rather the space between Orleans and Blackburn Hamlet be developed as housing than to have sprawl push further into Cumberland.

Ditto Farrhaven and "mainland" Nepean.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I highly doubt that the residents of Blackburn Hamlet would agree with you. The same would apply to Bell's Corners. Both were designed as island communities from Day one.

And therein lies the problem with the suburban thinking that led to the construction of these precious "island communities", and continues to be a problem with the new garbage suburbs developers continue to propose and the city continues to rubber-stamp: the implicit (or in some cases explicit) expectation that nothing about these suburbs is ever, ever, ever allowed to change, no matter how much society changes, no matter how much the economy changes, no matter how much demographics changes, no matter how much technology changes: this community was built in 1952 (1966, 1973, 1984, 1991, 2005), and dammit, it's going to stay that way.

In any event, this is not going to happen as this would be a total repudiation of the Greber Plan that the federal government invested so much money in. At this point, it would be much better and more realistic to improve the amenities that exist within the Greenbelt.

Why not repudiate the Greber Plan? The urban history of Ottawa — of any city — is filled with repudiated plans. The five most recent official city plans have been repudiated before the ink dried, because the city keeps approving garbage development that doesn't live up to any of the ideals embodied in them.

Repudiate the living hell out of the Greber Plan. It can't possibly be repudiated enough. When a plan like Greber turns from that, a plan, of a particular time, into some kind of Holy Scripture, then it's time for a reformation.