HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #481  
Old Posted May 17, 2020, 10:48 AM
YOWetal YOWetal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,709
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00 View Post
Screw Randall Denley. He's an anti-urban conservative hack. In the view of people like him, our cities should be a sprawling suburban mess with semi-shit quality of life (defined by high car dependency) reserved for suburban homeowners and shit quality of life for everyone else.
You are not going to win any converts by defining "car depednacy" as shit quality of life. Most people in Ottawa want a cheap house with a yard and don't mind driving everywhere. I think they are crazy but it is the strong preference of the vast majority. Even if we equalize development charges they are still going to choose a $500k house in Barrhaven over a $600k stacked townhouse in the Glebe. Even if you reject his argument and say there is a subsidy well there are subsidies for lots of politically powerful groups.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #482  
Old Posted May 17, 2020, 7:29 PM
CityTech CityTech is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 2,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by YOWetal View Post
You are not going to win any converts by defining "car depednacy" as shit quality of life. Most people in Ottawa want a cheap house with a yard and don't mind driving everywhere. I think they are crazy but it is the strong preference of the vast majority. Even if we equalize development charges they are still going to choose a $500k house in Barrhaven over a $600k stacked townhouse in the Glebe. Even if you reject his argument and say there is a subsidy well there are subsidies for lots of politically powerful groups.
You'd be surprised. A lot of suburbanites still really do value having some basic amenities to walk to.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #483  
Old Posted May 19, 2020, 5:09 PM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is online now
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Greater Ottawa
Posts: 14,619
Champions of a denser Ottawa need to persuade homebuyers and neighbours

Randall Denley
Publishing date: 20 minutes ago • 3 minute read


The outcome of Ottawa’s Official Plan debate seems pre-determined. The mayor and his supporters will approve a staff plan for growth that is described as balanced and middle of the road. Advocates for a denser, greener, more urban city will face yet another defeat from the champions of city-destroying sprawl.

That’s a popular perception, but it’s dead wrong. Intensification enthusiasts have already won a big victory, and they won it last December when city councillors decided that intensification would deliver the majority of housing needs over the next 25 years.

The promise that intensification would provide just over half of future housing sounds like a grudging concession, a perception reinforced by the city’s “balanced” expansion scenario, which projects a 51-per-cent intensification share over the life of the Official Plan.

Look at the detailed numbers, though, and you will see that the three alternatives described by city staff are cleverly labelled, but potentially misleading. Under the “balanced” approach, intensification would provide 60 per cent of new housing beginning in 2041, with new suburbs delivering only 40 per cent. That reverses the numbers that exist now, increasing intensification’s share dramatically. This scenario is balanced like a teeter-totter with a large person on one end and a small one on the other.

The “status quo” scenario is only that if you happen to know that the city already has a policy of steadily increasing intensification. What the city calls “status quo” would lead to 50-per-cent intensification and 50-per-cent suburban growth by 2041. One would be tempted to describe that as balanced, but it’s not aggressive enough for council and so is provided for comparison only.

The “no expansion” plan favoured by a minority of councillors would see every new house in the city built in already established areas by 2041. City planning staff say the rapid march to that target would mean building intensification units at a rate faster than the housing industry can manage and the public would accept. Even in this plan, there is an important nuance. No expansion doesn’t mean no new suburban housing. There is already enough suburban land previously approved to allow more than 66,000 suburban houses.

Nothing in the city’s growth plan is as clear-cut as it seems at a glance, and yet, councillors and community groups are approaching the Official Plan vote as if the very future of the city rests on it. It doesn’t. The residential shape of Ottawa will be determined by future new home buyers, not by city councillors in 2020.

That’s because the Official Plan, as the name might suggest, is just a plan. Under provincial legislation, the city has an obligation to plausibly determine the volume and type of future housing and make sure there is land on which to build it. Limiting suburban expansion land pushes home buyers toward intensification, but it doesn’t compel them to accept it.

This is unusual in the world of command-and-control government, but most politicians instinctively understand that it might be going a bit far to tell people where they must live and in what kind of house.

That’s why the real challenge for those who favour greater intensification is not persuading city council, it’s persuading home buyers and people in established neighbourhoods who might back intensification in theory, just not on their street.

In particular, the city and intensification enthusiasts will need to convince families who typically choose the suburbs to buy closer to the centre instead, and they will have to find a way to make that affordable.

That said, the new growth plan is a huge opportunity to redevelop the city as intensification advocates want it to be. Nothing in the plan limits the amount of intensification. Champions of a denser city need to take their win, and get on with the hard work of making their dream a reality.

Randall Denley is an Ottawa political commentator and former Ontario PC candidate. Contact him at [email protected]

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/denley...cm/3342fc43-8efe-49ee-a997-9256578d7354/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #484  
Old Posted May 19, 2020, 5:30 PM
Ottawa Champ Ottawa Champ is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketphish View Post

This is unusual in the world of command-and-control government, but most politicians instinctively understand that it might be going a bit far to tell people where they must live and in what kind of house.
This sounds all well and good but the city provides all of the infrastructure aside from the home itself. So yeah, the city can and should control where people live. Don't like it, go move to another city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #485  
Old Posted May 19, 2020, 10:02 PM
Truenorth00 Truenorth00 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 28,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by YOWetal View Post
You are not going to win any converts by defining "car depednacy" as shit quality of life.
Disagree. People are voting with their dollars. When a condo in the core costs as much as a small house in a suburb, you know that most buyers implicitly understand the value of location.

Quote:
Originally Posted by YOWetal View Post
Most people in Ottawa want a cheap house with a yard and don't mind driving everywhere. I think they are crazy but it is the strong preference of the vast majority. Even if we equalize development charges they are still going to choose a $500k house in Barrhaven over a $600k stacked townhouse in the Glebe.
If that were the choice, the Glebe would win often. The choice is $500k semi in Barrhaven or million dollar stacked town in Westboro. Redevelop any area inside the Greenbelt (like Vanier for example) with more stacked towns and buyers will absolutely snatch them up.

It's not like we don't know this. There's a ton of ink on the "missing middle" in Canadian housing. We do a really shitty job of offering choices between suburban homes and shoebox condo. A huge part of these intensification plans can and do focus on getting builders to provide those options.

Quote:
Originally Posted by YOWetal View Post
Even if you reject his argument and say there is a subsidy well there are subsidies for lots of politically powerful groups.
Sure. But let's at least discuss these subsidies based on facts. Arguing that they pay for the additional factor is bullshit, when he's ignoring the long term liabilities involved.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #486  
Old Posted May 19, 2020, 11:51 PM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is online now
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Greater Ottawa
Posts: 14,619
Joint committee OKs Ottawa's urban boundary expansion and intensification goal

Jon Willing, Ottawa
Publishing date: 1 hour ago • 3 minute read


Ottawa’s urban boundary should push out to accommodate thousands of hectares more of homebuilding land in the suburbs, a joint committee decided Tuesday.

With a 10-1 vote, councillors on the planning committee and agriculture and rural affairs committee approved the staff-recommended expansion of between 1,350 and 1,650 hectares of development land (1,281 hectares would be for homes and the rest would be for employment), plus an intensification target of 51 per cent through to 2046.

That means the city would aim to build the majority of new homes in established areas, with the intensification goal rising to 60 per cent between 2041 and 2046.

Council will vote on the growth management plan on May 27.

The joint committee decision closed a meeting held over three days by video conference. For the first time in Ottawa’s municipal government, a council committee meeting involved live online presentations from public delegates. More than 100 people signed up to address the joint committee, which heard concerns about environmental damage, the price of new homes and housing densification in communities.

It wouldn’t be until later this year that council determines which lands are brought inside the urban boundary using a staff-proposed scoring system. Planning staff said they’re focused on existing transit corridors for adding new homes in the expanded suburbs, avoiding the need to augment infrastructure in the lands.

Councillors heard the expansion lands wouldn’t be needed to meet the city’s growth projections until around the mid-2030s since there’s enough development land already inside the urban boundary to accommodate homebuilding.

If the city is highly successful meeting its intensification targets, there’s a chance that the extra land might not be required, staff said.

Councillors attempted several changes and additions to the staff recommendations, including three noteworthy motions.

Coun. Riley Brockington, who said he was “trying to balance out a compromise,” presented a motion to reduce the proposed expansion of the urban boundary and increase the intensification goal. He didn’t win enough support.

Coun. Eli El-Chantiry, on the other hand, received the joint committee’s full support to shield agricultural resource areas from development in an urban boundary expansion.

Coun. Laura Dudas also won unanimous support to make sure new community amenities align with the development approval process and make sure developers notify homebuyers of the amenities and timelines.

Councillors asked several questions about the cost of expanding the urban boundary.

Planning general manager Stephen Willis said the master plans, like transportation and infrastructure master plans, will later identify the capital expenses required. The growth management plan “sets a general direction” and then the master plans will provide the details about the projects and costs, Willis said.

Putting costs to different kinds of growth scenarios would be “incredibly conceptual” at this point, Willis said. He noted that high-density housing in central areas will always be cheaper for city operations, but even then there could be tax money required to boost municipal services in those areas, beyond what development charge revenue provides.

Low-density development adds to the municipal cost burden, but cities have been trying to add high-density development to the suburbs to lessen the impact, Willis said.

Coun. Jeff Leiper said the recommended urban boundary expansion will cost residents more in the long term and called for a freeze to the boundary.

Leiper, who cast the only vote in opposition to the staff recommendation, said there would be “negative implications for our kids.”

But Coun. Scott Moffatt said the staff-proposed urban boundary expansion and intensification goal “makes the most sense for the long term.”

The growth management plan is one part of the work to update the official plan.

The draft official plan is scheduled to be complete by the end of the year. When that policy is locked in, staff will begin reviewing zoning regulations, like those controlling height of buildings, to make sure land-use rules align with the official plan.

[email protected]
twitter.com/JonathanWilling

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-new...cm/ba56ea84-2474-455f-a8ff-30307e4c33a3/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #487  
Old Posted May 20, 2020, 1:10 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 28,916
Here's something "interesting" that happened:

Quote:
Motions now. Leiper has so many outstanding questions about financing and costs to the city, modelling for which parcels might be candidates to be included, how much his son and future generations might pay in taxes.

He wants the report tabled, ie. put on hold.
https://twitter.com/KatePorterCBC/status/1262839638827372553

Quote:
Dudas and Tierney didn't seem to understand the intent of Leiper's motion, and voted yes. So, chair Harder paused things to make sure everyone understands, and now they're restarting that vote.
https://twitter.com/KatePorterCBC/status/1262839638827372553

Quote:
I wonder if Councillors
@Laura_Dudas
and
@TimTierney
get to change their votes. #ottnews
Quote:
Yes - they get a do-over. #ottnews
https://twitter.com/jchianello/status/1262840108648103940

Quote:
Leiper's motion fails. So we keep going.
https://twitter.com/KatePorterCBC/status/1262839638827372553

Sounds like Harder didn't like Tierney and Dudas voting with Leiper so she stopped the vote call and "corrected" their behaviour.

What if Councillors did not know who tabled a motion? What if they voted for the motion and not in support or against the Councillor who tabled the motion in the first place. It would be much harder (but not always) to vote with or against colleagues based on allegiance and promote voting based on beliefs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #488  
Old Posted May 20, 2020, 1:27 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 26,214
But how would it correct "mistaken" votes based on lack of understanding, as happened in this case?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #489  
Old Posted May 20, 2020, 1:49 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 28,916
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwoldtimer View Post
But how would it correct "mistaken" votes based on lack of understanding, as happened in this case?
How did Harder know they "didn't understand"? Did they not understand the motion, or weren't paying attention, or weren't in the room, when the motion was tabled, thinking it was from a Watson Club member. Since when can Councillors (or anyone, ever) take back their vote and re-vote?

I might try and find that moment in the live steam to better understand what happened. It all sounds very sketchy.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #490  
Old Posted May 21, 2020, 5:19 PM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is online now
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Greater Ottawa
Posts: 14,619
Ottawa's new Official Plan just might protect farmland

Mohammed Adam
Publishing date: 1 hour ago • 3 minute read


The stage is now set for Ottawa Council to reshape the city for the next quarter-century after the joint planning, agriculture and rural affairs committee approved the expansion of the city’s urban boundary this week.

This is no surprise. Given the character of the joint committee – and indeed council – holding the line on boundary expansion, as urban community associations and environmental groups wanted, was never a winning proposition. Now the boundary will expand by between 1,350 and 1,650 hectares to accommodate homes for hundreds of thousands of additional people over the next 25 years.

There may be a silver lining in this city-building exercise. With rural community leaders and politicians now complaining loudly about “suburban creep,” and standing up to defend farmland from development, the ground may be shifting from unfettered development.

Coun. Eli El-Chantiry’s motion to exclude farmland from an expanded boundary is significant. If council approves the Official Plan incorporating Chantiry’s changes, farmland would be excluded from “any and all consideration” for boundary expansion. And such lands would “not to be evaluated, considered or ranked in any way,” to be “even remotely associated or considered’ for inclusion in an expanded urban area or village.

As well, farmland will not be used for infrastructure such as storm ponds, wastewater facilities and sports fields that support new suburban development. El-Chantiry, who is chair of the agriculture and rural affairs committee, has limited the options for developers. Developers now sitting on land they hoped to develop might have a hard time of it.

Sprawl works because of the availability of cheap farmland to develop. Provincial rules protect prime farmland, usually the first three of seven classes. But as often happens, developers and speculators buy farmland, let it sit for years to turn into scrub, then apply to develop the land. In the past, town and city councils eager for property tax dollars approved the new homes. That’s how, over the years, quaint, historic villages were turned into the new suburbia. But if farmland of any kind is now off-limits to development, where to build?

El-Chantiry says it’s important to take these measures to protect food sources because once farmland is lost, it is irretrievable. This plan may not halt sprawl altogether, but it would make it harder.

That Ottawa is losing farmland is not in doubt. About 40 per cent of the city’s rural area is agricultural land. In 2001, when the amalgamated city took off, Ottawa had 120,000 hectares of farmland. Today, the figure is down to 102,000 hectares. A big reason is that new homes are chewing up farmland, threatening food security and fuelling greenhouse gas emissions.

The fight against urban sprawl has always pitted two groups against each other. One group says building on undeveloped and unserviced rural land is not only expensive, but increases road congestion and the carbon footprint of people driving long distances to work. It also destroys farmland. On the other side are developers who argue that people have the right to live where they choose, and government has no business interfering.

The thing is, developers don’t seem to have learned anything over the years. They appear to be stuck in a time warp. Every industry has adapted to the urgency of climate change, but not developers. Time after time during official plan debates, all they do is ask for more and more cornfields to be turned into asphalt, oblivious of climate change and the impact on farmland.

Somehow in this official plan process, rural community leaders and politicians woke up to the fact that the unchecked sprawl, “suburban creep,” is not in their interest. Beyond Stittsville, mini versions of Orléans or Barrhaven are sprouting up in what are supposed to be rural villages, and the leaders don’t seem to like what they are seeing.

But nothing is settled as yet. The next battle, perhaps the real battle, will come when staff actually draw boundary lines and map out which lands are in or out – and crucially, who stands to lose or gain. Stay tuned.

Mohammed Adam is an Ottawa journalist and commentator.

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/adam-o...cm/a1eecc23-801e-473a-928f-16d63ffce156/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #491  
Old Posted May 26, 2020, 11:37 AM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is online now
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Greater Ottawa
Posts: 14,619
Shifting urban boundary 'makes millionaires,' planning prof says
Some landowners stand to profit enormously from council's decision Wednesday

Kate Porter · CBC News
Posted: May 26, 2020 4:00 AM ET | Last Updated: 4 hours ago




When a city's urban boundary moves an inch, people get rich, David Gordon says.

Gordon, author of Town and Crown, a history of how Canada's capital developed, points to how the former Nepean township allowed Barrhaven to become a residential area. Its reeve, Aubrey Moodie, later faced accusations of conflict in the 1970s when property he partly owned was sold for 30 times the original purchase price after only seven years, Gordon recounts.

A generation later, the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton granted an application by Terrace Investments in Kanata to rezone 100 hectares of agricultural land for urban uses so an NHL hockey arena could be built. It was part of a larger pitch to create an entire town around the rink, Gordon said.

"The very deep-pocketed developers have bought [rural] property decades in advance, far out. When you get those [properties] converted, they become the foundation of local fortunes," said Gordon, who is a professor at Queen's University's School of Urban and Regional Planning.

Now in 2020, City of Ottawa staff are recommending 1,281 hectares be added to house a growing population for the coming decades.

On the eve of city council's decision Wednesday, land owners just the other side of the line are indeed watching closely.

It's the same in all Canadian cities, Gordon says. When a city allows rural land to be used for urban development, it "makes millionaires." There's a lot of pressure, and likely "buckets of politics," he said.

Already, councillors on the planning and rural affairs committees have supported the expansion in a 10-1 vote.

Among the 100 public delegations they heard from earlier this month were developers, as well as consultants in real estate, land economics and planning.

Coun. Shawn Menard didn't have a seat on those committees but asked several presenters if they owned land outside the boundary and stood to gain financially from an expansion. It was a question committee chairs Jan Harder and Eli El-Chantiry sometimes dissuaded him from asking.

"Do we look to invest in the future in Ottawa? Yes, and we do have land that will support that," answered Chris Collins, land development manager at Cardel Homes.

Menard later explained to CBC News that presenters are not required to disclose their financial interests.

"If I know someone else is going to gain financially and it's going to cost me on my tax bill to have that financial benefit, that should be known," he said.

"Even though there's nothing wrong with trying to benefit financially from these things, it should colour the situation ... instead of just saying all these people are totally objective and what they're saying about expanding the boundary makes perfect sense."

Council has yet to be shown a map of properties likely to be urbanized. That list will only be compiled by late fall, and only if council approves the expansion.

But it's easy enough to find some candidate parcels.

A motion by Eli El-Chantiry means agricultural resource areas should be off the table and not even scored for inclusion. Set aside wetlands and other protected natural areas, and the focus turns to "general rural areas."

When one adds the points a property gets for proximity to future rapid bus or rail lines, some areas in Kanata and near the Trillium Line to Riverside South come to the fore.

Then there are areas on the fringes of suburbia that recently lost agricultural status when developers won appeals to downgrade them to simply rural: a few hundred hectares on the northern side of Barnsdale Road in Barrhaven, and south of the Avalon and Summerside subdivisions in Orléans, for instance.

A motion by Kanata South Coun. Allan Hubley also gives a few extra points to lands within 1.9 kilometres of park-and-ride stations, and near roads that have exclusive transit lanes or traffic signals. A landowner in the Fernbank area came out to show his support for that idea.

There's even the option of creating an entirely new suburb, a case made by John Smit, a former high-level city planning manager who now works for a consultancy.

"Not including a focused area for urban expansion might be cutting ourselves short in terms of finding the right answer," Smit told the committees earlier this month.

Gordon gives city staff credit for doing their homework. He said they've made sure to come up with a plan that meets provincial rules for how much developable land Ottawa has in supply, a plan they can defend.

Gordon studies and works with cities across Canada and says few have such sophisticated inventories of the land that sits vacant, as well as the land that could be intensified in older areas.

"Council's under tremendous pressure from all directions to include this type of greenfield development land at the edges, and you need excellent technical analysis in order to resist that pressure," Gordon said.

Laws have changed and council's decision can't be appealed, but the minister of municipal affairs and housing could always get involved.

"The first round of fight is going to be at the city council level, but I'm sure the losers are going to go over the heads of council and try to make influence at Queen's Park," predicted Gordon.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/urban-boundary-financial-rural-land-1.5583319
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #492  
Old Posted May 26, 2020, 5:00 PM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is online now
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Greater Ottawa
Posts: 14,619
Council is poised to make the wrong decision on the urban boundary — unless they find some courage

Shawn Menard
Publishing date: 11 minutes ago • 3 minute read


The decision on expanding Ottawa’s urban boundary is the biggest ruling city council will make this term. It will shape our future, impact our city services and reveal if we’re actually serious about tackling climate change.

As a refresher, the urban boundary is a line drawn on the outer rural and suburban areas which sets limits on development lands that are serviced by infrastructure such as sewers, roads, water and public transit. Essentially, it sets the limit for sprawl.

This week, all of city council will vote on this and it looks like they are poised to make the wrong decision, unless council finds some courage.

This would be the largest boundary expansion in modern Ottawa history. It may continue a worrying trend in the city, where resident concerns are downplayed in favour of powerful financial interests.

Take a look at the biggest projects Ottawa has ever approved. The largest sources of our debt come from flawed Public-Private-Partnership (P3) deals. In the building of the LRT, we took a huge risk and transferred billions to profit companies that have shown themselves incapable of building a functioning LRT — or even meeting the bare requirements of our transit system.

The third largest city debt on our books was the Lansdowne deal, also a P3. Though it has lots of potential, it will not deliver the profits promised only a few years ago.

Expansion of the urban boundary would be a similar story. Of the 100 delegations we heard at committee, nearly every single person who spoke in favour of expansion had a large financial incentive to do so — development companies and their consultants aligned with arguments that can be repeated until there is no boundary left in Ottawa.

We are sometimes told “growth pays for growth,” but that is simply untrue. The development charges imposed on new developments cover upfront costs, but not operational expenses for infrastructure, which continue for well over 50 years. These costs will be passed on to residents, using public funds to subsidize private profit. When Edmonton conducted its own analysis of a similar growth pattern, the price tag accounting for revenues and expenses came in at $1.4 billion.

Development industry lobbyists have argued that suburban expansion will increase housing affordability. There is no basis for this claim. One might call it wishful thinking if it wasn’t so nakedly opportunistic. City staff have confirmed this; however, they raise the prospect of a problem of supply if we are unable to meet intensification goals in the city. They argue it could be too ambitious and that the industry may not be ready to provide ground-oriented units on the scale required.

Of course, hundreds of other cities around the world have chosen to intensify, and have also provided the industry blueprints for us to use.

Not only will the next generation struggle with the financial impacts of sprawl, they’ll be paying the environmental costs, too.

Holding the line on the urban boundary would result in 1137 kt CO2 of emissions reductions compared to expansion. To put that amount in context, that’s the same carbon reduction that would come from fully electrifying the transit fleet, to the tune of more than $800 million. With ambitious climate targets, it makes sense to take every “free” emission reduction we can get.

Though you may have heard to the contrary, the current expansion proposal will not prevent development on all prime agricultural parcels. Under the present direction, it means some land that’s currently being farmed may be bulldozed to build subdivisions.

As our population grows, we will certainly need new homes for people. Ottawa needs a full update of its zoning bylaws which, contrary to today, should then be respected to restore trust. We need development innovation like we have seen in places such as Montreal, where ground-oriented units are common-place without high-rises on every corner. We need to meet the challenge in front of us and that shift needs to start right now.

Shawn Menard is the city councillor for Capital ward.

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/menard...cm/272327a5-219b-4887-98e7-f9a887c9f758/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #493  
Old Posted May 26, 2020, 7:16 PM
TransitZilla TransitZilla is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,800
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketphish View Post


Looking that that map, and knowing the criteria is largely based on proximity to transit, the pink area south of the airport near Bowesville station seems like a prime candidate. Likewise the bit of pink to the south of Stittsville.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #494  
Old Posted May 26, 2020, 7:43 PM
Multi-modal Multi-modal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradnixon View Post
Looking that that map, and knowing the criteria is largely based on proximity to transit, the pink area south of the airport near Bowesville station seems like a prime candidate. Likewise the bit of pink to the south of Stittsville.
Also, my guesses:
  • The pink edges around south Orleans
  • All that pink between Trim (LRT) and Cumberland
  • North Kanata will extend even further to the NW.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #495  
Old Posted May 27, 2020, 1:00 AM
caetura caetura is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradnixon View Post
Looking that that map, and knowing the criteria is largely based on proximity to transit, the pink area south of the airport near Bowesville station seems like a prime candidate. Likewise the bit of pink to the south of Stittsville.
Here is a quick screenshot of the landowners around Limebank/Earl Armstrong
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #496  
Old Posted May 27, 2020, 1:44 AM
Proof Sheet Proof Sheet is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,986
Quote:
Originally Posted by caetura View Post
Here is a quick screenshot of the landowners around Limebank/Earl Armstrong
Any link to the full map of Ottawa and who owns what on the fringes?

Great map.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #497  
Old Posted May 27, 2020, 12:15 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 26,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proof Sheet View Post
Any link to the full map of Ottawa and who owns what on the fringes?

Great map.
You mean which developers own the land that's to be added to the City?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #498  
Old Posted May 27, 2020, 12:57 PM
Proof Sheet Proof Sheet is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,986
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwoldtimer View Post
You mean which developers own the land that's to be added to the City?
Hey they could be family farms that are for tax purposes in a numbered company

If Ottawa is going to grow in population and there is a deep reluctance from existing residents in existing communities for any new growth isn't a balanced expansion the logical solution. We've all seen the battles and the standard grouping of irate neighbours everytime somebody wants to change something.

I do find it incomplete that no costing has been provided to Councillors and also no general map of where the expansions would occur.

Having said that there are hundreds of ha/acres of scrubland in the urban boundary now that are not being built on.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #499  
Old Posted May 27, 2020, 1:00 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 26,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proof Sheet View Post
Hey they could be family farms that are for tax purposes in a numbered company:cheers:

If Ottawa is going to grow in population and there is a deep reluctance from existing residents in existing communities for any new growth isn't a balanced expansion the logical solution. We've all seen the battles and the standard grouping of irate neighbours everytime somebody wants to change something.

I do find it incomplete that no costing has been provided to Councillors and also no general map of where the expansions would occur.

Having said that there are hundreds of ha/acres of scrubland in the urban boundary now that are not being built on.
They could be, but the cynic in me has the feeling that the usual players purchased most of the land decades ago and have since been diligent in supporting the campaigns of certain municipal politicians. It could make for an interesting investigative report ....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #500  
Old Posted May 27, 2020, 1:23 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,254
Appendix 2 has vacant residential land ownership
https://app05.ottawa.ca/sirepub/agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=399315
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:32 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.