Ottawa's Official Plan Update

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by caetura

Here is a quick screenshot of the landowners around Limebank/Earl Armstrong

Cool map, but the "pink" (general rural) area in the other map all seems to be east of Bowesville Rd., which this map does not show.

The lands south of the existing Riverside South Urban area are shown in orange which means they are agricultural lands and therefore will not be candidates for inclusion.

[OTSkyline]

Agreed Riverside South seems poised to absorb a lot. It's the smallest of the "burbs" (Kanata/Barrhaven/Orleans), doesn't necessarily extend the urban limits by much and with transit and LRT coming, it should be prioritized over extend Kanata North (which is much farther to downtown and is not expecting transit anytime in the near future).

[CityTech]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

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

Now that's a fascinating map. Orleans and Barrhaven have almost no room to grow beyond their currently designated expansion lands (almost everything past that is agricultural or within the 1km buffer of a village). Riverside South and Finlay Creek have some room to grow southward towards Greely but not much. The main direction of possible sprawl is northward from Kanata.

If there's ever a need for large scale new suburban development, the area on the far side of the Greenbelt around the Boundary Road exit seems to the only real bet.

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

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 ....

I'm sure you are right. There are also going to be speculators who push for their lands to be included and for one reason or another don't get in the urban boundary and many years of carrying costs are lost etc. That is the risk they take and there are going to be winners and losers in this battle.

Until government can build housing that people want to purchase and they own the land in question, the system we are in is likely to remain.

[rocketphish]

Ottawa needs to renew its social contract with the development industry

Toon Dreessen
Publishing date: 4 hours ago • 3 minute read

Recent discussions about the expansion of the urban boundary have been divisive. Most frustrating in all this has been the dialogue on the role of the developer in swaying council decisions.

There have been allegations (and denials) that developer donations to election campaigns show who is “bought and paid for” with poor optics for the city. With eight of the nine councillors on planning committee having their most recent election campaigns funded by as much as 95 per cent contributions from the development industry, this raises unavoidable questions about bias.

The challenge is that these donations have been made within the regulations. As much as we might not like it, these are rules of the game.

Our elected officials are supposed to act in the public interest. It is, in fact, their job. If we disagree their decisions are in the public interest, then we need to hold our elected officials accountable for their decision-making.

Are developers biased against the public interest? Many of us live and work in buildings built by developers. Very few people live in homes they or their families built. We need to understand the role of the development industry in city building, before we use it as a shorthand for undesirability. Unless we’re going to ask cities to start building our housing or places of business, the development industry is going to have a role in creating our city. We need to bring all parties to the table to understand the challenges.

Undertaking development is expensive. Buying land and tying it up for years while assembling a large enough urban parcel is costly. Planning applications are hugely expensive and time consuming. The 2018 OAA Report on Site Plan Approval noted it is a $1-billion hit to the Ontario economy. Delays in site plan approval can add $233,000- $278,000 per month of delay to the cost of a 100-unit apartment building. That cost is passed on to buyers and renters.

The capital needed to underwrite construction is enormous. There is also the risk that sudden changes in the market can leave a developer with unsellable or unrentable real estate on their hands. This isn’t an apology or excuse for developers: they are a business and have a right to generate a reasonable profit in exchange for the risk they undertake.

We need to renew the social contract with the development industry. Cities, and the public, have little to offer other than loyalty and improvements to planning. We need to use the tools we do have to create a stronger incentive to build the city we aspire to:

• Faster planning approvals for applications that meet zoning and use requirements; approve these as-of-right applications in two months instead of 10 or more;
• Incentivize sustainable development by deferring development charges until after a building is occupied to provide more working capital for leading edge sustainable projects. We also need to disincentivize parking where land is already served by transit, along with reusing existing physical infrastructure;
• Incentivize the owners of existing buildings to undertake deep energy retrofits to decarbonize their buildings, creating a more sustainable built environment. That can include adapting existing buildings to new uses and heritage restoration, as well as redeveloping vacant or underused land;
• Challenge the development industry to be more innovative; introduce new designs and support local businesses, local talent and produce better quality, more sustainable buildings that enhance social outcomes.

Cities can lead conversations by hosting design competitions for vacant or underused land in key areas. This can lead to overall master plans the community can support with specific zoning and planning permissions already in place. Developers can be part of the creation of these master plans and encouraged to bring their knowledge of land economics to the table along with architects and community leaders to find innovative solutions.

Ottawa aims to be the best mid-sized city in North America. We can aspire to excellence in the built environment if we’re willing to challenge ourselves and the development industry. Let’s recognize the rules that have gotten us to where we are, the bylaws and processes that exist, and work to better them, to create the sort of city of which we can be proud.

Toon Dreessen is an architect and the president of the Ottawa-based practice Architects DCA. He is a past president of the Ontario Association of Architects.

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/dr...-5d2d378ef484/

[J.OT13]

New website showing percentage of political donations from developers for each Councillor. It varies from the urban block's 0% to Jan Harder's 95.84%. Frankly, the 16 Councillors who took developer dollars to run their campaigns should have declared a conflict of interest on the urban boundary question, leaving the 6 urban Councillors with the final say.

http://www.ottawadeveloperwatch.ca/

[rocketphish]

Council approves urban boundary expansion, big intensification goal

Jon Willing, Ottawa Citizen
Publishing date: 34 minutes ago • 4 minute read

The City of Ottawa will grow out, and continue to grow up, over the next 26 years.

More than 1,000 hectares of homebuilding land will be added to the outer edges of Ottawa’s suburbs and high-density developments will be encouraged in existing neighbourhoods now that city council has endorsed a growth plan to accommodate 402,000 more residents.

Council voted 15-6 on Wednesday to add between 1,350 and 1,650 hectares of development land inside the urban boundary and to set a residential intensification goal of 51 per cent between July 2018 and July 2046. That means the city will attempt to establish more than half of all new homes in established communities, with the intensification goal climbing to 60 per cent between 2041 and 2046.

The residential land added inside the urban boundary would make up 1,281 hectares and the rest would be for employment land, with the exact amount of employment land determined after a staff study.

Coun. Jan Harder, the chair of the planning committee, said people have the right to pick the kinds of homes they want to live in, so the city needs to make sure there’s a variety of housing available.

“Planning isn’t about taking away that choice,” Harder said in support of the urban boundary expansion and intensification goal.

On the other side of the vote, Coun. Rawlson King said the city needs a “clean break” from past planning practices and concentrate more on intensification, especially since there’s no city data informing council how much it will cost taxpayers to expand the suburbs.

Adding expanses of land for development on the fringes of the suburbs would usually draw demonstrations at city hall, particularly from environmentalists. But the COVID-19 era has thwarted any mass protests, except for internet rallies, social media posts and a petition with 3,720 names of people demanding council freeze the urban boundary.

The city will use a scoring system later this year to determine which parcels of land to bring inside the urban boundary. There will be an emphasis on properties not far from planned transit systems.

Ninety-three people addressed councillors during a three-day joint-committee video conference this month, the first time the city has allowed deputations by live video and audio streams. The COVID-19 restrictions have forced all governance meetings to be held by a publicly accessible video conference or teleconference.

Several public delegates criticized the city for backing an expansion of the urban boundary, fearing urban sprawl will damage the environment, increase car dependence and fuel property tax increases.

Other delegates worried that not expanding the urban boundary would cause housing prices to rise for families interested in ground-orientated homes, like single-family homes and rowhouses. Some delegates tied to the development industry didn’t believe the city could meet a 51-per-cent goal of building new homes in established areas.

One of the themes that emerged during the debates was the cost of suburban expansion.

Planning general manager Stephen Willis has told councillors that it’s difficult to complete a financial analysis without the master plans that will spell out the required infrastructure. Willis said approving a growth management plan is the first step to crunching the numbers.

The exercise will feed into the city’s work creating a new official plan. Council’s decision on the official plan can’t be challenged at the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal. The Ontario minister of municipal affairs has the ultimate sign off.

Coun. Riley Brockington tabled a motion asking to freeze the urban boundary, recognizing an appetite in the community to having the option debated. He lost.

Mayor Jim Watson, who reminded council that he’s a former minister of municipal affairs, said he can see how the current minister would refuse a decision that freezes the urban boundary, considering the requirement for the city to have an adequate land supply for development.

“It might be good politics, but it’s not good planning,” Watson said.

The COVID-19 pandemic informed at least one motion approved by council, which directed staff to monitor vacant office space to see if it can be turned into residential uses. It was driven by Shopify’s recent announcement that the tech giant’s employees will permanently work from home.

Here’s how the voting went on the staff-recommended urban boundary expansion and intensification targets.

Supported: Jim Watson, Tim Tierney, Scott Moffatt, Matthew Luloff, Eli El-Chantiry, George Darouze, Laura Dudas, Jan Harder, Allan Hubley, Carol Anne Meehan, Jenna Sudds, Jean Cloutier, Keith Egli, Riley Brockington and Glen Gower.

Opposed: Rawlson King, Catherine McKenney, Jeff Leiper, Theresa Kavanagh, Shawn Menard and Mathieu Fleury.

Absent: Rick Chiarelli and Diane Deans


[email protected]
twitter.com/JonathanWilling

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local...-7f275f0aced2/

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

“It might be good politics, but it’s not good planning,” Watson said.

Fucking Watson. No, it's great planning. And really shitty politics.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

New website showing percentage of political donations from developers for each Councillor. It varies from the urban block's 0% to Jan Harder's 95.84%. Frankly, the 16 Councillors who took developer dollars to run their campaigns should have declared a conflict of interest on the urban boundary question, leaving the 6 urban Councillors with the final say.

http://www.ottawadeveloperwatch.ca/

It's just disgusting to see how much developer money is in there. My councillor (Tierney) gets nearly 65% of his donations from developers and nearly 85% from outside the ward. What the fuck?

I would contribute to anybody who wants to run a media campaign in Ottawa to raise awareness of this.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's just disgusting to see how much developer money is in there. My councillor (Tierney) gets nearly 65% of his donations from developers and nearly 85% from outside the ward. What the fuck?

I would contribute to anybody who wants to run a media campaign in Ottawa to raise awareness of this.

Choking how these people still get elected, even when people know that the majority of their campaign dollars come from developers.

I'll consider supporting some of the urban Councillors' campaigns next election, even though I live in Orleans.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Shocking how these people still get elected, even when people know that the majority of their campaign dollars come from developers.

Municipal politics is low information for most voters. Honestly, if stuff like this was very loudly publicized I could see plenty of councillors losing their jobs.

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I'll consider supporting some of the urban Councillors' campaigns next election, even though I live in Orleans.

A lot of those incumbents are safe. What we need is a handy way to figure out who the pro-urbanist candidates are in the burbs and to donate to them.

[silvergate]

If the city is going to expand the boundary no matter what, it would be nice to see them start experimenting with the new neighbourhoods they do develop. A lot of new suburbs do meet the existing density requirement, but they fail to offer almost anything within walking distance, meaning every squashed townhouse or condo still needs 1-2 cars.
Now would be the time to start experimenting with more forgiving zoning for businesses in residential areas, bike lanes, wide sidewalks, and narrow roads, and strong transit connections. Basically, build the complete streets and 15-minute neighbourhoods they always talk about.
If developers are going to dictate expansion, the city should at least make an effort to promote smart growth.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Municipal politics is low information for most voters. Honestly, if stuff like this was very loudly publicized I could see plenty of councillors losing their jobs.



A lot of those incumbents are safe. What we need is a handy way to figure out who the pro-urbanist candidates are in the burbs and to donate to them.

That's a good point.

Cumberland Ward, where I live, is a good opportunity. The City still hasn't made a decision between appointing someone or having a by-election. Sarah Wright-Gilbert says she wants to run in 2022 in order to complete her term on the Transit Committee, though that might effect her chances if she ends up running against an incumbent. In any case, I might contribute to her campaign, should she run for a by-election or in 2022.

[J.OT13]

Gatineau has a new master plan that truly promotes urbanism. Some highlights:

• Single family homes cannot be demolished and replaced with new single family houses;
• No surface parking lots within 300 meters of major transit routes, and that includes future park-and-rides. Exceptions could be given to some public institutions (I assume hospitals, for example);
• Large projects from private developers have to be green and built around a street grid (as opposed to a spaghetti factory) to encourage active transportation;
• More protection of natural features like forests and wet lands;
• Authorization to build residential within existing and future "Smart Centres";
• Higher densities along established neighbourhoods served by current and future rapid transit;
• Construction with sustainable materials.

https://www.ledroit.com/actualites/g...de63b20b1a0c2a
https://www.ledroit.com/actualites/g...1f198490795737
https://www.ledroit.com/actualites/g...4673e3ca8260ba
https://www.ledroit.com/actualites/g...c27c3efdabf6ed

[passwordisnt123]

God damn. How did Gatineau jump so far out in front of us in urban planning so quickly? That's really remarkable. Good on them.

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

[LIST][*]Single family homes cannot be demolished and replaced with new single family houses;

Good luck getting that through in Ottawa. Not sure how that is legal.

[Tesladom]

So this will simply promote more growth in Cantley and Chelsea

[Aylmer]

By... having more housing in Gatineau?

[Lightspotting]

Originally Posted by passwordisnt123

God damn. How did Gatineau jump so far out in front of us in urban planning so quickly? That's really remarkable. Good on them.

Maxime Pedneaud-Jobin, Instead of Jim Watson no doubt. Une grosse différence.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Gatineau has a new master plan that truly promotes urbanism. Some highlights:

• Single family homes cannot be demolished and replaced with new single family houses;
• No surface parking lots within 300 meters of major transit routes, and that includes future park-and-rides. Exceptions could be given to some public institutions (I assume hospitals, for example);
• Large projects from private developers have to be green and built around a street grid (as opposed to a spaghetti factory) to encourage active transportation;
• More protection of natural features like forests and wet lands;
• Authorization to build residential within existing and future "Smart Centres";
• Higher densities along established neighbourhoods served by current and future rapid transit;
• Construction with sustainable materials.

• All i have to say on that is "Ship of Theseus" and can we instead just replace the 30% min SFH with a 15% max for new suburbs.
• All for this, but it will also require a severe reduction or elimination of parking minimums for new developments within that area.
• Ottawa gotten better through the use of MUP and other pathways, instead of streets, with MUP connections instead of streets. Hopefully the 15 min requirements will push this into the Official Plan
• Ottawa already has a restrictive Urban boundary and pretty much follows the Forest & marshlands protections on new DR areas....for post merge. Findlay creek development is unfortunate but even that it keeps getting chipped away and protected.
• On majority there are no Commercial only zones in Ottawa, on majority all are zoned mixed use of some form. The exception is very rare mostly rural areas.
• being further implemented in Ottawa through TOD studies in Ottawa as the LRT progresses. Biggest opponents currently are the urban Councillors trying to defend SFH homes in urban wards.

Has Gatineau stated how much development will be through intensification versus greenfield yet?