General Ottawa Planning Issues

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Interesting that they use the entire Montreal island instead of Montreal proper, though it would likely be a challenge to only include the disjointed mess that is Montreal proper.

I do wonder how pre-amalgamation Ottawa, Toronto and Montreal would do in this analysis.

Or vice-versa: In the cases of unitary cities like Ottawa, Winnipeg, and Halifax, most of the suburbs and exurbs are included in a way that they are not for Montreal, Toronto, Edmonton, and especially Vancouver. (Calgary and St. John's are somewhere in between).

They should have mapped the entire CMAs for all the urban areas examined, in order to make the comparisons into fair ones.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

You're not wrong, but the plan is for the retail centre to be at the corner of Cambrian and the "New" Greenbank- which has not yet been built.

There is a current site plan application for a grocery store: https://devapps.ottawa.ca/en/applications/__B92VW8/details

EDIT: Here's the CDP. It looks like it called for "Neighborhood commercial" (i.e. small strip mall) at Cambrian & Old Greenbank, but residential was built instead. They should have left a spot at Cambrian & Longfields as well.

https://ottawa.ca/en/barrhaven-south-community-design-plan

Where's "New" Greenbank? Will we end up with two Greenbanks like we have two Fallowfields and two-three-four Trims, and three Wellingtons...

In a City that talks big about 15 minute neighbourhoods, they approve any piece of crap proposed by campaign contributors. This is an embarrassment. This type of development should never be approved. Sometimes I wish I lived in Gatineau, where they take this stuff more seriously.

I bet this development gets an O-Train extension before Bank-Rideau-Montreal.

[vtecyo]

Thanks - I haven't seen this before.

Well - at least they'll eventually have some place to go. It's shame that it wasn't zoned into the area that would be developed first - closer to the centre of the community. People have been living out there for what - 5-10 years already?

Even so - that location will still leave some corners of the neighborhood a good 3km walk there and back.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Where's "New" Greenbank? Will we end up with two Greenbanks like we have two Fallowfields and two-three-four Trims, and three Wellingtons...
.

"New" Greenbank is the big purple line; a combination of arterial with a median BRT. You can see in the map that north of the river, Greenbank will bend west and cross the Jock on a new bridge.

There is also another CDP that covers the area to the southeast of the map above, including the further extension of "new Greenbank" to Barnsdale (and more commercial to come at the corner of "New Greenbank" and Kilbirnie:
https://ottawa.ca/en/barrhaven-south-urban-expansion-area-community-design-plan

I don't disagree there are lots of issues with the urban design of the area. The problems starts when you try to put "urban" and "golf coure" together in the same sentence...

[rocketphish]

Rezoning battles – there has to be a better way, Ottawa

Don Bell
Feb 03, 2021 • 10 hours ago • 3 minute read

There has recently been a proliferation of zoning-bylaw amendment applications associated with intensification in Ottawa, each announced by a sign saying: “Let us know what you think.” Neighbouring residents interpret this as a call for public opinion, and think that if there are valid concerns, adjustments will be made.

Not so! In reality, the sign is really meant only like that dry intonation heard at the start of a wedding: “If anyone knows just cause … “ We all know how often anyone speaks up on that occasion, and how likely it is that the outcome will change as a result.

Time and again, Ottawa residents have had this same experience over rezoning. Applicants for a change in zoning justify their review to city planners in glowing terms, but using technical language incomprehensible to the layperson. Residents burn the midnight oil detailing a myriad of concerns in reply, only to have them summarily dismissed. Each camp comes to perceive the other as evil, and the unfortunate city planners are stuck in the middle.

Why is it like this?

First, there’s a perception of bias. The applicant for rezoning and consultant meet with city planners long before the sign goes up on the property. They want an agreed understanding of the rules before they begin. Who wouldn’t? A lot of money is at stake. But residents view this as the start of an unholy alliance. “The fix is in!” they cry.

Second, residents believe this is a negotiation: It is not. Applicants expect approval of their request as submitted, and nothing less.

Third, the process can be arbitrary. Residents expect the application review will follow set rules that derive from precedents – rules that protect neighbours from adverse impacts. Again, no.

Instead of granting rezoning that reflects specific, pre-established standards of height, setback, side clearance, etc., the practice seems to be for the applicant to request a less intensive zoning, then add “exceptions” to that request – more height, more apartment units, etc. – to get the approval the applicant really wants.

As these “exceptions” seem to be approved somewhat arbitrarily by both planning committee and city council, residents invariably suspect that applicants and developers have unduly influenced councillors in some way.

There is an old saying that “You can’t beat city hall.” In rezoning, that is certainly true. However, by seeming to rule in an arbitrary manner, city government undermines the trust and goodwill that are needed to introduce bold policies such as intensification. When this happens, city hall ends up defeating itself. What is needed here is a rezoning process that is honest, respectful and fair to all participants, and more important, that it be seen to be so.

How can we overcome the caustic perceptions that swirl around this process?

First, to dispel the perception of bias at the city planner level, appoint a separate individual with the same technical knowledge to act as a community liaison, whose only role is to advise residents who have concerns. This person would attend all meetings with the applicant from the start, and when the project is announced, would help residents to understand the technical jargon of the proposal, the valid grounds for opposing it – and more important, what are not valid grounds – and what process must be followed.

Second, eliminate the arbitrary “exception” process. Create clearer standards and rules so that applicants, consultants and residents all know where they stand.

Finally, ensure that rigorous conflict-of-interest rules are in place both for councillors and staff. Publicize them widely to dispel any suggestion of impropriety.

The current rezoning approval process breeds significant mistrust, anger and wastes a good deal of time. Yes, Ottawa needs smart, effective intensification, but first, we need a rezoning process that all residents can understand, respect and trust.

Don Bell is a retired professional engineer and long-time resident of Kanata, and member of a small team of volunteers who compiled and submitted neighbourhood concerns about the 33 Maple Grove Road intensification project.

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/bell-rezoning-battles-there-has-to-be-a-better-way-ottawa

[rocketphish]

City reviews big tax breaks eligible under brownfield revitalization program

Jon Willing, Ottawa Citizen
Publishing date: Feb 09, 2021 • 1 hour ago • 3 minute read

A program that offers big municipal tax breaks for redeveloping contaminated sites is under review as the city moves closer to recommending a new official plan for the City of Ottawa.

City council is poised to approve another brownfield grant on Wednesday in what has become a political rubber-stamp exercise for these types of developer applications.

The Dymon storage facility at 2583 Carling Ave. is eligible for a $1.26-million grant in the form of municipal fee reductions after the company redeveloped a site that previously had an auto repair shop, a gas station and restaurant. The facility, which also has retail and office space, is just west of Lincoln Fields transit station.

Coun. Theresa Kavanagh, whose Bay ward includes the facility, said she was surprised to learn properties qualified for a grant by simply being close to a transit stations, even if it’s a drive-in self-storage business.

“The fact that you get a deal for developing it, but it has nothing to do with the transit that you’re supposed to be near, it doesn’t make sense,” Kavanagh said. “We have to do better in our criteria.”

The brownfield community improvement grants spur redevelopment of properties with contaminated soil in key areas of the city, including land across the central region, along main streets, in mixed-use centres and within 600 metres of an existing or planned rapid transit station. The grant program started in 2007.

Grants help cover some of the costs tied to remediating the contaminated soil, development charges for the project and the increase in property taxes that come with redevelopment. The grants can’t exceed 50 per cent of the total cost to rehabilitate the land.

Applications are reviewed by staff to make sure they meet the program conditions. Council has no reason to reject a brownfield grant application if it checks council-approved criteria for financial assistance.

Kavanagh said she agrees the city doesn’t want to see brownfield sites linger undeveloped and acknowledges the properties come with steep costs to remediate, but said if the city is handing out development grants, they should be tied to housing.

“Storage does not fit into that picture for what we’re trying to incentivize,” Kavanagh said.

The city’s next official plan will come with ambitious intensification targets and the redevelopment of brownfield sites could help meet the goals. More than half of all new housing should be built in established areas, according to a growth management strategy.

A scheduled five-year review of the brownfield grant program has a connection to policies in the new official plan, which is expected to be approved by council later this year.

Don Herweyer, the city’s director of economic development and long-range planning, said staff are also reviewing the program’s relation to the city’s design priority areas and eligible types of development.

“The city has made no determinations as to where and how the program would apply in different areas of the city,” Herweyer said.

Herweyer said staff anticipate bringing a report with possible recommendations to council’s finance and economic development committee before the end of June.

Self-storage businesses could have a prominent role in the context of residential intensification if the city expects more people to live in smaller homes. Dymon’s 2016 planning rationale for the Carling Avenue facility produced by Fotenn touched on that point, saying modern storage facilities need to be near residential areas “in an era of declining unit sizes.”

The organization representing the local commercial real estate sector says the city’s brownfield grant program helps commercial developers transform lands that otherwise wouldn’t be revitalized.

Dean Karakasis, executive director of the Building Owners and Managers Association of Ottawa, said brownfields are often suited for commercial or industrial development.

“We would definitely be disappointed if it became an us-or-them-type model,” Karakasis said.

[email protected]
twitter.com/JonathanWilling

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-new...-under-brownfield-revitalization-program

[J.OT13]

Ya, Dymon storage getting a grant because it's close to transit? Should be tied to residential, commercial as well (office building, not just ground floor retail, which storage buildings sometime have), but it should also come with affordable housing targets (if residential) and certain design standards.

[J.OT13]

Kate Porter
@KatePorterCBC
Another day, another long #ottcity meeting ahead! Planning committee has several things on its agenda, including presentations on plans for the Mer Bleue area of Orleans, Westboro infill, buildings at Zibi, on Carling.
10:06 AM · Feb 11, 2021·Twitter Web App

https://twitter.com/KatePorterCBC/status/1359881553296248832

• Video Link

[phil235]

Originally Posted by OTSkyline

Also, sort of a waste of prime downtown space for a low-rise 3-level building. You would expect the additional cost to build another 2 or 3 levels on top would be low in proportion to total construction costs. If we are in need of supporting housing, why not build bigger ones?

I think that you should have a look at the plans for Centretown, which provide a coherent vision for the area. There is no intention to start randomly plunking 6 storey buildings on every residential block. And there is good reason for that - it will be decades before that is necessary to meet demand (if it is ever necessary), and in the meantime you would be creating a haphazardly planned and less livable community for those who live there.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by phil235

I think that you should have a look at the plans for Centretown, which provide a coherent vision for the area. There is no intention to start randomly plunking 6 storey buildings on every residential block. And there is good reason for that - it will be decades before that is necessary to meet demand (if it is ever necessary), and in the meantime you would be creating a haphazardly planned and less livable community for those who live there.

So much for the missing middle in centretown. I again state that I would gladly support the missing middle over high rises but as evidenced above that's not a realistic option. So high-rises make up for the density lost.

Also, there are no good reasons why middle density housing should not be allowed in the urban core of a city and in no tangible way would a 4-6 story building make the community less livable.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

Also, there are no good reasons why middle density housing should not be allowed in the urban core of a city and in no tangible way would a 4-6 story building make the community less livable.

This a strawman argument. No one is saying that middle density housing should not be built in the urban core. What I'm saying is that there is a plan for the area that includes lots of provision for mid-rise buildings, primarily along arterials. The plan allows for enough increased density to meet demand for several decades.

We may need to allow higher buildings in on the residential streets in West Centretown at some point, but I'm not hearing any compelling arguments why that is necessary or why it is good planning to stick a 6-storey building in the middle of a street full of single family houses.

As an aside, 4-storey buildings are already allowed under R4 zoning.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by phil235

This a strawman argument. No one is saying that middle density housing should not be built in the urban core. What I'm saying is that there is a plan for the area that includes lots of provision for mid-rise buildings, primarily along arterials. The plan allows for enough increased density to meet demand for several decades.

We may need to allow higher buildings in on the residential streets in West Centretown at some point, but I'm not hearing any compelling arguments why that is necessary or why it is good planning to stick a 6-storey building in the middle of a street full of single family houses.

As an aside, 4-storey buildings are already allowed under R4 zoning.

You literally are, you are literally saying that Middle density should not be built in the urban core in that area and doing so be because of some classist call to protect the character of the neighborhood. That character which seems to be centered around rich single family home owners not wanting tall things around them.

As for my argument why it should be allowed, because it's the urban core and is surrounding by millions of dollars worth of infrastructure that can support it. Including a quick walk to a frequent bus route.

[Urbanarchit]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

You literally are, you are literally saying that Middle density should not be built in the urban core in that area and doing so be because of some classist call to protect the character of the neighborhood. That character which seems to be centered around rich single family home owners not wanting tall things around them.

As for my argument why it should be allowed, because it's the urban core and is surrounding by millions of dollars worth of infrastructure that can support it. Including a quick walk to a frequent bus route.

The "Missing Middle" are not midrise buildings. Midrise buildings are also not medium density, just as highrise does not necessarily mean high density (some of the skinny super talls in New York are not high density). These are 3 different things.

Phil235 points out that up to 4 storeys is permitted for most of Centretown, and buildings that would be allowed under R4 could be considered "Missing Middle". Missing middle is essentially multi-family dwellings, in the forms of semi-detached, townhouses, or small-scale apartment buildings that are all compatible with existing neighbourhoods of single-family houses. Buildings like the apartments around McLeod and Elgin, these townhouses and apartments seen around Percy and Lisgar at Bay and even these 3-storey apartments on Thames St are Missing Middle. They are lowrise in height but allowed multiple families a place to live, and thus provide an easy intensifiction of existing lowrise neighbourhoods. 3-4 storey apartment buildings like I've shown can even be considered medium density. You'll find a lot of (older) apartment buildings scattered around Centretown that fit this criterion while maintaining a general scale.

This proposal on Lisgar is considered a part of the Missing Middle. There are areas downtown that allow for highrises, while a lot allow for midrise. But for Centretown west of Kent and South of Gloucester are pretty intact as a lowrise neighbourhood, so it would be better to ease in with 3-4 storey apartments.

Here's another "missing middle" in Centretown:
On MacLaren
Royal York
Apartments on Frank Street
On Cooper
On Somerset
Hollywood Arcade

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by Urbanarchit

The "Missing Middle" are not midrise buildings. Midrise buildings are also not medium density, just as highrise does not necessarily mean high density (some of the skinny super talls in New York are not high density). These are 3 different things.

Phil235 points out that up to 4 storeys is permitted for most of Centretown, and buildings that would be allowed under R4 could be considered "Missing Middle". Missing middle is essentially multi-family dwellings, in the forms of semi-detached, townhouses, or small-scale apartment buildings that are all compatible with existing neighbourhoods of single-family houses. Buildings like the apartments around McLeod and Elgin, these townhouses and apartments seen around Percy and Lisgar at Bay and even these 3-storey apartments on Thames St are Missing Middle. They are lowrise in height but allowed multiple families a place to live, and thus provide an easy intensifiction of existing lowrise neighbourhoods. 3-4 storey apartment buildings like I've shown can even be considered medium density. You'll find a lot of (older) apartment buildings scattered around Centretown that fit this criterion while maintaining a general scale.

This proposal on Lisgar is considered a part of the Missing Middle. There are areas downtown that allow for highrises, while a lot allow for midrise. But for Centretown west of Kent and South of Gloucester are pretty intact as a lowrise neighbourhood, so it would be better to ease in with 3-4 storey apartments.

Here's another "missing middle" in Centretown:
On MacLaren
Royal York
Apartments on Frank Street
On Cooper
On Somerset
Hollywood Arcade

Context, and there are hundreds of cities around the world who's core is for of 6+ sorry buildings. Cities that the "progressives" and so called urbanists such as call it as an example to follow


Yet again here we are having people defend low rise in urban settings because of SFH (that WILL be replaced) being nearby, and those SFH are not the missing middle and those make the majority of our cities urban neighborhood.

Do I expect this site to be 6 no, but in no way shape or form should development in an urban core be limited to 4 stories.

[GeoNerd]

I'm all for supportive housing, but this is horribly underdeveloped. Absolutely ridiculously dated zoning and policies in Centretown. 12 storey's across the street and 20 storey's one block away. I'll never understand why some people are so hellbent on keeping Centretown single family homes and low-rise. If you want to have a quiet, small-town feel, move to Kingston, Cornwall, or Peterborough. Perhaps the John Howard Society should have partnered with a developer on this project.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

You literally are, you are literally saying that Middle density should not be built in the urban core in that area and doing so be because of some classist call to protect the character of the neighborhood. That character which seems to be centered around rich single family home owners not wanting tall things around them.

Classist? That’s quite an accusation. I’m not even sure where to begin.

That area of Centretown is one of the more diverse in the city, so I’m not sure which class you think you are referring to. Or how suggesting that we should follow a plan that designates essentially everything east of Kent and south of Gloucester, plus arterials for mid-rise development favours a particular class. But please, enlighten me.


Both you and Geonerd speak of the “urban core” as though it is a single, uniform entity. It isn’t, and that’s why the plan recognizes different development zones. I’m the last person to oppose development, but this view that any lot downtown should be developed as a mid rise or highrise is completely without nuance, and it really runs me the wrong way.

And for the record, the “ridiculously dated” plan that Geonerd refers to was approved in 2013.

[GeoNerd]

Originally Posted by phil235

Classist? That’s quite an accusation. I’m not even sure where to begin.

That area of Centretown is one of the more diverse in the city, so I’m not sure which class you think you are referring to. Or how suggesting that we should follow a plan that designates essentially everything east of Kent and south of Gloucester, plus arterials for mid-rise development favours a particular class. But please, enlighten me.


Both you and Geonerd speak of the “urban core” as though it is a single, uniform entity. It isn’t, and that’s why the plan recognizes different development zones. I’m the last person to oppose development, but this view that any lot downtown should be developed as a mid rise or highrise is completely without nuance, and it really runs me the wrong way.

And for the record, the “ridiculously dated” plan that Geonerd refers to was approved in 2013.

When I say "dated" I am not referring to the date which the last zoning by-law, official plan, secondary plan, or any other policy was passed. I'm referring to the mindset of these by-laws and policies, which protect large SFH neighbourhoods in a major city's downtown core. Imagine downtown Vancouver or Toronto with 2-6 storey buildings everywhere. It's ridiculous. It is very evident that many of the city planning staff and city councillors are from small-towns and have brought their small-town mentality to Ottawa. There is nothing wrong with slowly replacing SFH and low-rise building in Centretown with mid-rise and high-rise buildings. The anti-height attitude in this city is unwarranted, dated, and asinine.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by phil235

Classist? That’s quite an accusation. I’m not even sure where to begin.

That area of Centretown is one of the more diverse in the city, so I’m not sure which class you think you are referring to. Or how suggesting that we should follow a plan that designates essentially everything east of Kent and south of Gloucester, plus arterials for mid-rise development favours a particular class. But please, enlighten me.


Both you and Geonerd speak of the “urban core” as though it is a single, uniform entity. It isn’t, and that’s why the plan recognizes different development zones. I’m the last person to oppose development, but this view that any lot downtown should be developed as a mid rise or highrise is completely without nuance, and it really runs me the wrong way.

And for the record, the “ridiculously dated” plan that Geonerd refers to was approved in 2013.

So it's a 7 year old plan based upon the old official plan, id say that's out of date with today's policies, policies that the Councilor of that very ward pushes at council.

As for diverse, in what form, as it's not diverse in the wealth of the owners, who are all sitting on multi-million dollar single family homes, in what very much is the core of Ottawa.

How is the idea that lots in the urban core of a city should never be allowed to develop greater then 4 stories nuanced? Especially for anyone other then those trying to protect the character that excludes those without the means to afford multi-million dollar SFH. Again SFH in the urban core of a city, which by comparison in the cities were trying to emulate exceed that height on majority.

[Williamoforange]

Also, gong to note if the new OP is passed as is and not watered down to appease Nimbys and the FCA, the urban core has a targeted density of 80 units per hectare.

With the 4 story limit reserved for the neighborhood areas only, so (assuming I'm reading this right) right across the street from this development high rises will be allowed.

Assuming the expansive heritage district protection doesn't apply.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

So it's a 7 year old plan based upon the old official plan, id say that's out of date with today's policies, policies that the Councilor of that very ward pushes at council.

As for diverse, in what form, as it's not diverse in the wealth of the owners, who are all sitting on multi-million dollar single family homes, in what very much is the core of Ottawa.

How is the idea that lots in the urban core of a city should never be allowed to develop greater then 4 stories nuanced? Especially for anyone other then those trying to protect the character that excludes those without the means to afford multi-million dollar SFH. Again SFH in the urban core of a city, which by comparison in the cities were trying to emulate exceed that height on majority.

I’d be interested to know where all of these “multi-million dollar” homes are on the West side of Centretown. And you do realize that sticking to the R4 zoning actually reduces the development value of the lots and potential benefit to the owners?

To repeat myself, no one is saying keep the entire urban core low-rise, or that the entire area should never be developed. The current plan allows for massive amounts of targeted growth (including south of this at Catherine St.). It makes no sense to upzone the entire area (it's roughly 50 blocks west of Kent and south of Gloucester, which is huge) and let people pop 9-storey buildings anywhere they want, including in the middle of residential blocks. There is no need for that for many decades. They actually took that approach in the 50s and 60s on the east side of Centretown between Bank and Metcalfe, and the result is a disjointed, ugly neighbourhood. Why would we repeat that mistake?

Directing growth into organized patterns is in no way outdated or small town. It produces better cities.