Ottawa's Official Plan Update

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I was referring to the Gold Belt land, not the expansion lands. It's strange that we didn't hear anyone complain about the Gold Belt concept (unless I missed something) and yet, it was deemed the most "controversial" aspect and immediately scrapped.

There were complaints about it from both farmers and others about it reducing the value of there land, it read on one of the articles posted or Twitter verse can't remember which article or if it was just Twitter. Wouldn't surprise me if there was a heavy e-mail campaign against it, as that usually how that crowd critics things.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

There were complaints about it from both farmers and others about it reducing the value of there land, it read on one of the articles posted or Twitter verse can't remember which article or if it was just Twitter. Wouldn't surprise me if there was a heavy e-mail campaign against it, as that usually how that crowd critics things.

The media focused entirely on Tewin, South March and the Riverside South swap. I hadn't heard anything about the Gold Belt controversy. Seems disingenuous of them to reject the Gold Belt immediately, but continue pushing Tewin which has far more layered issues.

Ultimately, the best way to handle a the Gold Belt might have been to expropriate and rent out the lands for farming (keep it in legacy families as much as possible), which is what the NCC does in the Greenbelt afaik.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

The media focused entirely on Tewin, South March and the Riverside South swap. I hadn't heard anything about the Gold Belt controversy. Seems disingenuous of them to reject the Gold Belt immediately, but continue pushing Tewin which has far more layered issues.

Ultimately, the best way to handle a the Gold Belt might have been to expropriate and rent out the lands for farming (keep it in legacy families as much as possible), which is what the NCC does in the Greenbelt afaik.

That's exactly what the owners of there were afraid of, and I don't blame them neither the city nor the NCC are good owners when it comes to those trying to rent from them, too much bureaucracy.

Also, the gold belt was only ever going to be stricter zoning protections and ownership was not in the question as per the planners. It was rejected because it caused flack without much gain for the city.

[rocketphish]

Ottawa's ignoring residents' concerns over intensification

Randall Denley
Publishing date: Feb 16, 2021 • 7 hours ago • 3 minute read

Ottawa city councillors and their planning staff believe that the very future of our city depends on peppering your neighbourhood with three- and four-storey apartment buildings. A good-sized chunk of Westboro will be the first to experience this brilliant future, but the city’s new official plan anticipates greater density in every established neighbourhood.

For Westboro, that means four-storey buildings on Churchill Avenue with no limit on the number of units. Byron Avenue, not exactly a major road, will get the same treatment, but with a three-storey limit. Single family homes on corner lots can be replaced with six-unit buildings and even small streets could have three-storey development.

Over time, the city’s plan could dramatically alter the nature of Ottawa’s established neighbourhoods, changing forever the urban fabric that makes our city liveable and distinct. That seems like quite a big deal, but if you don’t like it, too bad. The idea is so self-evidently good that this radical alteration of our city is sailing through city council.

Neither community groups nor most in the development industry are enthusiastic about the city’s new apartment mania, but that doesn’t matter. City planning decisions can no longer be appealed and the city is in the process of changing residential zoning so that higher densities are allowed as a right.

You might wonder how this vast city has become so short of future development land that it needs to cram up to 60 per cent of new growth into established neighbourhoods. Most councillors will be quick to tell you that massive intensification is essential. Why, without it, councillors would have to approve development on farm land or new suburbs beyond the reach of transit. City councillors are vehemently opposed to that, except on days when they think it’s fine.

One of those days came last week, when councillors decided to reject their own policies and their planners’ recommendations by adding farm land to Riverside South and approving a new satellite city on the Tewin lands near Carlsbad Springs. In a single day, councillors undermined the core argument in favour of forced urban intensification.

City councillors’ illogic won’t slow the intensification push, but their wishful thinking might. The Westboro plan, for example, imagines that there is a market for multi-unit apartment buildings without parking. People in the development industry are not so convinced, arguing that those who can afford an apartment in Westboro also want to own a car.

The difficulty in making a profit is a problem that will deter the big builders. Far from opening up desirable neighbourhoods to the masses, Westboro intensification will produce costly, niche housing. It’s expensive to buy a house, tear it down, then plan a unique replacement building. The economies of scale that make suburban housing somewhat affordable won’t happen in Westboro. It’s a market for small, specialty builders at best.

With little discernible intensification enthusiasm from residents of established neighbourhoods , one might have hoped that councillors would step back and say, “Hey, people don’t want this. Why are we doing it?”

It’s an excellent question. The real answer is that it’s essential for councillors to pretend that intensification can meet future housing needs, even if there is little reason to believe that’s so. The alternative would be approving more suburban development of the type most councillors have spent years deriding. You know, cars, roads, so-called sprawl, all of that. Councillors are totally against that, except when there is an exception.

One thing they might want to consider, as they go about ignoring public opinion and riling up people right across the city, is that there is an election next year. Councillors are well on their way to creating that rarest of things, a city election issue people care about, and they are putting themselves on the wrong side of it.

The public can’t stop councillors from making arbitrary and damaging planning decisions, but they can fire them. If things keep going like this, councillors are going to have to declare a political emergency.


Randall Denley is an Ottawa political commentator and author. Contact him at [email protected]


https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/denley-ottawas-ignoring-residents-concerns-over-intensification

[Ottawa Champ]

Ahh Randall Denley, never disapoints.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I was referring to the Gold Belt land, not the expansion lands. It's strange that we didn't hear anyone complain about the Gold Belt concept (unless I missed something) and yet, it was deemed the most "controversial" aspect and immediately scrapped.

Over here!

Monstrously dumb idea if the city is serious about tackling sprawl. (It isn't.)

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Over here!

Monstrously dumb idea if the city is serious about tackling sprawl. (It isn't.)

There's so much land available for agriculture, and that land will be needed to sustain us now and into the future. The City would just need to respect the boundaries and not let suburbia leap frog like it did with the Greenbelt.

We have been seeing a also shift to more density over the past 20 years, so it's not impossible that in 50 years, when the inner Gold Belt is full, we'd be able to keep development contained.

[rocketphish]

When planners run amok, even the leafy, bungalowed streets of Alta Vista aren't safe
If councillors approve the proposal, these neighbourhoods will see intensification on a scale never before witnessed in Ottawa.

Randall Denley
Publishing date: Feb 23, 2021 • 1 hour ago • 3 minute read



Reading the draft of Ottawa’s new Official Plan, one is forced to conclude that urban planners and city councillors have gotten development wrong for at least 100 years. Don’t worry. The people now in charge at city hall have a plan to fix that.

The details of that plan are creating a certain amount of alarm in Alta Vista, which is no surprise because the city would like the neighbourhood to redevelop at about four times its current density. Alta Vista needs to be fixed, you see, as does a vast swath of the city that planners have romantically dubbed the Inner Urban Transect.

The new secondary plan for the Alta Vista area states, “These low-rise neighbourhood areas are open and spacious, having well-maintained homes, which are set back from the street with many mature trees.” Clearly, that has to be changed as quickly as possible.

People in Alta Vista haven’t been singled out for special treatment. The Inner Urban Transect is described as including development from the years before and just after the Second World War. That includes an area that stretches from Bayshore in the west, south to Meadowlands and Walkley roads and east to Blair Road.

If councillors approve the proposed plan, those neighbourhoods will see intensification on a scale never before witnessed in Ottawa. Sorry, old terminology. The word intensification has now been replaced by “regeneration,” according to the city. Presumably, “destruction” didn’t test well with focus groups.

Future life in the Inner Urban Transect will fulfil the dreams of planners, if not of residents. Part of the change involves a vigorous attack on the automobile. New auto-related uses will be prohibited, including car dealerships, service stations, drive-through facilities, surface parking lots and, curiously, mini-storage warehouses.

People will be expected to walk, cycle or take transit. Generously, cars will still be permitted, so long as they “do not erode the public realm nor undermine the priority” of cyclists, walkers or bus riders.

It is in the buildings that future Transecites will see the greatest change. If anything is built within 400 metres of a rapid transit station, it must be at least three storeys. Buildings can be nine storeys on main corridors, six on minor corridors.

The city does not stop there, reaching right into those leafy, bungalow-laden streets that make Alta Vista and similar neighbourhoods what they are. Prior to the enlightenment offered by the new Official Plan, one could buy an aging bungalow and replace it with a bigger, more up-to-date home. That will be impossible under the new rules. If you really must replace an old bungalow with a better one, it has to have exactly the same size and footprint as the old one.

Should that not suit, something of two to four storeys must be constructed on the lot. The minimum number of units in that new building has not been set yet, but single family homes won’t fit in the city’s new density requirements. For example, they boost existing Alta Vista density from 10 to 25 units per hectare now, to either or 40 units or 80, depending on the location.

The established neighbourhoods that the city is determined to make vastly more urban were the new suburbs of their day. They might not be in sync with the latest thinking of 2021, but in many respects, they are superior to the suburbs we are building now, a fact that is reflected in property values.

People like these neighbourhoods and are passionately attached to them. Despite that, councillors and their planning staff are determined to take control of every street, deciding everything right down to what you can build on your own lot.

One would have hoped that all of this would have set off political alarm bells with councillors, but the only dissent has been from those who want even more intensification.

Intensification isn’t inherently bad. The scope, scale and command-and-control approach the city wants to mandate is.


Randall Denley is an Ottawa political commentator and author. Contact him at [email protected]

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/denley...galowed-streets-of-alta-vista-arent-safe

[Lakeofthewood]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

[B]When planners run amok, even the leafy, bungalowed streets of Alta Vista aren't safe
If councillors approve the proposal, these neighbourhoods will see intensification on a scale never before witnessed in Ottawa.

Intensification isn’t inherently bad. The scope, scale and command-and-control approach the city wants to mandate is.
]

Oh Randall, always willing to criticize but never offer any solutions. If the "scope, scale and command-and-control" is so bad, then what would you like to see instead?

[FutureWickedCity]

I doubt that anyone besides people who live there care about the precious sanctity of Alta Vista being violated. The article is sure to go over well, however, with the only people who still subscribe to the Ottawa Citizen (old people).

[J.OT13]

Reading the draft of Ottawa’s new Official Plan, one is forced to conclude that urban planners and city councillors have gotten development wrong for at least 100 years. Don’t worry. The people now in charge at city hall have a plan to fix that.

Maybe not 100 years, but certainly 60 years.

Future life in the Inner Urban Transect will fulfil the dreams of planners, if not of residents. Part of the change involves a vigorous attack on the automobile. New auto-related uses will be prohibited, including car dealerships, service stations, drive-through facilities, surface parking lots and, curiously, mini-storage warehouses.

Sounds good to me. Which should limit these uses in the burbs as well.

The city does not stop there, reaching right into those leafy, bungalow-laden streets that make Alta Vista and similar neighbourhoods what they are. Prior to the enlightenment offered by the new Official Plan, one could buy an aging bungalow and replace it with a bigger, more up-to-date home. That will be impossible under the new rules. If you really must replace an old bungalow with a better one, it has to have exactly the same size and footprint as the old one.

No more McMansions! Victory!!

The established neighbourhoods that the city is determined to make vastly more urban were the new suburbs of their day. They might not be in sync with the latest thinking of 2021, but in many respects, they are superior to the suburbs we are building now, a fact that is reflected in property values.

Value is more tied with the location, not quality. People don't care about quality anymore. Case-in point, new suburbs. I do agree the burbs of those days were better, with more trees, smaller homes, better building materials and no big-box stores. Commercial uses were more spread-out in small strip malls within each suburban community, better achieving the concept of 15 minute neighborhoods.

[OTownandDown]

So let met get this straight, the City is going to try to put the brakes on lot-line-to-lot-line McMansions within a 10 minute drive to downtown, in favour of redevelopment in the same footprint (if you'd like a 'new' single family home) OR if you build a 5000 sq.ft. behemoth, it has to a multi-family?

Randall seems to be dead set against the wealthy losing out on this equation?

He's all up in arms about 4 storey multi-family in Alta Vista, but I'd like you to show me ONE example of an old house being razed and a new house being built that can't easily fit more than one family. Just ONE example. I'll wait.

Actually, despite the feeling that the City is bordering on Socalism (or communism? Can never remember the difference) and over-reaching when it comes to neighbourhood construction limitations, I kind of like this plan. It limits the new single family homes to their original intended size, no more crazy monsters (I'm looking at you, central Nepean). And if you want to go big, put more than one family in it. Densification IS going to happen, one way or another.

Note: This whole fiasco is only a problem if you truly believe that neighborhoods shouldn't evolve over time. Trying to play God with the rules and regulations has consequences. Some are immediate, and some won't be seen for 30-50 years. Do I trust that council can make decisions based on 50 years from now? Not really.

[JayBuoy]

Originally Posted by OTownandDown

Actually, despite the feeling that the City is bordering on Socalism (or communism? Can never remember the difference)

On the whole agree, but I wonder if you could elaborate on this. What in particular about city politics borders on socialism or communism?

[silvergate]

Don't get me wrong, I love that the official plan is finally being updated to reflect modern realities. That said, I am concerned with the way this will end up being carried out, as developers will be drawing up these dense housing plans, not residents. For years home-ownership has been the way for many families to build wealth, and I think the city needs to consider how the intensification plan could be used to help - especially lower income - families get in the game too. Perhaps using a non-profit arm to help groups of families buy properties and convert them to denser use?

This is the perfect time for the city to start considering a more equitable housing market that gives everyone a chance.

[JayBuoy]

Originally Posted by silvergate

Don't get me wrong, I love that the official plan is finally being updated to reflect modern realities. That said, I am concerned with the way this will end up being carried out, as developers will be drawing up these dense housing plans, not residents. For years home-ownership has been the way for many families to build wealth, and I think the city needs to consider how the intensification plan could be used to help - especially lower income - families get in the game too. Perhaps using a non-profit arm to help groups of families buy properties and convert them to denser use?

This is the perfect time for the city to start considering a more equitable housing market that gives everyone a chance.

I think the city should build much more social housing, and make social housing for everyone not just those in need. In rent-geared-to-income schemes, higher-income people offset the lesser revenue from lower-income people. that would be a threat to the general housing market though.

Housing can't be both a financial vehicle and basic shelter. They are mutually contradictory and eventually one has to win out.

[passwordisnt123]

Originally Posted by OTownandDown

Actually, despite the feeling that the City is bordering on Socalism (or communism? Can never remember the difference)

Oh this is going to be good. Can you give your definition of socialism or communism and explain how the City of Ottawa is on the verge of it? Inquiring minds are eager to know.

[Proof Sheet]

https://bulldogottawa.com/the-arrogance-and-entitlement-of-planners/

In the same vein as Denley comes the Bulldog, dragging up 10 year old posts on this website. As far as I know, none of the quoted people he quotes are 'planners' at the City. I'm aware of only one City 'planner' who regularly posts on this forum and I don't see any of their posts on the Roosevelt file that the Bulldog doesn't like.

[Nowhere]

People need to stop using the words "socialism" and "communism" as synonyms of left-wing politics, since they're absolutely not synonymous.

Socialism is about workers' ownership of work, whether it's done with workers' cooperatives or public sector jobs.
Communism is a kind of anarchy where there's no government, no social classes and no money. There's therefore no such a thing as a communist government, even if some governments claim to be.

Neither of these have anything to do with increasing urban density.

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by FutureWickedCity

I doubt that anyone besides people who live there care about the precious sanctity of Alta Vista being violated. The article is sure to go over well, however, with the only people who still subscribe to the Ottawa Citizen (old people).

https://bulldogottawa.com/planners-attitudes-disgusting-whopper-watch/

Well you got 'The Bulldog' foaming at the mouth.

[Marshsparrow]

Originally Posted by Proof Sheet

https://bulldogottawa.com/planners-attitudes-disgusting-whopper-watch/

Well you got 'The Bulldog' foaming at the mouth.

I spit up my coffee reading this... I am so tired of seniors and their BS...