New subdivision developments

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Ya. All those million dollar, single family homes will solve the housing crisis. The plan is for 1,480 homes over 70.89 hectares (175 acres). That’s over 475 m^2 (over 5000 sq feet) of land per home. Hardly high density.

There is also the matter of the contract saying the lad should be given back to the city, not sold for profit.

City should insist on higher density, but it is still a hell of a lot better use than another useless golf course.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

City should insist on higher density, but it is still a hell of a lot better use than another useless golf course.

I agree that there are much better uses for the land than a golf course, but if the contract allows the city to take over the land for recreational activities if the owner no longer wants to run a golf course, then that contract should be upheld. Maybe some of the land should be developed (a few mid to high-rise apartments along Campeau might be good), but I am not celebrating this planned project of mostly single family homes, a few townhomes and maybe a dozen or so 4 to 6 story apartment buildings.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I agree that there are much better uses for the land than a golf course, but if the contract allows the city to take over the land for recreational activities if the owner no longer wants to run a golf course, then that contract should be upheld. Maybe some of the land should be developed (a few mid to high-rise apartments along Campeau might be good), but I am not celebrating this planned project of mostly single family homes, a few townhomes and maybe a dozen or so 4 to 6 story apartment buildings.

The court of appeal did not interpret the contract that way. I don’t know the details.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Ya. All those million dollar, single family homes will solve the housing crisis. The plan is for 1,480 homes over 70.89 hectares (175 acres). That’s over 475 m^2 (over 5000 sq feet) of land per home. Hardly high density.

There is also the matter of the contract saying the lad should be given back to the city, not sold for profit.

Supply and demand. When those folks buying million dollar SFH on a former golf course don't have options, they simply outbid those lower on the totem pole. And that cascades all the way down.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Obviously there is some sort of loophole that the developer is trying to take advantage of (possibly that the contract was with the City of Kanata, and it no longer exists post amalgamation). My point is I don't understand why people on here are celebrating this as a victory.

1) Gets rid of a completely useless golf course, which happens to be one of the worst possible uses of land.
2) Prevents Jim Watson from wasting taxpayers money on preserving a useless golf course
3) Sets a precedent for getting rid of other useless golf courses in Ontario.
4) Gets a little desperately needed infill housing. Should be more but better than nothing.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by acottawa

1) Gets rid of a completely useless golf course, which happens to be one of the worst possible uses of land.
2) Prevents Jim Watson from wasting taxpayers money on preserving a useless golf course
3) Sets a precedent for getting rid of other useless golf courses in Ontario.
4) Gets a little desperately needed infill housing. Should be more but better than nothing.

Why don't we just pave over everything and cut down all the trees? Greenspace and tree cover is obviously an evil concept in a city. All development of the future should be paved from lot line to lot line.

Maybe, we should put social housing there, so we get the needed density and address the affordable housing problem. But, more likely some $1M condos for more rich people with BMWs and Teslas.

[RuralCitizen]

Originally Posted by acottawa

1) Gets rid of a completely useless golf course, which happens to be one of the worst possible uses of land.
2) Prevents Jim Watson from wasting taxpayers money on preserving a useless golf course
3) Sets a precedent for getting rid of other useless golf courses in Ontario.
4) Gets a little desperately needed infill housing. Should be more but better than nothing.

I understand both side of the argument. I think their arguments against the judgement is more in relation to having a promise of green space nearby as a selling point when they built and purchased the housing. A promise is a promise, it isn't the same as a vacant land that remains vacant for 50years but didn't have restrictions on being built on. I don't think they care that it is a gold course, so long as it remains a green space.

We can argue all we want about how we have tons of greenspace in the city with the Gatineau park and the Greenbelt. But proximity to green space is important too.

Is there a way to maintain a portion of it as permanent, publicly accessible green space? and convert the remainder as high density housing?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Why don't we just pave over everything and cut down all the trees? Greenspace and tree cover is obviously an evil concept in a city. All development of the future should be paved from lot line to lot line.

Maybe, we should put social housing there, so we get the needed density and address the affordable housing problem. But, more likely some $1M condos for more rich people with BMWs and Teslas.

Ridiculous strawman.

But I'll play.

I guess you value trees more than housing. That must mean you support people being homeless. Let's tear down homes and put up more trees to improve tree cover.

This argument about million dollar homes with BMWs is economically ignorant. What do you think happens when they can't get the housing they want? Do you think they just stop looking?

There used to be a time period where the poor could get cheap motel rooms. That counteracted homelessness. We stopped building enough housing and hotel/temporary residences. Now the "cheap" motels cost > $100/night and homebuyers get to compete with AirBNB operators for property that the latter value at near hotelier property rates. The result is everybody being underhoused across the income ladder and those at the bottom ending up on the street.

Time to get building. If you want nature, you can get plenty of it, 50 km outside the city. And it's much better than the faux nature of a golf course. Time to move, if that's what you want. Housing is much more important than your preference for what other property owners should be able to do with their land. Enough of this nonsense where existing homeowners lock potential residents out of a neighborhood based on flimsy nonsense like personal preferences for aesthetics. The worst of it? It's a golf course. It's not even greenspace the public could have accessed anyway.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Global News did an article yesterday on how it is important for cities to be able to absorb water rather than have it all immediately run off into storm sewers. Green space is one way this can be achieved. I agree we need to build more homes, but we need to be smart about it.

Unless you have evidence that developing this specific golf course, would impact drainage on the area, this is just FUD, in the same spirit as some of the vague whataboutism that climate denialists use these days.

Yes, we should do a better job designing cities in general. That should have started with less of our typical sprawling suburbia, with a ton of parking lots with impermeable surfaces. But having gotten to where we are, the second best thing we can do is infill. And building housing on this land is far better use of it, than a private golf course that the public couldn't use anyway. At least housing here, even if it's expensive, will help take a bit of the pressure off demand, however small, in the city. And it does so, without adding pressure to city services.

The views on this particular development are a real Rorschach test. On one side, people who are happy to see housing denied just to preserve a view, for a handful of existing homeowners. On the other, people who think housing is an overriding priority.

I never want to hear anybody opposed to this development complain about home prices, climate change, traffic, etc again. Arguing,"I support housing, but not in my neighbourhood," says everything about the hypocrites these people are.

[Richard Eade]

Was the decision of the three-judge panel unanimous? It could be setting a VERY far-reaching precedent.

Basically, my understanding of the ruling is that “in perpetuity” means 21 years, and that that is all the original contract can be in force for. (This is not even a full generation, anymore.)

There are many contracts that include ‘in perpetuity” clauses. For example, when you buy a grave plot, part of the price is to fund the requirement by the cemetery owner to maintain the grounds in perpetuity. If these contracts now follow the new precedent, then we are going to have a lot of unmaintained graveyards around.

This was a bad decision and goes against the intention of the original contract. When Clublink bought the land, they knew of the existing contract and agreed to abide by it. They were able to buy the land cheaply, because it could – according to the contract – NEVER be developed. They have since paid lower property taxes on land that was open space.

Am I invested in keeping the land as a golf course? No. I do not play golf, and have no interest in golf.

Should we be in-filling APPROPRIATE areas with housing? Yes.

Should this ruling be sustained? NO!

I may not be interested in golf, but I very much believe in the rule of law, and contracts being binding. It is wrong for this panel of three judges to make the ruling that changes the original intent of a mutually agreed upon contract, and change the legal definition of “in perpetuity” to be 21 years.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

If it were me, I would put mid-rise apartments on the north side of Campeau drive and low-rise apartments where it crosses Knudson (while preserving access to the greenspace). The remainder of the golf course I would re-wild, with pathways through it (most of the adjacent streets already have pathways that connect to it).

Since the land is in such thin strips, you would need to cover almost as much land with asphalt as you would get in developable land to develop much more than that.

It's a great plan. And something tells me, the NIMBYs would be even more apoplectic with your idea. "Apartments? Condos? Non-millionaires in this neighbourhood? Muhhhh neighbourhood character...."

[Marshsparrow]

Maybe if this city could design nice neighbourhoods that build community and put forward architecture and urbanism and balance green space that would be a start... sadly it will be garbage...

What's the difference to the Hunt Club forest preservation at all costs mob mentality - why aren't those people pitchforking to preserve Kanata forests or putting forward proposals to greenspace part of the golf course and balance for development?

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Was the decision of the three-judge panel unanimous? It could be setting a VERY far-reaching precedent.

Basically, my understanding of the ruling is that “in perpetuity” means 21 years, and that that is all the original contract can be in force for. (This is not even a full generation, anymore.)

There are many contracts that include ‘in perpetuity” clauses. For example, when you buy a grave plot, part of the price is to fund the requirement by the cemetery owner to maintain the grounds in perpetuity. If these contracts now follow the new precedent, then we are going to have a lot of unmaintained graveyards around.

This was a bad decision and goes against the intention of the original contract. When Clublink bought the land, they knew of the existing contract and agreed to abide by it. They were able to buy the land cheaply, because it could – according to the contract – NEVER be developed. They have since paid lower property taxes on land that was open space.

Am I invested in keeping the land as a golf course? No. I do not play golf, and have no interest in golf.

Should we be in-filling APPROPRIATE areas with housing? Yes.

Should this ruling be sustained? NO!

I may not be interested in golf, but I very much believe in the rule of law, and contracts being binding. It is wrong for this panel of three judges to make the ruling that changes the original intent of a mutually agreed upon contract, and change the legal definition of “in perpetuity” to be 21 years.

It's part of common law and Ontario law already, the ruling was whether the wording of the agreement was in violation of the rule. I found this article helpful as the decision was pretty technical.
https://hullandhull.com/2018/08/rule...ies-not-scary/

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by RuralCitizen

I understand both side of the argument. I think their arguments against the judgement is more in relation to having a promise of green space nearby as a selling point when they built and purchased the housing. A promise is a promise, it isn't the same as a vacant land that remains vacant for 50years but didn't have restrictions on being built on. I don't think they care that it is a gold course, so long as it remains a green space.

We can argue all we want about how we have tons of greenspace in the city with the Gatineau park and the Greenbelt. But proximity to green space is important too.

Is there a way to maintain a portion of it as permanent, publicly accessible green space? and convert the remainder as high density housing?

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Why don't we just pave over everything and cut down all the trees? Greenspace and tree cover is obviously an evil concept in a city. All development of the future should be paved from lot line to lot line.

Maybe, we should put social housing there, so we get the needed density and address the affordable housing problem. But, more likely some $1M condos for more rich people with BMWs and Teslas.

If a golf course is "greenspace and trees" then the suburban backyards are also greenspace and trees, but much less damaging to the environment. So this is a win for greenspace and trees.

To maintain those pristine lawns requires an enormous amount of pesticides, herbicides, water and fertilizer, as well as deterring almost any sort of wildlife. A golf course is not a park, it is closed to the public, is incredibly bad for the environment and supports almost no biodiversity.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Was the decision of the three-judge panel unanimous? It could be setting a VERY far-reaching precedent.

Basically, my understanding of the ruling is that “in perpetuity” means 21 years, and that that is all the original contract can be in force for. (This is not even a full generation, anymore.)

There are many contracts that include ‘in perpetuity” clauses. For example, when you buy a grave plot, part of the price is to fund the requirement by the cemetery owner to maintain the grounds in perpetuity. If these contracts now follow the new precedent, then we are going to have a lot of unmaintained graveyards around.

This was a bad decision and goes against the intention of the original contract. When Clublink bought the land, they knew of the existing contract and agreed to abide by it. They were able to buy the land cheaply, because it could – according to the contract – NEVER be developed. They have since paid lower property taxes on land that was open space.

Am I invested in keeping the land as a golf course? No. I do not play golf, and have no interest in golf.

Should we be in-filling APPROPRIATE areas with housing? Yes.

Should this ruling be sustained? NO!

I may not be interested in golf, but I very much believe in the rule of law, and contracts being binding. It is wrong for this panel of three judges to make the ruling that changes the original intent of a mutually agreed upon contract, and change the legal definition of “in perpetuity” to be 21 years.

There is a longstanding common law prohibition against perpetual arrangements for property; that seems to be a core factor considered in the ruling.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's a great plan. And something tells me, the NIMBYs would be even more apoplectic with your idea. "Apartments? Condos? Non-millionaires in this neighbourhood? Muhhhh neighbourhood character...."

Have you looked at the surrounding buildings? Here is the view from the entrance to the golf club on Campeau (and more will be built on the adjacent land):



And here are the neighbouring buildings on Knudson (those are townhomes in case you can't tell):



I figured low rise apartments would increase density and still transition well, but worst case they could build more townhomes.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

If a golf course is "greenspace and trees" then the suburban backyards are also greenspace and trees, but much less damaging to the environment. So this is a win for greenspace and trees.

To maintain those pristine lawns requires an enormous amount of pesticides, herbicides, water and fertilizer, as well as deterring almost any sort of wildlife.

I agree that golf courses are not good for the environment, but paving half of the land for roads and driveways and having buildings covering 1/4 of the land leaves only about 1/4 of the land as "green" space, most of which will be cut lawns is not an improvement. Making it a linear park with more intensive buildings on the periphery, where there is already road access would be a huge improvement.

Originally Posted by acottawa

A golf course is not a park, it is closed to the public, is incredibly bad for the environment and supports almost no biodiversity.

In most cases, yes, but in this case it appears as if the pathways are open to the public with connections to most of the surrounding streets. I do agree that there are better uses for the land that offers some biodiversity, but in this case it isn't as bad as you are making it out and building houses on it would make things even worse.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Have you looked at the surrounding buildings? Here is the view from the entrance to the golf club on Campeau (and more will be built on the adjacent land):

....

And here are the neighbouring buildings on Knudson (those are townhomes in case you can't tell):

....

I figured low rise apartments would increase density and still transition well, but worst case they could build more townhomes.

These are people up in arms over expensive SFH. I highly doubt they'll be sympathetic to higher density (in any form). That said, I absolutely agree that your idea is a whole lot better.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

These are people up in arms over expensive SFH. I highly doubt they'll be sympathetic to higher density (in any form). That said, I absolutely agree that your idea is a whole lot better.

They might find it better than the current proposal, as it preserves most of the greenspace (if you can call the existing golf course greenspace).

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I agree that golf courses are not good for the environment, but paving half of the land for roads and driveways and having buildings covering 1/4 of the land leaves only about 1/4 of the land as "green" space, most of which will be cut lawns is not an improvement. Making it a linear park with more intensive buildings on the periphery, where there is already road access would be a huge improvement.



In most cases, yes, but in this case it appears as if the pathways are open to the public with connections to most of the surrounding streets. I do agree that there are better uses for the land that offers some biodiversity, but in this case it isn't as bad as you are making it out and building houses on it would make things even worse.

Most homeowners don’t use nearly the volume of chemicals that a golf course does, many also grow gardens, etc., which is still a better use of land than a putting green.

Half the land for roads and driveways seems high, are they planning unusually wide roads through the development?

I may be mistaken, but the only pathways I see are the golf cart tracks. Even if those are open to the public (or more likely management turns a blind eye) they are hardly much use to the public.