NCC Greenbelt

[rocketphish]

Originally Posted by ac888yow

I stumbled across this (older but still interesting) article about the studio. Not sure where else to put it. Timeframes are way off hopefully there's not been a snag.



https://playbackonline.ca/2018/11/23/ottawa-studio-campus-gets-go-ahead-with-ncc/

See here:
https://www.skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?p=8319373

[YOWflier]

Fail! And I looked for a thread quickly but obviously missed it. Please delete.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by passwordisnt123

Any developments of the greenbelt would be nothing more than shitty auto-dependent suburban sprawl.

Only if that's what we approved.

If we really care about climate change, we need to get way more serious about intensification, disincentivizing car use and encouraging public transit and active means of transportation wherever possible.

Having a big pointless stupid brownbelt is contrary to all of those goals.

[waterloowarrior]

• Video Link

I enjoyed this criticism of greenbelt implementation from a Montreal urbanist

[rocketphish]

Think the Greenbelt is protected? It isn't, and conservationists say it needs to be
No legally enshrined Greenbelt exists, and city continues to allow for some development in new Official Plan

Kristy Nease · CBC News
Posted: Oct 14, 2022 4:00 AM ET | Last Updated: 4 hours ago

The Greenbelt encircling inner urban Ottawa needs legal recognition to protect it from development, conservationists say, and a federal push to create a network of national urban parks across the country could be the solution.

If it isn't enshrined in legislation, they say the Greenbelt will continue to be subject to the changing whims of all levels of government and even the board of directors at the National Capital Commission (NCC), which has a much clearer mandate for development than for conservation and has long complained of not having the money to properly maintain its assets.

"A lot of people think the green space around us is protected and will always be there, but at the end of the day it's not," said John McDonnell, executive director of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society's Ottawa Valley chapter, which wants the Greenbelt to become a national urban park.

"We are in a climate and and biodiversity crisis. The city declared a climate emergency [in 2019], and so having all of this natural infrastructure ... it's critically important that we maintain that."

The NCC's job, according to the National Capital Act that governs it, is "to [plan] for and assist in the development, conservation and improvement" of the region to reflect its national significance as the seat of the federal government.

The problem is that development, conservation and improvement can be at odds with each other, and while the act says the NCC can "construct, maintain and operate parks," not a single other reference to green space or conservation is made.

The Greenbelt is not defined or even mentioned.

In its most recent master plan for the Greenbelt from 2013, the NCC included "arbitrary boundaries" first in a list of threats to its ecological integrity, followed with fragmentation by and impacts from nearby urban development, among other things.

The plan said a legal definition of Greenbelt limits hadn't yet been established, but the NCC "anticipated" it would be done in the plan's lifespan — about 10 years, which ends soon.

The NCC did not answer questions about whether a legal definition of Greenbelt limits has been completed (and if not, what forces have prevented it), whether it's been approached about the Greenbelt becoming a national urban park and what it thinks of the idea.

Developing the Greenbelt isn't unheard of, and you don't have to look too far into the record to find pushes for it.

In 2008, under then mayor Larry O'Brien, city staff wrote a white paper to start a public conversation about developing at least 5,500 hectares — about 27 per cent — of the Greenbelt, specifically rural and agricultural land.

None of the paper's reasons against development included environmental protection. In fact, it characterized the Greenbelt as a detriment to the environment, forcing urban sprawl further afield and increasing emissions by making people commute across it.

Fourteen environmental groups united to write a scathing letter to city council decrying the paper as "seriously flawed," and a questionnaire seeking comment from residents as "so highly biased that it invalidates any resulting analysis."

The few responses received were opposed to Greenbelt development, and the idea was "not carried forward," according to Nick Stow, a city program manager for natural systems and rural affairs.

The city's new 2021 Official Plan, however — still not approved by the province — continues to open the window for limited Greenbelt residential development in "historical settlements" outlined in the zoning bylaw and previous official plan: Burke's Settlement near Shirley's Bay, Blackburn Station near Blackburn Hamlet and Ramsayville along Highway 417 near Russell Road.

Confusingly, the new plan talks about "harmonizing" city policy with the NCC's Greenbelt master plan, but the NCC's existing plan discourages developing anything but certain federal institutions and sustainable farms, and says specifically that existing homes in Burke's Settlement and Blackburn Station should be removed over time.

The NCC said it owns most of the land in the three settlements and "does not plan" to develop them.

The city did not respond to questions about the disconnect.

Paul Johanis, chair of the Greenspace Alliance of Canada's Capital, said the big issue is what the NCC ends up doing in the future.

"They can develop within the Greenbelt ... or, more worryingly, they can dispose of Greenbelt parcels, which then could be purchased and developed by private interests," he said.

Meanwhile, the NCC's Greenbelt master plan is about to be reviewed. The NCC said it expects to start planning the review process in 2023.

There are other pressures.

Earlier this year, city council approved the city's preferred east-end Transitway and extension of Brian Coburn Boulevard through the Greenbelt near environmentally sensitive Mer Bleue Bog, even though the NCC is staunchly opposed to that route.

Johanis said it underscores why legal protection is needed.

"If we don't get any change to the protective framework, legislative framework for [the Greenbelt], then it will always be fighting these battles," said Johanis, adding that the alliance is putting together a working group of organizations interested in making it a national urban park.

Another possible pressure could come from the province, which has vowed to build 1.5 million homes by 2031.

A report filed earlier this year by the province's housing affordability task force — struck by Municipal Affairs and Housing Minister Steve Clark — says specifically that greenbelts and environmentally sensitive areas "must be protected."

But all the homes will have to go somewhere, and McDonnell of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society isn't convinced the province won't change course.

"We're concerned [the housing crisis] could put pressure on the Greenbelt ... which is why we feel that now is the time to walk the boundaries into legislation and to ensure that everyone knows these lands are off limits," he said.

In 2021, Environment and Climate Change Canada said it was going to create a network of national urban parks across the country.

Work is already underway on sites in Winnipeg, Halifax, Windsor, Ont., and Saskatchewan, and around Edmonton and Victoria. Discussions are also underway about a possible site in Montreal, Parks Canada said.

The current goal is 15 such parks by 2030, modelled after the first created in 2015 in Toronto. Potential sites must conserve nature, connect people with it and help reconcile with Indigenous Peoples.

Site ideas in the National Capital Region have been floated, "but an official intake process has not yet begun," Parks Canada said, declining to provide more details.

McDonnell said the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society put the Greenbelt and Gatineau Park forward, and that the work is just beginning.

The society is asking mayoral candidates to take a position on the issue, McDonnell added. So far Catherine McKenney has pledged to make the Greenbelt a national urban park, Mark Sutcliffe called the idea "recycled," Mike Maguire had questions about it and Param Singh said he didn't think the designation would change anything.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/greenbelt-no-legal-definition-national-urban-park-1.6577932

[J.OT13]

We certainly need a review of the Greenbelt. Certain areas near highways and transit should be developed. Once we identify these areas that can be redeveloped without impacting the integrity of the natural attributes and active farms, the rest should be protected as a National Urban Park.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

We certainly need a review of the Greenbelt. Certain areas near highways and transit should be developed. Once we identify these areas that can be redeveloped without impacting the integrity of the natural attributes and active farms, the rest should be protected as a National Urban Park.

Yes but everyone gets an entrenched in an all green space must be preserved position.

[rocketphish]

Green belts 'effective' for curbing urban sprawl, Montreal study shows
90% of cities with a green belt saw a decrease in urban sprawl, according to study

CBC News
Posted: Nov 06, 2022 11:58 AM ET | Last Updated: 11 hours ago

Researchers at Concordia University say they have found an "almost always effective" way to curb urban sprawl, especially in big cities.

According to their study, the development of green belts on the outskirts of urban centres could help limit the increase in urban areas over a given territory, reducing harm to the environment. Green belts are protected areas, such as forests or agricultural land, which surround a city and even a region where real estate development is greatly limited or prohibited.

Parnian Pourtaherian, the lead author of the study published in academic journal Landscape and Urban Planning, says these spaces would prevent the often disorderly expansion of suburbs and certain economic activities.

Using open-source data, the researchers tracked the urban sprawl of 60 European cities from 2006 to 2015, half of which had a green belt. These were classified into four categories: very large cities (2.5 million inhabitants and more), large cities (more than one million), medium-large cities (500,000 to one million) and medium-sized (96,000 to 500,000).

According to this study, 90 per cent of cities with a green belt had experienced a decrease in urban sprawl during the given period. Conversely, only 36 per cent of the other cities had experienced such a decrease.

"We found great variability in green belt effectiveness across small, medium, and large cities," said Pourtaherian. "But the difference in relative changes in urban sprawl was more pronounced in larger cities."

Pourtaherian, who holds a master's degree in science from the department of Geography, Planning and Environment at Concordia University, says this method could also be used across Canada.

Ottawa and Toronto both have a green belt and Vancouver has a "Green Zone" to protect natural assets. On the other hand, Montreal still doesn't have a real green belt, but it urgently needs one, Pourtaherian says.

For Jochen Jaeger, a professor in the department of Geography, Planning and Environment at Concordia, green belts are almost always effective, provided they are well supervised. Their effectiveness can be undermined if they are not properly protected or if they are too small or too narrow, he says.

"Some developers and politicians take advantage of the housing crisis argument to expand large residential estates and to allow additional low-density urban growth, or even to remove existing protective laws," said the co-author of the study. "They also apply salami tactics to chip away at the green belt by arguing that every little bit lost is just an 'insignificant' loss until there is nothing left."

A suburban sprawl may seem to go hand in hand with population growth, but its expansion puts residents further away from services offered in major centres on top of endangering the fauna and flora on the outskirts of cities.

"Limiting urban sprawl is crucial since it leads to the loss of green spaces and wildlife habitats and reduces ecosystem resilience due to habitat fragmentation, declining wildlife populations and extinction of local species," said Jaeger.

These effects will only be exacerbated by the climate crisis, he added, which will lead to higher expenditure on transport infrastructure, electricity distribution, water supply and wastewater collection. Urban sprawl is also associated with increased consumption of fossil fuels for transportation and the loss of fertile agricultural land.

Avoiding the expansion of low-density urban areas into natural spaces helps maintain the benefits of these spaces – including better air and water quality – which the current generation can then pass on to future generations.

with files from La Presse Canadienne

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/...montreal-concordia-researchers-1.6642469

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

Green belts 'effective' for curbing urban sprawl, Montreal study shows
90% of cities with a green belt saw a decrease in urban sprawl, according to study

CBC News
Posted: Nov 06, 2022 11:58 AM ET | Last Updated: 11 hours ago

Researchers at Concordia University say they have found an "almost always effective" way to curb urban sprawl, especially in big cities.

According to their study, the development of green belts on the outskirts of urban centres could help limit the increase in urban areas over a given territory, reducing harm to the environment. Green belts are protected areas, such as forests or agricultural land, which surround a city and even a region where real estate development is greatly limited or prohibited.

Parnian Pourtaherian, the lead author of the study published in academic journal Landscape and Urban Planning, says these spaces would prevent the often disorderly expansion of suburbs and certain economic activities.

Using open-source data, the researchers tracked the urban sprawl of 60 European cities from 2006 to 2015, half of which had a green belt. These were classified into four categories: very large cities (2.5 million inhabitants and more), large cities (more than one million), medium-large cities (500,000 to one million) and medium-sized (96,000 to 500,000).

According to this study, 90 per cent of cities with a green belt had experienced a decrease in urban sprawl during the given period. Conversely, only 36 per cent of the other cities had experienced such a decrease.

"We found great variability in green belt effectiveness across small, medium, and large cities," said Pourtaherian. "But the difference in relative changes in urban sprawl was more pronounced in larger cities."

Pourtaherian, who holds a master's degree in science from the department of Geography, Planning and Environment at Concordia University, says this method could also be used across Canada.

Ottawa and Toronto both have a green belt and Vancouver has a "Green Zone" to protect natural assets. On the other hand, Montreal still doesn't have a real green belt, but it urgently needs one, Pourtaherian says.

For Jochen Jaeger, a professor in the department of Geography, Planning and Environment at Concordia, green belts are almost always effective, provided they are well supervised. Their effectiveness can be undermined if they are not properly protected or if they are too small or too narrow, he says.

"Some developers and politicians take advantage of the housing crisis argument to expand large residential estates and to allow additional low-density urban growth, or even to remove existing protective laws," said the co-author of the study. "They also apply salami tactics to chip away at the green belt by arguing that every little bit lost is just an 'insignificant' loss until there is nothing left."

A suburban sprawl may seem to go hand in hand with population growth, but its expansion puts residents further away from services offered in major centres on top of endangering the fauna and flora on the outskirts of cities.

"Limiting urban sprawl is crucial since it leads to the loss of green spaces and wildlife habitats and reduces ecosystem resilience due to habitat fragmentation, declining wildlife populations and extinction of local species," said Jaeger.

These effects will only be exacerbated by the climate crisis, he added, which will lead to higher expenditure on transport infrastructure, electricity distribution, water supply and wastewater collection. Urban sprawl is also associated with increased consumption of fossil fuels for transportation and the loss of fertile agricultural land.

Avoiding the expansion of low-density urban areas into natural spaces helps maintain the benefits of these spaces – including better air and water quality – which the current generation can then pass on to future generations.

with files from La Presse Canadienne

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/...montreal-concordia-researchers-1.6642469

Almost always effective..Assuming canadian examples would be the failures with Ottawa being the prime example. Barhaven, Kanata, Orleans, Findley creek...exist?...and now Carleton Place, Kemptville, Arnprior, Casselmen/Embrun are expanding with low density sprawl.

Cause I wouldn't call any Canadian example of a "greenbelt" as a success in curbing urban sprawl....With almost every "Failure" tied to the "urban centre" not allowing density that meets demand.

[GeoNerd]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

Cause I wouldn't call any Canadian example of a "greenbelt" as a success in curbing urban sprawl....With almost every "Failure" tied to the "urban centre" not allowing density that meets demand.

Ah yes, the old “blame the inner-city” Schtick. Because if the urban centre allowed more density the suburbanites would magically abandon their cookie cutter low-density cul-de-sacs and move into multi-unit buildings in the dense urban core. They are but victims of the tyrannical inner greenbelt bureaucrats!

[GeoNerd]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

We certainly need a review of the Greenbelt. Certain areas near highways and transit should be developed. Once we identify these areas that can be redeveloped without impacting the integrity of the natural attributes and active farms, the rest should be protected as a National Urban Park.

Absolute none of the greenbelt should be developed in any way. In fact it should be thoroughly reforested and renaturalized. Developing areas near highways is probably the worst idea. Exactly what areas would you suggest be developed? It’s a slippery slope that is lazy and shortsighted.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by GeoNerd

Ah yes, the old “blame the inner-city” Schtick. Because if the urban centre allowed more density the suburbanites would magically abandon their cookie cutter low-density cul-de-sacs and move into multi-unit buildings in the dense urban core. They are but victims of the tyrannical inner greenbelt bureaucrats!

If suburban homes are what people truly want then the Greenbelts will do absolutely nothing to stop sprawl. Not only that the political pressure of this democracy will cause them to disappear regardless of what may be best.

If it's a case of circumstance that these sprawling suburbs are the only homes people can afford, then cities most allow densities at levels that are viable to build at. To which cities have not done, Toronto, Ottawa, and Vancouver all have their own version of a yellow belt that stops, delays and generally makes infill impossible. They also ask do there best to make sure any infill that is allowed is restricted to the a small area of the places that do allow it.

So yeah it's either were not going to stop sprawl or Urban centres are going to need to allow further density. (I also didn't state inner city)

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by GeoNerd

Absolute none of the greenbelt should be developed in any way. In fact it should be thoroughly reforested and renaturalized. Developing areas near highways is probably the worst idea. Exactly what areas would you suggest be developed? It’s a slippery slope that is lazy and shortsighted.

For starters, this area NW of Fallowfield Station should 100% be a high-density mixed-use development, with easy access to a VIA Rail Station and BRT Station (future LRT).



Is it nice farmland? Sure. But so is a lot of the other property that has been added to the urban boundary at the edge of the City. And that other property is much more difficult to service for transportation, water, and sewer.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

For starters, this area NW of Fallowfield Station should 100% be a high-density mixed-use development, with easy access to a VIA Rail Station and BRT Station (future LRT).


Is it nice farmland? Sure. But so is a lot of the other property that has been added to the urban boundary at the edge of the City. And that other property is much more difficult to service for transportation, water, and sewer.

Agree 100%. I would try to capture some of this with a one time tax for the farmland that suddenly becomes worth 10X but don't see why greenbelt farmland deserves protection. We have lots of farmland and overall it's reverting to forest as we don't need all the marginal land we have.

Originally Posted by GeoNerd

Ah yes, the old “blame the inner-city” Schtick. Because if the urban centre allowed more density the suburbanites would magically abandon their cookie cutter low-density cul-de-sacs and move into multi-unit buildings in the dense urban core. They are but victims of the tyrannical inner greenbelt bureaucrats!

I of course support a lot more density everywhere but I don't it will have any measurable impact on suburban prices. People want four walls and a patch of grass. Will settle for townhouse for a few years to get into the market but even that is a stepping stone.

[OTSkyline]

The greenbelt in Ottawa was an absolute failure.

The thing that people don't understand is, sure we're "protecting" the land in the greenbelt, but instead we're just development and razing down forested or nature land at the end of city limits (expansion of south Orleans, Kanata/Stittsville, Barrhaven, etc).

It's just a swap, we're not actually stopping, discouraging or slowing down sprawl. We're just relocating it. And that sprawl (at the edge of the city) is much more expensive (extending utilities, expanding size & boundaries, increased traffic & travelling distances).

[GeoNerd]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

If suburban homes are what people truly want then the Greenbelts will do absolutely nothing to stop sprawl. Not only that the political pressure of this democracy will cause them to disappear regardless of what may be best.

Putting aside the multiple decades of the “Canadian dream” indoctrination where everyone is promised their own single family home with a lawn. If given the choice between owning a tax payer subsidized SFH on a quiet street outside the city that is catered to driving personal automobiles, vs. an apartment in the “urban centre”, of course many if not most will chose the SFH. That’s a no brainer. But you’re missing the fact that it’s subsidized and not sustainable. If given the same choice but property taxes were 7x that of the urban centre and personal automobile transportation was much more difficult, I think you’d find a different outcome.

[GeoNerd]

Originally Posted by OTSkyline

The greenbelt in Ottawa was an absolute failure.

The thing that people don't understand is, sure we're "protecting" the land in the greenbelt, but instead we're just development and razing down forested or nature land at the end of city limits (expansion of south Orleans, Kanata/Stittsville, Barrhaven, etc).

It's just a swap, we're not actually stopping, discouraging or slowing down sprawl. We're just relocating it. And that sprawl (at the edge of the city) is much more expensive (extending utilities, expanding size & boundaries, increased traffic & travelling distances).

The greenbelt is not a failure. The local government that continuously allows suburban low density development outside the greenbelt and the lemmings that keep buying the poorly built cookie cutter homes are the failure. Don’t blame a protected green-space for policy failures. Also, you imply that the only intent of the greenbelt is to stop urban sprawl. Which is incorrect. Greenbelts have numerous benefits, controlling sprawl is only one of them.

[GeoNerd]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

For starters, this area NW of Fallowfield Station should 100% be a high-density mixed-use development, with easy access to a VIA Rail Station and BRT Station (future LRT).



Is it nice farmland? Sure. But so is a lot of the other property that has been added to the urban boundary at the edge of the City. And that other property is much more difficult to service for transportation, water, and sewer.

Oh, so NOW we’re going to build a nice high-density suburban development. LOL. This time will be different I swear! And what happens when that chunk is gone? Then onto the next piece of greenbelt. We’ll just keep chipping away at it until it’s gone. Sorry, that’s not how this works.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

For starters, this area NW of Fallowfield Station should 100% be a high-density mixed-use development, with easy access to a VIA Rail Station and BRT Station (future LRT).

Is it nice farmland? Sure. But so is a lot of the other property that has been added to the urban boundary at the edge of the City. And that other property is much more difficult to service for transportation, water, and sewer.

That's the sort of example I was thinking as well.

Build over farmland in rural areas or within the Greenbelt, it's all the same. Areas adjacent to planned transit stations can be redeveloped. Land within 500-1000 meters of the planned station near Nepean Sportsplex is another example.

In any case, the Greenbelt's goal was not to restrict sprawl, but to create semi-independent cities around Ottawa. It sort of worked for Kanata, but not the other communities.

[AR-OTT]

Yeah, it would be really disappointing to see farmers fields adjacent to rapid transit. Other examples not mentioned above include:

• The area south of Moodie Station (potentially connected by MUP bridge over the 417)
• The area around Eagleson Station (stage 3) both north and south of the highway

If these farmers fields turned TOD projects were successful, there is also potential for future infill stations:

• Between Moodie and Eagleson station
• Between Fallowfield and Nepean Sportsplex station
• Between Montreal and Jeanne d'Arc station

If the NCC agreed to sell land to the city for TOD there could be an agreement to renaturalize 1 acre of farmland for every 1 acre of farmland developed.

Small dense 15 minute satellite neighborhoods connected to (already existing) high order transit is surely a better way to grow than urban boundary expansion.