HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #441  
Old Posted May 8, 2020, 1:45 PM
TransitZilla TransitZilla is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by Multi-modal View Post
This one seems the most out of place on first glance, but it is my favourite. It is looking westward from Alta Vista, showing a densified Pleasant Park corridor leading to high-density around the Pleasant Park Transitway Station.

I think I have mentioned this before, but Pleasant Park Transitway Station makes the planner in me cry every time I pass it. Specifically, 136 Pleasant Park Road. That property is absolutely massive - trapezoidal in shape but can be approximated as a 65m x 50m square (meters, not ft) so 3,250m^2. It is DIRECTLY next the Transitway Station. It currently has a single, boring bungalow on it. Just to give you an idea, the same size of property fits 24 3-storey townhomes on it in the new Greystone development. IT IS ZONED R1 .

But that is just one property in the area - 2030 and 2036 Cabot Street are also massive. The fact that the area around Pleasant Park Station is still zoned R1 makes me just not take any of the bullshit language on Transit Oriented Development that spews out of the City Planning department seriously. Go eat a lemon Alta Vista and all the other areas in the City that receive special treatment for infuriating historical and political non-reasons.

/ENDRANT
I agree. I wonder if significant intensification around Pleasant Park station is possible without grade-separating the VIA crossing?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #442  
Old Posted May 8, 2020, 1:56 PM
Aylmer's Avatar
Aylmer Aylmer is offline
Still optimistic
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Montreal (C-D-N) / Ottawa (Aylmer)
Posts: 5,408
I don't see why not. Beyond the occasional annoyance of crossing arms, there's nothing about it which would prevent some of those bungalows from turning into into a triplex.
__________________
I've always struggled with reality. And I'm pleased to say that I won.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #443  
Old Posted May 8, 2020, 2:32 PM
Ottawa Champ Ottawa Champ is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 105
The Pleasant Park example is a prime example of why city staff "feels" that the city is not ready for a greater rate of intensification. The city does not want to upset certain privileged pockets of residents by changing the status quo.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #444  
Old Posted May 8, 2020, 2:50 PM
stolenottawa stolenottawa is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Multi-modal View Post
This one seems the most out of place on first glance, but it is my favourite. It is looking westward from Alta Vista, showing a densified Pleasant Park corridor leading to high-density around the Pleasant Park Transitway Station.

I think I have mentioned this before, but Pleasant Park Transitway Station makes the planner in me cry every time I pass it. Specifically, 136 Pleasant Park Road. That property is absolutely massive - trapezoidal in shape but can be approximated as a 65m x 50m square (meters, not ft) so 3,250m^2. It is DIRECTLY next the Transitway Station. It currently has a single, boring bungalow on it. Just to give you an idea, the same size of property fits 24 3-storey townhomes on it in the new Greystone development. IT IS ZONED R1 .

But that is just one property in the area - 2030 and 2036 Cabot Street are also massive. The fact that the area around Pleasant Park Station is still zoned R1 makes me just not take any of the bullshit language on Transit Oriented Development that spews out of the City Planning department seriously. Go eat a lemon Alta Vista and all the other areas in the City that receive special treatment for infuriating historical and political non-reasons.

/ENDRANT
It's weird, there are 4 or 5 apartment buildings at the start of Blossom near Kilborn. Not sure how that happened.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #445  
Old Posted May 8, 2020, 3:11 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 27,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradnixon View Post
I agree. I wonder if significant intensification around Pleasant Park station is possible without grade-separating the VIA crossing?
TOD aside, VIA should be grade separating all crossing in urban center in anticipation for HFR.

The City's focus seems to be encouraging TOD along existing an future O-Train lines, but they have to do the same along the Transitway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #446  
Old Posted May 8, 2020, 3:14 PM
passwordisnt123 passwordisnt123 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Ottawa (Centretown)
Posts: 643
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ottawa Champ View Post
The Pleasant Park example is a prime example of why city staff "feels" that the city is not ready for a greater rate of intensification. The city does not want to upset certain privileged pockets of residents by changing the status quo.
I think that's 100% right on. Well said. More importantly though, I think that raises a really important question that I don't think I've seen discussed anywhere.

In the federal public service, we're obligated to give fact-based, non-partisan advice to political leaders. If political leaders want to disregard the advice or ask for something different, that's their prerogative. But it's our job to give the best possible non-partisan advice first and force them to get back to us if they disagree.

The whole urban boundary expansion shows that the municipal public service, at least in Ottawa, is badly broken. If developers are financing political officeholders' re-election campaigns (which, duh, obviously they are), that's one thing. But that shouldn't be a consideration that city staff makes when they give their recommendation. The recommendation from city staff should be based on the best principles and practices from the field of urban design and urban planning.

But what we've seen especially with the urban boundary issue is that city staff are short-circuiting this process by pre-emptively giving politicians the recommendations they want to hear even if they go against almost a half century of urban planning evidence to the contrary. I've heard from more than one person who work in non-political roles at City Hall backing up that this is the case too.

If the municipal public service wasn't so broken, their unbiased advice would be given and if Watson or Harder or any of the suburban councillors want to sprawl their way into the good graces of land speculators or the development industry who finance their campaigns, let them carry the water themselves for their patrons. Let them stand up and proudly say they're against smart growth. Let them stand up and say they're for more crappy sprawl. Let them eat that shit sandwich and own it.

But now they don't even need to do that dirty work themselves. They get to just accept the recommendation as a fait accompli.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #447  
Old Posted May 8, 2020, 4:15 PM
Ottawa Champ Ottawa Champ is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.OT13 View Post
TOD aside, VIA should be grade separating all crossing in urban center in anticipation for HFR.

The City's focus seems to be encouraging TOD along existing an future O-Train lines, but they have to do the same along the Transitway.
Especially since it is such a short hop to Hurdman along the SE transitway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #448  
Old Posted May 8, 2020, 4:17 PM
Ottawa Champ Ottawa Champ is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by passwordisnt123 View Post
I think that's 100% right on. Well said. More importantly though, I think that raises a really important question that I don't think I've seen discussed anywhere.

In the federal public service, we're obligated to give fact-based, non-partisan advice to political leaders. If political leaders want to disregard the advice or ask for something different, that's their prerogative. But it's our job to give the best possible non-partisan advice first and force them to get back to us if they disagree.

The whole urban boundary expansion shows that the municipal public service, at least in Ottawa, is badly broken. If developers are financing political officeholders' re-election campaigns (which, duh, obviously they are), that's one thing. But that shouldn't be a consideration that city staff makes when they give their recommendation. The recommendation from city staff should be based on the best principles and practices from the field of urban design and urban planning.

But what we've seen especially with the urban boundary issue is that city staff are short-circuiting this process by pre-emptively giving politicians the recommendations they want to hear even if they go against almost a half century of urban planning evidence to the contrary. I've heard from more than one person who work in non-political roles at City Hall backing up that this is the case too.

If the municipal public service wasn't so broken, their unbiased advice would be given and if Watson or Harder or any of the suburban councillors want to sprawl their way into the good graces of land speculators or the development industry who finance their campaigns, let them carry the water themselves for their patrons. Let them stand up and proudly say they're against smart growth. Let them stand up and say they're for more crappy sprawl. Let them eat that shit sandwich and own it.

But now they don't even need to do that dirty work themselves. They get to just accept the recommendation as a fait accompli.
It is infuriating.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #449  
Old Posted May 8, 2020, 4:44 PM
Gat-Train Gat-Train is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketphish View Post
'Vast gulf' in urban boundary battle as poll suggests people OK with expansion

Jon Willing, Ottawa Citizen
Publishing date: 2 hours ago • 4 minute read




A poll commissioned by one of Ottawa’s big development lobbyists illustrates the mountain small community groups have to climb if they’re going to convince city council to refuse a staff recommendation to expand the urban boundary.

Robb Barnes, the executive director of Ecology Ottawa, observed the “vast gulf in resources between the two sides” of the urban boundary fight, which, at an organizational level, has environmental groups and community associations up against homebuilders.

The city’s planning department is recommending the addition of between 1,350 and 1,650 hectares of land inside the urban boundary as part of writing a new official plan. Councillors on two land-use committees will make a recommendation on the urban boundary at the end of a virtual joint meeting Monday.

Ecology Ottawa and other community groups want to stop the expansion of the urban boundary. However, the homebuilding industry thinks the city is proposing an overly ambitious intensification target and believes even more land should be added inside the urban boundary.

There’s another challenge for groups pushing for a freeze on the urban boundary: it seems people are okay with an increase to the suburban development area.

The Greater Ottawa Home Builders’ Association (GOHBA) paid EKOS Research to see how local residents view the housing market and the future of residential development.

Results of a survey of 770 adults suggested 43 per cent of people support having more low-rise homes and multi-unit housing coupled with “some” urban boundary expansion. Thirty-two per cent said they preferred the same types of homes in their neighbourhood and “more” boundary expansion, while 20 per cent want “more tall buildings to avoid boundary expansion.”

EKOS conducted the online survey between April 15 and April 23 using a randomly selected research panel and released the results Thursday. The margin of error is +/- 3.5 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Frank Graves, president of EKOS, said people generally aren’t engaged in arguments about where new homes should be built when it comes to the urban boundary debate.

“I think the issue of intensification versus boundary expansion is not the way the public would think about this,” Graves said.

“The critical issue driving all of this is acute anxieties of affordability.”

The EKOS research shows people are skeptical that the next generation will be able to afford homes in Ottawa. For people surveyed who have an opinion on the issue, they would rather drive to a nearby town to buy a home rather than renting inside the city if Ottawa housing prices keep rising.

When it comes to how the city should make sure there’s enough housing, 59 per cent indicated a “balance” of land expansion and intensification and 23 per cent said the new homes should be in existing areas, while 13 per cent thought new communities in surrounding areas was the best approach.

Opinions on where new homes should be built differ in the city’s regions, according to the EKOS research.

“If you’re living downtown, you’re more likely to want to have new homes in existing neighbourhoods, but when you move out to Kanata and rural areas, you see a lot more receptiveness to new communities in surrounding areas,” Graves said.

Graves said people’s concerns about the environment are also captured in the research, with green space in developments placing second in an open-ended question about the most important issues facing the city in the next official plan.

Barnes said the EKOS research highlights real concerns about housing affordability, but he doesn’t believe the answer is expanding the urban boundary, partly because it will be expensive for city taxpayers to run more municipal services to far-flung communities.

The city staff report supporting a mixed intensification and urban boundary scenario has “huge gaps” on the costs and the greenhouse gas implications of suburban sprawl, Barnes said.

The COVID-19 restrictions have changed how advocacy groups are mobilizing this year compared to past urban boundary controversies at city hall.

These days, with the possibility of large-scale demonstrations impossible, public opposition and support can only be gauged by posts and banter on the internet. City council members can also judge who’s speaking the loudest through emails, calls and petitions.

Barnes said a petition to stop expanding the urban boundary has about 3,000 names.

Ecology Ottawa would be knocking on doors in the suburbs if not for the public health crisis, Barnes said.

The battle might appear lopsided.

On one side, the development lobby is drawing up intensification maps, buying ads and commissioning research.

“On the other side, you’ve got small little nonprofits. It’s purely volunteer driven,” Barnes said as Ecology Ottawa and other like-minded groups and individuals prepared for a “live online rally” Friday.

“On the other hand,” he said, “I think we’ve got the people power.”

[email protected]
twitter.com/JonathanWilling

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local...-29bc58832a66/
Fuck no. No more sprawl. There's already so much land to build in.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #450  
Old Posted May 8, 2020, 11:00 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,252
Leiper-Moffat Zoom Debate/Panel, Saturday night at 7
https://twitter.com/ScottMoffatt21/s...657939459?s=19
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #451  
Old Posted May 9, 2020, 12:08 PM
Proof Sheet Proof Sheet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterloowarrior View Post
Leiper-Moffat Zoom Debate/Panel, Saturday night at 7
https://twitter.com/ScottMoffatt21/s...657939459?s=19
I've met with both of them and honestly, they have picked the cream of the crop in terms of the opposite sides of the equation. People like McKenney and Menard are idealistic dreamers who think that all developers are poison (I'd like to know who built their homes, there places of work before they were at the public trough if indeed that occurred) and then there are others on the other side of the coin who are not particularly deep thinkers.

Will this debate recorded on YouTube or similar to watch at a time of our choosing.

Leiper ran a meeting presenting a new development at Churchill/Wellington via Zoom a few days ago that was on YouTube later.

Leiper and Moffatt are amongst the more likable members of the current Council.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #452  
Old Posted May 9, 2020, 1:14 PM
JayBuoy JayBuoy is offline
Registered Loser
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proof Sheet View Post
I've met with both of them and honestly, they have picked the cream of the crop in terms of the opposite sides of the equation. People like McKenney and Menard are idealistic dreamers who think that all developers are poison (I'd like to know who built their homes, there places of work before they were at the public trough if indeed that occurred)
"hmm yes, you say you don't like developers, yet you live in a house built by developers! I am very intelligent"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #453  
Old Posted May 10, 2020, 5:12 PM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is offline
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Greater Ottawa
Posts: 14,200
Ottawa should boldly go where the Official Plan actually suggests

Brigitte Pellerin
Publishing date: 5 hours ago • 3 minute read


Challenges and setbacks do not build character, it’s often said. They reveal it. And I’m sorry to say the current pandemic is making it hard to deny that our municipal government is controlled by Timidity World Champions.

You know who’s bold? The French government, which agreed to a significant bailout of Air France, badly hurt by COVID-19, on the condition that the airline cancel domestic flights between cities where rail service is available.

Here, by sorry contrast, we’re still debating whether to open up more than a few short bits of roadway so pedestrians and cyclists can have safe areas to be outside and exercise while practising physical distancing. Even Toronto is taking action on this, for crying out loud.

And don’t get me started on the expansion of the urban boundary. It’s obvious we need more housing to accommodate the growth in population everybody expects in the next decade or two. But does it have to mean more sprawl — again — just because that’s the path of least resistance?

Sprawl is terrible for the planet, and it’s not great for humans either. Low-density, car-dependent neighbourhoods are perfectly designed to make people unhealthy and stressed out. Going with more of what we know doesn’t work is not leadership.

People need all kinds of housing options and if living closer to nature than Parliament Hill is your thing, who am I to tell you otherwise? But by the same token you don’t have a right to impose the external costs of your choice (road congestion, effects of climate) on everyone else.

What we need in order to deal with this growth quandary is to be bold, and stick to a few simple principles.

The city absolutely can, and should, enforce density even in outlying areas. Set a limit on the percentage of single-family homes in a given area, and set it low. Build more duplexes, triplexes and larger multi-family units. Not towers; those are awful, even downtown. Rather, insist on gentle density, with buildings that house between four and 20 families. Have a mix of them, with plenty of green spaces as well as jobs, shops and services you can easily walk or bike to.

It’s a principle known as the “15-minute neighbourhood” and it happens to be in our updated Official Plan. One thing this pandemic is teaching us is that we don’t need to move around so much to be productive. We should be able to get everything we need, more or less, right around the corner.

I’ve lived long enough to know we won’t get there unless we’re forced to, so I say it’s high time to make it more costly and unpleasant for commuters to drive themselves to work downtown. That means congestion pricing and the gradual removal of parking spaces downtown — these to be replaced with parks, patios, walkable shopping districts, bike lanes, pop-up bookshops, outdoor art galleries and so on.

Have an aggressive plan to improve public transit so it becomes lovely and convenient to travel that way, including a few “bike highways” for the hardier among us, for whom pedalling 20 km to work and back every day of the year sounds like fun. Think of how much more pleasant multi-use pathways will become once we get aggressive cyclists out of there.

That, too, is in the updated Official Plan: to have the majority of trips made using sustainable transportation by the 2040s. Why on Earth would we put that in the plan and then not dare do anything to make it happen?

Ottawa is growing, whether we like it or not. We need to be a welcoming place where people of all income brackets can find decent housing and get to where they need to be in good time without ruining the climate and public spaces for everyone. Timid half-measures won’t cut it. We need to screw our Bold Hat onto our collective noggin and find the nerve to proceed according to plan.

Brigitte Pellerin is an Ottawa writer.

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/pe...-d9eb7724aae4/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #454  
Old Posted May 11, 2020, 11:32 AM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is offline
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Greater Ottawa
Posts: 14,200
An unusual urban boundary fight lands, virtually, at city hall Monday

Jon Willing, Ottawa Citizen
Publishing date: 1 hour ago • 4 minute read


City councillors will take the first step on Monday in deciding how much land, if any, should be pumped into the urban boundary as the city plans for nearly 30 years of growth.

It could be the most contentious issue of council’s four-year term, since debates over the pace of urban sprawl, the impact of intensification and price of housing tend to draw emotion from those who closely watch municipal planning decisions.

There will be no protests outside Ottawa City Hall. Public galleries won’t be packed with upset residents. The lengthy meeting will happen electronically, with councillors participating through video conference and deputations who have pre-registered making their cases directly to the politicians.

The virtual meeting with participation from public delegates will be a first for Ottawa’s municipal government.

Whatever the committee decides will be sent to city council for approval on May 27.

New to the urban boundary clash? Here’s what you need to know.

What is the urban boundary?

The urban boundary contains land that is ready for development with municipal infrastructure, like water connections and major roads, or might receive those services. At it’s most basic, the urban boundary is the line where suburban communities end and rural Ottawa begins. Expanding the urban boundary means expanding development into the rural area.

Why would the city need to adjust the urban boundary?

The city is refreshing the official plan, so it needs to figure out where new homes should be built over a 28-year period that started in July 2018. The city figures 402,000 more people will live in Ottawa by July 2046 and those residents will need places to live. It comes down to whether the land inside the current urban boundary will be enough to construct new homes and offer a range in types of homes, or if there needs to be more development land added to the fringes of the suburbs.

Why does it bring so much controversy?

Urban sprawl is a major environmental issue and environmental advocates consider any expansion to the urban boundary a disaster because it adds more cars on clogged roads, bulldozes natural land while potentially adding costs to the property tax base. Ottawa, thanks to the 2001 amalgamation, is geographically huge and residents benefit from a large undeveloped area outside the urban boundary. At the same time, homebuilders invest in land and respond to the demand for housing types in the market. A short supply of one type of in-demand housing could drive up prices.

What is the city’s proposal?

The city’s planning department recommends adding between 1,350 and 1,650 hectares of development land inside an expanded urban boundary. Under the proposal, the city would have a goal of adding 51 per cent of all residential growth within the built-up area, with the rest happening on vacant lands eligible for development in the suburban areas and properties in the expanded urban boundary.

What are the other options considered by the city?

City planners are rejecting two other scenarios: one that freezes the current urban boundary and increases the intensification target to 64 per cent, and another that continues with the current 45-per-cent intensification target but would require between 1,930 and 2,230 hectares more of land inside the urban boundary. The city says it’s recommended option is a “balanced scenario.”

If the urban boundary expands, where would the new development lands be added?

It wouldn’t be until later this year that the city decides where the boundary will push out. However, council this month will be asked to approve the criteria the city proposes to use in deciding which properties to bring inside the boundary. In the proposed scoring, the city is emphasizing the availability and proximity of rapid transit.

Who’s against the city’s recommendation?

Environmental advocates and the development industry both oppose the staff proposal, but for different reasons. More than 500 people on Friday were watching Ecology Ottawa’s “online rally” opposing an urban-boundary expansion. Advocates who oppose an expanded urban boundary want the city to grow through intensification on existing lands. On the other end of the spectrum are developers, such as those represented by the Greater Ottawa Home Builders’ Association, which wants an even larger expansion of the urban boundary and a smaller intensification target.

Cost to taxpayers is often cited as a reason to freeze the urban boundary. Has the city crunched the numbers?

We asked the planning department. Stephen Willis, the general manager of planning and infrastructure, said: “The financial analysis of the official plan will flow from the supporting infrastructure, transportation and parks master plans that will detail the required infrastructure, upgrades, and facilities, their costs, and how it will be financed between growth (development charges) and the tax base as legislation does not allow municipalities to fully recover the costs associated with growth. Increased intensification will also have costs that need to be analysed based on the approved growth management strategy.”

Is there fear suburban sprawl will march into the rural villages?

The city is maintaining a one-kilometre buffer around villages to protect those unique communities. The one exception is the eastern village of Notre-Dame-des-Champs, which the city points out is already surrounded by homes.

Which councillors get to vote at the joint committee meeting?

Only councillors who are members of the planning committee and agriculture and rural affairs committee will vote on a recommendation. They are: Jan Harder, Eli El-Chantiry, Glen Gower, Riley Brockington, Rick Chiarelli, George Darouze, Laura Dudas, Allan Hubley, Jeff Leiper, Carol Anne Meehan, Scott Moffatt and Tim Tierney.

[email protected]
twitter.com/JonathanWilling

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local...-7fbeca0ddfd1/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #455  
Old Posted May 11, 2020, 11:46 AM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is offline
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Greater Ottawa
Posts: 14,200
The urban boundary debate is vitally important, so should it happen online?
Monday's virtual committee meeting a test of untried process at city hall

Joanne Chianello · CBC News
Posted: May 09, 2020 4:00 AM ET | Last Updated: May 9


There have been many firsts in Ottawa's municipal arena during these COVID-19 days, from virtual council meetings to Zoom news conferences to online community open houses.

On Friday, the latest "first" came from Ecology Ottawa and a number of other groups, which held an online rally to call for holding the urban boundary steady.

As far as rallies go, it lacked chanted slogans and crowds waving placards. But while it didn't have the visual and audible impact an offline rally might, it did attract more than 500 people. Who can remember the last time an in-person rally attracted that many people to city hall?

The rally is in advance of one of the most important firsts ever at city hall — a major policy debate Monday that will occur online, with public delegations phoning in their comments

The once-in-a-decade issue is the urban boundary expansion, a policy decision that will literally affect the growth of this city for decades to come.

The crux of the argument is this: the city says we need to add 181,000 homes to the city in the next 25 years or so.

The hold-the-liners want those new homes to be accommodated in existing neighbourhoods and on empty land already approved for residential development.

The city's planners — and Mayor Jim Watson — don't believe residents or builders are prepared for the sort of change communities would undergo if the boundary remained steady. Instead, they're advocating to add up to 1,650 hectares to Ottawa's urban edges.

More than 23,000 new homes would be built in these newly urbanized areas.

And home builders have suggested that even 1,650 hectares won't be enough to absorb Ottawa's growing population, which the city forecasts at 1.4 million by 2046.

Add in serious questions about housing affordability — there are many points of contention about how, or even if, border expansion affects house prices — plus rising infrastructure costs in a spreading city, some communities' unwillingness to accept dramatic change, and whether expanding the urban boundary squares with the city's declaration of a climate emergency, and you've got yourself one messy policy debate.

It's hard to imagine, then, why anyone thought the urban boundary debate would be the ideal test-case for something the city has never tried in its history.

Everyone is figuring out how to live with the COVID-19 pandemic, including city hall, where councillors have met for three virtual council meetings so far.

They went fine, but the public isn't allowed to participate at council the way they are at committee. When council voted in late March to allow virtual committee meetings, it directed staff to figure out how to let the public speak, starting with the one on the urban boundary.

The rules for the virtual meeting will be more stringent than in-person meetings. If you want to give your five-minute deputation, you have to register online by 9 a.m. Monday, before the meeting starts. In so-called normal times, members of the public could keep signing up to speak right through the meeting, until councillors began debating.

And if you can't or are not inclined to register online, you could have done so by phone or email —but that deadline was Friday evening.

The mayor argued on CBC's Ottawa Morning this week that sharing one's opinions virtually actually makes it "easier for the public to participate in the process, simply because you don't have to go and get daycare, you don't have to pay for parking or come down to city hall."

He may have a point: as of Friday evening, a whopping 150 people had signed up to speak — and that's on top of the 150 who've already sent in written comments. The last time we saw that kind of action at city hall was for the Salvation Army debate, which spanned three exceedingly long days.

Coun. Shawn Menard, who's been calling for the urban boundary to remain steady, said at Friday's rally: "This vote really shouldn't be happening at this moment."

He argued more time is needed to question many of the assumptions made in the staff recommendations, from the financial implications of expanding the boundary to the declaration that the public wouldn't accept intensification.

But perhaps another reason the vote shouldn't happen is because it's a major policy decision being made in the most unusual times most of us have lived through.

Yes, there's been a year of consultations. And the city says more than 45,000 people "have been reached." The report's been out for three weeks — longer than is legally required — but during a time when we are preoccupied with a dramatic and stressful pandemic.

The city has argued that the urban boundary question must be decided soon because it paves the way for other major policies that follow, including the official plan and transportation master plan updates. But city manager Steve Kanellakos mentioned recently the transportation plan work may have to be put off anyway, due to COVID-19 related constraints facing staff.

So what's the rush?

In fact, there is no legal reason this decision needs to be made now. Council put off a byelection for months, so it could certainly have given the public a bit more time to adjust to the COVID-19 reality, to start paying attention to issues other than handwashing and physical distancing.

At the very least, it could have chosen a less vital issue with which to experiment with an untested democratic process.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottaw...rmat-1.5561471
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #456  
Old Posted May 11, 2020, 1:43 PM
OTownandDown OTownandDown is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 1,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.OT13 View Post
I'm not talking about mass expropriation for pennies on the dollar. The little crappy houses in Mechanicsville will go for $600,000+ a piece. No one's losing their livelihood over it. What I'm saying is that we need to look at it from an environmental perspective. Waste is a serious issue in our society and demolishing thousands of character houses surrounded by trees that could last another 100+ years for cheaply built triplexes of chip-board and plastic siding is counter-productive. It's a waste of natural resources.

A lot of those larger houses in older neighbourhoods could be divided into 2 or 3 units, providing more affordable housing (affordable as in, not ridiculously expensive like the individual units in the shitty looking, cheaply built triplexes) while still preserving a link to the past.

Montreal and Toronto are capable of preserving older character neighborhoods and main streets, even those around subway lines, while still densifying in other areas where there is less worth preserving. We can do the same.
There are always a few houses on a block that aren't doing so well, and should be replaced. It happens in every neighbourhood already anyways, ESPECIALLY the Glebe. There are mega-houses in there that were built within the last 5 years. I'd say up to 5% of the entire stock? Why can't we follow Japan and allow medium-density residential within downtown neighbourhoods?

BTW, are those renderings from the home builder's association meant to scare us into believing suburban housing is the answer? Or is it intended to show the City why development should continue within the existing? I think they're friggin' awesome. Finally someone can show us what it would be like if we allowed development!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #457  
Old Posted May 11, 2020, 2:40 PM
phil235's Avatar
phil235 phil235 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by OTownandDown View Post
There are always a few houses on a block that aren't doing so well, and should be replaced. It happens in every neighbourhood already anyways, ESPECIALLY the Glebe. There are mega-houses in there that were built within the last 5 years. I'd say up to 5% of the entire stock? Why can't we follow Japan and allow medium-density residential within downtown neighbourhoods?

BTW, are those renderings from the home builder's association meant to scare us into believing suburban housing is the answer? Or is it intended to show the City why development should continue within the existing? I think they're friggin' awesome. Finally someone can show us what it would be like if we allowed development!
So my house is actually in the diagram for the Glebe, and I'm not particularly scared by the thought of some mid-rise happening through the neighbourhood. The Glebe is reasonably dense already, but I can see it achieving targets with some smart infill. That said, I agree with J.OT13. There is real value in protecting the housing stock that exists, heritage designation or not. There is all sorts of infill that can be done without razing perfectly good houses, and that should take priority.

The Fotenn diagram is a bit of a scare tactic in my opinion. While I'm not terrified of mid-rise buildings mixed in with single family housing on residential streets, the way they have randomly dropped buildings in the middle of streets in non-sensical. In the diagram showing my house, they have ignored vacant lots, parking and gas stations and put larger mid-rise on top of existing housing (semis in my case). Between the vacant lots and parking just on Bronson and Bank, and corner lots that already have smaller multi-unit buildings, it would be possible to create thousands of new housing units in the Glebe without touching existing housing on the side streets. We should be developing policies to promote that kind of common-sense intensification, rather than raising the spectre of random intensification speckled haphazardly through the neighbourhoods.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #458  
Old Posted May 11, 2020, 4:08 PM
Gat-Train Gat-Train is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 508
NOOOOOOOO you can't just destroy mature neighbourhoods to put in giant ugly glass monoliths!!!

haha condo crane go brrrr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #459  
Old Posted May 11, 2020, 11:56 PM
Truenorth00 Truenorth00 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 28,370
When is the vote? And is there a way to find out how my councillor voted?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #460  
Old Posted May 12, 2020, 2:43 AM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is offline
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Greater Ottawa
Posts: 14,200
More than 100 deputations sign up in virtual meeting on urban boundary size

Jon Willing, Ottawa Citizen
Publishing date: 2 hours ago • 3 minute read


More than 100 people wanted to tell councillors Monday how city hall should manage the city’s growth during a one-of-a-kind meeting on residential intensification in existing communities and the size of the urban boundary.

It was the first time councillors heard from the public deputations during a live-streamed video meeting of a council committee made necessary during the COVID-19 pandemic. The meeting started just after 9 a.m., but councillors heard deputations into the evening hours and will continue Tuesday morning.

Members of the planning committee and agriculture and rural affairs committee were tasked with deciding whether council should accept a proposal by the city’s planning department to push the urban boundary to accommodate 1,350-1,650 hectares of more development land in the suburbs and set a new-home intensification target of 51 per cent.

The arguments cut three ways: skepticism from some in the development industry that the city can’t meet the proposed intensification goal, opposition to expanding the urban boundary and acceptance of the staff recommendation.

The deputations kicked off with Lynn Clouthier, a negotiation representative of the Algonquins of Ontario, which backed the staff recommendation to proceed with a “balanced” approach to intensifying development and expanding the urban boundary.

The Algonquins will be significant landowners in Ottawa after a settlement treaty with the Crown, Clouthier said, and they will be “seeking partnerships and consideration in the development of lands within urban areas.”

However, Peter Norman of Altus Group, which has been doing land economics work for the local homebuilders’ association, told councillors the city’s intensification target “may be extremely difficult to achieve,” especially when it comes to adding homes with ground-level access.

Claridge Homes chief financial officer Neil Malhotra warned councillors about an overly ambitious intensification target — and that’s coming from a company that has done healthy business building high-rise buildings in the downtown area. The market demand will ultimately dictate where the new homes are built, Malhotra said. (He noted Claridge has land holdings in the rural area).

On the other hand, Greenspace Alliance Capital of Canada chair Paul Johanis emphasized the importance of protecting the natural environment by stopping urban sprawl, borrowing the pandemic-era phrase of “flattening the curve” on climate change.

“We know that we have to act and we know what the cost of delay is,” Johanis said.

The city’s challenge is predicting the market demand for certain housing types, such as single-family homes, low-rise building units and high-rise units, and providing the right amount of development land.

An exchange between Coun. Carol Anne Meehan and Ecology Ottawa executive director Robb Barnes touched on one particular conundrum: if the city schedules all growth into intensification projects and holds the urban boundary, what does it say to families who want to have a single-family home, perhaps with a backyard and driveway, in the suburbs?

Barnes said the city hasn’t successfully addressed the idea of creating more apartment-style homes for families.

In his deputation, Daniel Buckles, representing the People’s Official Plan for Ottawa’s Climate Emergency, said keeping the current urban boundary will “stimulate innovation” in the development industry.

Even the city’s best projections can be influenced by things out of the control of staff.

Coun. Jeff Leiper pointed to one “elephant in the room,” the COVID-19 pandemic, and how it could inform the market and the demand in housing type.

The city’s intensification target of 51 per cent over a 28-year period, which started in 2018, still calls for plenty of homes not in tall multi-unit buildings.

The city is planning for 195,000 more homes and of those, 182,000 of them are expected to be built in urban area, with the rest built in the rural area.

Of the future 182,000 urban-area homes, 29 per cent are expected to be apartment-style homes and 71 per cent built as “ground-orientated homes,” like single-family homes, semi-detached homes and rowhouses.

Cyndi Rottenberg-Walker, a partner at Toronto-based Urban Strategies, which advised the City of Ottawa during the early part of the current official plan project, credited the city for creating an ambitious intensification proposal, but she called on the city to smartly build new suburban neighbourhoods on new development lands.

“New community development doesn’t not have to equate to sprawl,” Rottenberg-Walker said.

[email protected]
twitter.com/JonathanWilling

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local...-3aaa8da0179b/
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:38 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.