Ottawa's Official Plan Update

[Ottawa Champ]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

When is the vote? And is there a way to find out how my councillor voted?

There are really only 2-3 councillors that are "Wildcard" votes. The rest will be very predictable with the majority voting to accept the city staff proposal. The city council vote is in a couple weeks, the committee vote will be whenever this marathon session ends.

[OTownandDown]

I don't think it's an all or nothing argument. Nobody is going to come in tomorrow and bulldoze beautiful 20's housing stock for condos, and I don't think anybody is proposing that. Development in neighbourhoods like the Glebe has been going along naturally since the neighbourhood was built. Yes, lots of existing houses will be lost to intensification, but isn't that how cities evolve and grow?

I guess my question to the heritage nerds is (and yes, I am one of them):

How many 1890-1930 houses is the minimum required? 2 per block? 90% of the block? 50%? And what does that mean? Do we need to expand the heritage neighbourhoods? Do we designate the corner lots only, and allow for natural replacement of housing stock over the next 100 years?

We live in Canada. Only the wealthiest among us can afford to completely replace the cladding and foundation of their glebe homes. Eventually they'll start to fall apart, especially as millennials who are already stretched financially to be in these homes, can't afford to repair them.

Anyways, this isn't part of the urban boundary argument, really. I think there's enough vacant lots, garbage lots, gas stations, and infill space within the greenbelt (especially in the 1960's neighbourhoods) to allow for lots of intensification at low cost.

Edit: 'lots' of 'lots' for intensification har har!

Originally Posted by phil235

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.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Ottawa Champ

There are really only 2-3 councillors that are "Wildcard" votes. The rest will be very predictable with the majority voting to accept the city staff proposal. The city council vote is in a couple weeks, the committee vote will be whenever this marathon session ends.

Is there a link to watch this?

[phil235]

Originally Posted by OTownandDown

I don't think it's an all or nothing argument. Nobody is going to come in tomorrow and bulldoze beautiful 20's housing stock for condos, and I don't think anybody is proposing that. Development in neighbourhoods like the Glebe has been going along naturally since the neighbourhood was built. Yes, lots of existing houses will be lost to intensification, but isn't that how cities evolve and grow?

I guess my question to the heritage nerds is (and yes, I am one of them):

How many 1890-1930 houses is the minimum required? 2 per block? 90% of the block? 50%? And what does that mean? Do we need to expand the heritage neighbourhoods? Do we designate the corner lots only, and allow for natural replacement of housing stock over the next 100 years?

We live in Canada. Only the wealthiest among us can afford to completely replace the cladding and foundation of their glebe homes. Eventually they'll start to fall apart, especially as millennials who are already stretched financially to be in these homes, can't afford to repair them.

Anyways, this isn't part of the urban boundary argument, really. I think there's enough vacant lots, garbage lots, gas stations, and infill space within the greenbelt (especially in the 1960's neighbourhoods) to allow for lots of intensification at low cost.

Edit: 'lots' of 'lots' for intensification har har!

Totally agree that there will be some level of natural replacement. My preference is your second option. Not necessarily designating corner lots, but looking at neighbourhoods as a whole, figuring out where intensification makes the most sense, and using policy tools to promote that kind of development.

Arterials like Bronson and Bank are no-brainers. The amount of land that is either vacant or devoted to parking on those streets, even in the Glebe, is massive. Make it easy to develop those lots, and penalize people who leave sites vacant for years (like the West Coast Video site).

As a second level of priority, there are streets like Lyon which already have institutional uses, and larger, multi-unit buildings. As most of the buildings on Lyon fact the side streets, there is streetfront parking on the majority of blocks (in the back and side yards of houses). The impact of 3-4 story multi-unit buildings in those spots would be minimal, and does not require tearing any thing down. Make it easy for owners to sever and develop those types of parcels. Maybe even waive development fees to make it more economically viable. Every neighbourhood has these types of lots where intensification is relatively painless and should get more public support.

The only point where I disagree with you is on your point about homeowners not being able to afford to repair their homes. What you are describing is mostly regular maintenance, and it's part of the cost of owning a home. People have to budget for that. Unless house prices crater in the coming years, I don't see how people will start failing to do regular maintenance, including roofs, foundations, pointing etc.

[Ottawa Champ]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Is there a link to watch this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjxdhJQjumI

[J.OT13]

We have a bit of an oxymoron going on. Council wants to expand the urban boundary, but protect farm land. That's pretty hard to do unless we approve some very spotty development. On top of that, if we protect farm land, we end up clear cutting forest and paving wet-land? Good job on the climate emergency.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

We have a bit of an oxymoron going on. Council wants to expand the urban boundary, but protect farm land. That's pretty hard to do unless we approve some very spotty development. On top of that, if we protect farm land, we end up clear cutting forest and paving wet-land? Good job on the climate emergency.

Another instance where politics trumps good policy.

[CityTech]

They're only protecting high-grade farmland. Which, if I recall correctly, is more plentiful to the east than any other direction. So that policy might mean the expansion happens in Kanata instead of Orleans.

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by CityTech

They're only protecting high-grade farmland. Which, if I recall correctly, is more plentiful to the east than any other direction. So that policy might mean the expansion happens in Kanata instead of Orleans.

If you want to farm rocks head north and west of Ottawa.

[rocketphish]

How will COVID-19 affect 28 years of homebuilding in Ottawa?

Jon Willing, Ottawa Citizen
Publishing date: 12 minutes ago • 3 minute read

At the end of the urban boundary fight, there might not be a good answer to how a colossal public health crisis will impact the future of Ottawa’s housing market, and as a result, the demand for suburban homes or units in large buildings.

Will the COVID-19 pandemic drive sales for single homes with outdoor space?

Or will the pandemic push more people to live in mixed-use communities with quick access to amenities?

Of course, it might not play any role at all.

But some people who have provided feedback to city planners during the City of Ottawa’s update of the official plan have brought up the question of how a pandemic will inform 28 years of homebuilding.

On Tuesday, the planning committee and agriculture and rural affairs committee continued to hear from people who wanted a say on a proposed expansion to the urban boundary and the city’s intention to build just over half of all new homes through intensification.

More than 100 people signed up to address councillors by video or audio link since the meeting was held by video conference in accordance with the COVID-19 physical distancing rules.

Real estate professionals on Tuesday brought up the potential impact of the pandemic.

Ottawa realtor Mary Lindsay pointed out more people might want one or two home offices when considering what kind of home to buy. Real estate consultant Andrew Brethour said there’s an “incredible underlying demand” for ground-orientated homes, such as singles, semi-detached or rowhouses, as opposed to homes in multi-unit buildings.

The planning department briefly addressed the COVID-19 pandemic near the start of the meeting on Monday, saying the virus transmission is related to crowding, not built form and density, and that there needs to be “interventions” in all kinds of housing types. Staff didn’t say much more about it.

Members of the Manotick Village and Community Association turned their minds to the pandemic’s impact on the city’s growth management and it was one of the questions posed to the city in the association’s submission on the city’s plan for the urban boundary and intensification.

Grace Thrasher, the president of the Manotick community association who also sat on a citywide “sounding board” during the official plan process, said pandemics came up as a potential discussion point about a year and a half ago. No one knew a novel coronavirus would spread across the world, but people still had fresh in their minds the effects of H1N1 and SARS.

Thrasher said Manotick residents are hearing lots of talk about increasing intensification and they’ve been thinking about the importance of green space as residents stay at home because of the pandemic-related closures.

“Their concern was we do need to take that into account,” Thrasher said Tuesday before making a video presentation to the joint committee.

After the last deputation at 4:45 p.m., councillors had heard arguments that could be categorized in themes, which included: how constraining the urban boundary impacts the prices of homes; how expanding the boundary will harm the environment; and how intensified development should complement and enhance neighbourhoods.

Councillors heard only a few insights about the impact of the urban boundary and intensification on the villages.

The growth eyed for the rural area will largely happen in Manotick, Richmond and Greely. Vacant areas of Ottawa’s villages are expected to handle about 10,000 new units and they’ll mostly be single-family homes, semi-detached homes and rowhouses. According to staff research, Manotick has room for 1,429 single homes and 257 rowhouses.

The Manotick community association supports the staff recommendation to increase the urban boundary and have a more ambitious intensification target.

“The challenge for a lot of rural villages is the suburban creep that gets closer to the villages,” Thrasher explained, but she said the association believes the city has landed on a “realistic approach.”

The city has established a one-kilometre buffer between villages and suburban areas to preserve the unique nature of the rural communities.

Thrasher said Manotick residents also want the city to protect agricultural land from development.

West Carleton-March Coun. Eli El-Chantiry has put a motion on the table to protect agricultural resource areas from being pulled into the urban development area. Thrasher considers the motion especially important for residents of her village.

Councillors sit next Tuesday for debate and votes on the urban boundary matter before sending recommendations to council for approval on May 27.

[email protected]
twitter.com/JonathanWilling

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local...-de5634496207/

[rocketphish]

Affordability – the forgotten issue in the argument over Ottawa's new official plan

Randall Denley
Publishing date: 42 minutes ago • 3 minute read

City councillor Shawn Menard is right when he says the city should have provided costs for the three long-term development expansion scenarios that councillors are considering. Any rational decision should be based on a comparison of costs and benefits, but the city says it didn’t have the time or money to update a 2013 report.

Pity, because a fact-based analysis might have slowed the geyser of criticism from growth critics. Prominent among those critics is Menard himself, who colourfully claimed on Twitter that “Developer lobbyists want your rent costs and property taxes to go up so they can build ‘affordable’ single family homes in empty fields with no transit, schools, roads or water pipes. What a waste of money.”

Well, put that way, suburban development would not only be a waste of money, but downright crazy. Good thing that reality has little to do with the councillor’s executive summary.

The capital cost of suburban growth, or sprawl as its opponents routinely call it, is largely, although not entirely, borne by the buyers of new homes. Provincial rules prohibit city officials from collecting every last penny of growth cost from new home buyers, but they take everything they are allowed.

The city does a detailed calculation to determine how much cost new development adds to road building, water services, storm water, police, fire, transit, affordable housing, paramedics and corporate studies. New home buyers pay those costs through development charges. They even get to pay an LRT levy in new communities that will never receive light rail service.

The figures are not trifling. The development charge for a single family or semi-detached home outside the Greenbelt is $36,388, and it is adjusted up every year. But why not, right? Surely suburbanites who make the regrettable decision to live in some McMansion far beyond the horizon should be made to pay the price for their contributions to road congestion and climate change.

By contrast, moving new growth into established neighbourhoods must be almost free, since everything is already there. Interestingly, the development charge for that same single or semi inside the Greenbelt is $30,540. Turns out there are a lot of costs associated with intensification. One of big ones is that people in newly populous older neighbourhoods are demanding more parks.

Yes, new developments do cost money to operate, but suburban tax owners pay for that, just like everyone else in the city. What’s more, suburbanites who have just paid for new roads and sewers also contribute tax and water bill dollars to pay for replacing old roads and pipes in older neighbourhoods. That’s part of the obligation of being a citizen.

How about density, then? Don’t suburban homes have huge lots? That would have been a valid point, 15 or 20 years ago. The city has been packing suburbanites like sardines for years.

Sceptics who don’t want to damage the planet by driving to the suburbs, or who don’t have all day to get there by bus, can get a quick picture by checking the web site of the Ottawa Real Estate Board, oreb.ca. There, you will see suburban houses on lots similar to, and often smaller than, the Glebe. The only difference is that Glebe houses cost nearly three times as much.

That brings us to affordability, the forgotten issue in the argument over the new official plan. Constraining development land drives up its price and makes houses less affordable, that’s simple economics. The city is doubling down on that by strongly encouraging development near its LRT lines. That’s sensible, up to a point, but it will make that land the most expensive in the city.

It’s perhaps understandable that city planning staff did not see the need to defend the very concept of suburban growth when proposing a development plan that ambitiously increases intensification in a city that seldom welcomes it. That leaves the city plan open to attack from anti-growth activists, but it doesn’t make them right.

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

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/co...-059af1f5af1a/

[Ottawa Champ]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

Affordability – the forgotten issue in the argument over Ottawa's new official plan

Randall Denley
Publishing date: 42 minutes ago • 3 minute read

City councillor Shawn Menard is right when he says the city should have provided costs for the three long-term development expansion scenarios that councillors are considering. Any rational decision should be based on a comparison of costs and benefits, but the city says it didn’t have the time or money to update a 2013 report.

Pity, because a fact-based analysis might have slowed the geyser of criticism from growth critics. Prominent among those critics is Menard himself, who colourfully claimed on Twitter that “Developer lobbyists want your rent costs and property taxes to go up so they can build ‘affordable’ single family homes in empty fields with no transit, schools, roads or water pipes. What a waste of money.”

Well, put that way, suburban development would not only be a waste of money, but downright crazy. Good thing that reality has little to do with the councillor’s executive summary.

The capital cost of suburban growth, or sprawl as its opponents routinely call it, is largely, although not entirely, borne by the buyers of new homes. Provincial rules prohibit city officials from collecting every last penny of growth cost from new home buyers, but they take everything they are allowed.

The city does a detailed calculation to determine how much cost new development adds to road building, water services, storm water, police, fire, transit, affordable housing, paramedics and corporate studies. New home buyers pay those costs through development charges. They even get to pay an LRT levy in new communities that will never receive light rail service.

The figures are not trifling. The development charge for a single family or semi-detached home outside the Greenbelt is $36,388, and it is adjusted up every year. But why not, right? Surely suburbanites who make the regrettable decision to live in some McMansion far beyond the horizon should be made to pay the price for their contributions to road congestion and climate change.

By contrast, moving new growth into established neighbourhoods must be almost free, since everything is already there. Interestingly, the development charge for that same single or semi inside the Greenbelt is $30,540. Turns out there are a lot of costs associated with intensification. One of big ones is that people in newly populous older neighbourhoods are demanding more parks.

Yes, new developments do cost money to operate, but suburban tax owners pay for that, just like everyone else in the city. What’s more, suburbanites who have just paid for new roads and sewers also contribute tax and water bill dollars to pay for replacing old roads and pipes in older neighbourhoods. That’s part of the obligation of being a citizen.

How about density, then? Don’t suburban homes have huge lots? That would have been a valid point, 15 or 20 years ago. The city has been packing suburbanites like sardines for years.

Sceptics who don’t want to damage the planet by driving to the suburbs, or who don’t have all day to get there by bus, can get a quick picture by checking the web site of the Ottawa Real Estate Board, oreb.ca. There, you will see suburban houses on lots similar to, and often smaller than, the Glebe. The only difference is that Glebe houses cost nearly three times as much.

That brings us to affordability, the forgotten issue in the argument over the new official plan. Constraining development land drives up its price and makes houses less affordable, that’s simple economics. The city is doubling down on that by strongly encouraging development near its LRT lines. That’s sensible, up to a point, but it will make that land the most expensive in the city.

It’s perhaps understandable that city planning staff did not see the need to defend the very concept of suburban growth when proposing a development plan that ambitiously increases intensification in a city that seldom welcomes it. That leaves the city plan open to attack from anti-growth activists, but it doesn’t make them right.

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

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/co...-059af1f5af1a/

I haven't done a deep dive into the costs but i find it hard to believe that it is "Fair" for a greenfield lot to only pay $6,000 more than an infill. Denley mentions the need for additional parks but that cost surely pales in comparison to the need for additional everything in the new developments.

I listened to a decent chunk of the planning committee on Monday and Thursday, rarely a mention of the maintenance costs for the city related to the new roads, water systems, lighting, etc. The pro expansion crowd love to mention the fact that development charges cover initial costs , but not a mention of the long term sustainability.

[Truenorth00]

Screw Randall Denley. He's an anti-urban conservative hack. In the view of people like him, our cities should be a sprawling suburban mess with semi-shit quality of life (defined by high car dependency) reserved for suburban homeowners and shit quality of life for everyone else.

[Ottawa Champ]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Screw Randall Denley. He's an anti-urban conservative hack. In the view of people like him, our cities should be a sprawling suburban mess with semi-shit quality of life (defined by high car dependency) reserved for suburban homeowners and shit quality of life for everyone else.

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

Yes, new developments do cost money to operate, but suburban tax owners pay for that, just like everyone else in the city. What’s more, suburbanites who have just paid for new roads and sewers also contribute tax and water bill dollars to pay for replacing old roads and pipes in older neighbourhoods. That’s part of the obligation of being a citizen.
[...]
Sceptics who don’t want to damage the planet by driving to the suburbs, or who don’t have all day to get there by bus, can get a quick picture by checking the web site of the Ottawa Real Estate Board, oreb.ca. There, you will see suburban houses on lots similar to, and often smaller than, the Glebe. The only difference is that Glebe houses cost nearly three times as much.

Key issue is the inner city paying much higher taxes for singles (or similar for apartments) when operating costs are lower.

Here is a report the City had on this issue in 2013
http://ottwatch.ca/meetings/file/51850

For example,

Higher density urban cost per household (per capita in brackets)
$2900 / year ($1340/year)
Higher density revenue
$3747 / year ($1795/year)
Total
+$847 (+$455)

Lower density urban greenfield cost per household (per capita in brackets)
$4924 ($1799 per year)
Greenfield revenue
$3865 ($1390 per year)
Total
-$1059 (-$409)

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Ottawa Champ

I haven't done a deep dive into the costs but i find it hard to believe that it is "Fair" for a greenfield lot to only pay $6,000 more than an infill. Denley mentions the need for additional parks but that cost surely pales in comparison to the need for additional everything in the new developments.

I listened to a decent chunk of the planning committee on Monday and Thursday, rarely a mention of the maintenance costs for the city related to the new roads, water systems, lighting, etc. The pro expansion crowd love to mention the fact that development charges cover initial costs , but not a mention of the long term sustainability.

We always here talk of "additional parks" and the need to add "new parks" in the urban core to support growth, but what new parks have been built in the last 20 years? Lansdowne's "great lawn" and the Cancer Survivor Park in Alta Vista?

I don't count small plazas like Ogilvy Square or William street at the foot of the parking garage.

[Ottawa Champ]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

Key issue is the inner city paying much higher taxes for singles (or similar for apartments) when operating costs are lower.

Here is a report the City had on this issue in 2013
http://ottwatch.ca/meetings/file/51850

For example,

Higher density urban cost per household (per capita in brackets)
$2900 / year ($1340/year)
Higher density revenue
$3747 / year ($1795/year)
Total
+$847 (+$455)

Lower density urban greenfield cost per household (per capita in brackets)
$4924 ($1799 per year)
Greenfield revenue
$3865 ($1390 per year)
Total
-$1059 (-$409)

Opponents to city sprawl should be referring to this report every chance they get.

[FutureWickedCity]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

what new parks have been built in the last 20 years?

Zibi comes to mind, some cool park areas are happening there. But when it comes to the vast suburban sprawl, the newer parks are painfully bland...they usually consist of a square plot with a play structure, a bench and a few saplings. Few (if any) mature trees and little appeal for lingering except for children and dog walkers. They're not inviting for having a picnic or big enough for having a nice walk. As little thought or creativity is put into them as the communities that surround them.

[passwordisnt123]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

Key issue is the inner city paying much higher taxes for singles (or similar for apartments) when operating costs are lower.

Here is a report the City had on this issue in 2013
http://ottwatch.ca/meetings/file/51850

For example,

Higher density urban cost per household (per capita in brackets)
$2900 / year ($1340/year)
Higher density revenue
$3747 / year ($1795/year)
Total
+$847 (+$455)

Lower density urban greenfield cost per household (per capita in brackets)
$4924 ($1799 per year)
Greenfield revenue
$3865 ($1390 per year)
Total
-$1059 (-$409)

Thank you for this! I'm totally saving this for later. It really shows that Denley is either so misinformed he shouldn't be drawing a salary or so willing to manipulate facts that he shouldn't be drawing a salary.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by passwordisnt123

Thank you for this! I'm totally saving this for later. It really shows that Denley is either so misinformed he shouldn't be drawing a salary or so willing to manipulate facts that he shouldn't be drawing a salary.

Send him the report or write a letter to the editor. See if you get a reply. I doubt you will....