City of Ottawa

[phil235]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I think you are right but can we normalize not calling everything inside the Greenbelt "Urban". This is a weird Ottawa trend. This is very much a suburban rink.

Very true. It's the other rinks mentioned in the article that really fit the definition of urban - Tom Brown, McNabb, Sandy Hill.

Belltown is similar in that it serves a disadvantaged clientele more than your typical multiplex.

[rocketphish]

Is Sutcliffe's 2.9% tax hike right for Ottawa?
This should be a vigorous budget debate based on financial reality in Ottawa, not on fulfilling election promises.

Mohammed Adam, Ottawa Citizen
Published Sep 19, 2024 • Last updated 3 hours ago • 3 minute read

Ahead of budget 2025 deliberations, Mayor Mark Sutcliffe has warned about property tax increases, massive transit fare hikes and service cuts the likes of which the city hasn’t seen in decades.

In its budget directions, released Monday and approved Wednesday, we learned that property tax increases could be 2.9 per cent, transit levy hikes between 2.9 and 37 per cent, and fare increases between 2.5 and 75 per cent. Worst case: a single ride on OC Transpo could cost $6.65, up from $3.80. A monthly pass could go from $128 to $225. All this is because of a lack of federal and provincial funding that has left OC Transpo with a $120-million deficit.

It is all very dramatic, and it sounds a tad apocalyptic. Sutcliffe wants you to blame federal and provincial governments. He takes this shot at his critics: “The people advocating for big tax increases are basically saying it’s okay for the transit projects in the GTA to get 100 per cent funding from other levels of government while we pay over half in Ottawa.”

No, Mr. Mayor, no one is saying that. Ottawa residents know and resent the fact that when it comes to transit, the city has been shafted for years. It is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Besides, nobody wants higher taxes. Trust me, I’d rather pay 0.1 per cent than 2.9 per cent. But if you want to build a livable city, you need appropriate services to match the ambition, such as transit that is reliable and affordable, recreational services that meet everyday pocketbooks, and roads that are not littered with potholes.

What many people want is not higher taxes, but a balanced budget with reasonable property tax increases that allow us to maintain city-building services. Indeed, knowing from the very beginning that a budget crunch was coming, the city could have spread tax increases a bit higher over the last two years to put us in a better position to deal with what lies ahead.

While Sutcliffe is right to feel aggrieved about transit funding, it is worth noting that when he had a chance to negotiate a deal with Ontario, transit did not seem to be his top priority.

The 10-year, $543-million deal for Ottawa that Premier Doug Ford announced in March, was more about roads than transit. The deal, which Sutcliffe hailed as a “big win for Ottawa,” included the uploading of Hwy. 174, which then-Ontario premier Mike Harris dumped on Ottawa in 1997. The funding included money for housing, repairs and upgrading of major connecting and rural roads, as well as a new interchange at Hwy. 416 and Barnsdale Road.

The only nod to transit was $80 million for the Kanata North Transitway, contingent on matching funds from the federal government.

Here is a city that’s facing a big transit deficit, and yet when he had the premier’s ear, Sutcliffe, as best we can tell, negotiated money largely for roads, not his biggest need. Sutcliffe made his deal, and it is now too late to complain. One can only hope for some funding from provincial and federal governments.

Of course, no matter what, we are not going to see taxes rise steeply, or a 75 per cent transit fare increase. That’s a bluff. Still, the question is whether Sutcliffe’s 2.9 per cent is right for the times. This should be a vigorous budget debate based on financial reality, not on fulfilling election promises.

And this time, Ottawa residents should accept Sutcliffe’s invitation to make their voices heard on what they really want.

Then we will see what councillors are made of as they craft the budget.

Mohammed Adam is an Ottawa journalist and commentator. Reach him at nylamiles48@gmail.com

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/ad...ght-for-ottawa

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by phil235

Very true. It's the other rinks mentioned in the article that really fit the definition of urban - Tom Brown, McNabb, Sandy Hill.

Belltown is similar in that it serves a disadvantaged clientele more than your typical multiplex.

I said it in another thread but Tom Brown needs to be high density housing. Incoroporate an Arena if that is the most needed use of the space but it's obsense to have a swath of scrub grass and an Arena at the nexus of our only rapid transit lines. Sanday Hill could also house a ton of people in place of its huge surgace parkign lot. McNabb is trickier and the real disadvantaged community centre but also on a prime piece of real estate. Sell just the empty field next to Tom Brown and you can refurbish them all including undground parking and social housing on top at Sandy Hill.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I said it in another thread but Tom Brown needs to be high density housing. Incoroporate an Arena if that is the most needed use of the space but it's obsense to have a swath of scrub grass and an Arena at the nexus of our only rapid transit lines. Sanday Hill could also house a ton of people in place of its huge surgace parkign lot. McNabb is trickier and the real disadvantaged community centre but also on a prime piece of real estate. Sell just the empty field next to Tom Brown and you can refurbish them all including undground parking and social housing on top at Sandy Hill.

It’s fine to say that we need higher density housing, but we also need to provide services for people in those areas. You can’t replace all city properties with housing, as urban neighbourhoods are already underserved in terms of recreation facilities.

Tom Brown is close to transit, but if you close it you still need to replace it. I’m not sure an arena in a housing complex is very likely, so where you going to build a new arena in that neighborhood? That’s kind of the point of the article. You can’t keep adding people to urban area while taking away facilities.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by phil235

It’s fine to say that we need higher density housing, but we also need to provide services for people in those areas. You can’t replace all city properties with housing, as urban neighbourhoods are already underserved in terms of recreation facilities.

Tom Brown is close to transit, but if you close it you still need to replace it. I’m not sure an arena in a housing complex is very likely, so where you going to build a new arena in that neighborhood? That’s kind of the point of the article. You can’t keep adding people to urban area while taking away facilities.

Are they not building a double ice pad at the new Plante recreation facility? for the sole purpose of replacing Tom brown arena & selling it off to devs for housing? is that not the point of the massive new facility at the location to provide new recreation for the new residents & the existing....

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

Are they not building a double ice pad at the new Plante recreation facility? for the sole purpose of replacing Tom brown arena & selling it off to devs for housing? is that not the point of the massive new facility at the location to provide new recreation for the new residents & the existing....

Don’t think so. Where did you see that? I’ve never seen any plans to replace any of the urban rinks.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by phil235

It’s fine to say that we need higher density housing, but we also need to provide services for people in those areas. You can’t replace all city properties with housing, as urban neighbourhoods are already underserved in terms of recreation facilities.

Tom Brown is close to transit, but if you close it you still need to replace it. I’m not sure an arena in a housing complex is very likely, so where you going to build a new arena in that neighborhood? That’s kind of the point of the article. You can’t keep adding people to urban area while taking away facilities.

This is all true, but also, when it comes time to replace Tom Brown, there is plenty of space on that property to also add other uses, including housing, as long as we can overcome the inevitable nattering about losing precious brown-grassed "green" space.

Edited to add: Also, looking at the Google map, that's one hell of a desire-line path that The People have cut across that pointless "green" space.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

This is all true, but also, when it comes time to replace Tom Brown, there is plenty of space on that property to also add other uses, including housing, as long as we can overcome the inevitable nattering about losing precious brown-grassed "green" space.

For sure, there is room to add uses. If nothing else, the parking could be underground and development above.

My issue is that City does a massive parks and recreation planning exercise, determines the core should have 5 rinks, and then does absolutely nothing to maintain the rinks that it has. I am pretty confident that we will start seeing reports that the current rinks are obsolete and need to be closed or sold off for funds, without a hint of a plan to replace them. One more situation where urban residents can just drive out to Nepean to access services.

[J.OT13]

Hoping the Sens can work with the City to replace Tom Brown and add housing on top. Alternatively, if the Sens build a practice rink at LeBreton (though that 10 acres doesn't offer a whole lot of space for that), then that could work as a replacement as well.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Hoping the Sens can work with the City to replace Tom Brown and add housing on top. Alternatively, if the Sens build a practice rink at LeBreton (though that 10 acres doesn't offer a whole lot of space for that), then that could work as a replacement as well.

I've gotta think that they will be looking to have an attached practice rink, whether it is underground or in the podium of a residential building. That would only be one pad though, and one where the Sens are the principle tenant. Not an ideal replacement for a community rink.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by phil235

I've gotta think that they will be looking to have an attached practice rink, whether it is underground or in the podium of a residential building. That would only be one pad though, and one where the Sens are the principle tenant. Not an ideal replacement for a community rink.

Not idea, but better than losing the rink all together, which is probably otherwise likely within 10 years.

I do get the impression they might offer some community hours at the actual NHL arena as well, which could compensate.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Not idea, but better than losing the rink all together, which is probably otherwise likely within 10 years.

I do get the impression they might offer some community hours at the actual NHL arena as well, which could compensate.

Better than nothing, sure. I’m sure they will offer limited community hours in the NHL rink, but those are going to be too pricey to be a real substitute.

[YOWetal]

What about pop-up rinks? With climate change and cheap mainteance the outdoor rinks have shorter and worse seasons but cover them and add coolant and you can get a lot more use for a lot less money than a fixed rink. +15 daytime temprature isn't a big deal if you chill the ice. Some of the outdoor rinks even have skating lessons and no reason you can't let people book especially the late night time for rec hockey.

[Richard Eade]

Building anything of great weight above an arena is expensive. All of the weight needs to be transferred out to the periphery since there can be no columns in the middle of the arena - obviously. (Even a green-roof was too much for the future arena at Lansdowne.) Building a new Tom Brown arena in the podium of a tower would probably not be practical.

I wonder, though, if it would be economical to put three 40m x 80m community rinks (ice size is 26m x 61m each) side by side to create a 120m x 80m roof that could support a soccer pitch (size 105m x 68m)? I would be fine with it encroaching on the O-Train corridor a bit. In fact, it could be integrated into the Bayview Station entrance – including a 2nd-level passage from the new ‘Bridge to Nowhere’ to Albert Street. That could allow the east-bound bus stop to move up to the O-Tran station.

Imagine that. An additional two, new, ice sheets and a soccer pitch for the urban core. And it all connected to the intersection of the O-Train lines. It would be close to where thousands (if the promises are to be believed) of new residents will be living. Maybe it (and the Sen’s facilities across the street) could even be used to attract major curling bonspiels or figure skating competitions to ‘The Sports District’ – apart from The Bell Capital Cup and other big, junior tournaments.

Of course, it would mean that the city would need to market the complex. And, as we saw with the old Lansdowne, the city is not very good at promoting their facilities.

[LRTeverywhere]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

I would be fine with it encroaching on the O-Train corridor a bit. In fact, it could be integrated into the Bayview Station entrance – including a 2nd-level passage from the new ‘Bridge to Nowhere’ to Albert Street. That could allow the east-bound bus stop to move up to the O-Tran station.

Imagine that. An additional two, new, ice sheets and a soccer pitch for the urban core. And it all connected to the intersection of the O-Train lines.

There is also a planned active use bridge over the tracks from Hintonburg Pl when City Centre redevolops, could be connected to that as well to create a really cool elevated section.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

What about pop-up rinks? With climate change and cheap mainteance the outdoor rinks have shorter and worse seasons but cover them and add coolant and you can get a lot more use for a lot less money than a fixed rink. +15 daytime temprature isn't a big deal if you chill the ice. Some of the outdoor rinks even have skating lessons and no reason you can't let people book especially the late night time for rec hockey.

Could be valuable to have a chilled rink at the LeBreton Park, but it's not a replacement for an indoor facility. Again though, could be a supplement for Sensplex community hours.

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Building anything of great weight above an arena is expensive. All of the weight needs to be transferred out to the periphery since there can be no columns in the middle of the arena - obviously. (Even a green-roof was too much for the future arena at Lansdowne.) Building a new Tom Brown arena in the podium of a tower would probably not be practical.

I wonder, though, if it would be economical to put three 40m x 80m community rinks (ice size is 26m x 61m each) side by side to create a 120m x 80m roof that could support a soccer pitch (size 105m x 68m)? I would be fine with it encroaching on the O-Train corridor a bit. In fact, it could be integrated into the Bayview Station entrance – including a 2nd-level passage from the new ‘Bridge to Nowhere’ to Albert Street. That could allow the east-bound bus stop to move up to the O-Tran station.

Imagine that. An additional two, new, ice sheets and a soccer pitch for the urban core. And it all connected to the intersection of the O-Train lines. It would be close to where thousands (if the promises are to be believed) of new residents will be living. Maybe it (and the Sen’s facilities across the street) could even be used to attract major curling bonspiels or figure skating competitions to ‘The Sports District’ – apart from The Bell Capital Cup and other big, junior tournaments.

Of course, it would mean that the city would need to market the complex. And, as we saw with the old Lansdowne, the city is not very good at promoting their facilities.

I imagine the towers would be at the corner of the podium, with the rink in the middle with no tower directly over it, so under the tower could be the entrance, concessions, washrooms, meeting rooms... That's probably the plan for the NHL arena, towers in the corner strategically placed to not impede the arena bowl or concourse.

Interesting idea, rooftop soccer pitch. We need to say more if that.

Originally Posted by LRTeverywhere

There is also a planned active use bridge over the tracks from Hintonburg Pl when City Centre redevolops, could be connected to that as well to create a really cool elevated section.

That would be cool.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Could be valuable to have a chilled rink at the LeBreton Park, but it's not a replacement for an indoor facility. Again though, could be a supplement for Sensplex community hours.

I mean maybe we sell Tom Brown for housing and support 10 community outdoor rinks instead. These are all over the central part of the city but are becoming less and less usable (weather). How many kids from York St public housing have even been to Tom Brown once. Let's double the number of days they can skate at the rink right in their backyard.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I mean maybe we sell Tom Brown for housing and support 10 community outdoor rinks instead. These are all over the central part of the city but are becoming less and less usable (weather). How many kids from York St public housing have even been to Tom Brown once. Let's double the number of days they can skate at the rink right in their backyard.

Not a great idea given our climate trendlines.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Not a great idea given our climate trendlines.

A shorter season yes but let's not exxagerate by 2070 we are predicted to have the climate of Chicago.

They have plenty of outdoor rinks. Add some coolant and we could get a very long season.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

A shorter season yes but let's not exxagerate by 2070 we are predicted to have the climate of Chicago.

They have plenty of outdoor rinks. Add some coolant and we could get a very long season.

Community rinks are a good idea and definitely part of the solution for downtown, but they aren't a substitute for indoor arenas. For one, they don't have dressing rooms or other facilities that are pretty crucial for a lot of the activities that take place there.

That said, you can put a rink beside a single pad urban arena, share staff and equipment (like a zamboni) and make them more efficient.