Canadian Tire Centre

[DTcrawler]

Maybe they could just keep it as is and finally have extra parking for the nearby Costco that everyone keeps complaining about.

[acottawa]

Ottawa has so few indoor attractions it would be nice to have an indoor attraction that could take advantage of the existing infrastructure, although I guess much would depend on what condition the building is in 5-10 years.

[hwy418]

Originally Posted by DTcrawler

The burbs are meant for chain restaurants and Costcos.

I don't understand the disdain on this board for people who choose to live outside the old City of Ottawa boundaries. I am not trying to pick on one particular person, but I keep reading "you suburbanites" this and "those suburbanites" that or statements like the one above in countless messages. Gawd, if you're that pissed about where you live (or even worse pissed about where other poeple live), then move and stop complaining. Let's keep the discussion on point and keep political views and life philosophies out of it.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by DTcrawler

Hubley is a sneaky big NIMBY. It just doesn't come to peoples' attention very often because there aren't that many proposals in his ward. Speaking of which, don't know why they even interviewed this buffoon considering the CTC isn't in his ward, it's in Gower's ward.

But recall how much of a stink Hubley and locals raised over that modest infill dev at Maple Grove / McCurdy. Outer-Greenbelt NIMBYs are just as bad, if not worse, than urban ones, they just don't get a chance to rear their ugly heads as often.

While I feel bad for businesses who've catered to CTC-driven patronage for the past 28 years, you can't open up a business in the burbs and expect to be propped up by major events traffic to be sustainable indefinitely. Oh no, Pro Hockey Life won't be able to sell leafs jerseys when the leafs come to town! Give me a break, if you want tourists and other non-locals to visit your business, you need to be more centrally located. The burbs are meant for chain restaurants and Costcos.

Broadly agree that a central location is most desirable for a lot of this stuff, but I'll point out that we had visitors from the Maritimes over this summer. And of the five days they spent in the capital region, a good half day was devoted to shopping at Tanger Outlets in Kanata. (Which is about 45 minutes from my house in Gatineau.)

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by hwy418

I don't understand the disdain on this board for people who choose to live outside the old City of Ottawa boundaries. I am not trying to pick on one particular person, but I keep reading "you suburbanites" this and "those suburbanites" that or statements like the one above in countless messages. Gawd, if you're that pissed about where you live (or even worse pissed about where other poeple live), then move and stop complaining. Let's keep the discussion on point and keep political views and life philosophies out of it.

I mean life philospohies and politics is intertwined with the fate of this project. SFH houses is probably the easiest and most profitable future for these 50 acres next to the highway. I am sure the City will make some claim it should be more dense or transit oriented. Like the request for no parking and a net zero arene there will be pushback. The debate will be more public and absolutely political.

More generally personally IMHO if you want to be annoyed with people voting for bike lanes that clog up your commute as a resident of Stittsville or whatever that is valid. I mean disdain is never a good look but if you think people are destroying the city and planet etc. shouldn't you be disdainful? A lot of people want to live in an urban walkable city but can't move to Toronto or Montreal because of family or work. They get to vote and agitate for their version of the city as long as they respect the right of the other side to do so too.

[Kelnoz]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

SFH houses is probably the easiest and most profitable future for these 50 acres next to the highway. I am sure the City will make some claim it should be more dense or transit oriented. Like the request for no parking and a net zero arene there will be pushback. The debate will be more public and absolutely political.

Why would it be more profitable to build SFH? Density means more money, as long as you can sell it.
Even the lowest density planned for areas like South March is still much higher than a ton of neighborhoods inside the Greenbelt. When prices are through the roof, condos and narrow townhouses sell well.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Kelnoz

Why would it be more profitable to build SFH? Density means more money, as long as you can sell it.
Even the lowest density planned for areas like South March is still much higher than a ton of neighborhoods inside the Greenbelt. When prices are through the roof, condos and narrow townhouses sell well.

Townhouses might sell well, but they might not be as profitable as a SFH. People are willing to pay a significant premium for the latter beyond the size difference. Also, townhouses have to go on private roads which adds to cost and necessitates a HOA.

[OTSkyline]

I think an indoor pool/waterpark/resort would work best. Would be really nice to have an attraction that works 12mo/year and it could really be a draw for the entire region. Something like Great Wolf Lodge...

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Townhouses might sell well, but they might not be as profitable as a SFH. People are willing to pay a significant premium for the latter beyond the size difference. Also, townhouses have to go on private roads which adds to cost and necessitates a HOA.

I mean it is a car oriented location so let's let the market decide which I suspect is mostly SFH. Maybe Townhomes along the highway or even something a bit higher with mixed use.

Do townhouses have to be on a private road? Doesn't the DC cover connection to city streets?

[DTcrawler]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Broadly agree that a central location is most desirable for a lot of this stuff, but I'll point out that we had visitors from the Maritimes over this summer. And of the five days they spent in the capital region, a good half day was devoted to shopping at Tanger Outlets in Kanata. (Which is about 45 minutes from my house in Gatineau.)

Agreed, attractions like outlet malls are certainly draws for tourists and cannot be centrally located due to land needs. Same goes for water parks like Calypso. My comment was more directed towards businesses who claim to be reliant on CTC-driven patronage despite being located in the burbs. I can understand carving out a niche in the 28 years the CTC has been there, but when planning for the long term you need to realize it's a house of cards. If you're a restaurant that relies on tourists then maybe Kanata is not the best place to be.

[DTcrawler]

Originally Posted by hwy418

I don't understand the disdain on this board for people who choose to live outside the old City of Ottawa boundaries. I am not trying to pick on one particular person, but I keep reading "you suburbanites" this and "those suburbanites" that or statements like the one above in countless messages. Gawd, if you're that pissed about where you live (or even worse pissed about where other poeple live), then move and stop complaining. Let's keep the discussion on point and keep political views and life philosophies out of it.

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I mean life philospohies and politics is intertwined with the fate of this project. SFH houses is probably the easiest and most profitable future for these 50 acres next to the highway. I am sure the City will make some claim it should be more dense or transit oriented. Like the request for no parking and a net zero arene there will be pushback. The debate will be more public and absolutely political.

More generally personally IMHO if you want to be annoyed with people voting for bike lanes that clog up your commute as a resident of Stittsville or whatever that is valid. I mean disdain is never a good look but if you think people are destroying the city and planet etc. shouldn't you be disdainful? A lot of people want to live in an urban walkable city but can't move to Toronto or Montreal because of family or work. They get to vote and agitate for their version of the city as long as they respect the right of the other side to do so too.

I wouldn't say I have a disdain for suburbanites / rural residents in general. I completely understand why people opt for low density neighbourhoods which offer the opportunity to have a yard, a car-oriented lifestyle, free parking etc. In fact some of those luxuries tie into the very idea of the "Canadian (American) Dream" so it can be a touchy subject. I mentioned it way back in this forum but personally, when I say "you/those suburbanites" I'm referring to those in the suburbs/exurbs who enjoy the luxuries I mentioned while simultaneously believing that they are over-taxed, under-served, over-burdened by urban needs, etc. Some people hold such beliefs out of ignorance of the research that proves otherwise. Others actively reject said research. Whatever the reason may be, I believe it's backwards and the root of many of the problems faced by Ottawa and other cities. Conversely, it'd be perfectly fine and admirable to live a suburban lifestyle while acknowledging that it's burdensome on resources and not sustainable on a large scale, and being open to the idea of being taxed accordingly.

And for the record, I wouldn't say my own urbanist beliefs stem from environmental reasons, just from sustainability reasons. I want the city to be able to afford nice things for residents to enjoy and make our lives easier without all our resources being depleted and spread too thinly due to sprawl. Once you notice how wasteful it is for the highways and city streets to be clogged up by single-occupant vehicles which could be consolidated into a bus or a train, it's hard to get that idea out of your head - regardless of emissions. Same goes for making a car-trip for something that could've been easily walkable or within cycling range.

I grew up in the suburbs, but living in places like downtown Toronto made me realize what an urban lifestyle is and I've mostly translated that to my life here in Centretown. I'm not saying everyone wants to or needs to live like me but I do simply believe in everyone paying their fair share, and in the context of this thread, knowing their place when it comes to making arguments like the CTC should stay where it is to prop up a Kelsey's or a Montana's in Kanata Centrum.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by DTcrawler

I wouldn't say I have a disdain for suburbanites / rural residents in general. I completely understand why people opt for low density neighbourhoods which offer the opportunity to have a yard, a car-oriented lifestyle, free parking etc. In fact some of those luxuries tie into the very idea of the "Canadian (American) Dream" so it can be a touchy subject. I mentioned it way back in this forum but personally, when I say "you/those suburbanites" I'm referring to those in the suburbs/exurbs who enjoy the luxuries I mentioned while simultaneously believing that they are over-taxed, under-served, over-burdened by urban needs, etc. Some people hold such beliefs out of ignorance of the research that proves otherwise. Others actively reject said research. Whatever the reason may be, I believe it's backwards and the root of many of the problems faced by Ottawa and other cities. Conversely, it'd be perfectly fine and admirable to live a suburban lifestyle while acknowledging that it's burdensome on resources and not sustainable on a large scale, and being open to the idea of being taxed accordingly.

And for the record, I wouldn't say my own urbanist beliefs stem from environmental reasons, just from sustainability reasons. I want the city to be able to afford nice things for residents to enjoy and make our lives easier without all our resources being depleted and spread too thinly due to sprawl. Once you notice how wasteful it is for the highways and city streets to be clogged up by single-occupant vehicles which could be consolidated into a bus or a train, it's hard to get that idea out of your head - regardless of emissions. Same goes for making a car-trip for something that could've been easily walkable or within cycling range.

I grew up in the suburbs, but living in places like downtown Toronto made me realize what an urban lifestyle is and I've mostly translated that to my life here in Centretown. I'm not saying everyone wants to or needs to live like me but I do simply believe in everyone paying their fair share, and in the context of this thread, knowing their place when it comes to making arguments like the CTC should stay where it is to prop up a Kelsey's or a Montana's in Kanata Centrum.

Well said. I agree with you entire post.

[hwy418]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

More generally personally IMHO if you want to be annoyed with people voting for bike lanes that clog up your commute as a resident of Stittsville or whatever that is valid. I mean disdain is never a good look but if you think people are destroying the city and planet etc. shouldn't you be disdainful? A lot of people want to live in an urban walkable city but can't move to Toronto or Montreal because of family or work. They get to vote and agitate for their version of the city as long as they respect the right of the other side to do so too.

My comment wasn't really about bike lanes or what to do with that site. It was more about the general attitude towards people who live is suburbs. I get why people want to live the urban lifestyle and walk/cycle/take transit all while "saving the planet". I respect that, but that's not for me and my choice shouldn't make me an evildooer.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by hwy418

My comment wasn't really about bike lanes or what to do with that site. It was more about the general attitude towards people who live is suburbs. I get why people want to live the urban lifestyle and walk/cycle/take transit all while "saving the planet". I respect that, but that's not for me and my choice shouldn't make me an evildooer.

It doesn't make you an evildooer. And frankly there are all different types of people in the suburbs, so we shouldn't lump them all in together.

Where this comes from is more out of frustration that a) our property tax structure means that urban residents subsidize those making less sustainable choices and b) our municipal government structure is such that suburban councilors regularly veto attempts to improve the quality of urban neighbourhoods in the name of preserving their holy grail of car access for commuters.

[Marshsparrow]

Originally Posted by phil235

It doesn't make you an evildooer. And frankly there are all different types of people in the suburbs, so we shouldn't lump them all in together.

Where this comes from is more out of frustration that a) our property tax structure means that urban residents subsidize those making less sustainable choices and b) our municipal government structure is such that suburban councilors regularly veto attempts to improve the quality of urban neighbourhoods in the name of preserving their holy grail of car access for commuters.

While I agree with the general principal you've put forward... the investment into Lansdowne, Lebreton, LRT, Library, Civic hospital, $500M to revitalize downtown, etc. is all very urban instead of suburban.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Marshsparrow

While I agree with the general principal you've put forward... the investment into Lansdowne, Lebreton, LRT, Library, Civic hospital, $500M to revitalize downtown, etc. is all very urban instead of suburban.

No doubt that there has been some investment downtown, but I'm not sure your list has a whole lot of evidence of that. I'll give you Lansdowne, but the LRT is extremely suburban focused, the Civic is really borderline in terms of an urban hospital, and I'm unaware of any commitment to spend $500 million to revitalize downtown. Lebreton is federal - the city has put nothing into that yet, and the library is half federal, with the city spending the bare minimum it could spend on a main library.

You can make an argument that there are a few marquee investments in the general urban area, but in terms of rec facilities, city services, transit, etc., central Ottawa has not fared well.

[DTcrawler]

Originally Posted by Marshsparrow

While I agree with the general principal you've put forward... the investment into Lansdowne, Lebreton, LRT, Library, Civic hospital, $500M to revitalize downtown, etc. is all very urban instead of suburban.

I agree with most of this but I'd argue the "investment" (or lack thereof) in the O-Train or transit in general is all very suburban-minded. Under-taxation is severely choking our transit system and whatever money we do have is being wasted on providing token service in the burbs while urban routes such as the 6, 7, 11 etc. are bursting at the seams. All to keep suburban wallets happy.

[harls]

Originally Posted by DTcrawler

Agreed, attractions like outlet malls are certainly draws for tourists and cannot be centrally located due to land needs. Same goes for water parks like Calypso.

Calypso has really gone downhill in the last few years.

[eltodesukane]

Originally Posted by harls

Calypso has really gone downhill in the last few years.

And the once upcoming waterpark near Barrhaven (Alottawata ?) is stuck downhill.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by eltodesukane

And the once upcoming waterpark near Barrhaven (Alottawata ?) is stuck downhill.

AFAIK, that's dead in the water, with proslide selling the land sometime in the past 2 years.