Ottawa Declares Climate Emergency

[acottawa]

I wonder though, if anyone who preaches about climate change is actually willing to live a low carbon lifestyle. The people that preach the most all seem to be frequent flyers.

[JayBuoy]

Originally Posted by NOWINYOW

In the 70's it was global cooling. Then in the 80's it became global warming. Then in the last decade it switched to Climate Change (convenience)

If it was so clear since the 70's why have the interpretations been changing?

I believe 100% the climate is changing. Climate has never, ever, stopped changing. We have flooded before, we'll flood again. We've had mild winters, freezing winters, no-snow winters, tonnes of snow winters. Alway have, always will.

I find it amusing people say we have to stop climate change. And yes, they do actually use those 3 words; stop climate change. Good luck with that.

Firstly I would like to address that, even the most conservative report, the IPCC, written based on consensus, has some dire estimates. The consensus is not that the climate is changing, but that it is changing drastically, and that humans are causing it.

Sure the climate has always been changing, did anyone deny that? Do you disagree with the premise that carbon dioxide and methane are greenhouse gasses? This is really basic science. We've known the mechanism by which they work since the late 18th century. In fact the first estimates of climate change due to industrial activity date to the late 18th century as well, long before there were political parties thumping climate denialism.

Yes, the climate will always be changing, and the earth will still be here long after the last human dies. But a massively changed climate will not be a pleasant place to live. That's why you should care. Maybe you would be interested to know that we have already released enough carbon to irreversibly destabilize the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets.

And for the record (not that it really matters) I did my undergraduate in geography.

[JayBuoy]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I wonder though, if anyone who preaches about climate change is actually willing to live a low carbon lifestyle. The people that preach the most all seem to be frequent flyers.

How do you live a low-carbon life in a high-carbon world? I certainly try, but its impossible to exit society. Change has to be structural, not individual. An excellent way to reduce your carbon footprint is by living in an apartment in a dense neighbourhood, but the last half-century has been dedicated to eradicating that way of life. You could go vegan/vegetarian, but there are so many subsidies on meat and dairy, the highest carbon foods.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by JayBuoy

How do you live a low-carbon life in a high-carbon world? I certainly try, but its impossible to exit society. Change has to be structural, not individual. An excellent way to reduce your carbon footprint is by living in an apartment in a dense neighbourhood, but the last half-century has been dedicated to eradicating that way of life. You could go vegan/vegetarian, but there are so many subsidies on meat and dairy, the highest carbon foods.

There is a huge gap between the rhetoric and the action. People that claim that climate change is the biggest threat to the world are only willing to support measures that affect somebody else. When people believed Hitler was the biggest threat to the world they were willing to enlist, buy bonds, plant Victory Gardens, accept rationing etc. My hypothesis is that they don’t really believe their own rhetoric.

[JayBuoy]

Originally Posted by acottawa

There is a huge gap between the rhetoric and the action. People that claim that climate change is the biggest threat to the world are only willing to support measures that affect somebody else. When people believed Hitler was the biggest threat to the world they were willing to enlist, buy bonds, plant Victory Gardens, accept rationing etc. My hypothesis is that they don’t really believe their own rhetoric.

You just illustrated my point perfectly. In your example, the government was enlisting people. The government was encouraging people to buy bonds. The government was encouraging the planting of victory gardens, imposing rationing, etc.

Do you believe that if the government put out a call tomorrow for people to join an army of workers to build a carbon-neutral energy grid, nobody would enlist? If the government offered green bonds for sale, no one would buy them? That no one would plant gardens if the government encouraged them to? That no one would accept rationing in the fight against climate change?

I'm not saying everything has to come from the government, but right now, government policy stands in the way of meaningful action on climate change.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by JayBuoy

How do you live a low-carbon life in a high-carbon world? I certainly try, but its impossible to exit society. Change has to be structural, not individual. An excellent way to reduce your carbon footprint is by living in an apartment in a dense neighbourhood, but the last half-century has been dedicated to eradicating that way of life. You could go vegan/vegetarian, but there are so many subsidies on meat and dairy, the highest carbon foods.

Originally Posted by acottawa

There is a huge gap between the rhetoric and the action. People that claim that climate change is the biggest threat to the world are only willing to support measures that affect somebody else. When people believed Hitler was the biggest threat to the world they were willing to enlist, buy bonds, plant Victory Gardens, accept rationing etc. My hypothesis is that they don’t really believe their own rhetoric.

Can't speak for others. But I live in condo, commute to work by transit, drive a hybrid the rest of the time, limit my meat consumption substantially (vegan spouse) , and drive a hybrid. Now, I didn't do a lot of this out of some great concern for the planet. I did it because it's better for my health and my wallet. And that there is the key. The incentive structure has to be there to cut emissions. And so do the pathways to do so.

We make it way too damn hard. We don't build enough transit. We design condos mostly for young singles. We don't want to limit sprawl. Etc.

I don't know if Trudeau was just honestly naive or simply dismissive of the idea that more effort would be needed beyond simply putting on a carbon tax.

@acottawa, I actually do think people need to look at this almost like a war effort. Because it's that critical for our fewer generations. And that is increasingly the comparison being made.

I personally prefer the comparison to the space race. It was a steady, driven, national, decade long industrial and scientific effort to put a man on the moon. At the peak of the Apollo program, NASA's budget was 4% of the American federal budget. If developed countries did that today, they'd hit net zero by 2035-2040.

While not quite going that far, I really, really wish we actually dedicated the resources to simply catch up to the rest of the developed world on housing and transit and intercity transportation. It would legitimately improve our quality of life while cutting emissions.

Boggles my mind that Trudeau said he cared about climate change and most of his pledged deficit funding for infrastructure wasn't to public transport or retrofitting buildings. Went on to run even higher deficits, most of which didn't go to infrastructure. Starting on HFR or HSR between Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal would have massively help cut emissions in the busiest aviation corridor in the country.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I wonder though, if anyone who preaches about climate change is actually willing to live a low carbon lifestyle. The people that preach the most all seem to be frequent flyers.

Interestingly the younger generation of activists do see the hypocrisy in this:

In 2015, the year Thunberg turned twelve, she gave up flying. She travelled to London by train, which took two days.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily...hange-rhetoric

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...lygskam-no-fly

[zzptichka]

Meanwhile, "centennial" 2017 floods are being followed up with "millennial" 2019 floods. Everything's fine.

...
Simon Racicot, director of production and maintenance with Hydro-Québec, told reporters the dam at Chute Bell was built to withstand what he called a millennial flood.

“That means a flood that happens every 1,000 years,” Racicot said. Hydro workers discovered earlier in the day the millennial level of water had been reached.

“We are confident that the structure is solid,” Racicot said. “But the protocols force us to warn people of the danger. We are entering into an unknown zone right now — completely unknown.”
...

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local...u-on-wednesday

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by JayBuoy

You just illustrated my point perfectly. In your example, the government was enlisting people. The government was encouraging people to buy bonds. The government was encouraging the planting of victory gardens, imposing rationing, etc.

Do you believe that if the government put out a call tomorrow for people to join an army of workers to build a carbon-neutral energy grid, nobody would enlist? If the government offered green bonds for sale, no one would buy them? That no one would plant gardens if the government encouraged them to? That no one would accept rationing in the fight against climate change?

I'm not saying everything has to come from the government, but right now, government policy stands in the way of meaningful action on climate change.

Almost all of the things on my list were voluntary (although there was limited conscription towards the end of the war). No, I don’t think people would enlist to build a green grid.

The way you can tell if somebody takes an issue seriously is if they propose activities and initiatives that are against there ideology. When Chrétien thought the deficit was a crisis he went after the sacred cows of the Liberal Party to balance the budget. Flarety abandoned a long time commitment to a balanced budget when he was convinced the global financial crisis necessitated huge deficits. Free marketeers of WW2 eras took over the means of production to facilitate the war effort. If Trudeau was serious he would be going after his own sacred cows, not a little carbon tax that mostly affects Tory voters.

I remember an interview with David Suzuki when the host asked about his own carbon consumption. He said that his family takes the bus if they go downtown during the day.

[Oyster Ditch]

The North Pole is moving. Planets act funny all by themselves sometimes.

[JayBuoy]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Almost all of the things on my list were voluntary (although there was limited conscription towards the end of the war). No, I don’t think people would enlist to build a green grid.

The way you can tell if somebody takes an issue seriously is if they propose activities and initiatives that are against there ideology. When Chrétien thought the deficit was a crisis he went after the sacred cows of the Liberal Party to balance the budget. Flarety abandoned a long time commitment to a balanced budget when he was convinced the global financial crisis necessitated huge deficits. Free marketeers of WW2 eras took over the means of production to facilitate the war effort. If Trudeau was serious he would be going after his own sacred cows, not a little carbon tax that mostly affects Tory voters.

I remember an interview with David Suzuki when the host asked about his own carbon consumption. He said that his family takes the bus if they go downtown during the day.

I disagree. I believe there is a serious concern for climate change. I believe people would enslist in such a program. All the examples you give are structural responses to structural problems. You can’t expect people to solve systematic problems with individual response.

As far as Trudeau is concerned I completely agree with you. He has not gone far enough which is why lots of people are disillusioned with him.

But what level of individual response would you require for you to believe someone cares about climate change? And what are you doing, since climate change will absolutely affect you as much as everyone else.

I don’t think you actually like that line of thinking, since I would argue that to take it to it’s natural conclusion, effective individual grass-roots response would involve challenging the state, and either overthrowing it or reimagining its role in society (given the massive scope of climate change).

[rocketphish]

Originally Posted by Oyster Ditch

The North Pole is moving. Planets act funny all by themselves sometimes.

I don't know how funny it is, but this is the first true scientific statement I've seen from you. The magnetic north pole is indeed moving, from Canada towards Siberia, at a rate of about 55 km per year.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...towards-russia

[caveat.doctor]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The most significant contributor to climate change under the purview of the city is sprawl. If the city put more effort into curtailing sprawl this declaration might be a less vacuous and meaningless gesture.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Absolutely. It's disgusting how much sprawl has been allowed. Not just in Ottawa. But in cities throughout this country. And it's particularly egregious when most of Ottawa inside the greenbelt is pretty damn suburban by any definition that does not come from an Ottawan living in Kanata or Orleans.

Because post-amalgamation Ottawa's city limits are so large and well outside the built-up area, limiting sprawl is maybe more feasible here than in cities where separate rural communities are right at the built-up edge. While there are people who want their large spaces who commute in from (actual) out of town currently, I suspect that the distances are still great enough that, if Ottawa were to make zoning/policy changes that reduced the supply of sprawling new construction, not everyone will want to move that far out to another jurisdiction that would be outside such measures.

On another angle, given the debate on the carbon tax I thought I'd work out our family's cost based on the last 12 months and what we know of the extra taxes:

- Fuel (super convenient to use fuelly.com to track this!): 751.46 L x $0.044/L = $33.06. We spent $1009.05 over the year, so that's a 3% increase

- Natural gas: 1695 m3 x $0.0391/m3 = $66.27. We spent $790.41 over the year, so that's an 8% increase

If our household carbon tax credit is $269 (2 adults and 1 child as per https://www.canada.ca/en/environment...k/ontario.html) then overall we're ahead $169.67.

Alas that rebate is pretty useless when it comes to encouraging choices that could bring our consumption down. We already spend $2330 on transit passes, and any meaningful renovations to our home to lower our heating costs (e.g. window replacements, insulation fill; we already keep the thermostat at 17-19 during the winter) would be much more expensive.

A carbon tax that came with a meaningful income tax deduction (e.g., Conservative candidate Michael Chong proposed a 10% overall income tax reduction, with the highest rate reduced from 33% to 29%*) would have been more useful to drive actual behaviour change and meet national targets.

Anyone else care to share your numbers?

(*Just using a Conservative example for argument sake (https://www.nationalobserver.com/201...bon-tax-plan): presumably it would be the most palatable option amongst Canadians who are opposed to the current plan. Besides that, the plan needs to address the concerns about competitiveness with other places without carbon taxes. It was in fact part of the Nobel prize winning research that suggested a carbon tax in the first place - a "climate club" tariff that would apply to jurisdictions without similar carbon taxes (https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2...aus-slides.pdf). The current plan should not have gone forward without this as well.)

[Nowhere]

Originally Posted by caveat.doctor

Because post-amalgamation Ottawa's city limits are so large and well outside the built-up area, limiting sprawl is maybe more feasible here than in cities where separate rural communities are right at the built-up edge. While there are people who want their large spaces who commute in from (actual) out of town currently, I suspect that the distances are still great enough that, if Ottawa were to make zoning/policy changes that reduced the supply of sprawling new construction, not everyone will want to move that far out to another jurisdiction that would be outside such measures.

There isn't much the city can do to stop sprawl, since the provincial government forced the city to allow more sprawl than Jim Watson wanted. Queen's Park requires the city to have enough available land for 15 years of sprawl. Anyway, everyone would start moving to Gatineau if we were allowed to stop it.

[Urbanarchit]

Originally Posted by Nowhere

There isn't much the city can do to stop sprawl, since the provincial government forced the city to allow more sprawl than Jim Watson wanted. Queen's Park requires the city to have enough available land for 15 years of sprawl. Anyway, everyone would start moving to Gatineau if we were allowed to stop it.

Not that I'm defending sprawl, but there could be ways to mitigate the negative effects it has on cities by rectifying the problems created by it. My understanding is sprawl is bad for several reasons:

• it's usually low-density development that forces people to travel by car for everyday tasks like work, school, groceries, and increases people's travel distance daily to accomplish these tasks while making public transportation less efficient;
• it takes away arable land that could be reserved for food production (agriculture) or left natural as forests and fields to the benefit of various animals and other important environmental phenomena that we take for granted (rainwater absorption, combatting Urban Heat Island Effect, CO2 absorption, among others);
• increases distance, and therefore amount, of services (hydro, sewage, roads, etc) needed for the sprawling communities; and
• contributes to social isolation due to its form that prevents spontaneous or common encounters with others.

I'm sure there are other problems we could add to this list or subdivide the first point, but those seem like the most significant. By understanding these issues we can work to address their negative impacts on the city, which of course would require changes to our laws/ by-laws, building codes, etc. to ensure that when we do build new communities they meet proper standards that would exacerbate these problems.

One way would be to set up standards for how neighbourhoods are designed by making the current curlicue streets and parking lots favoured in present suburban designs illegal. New neighbourhood designs would include traditional main streets and civic facilities (schools, community centres, etc.) nearby such that residents could walk there. As well, street and block designs made such that there is a general grid design making travel (walking) distances shorter and block designs easier to accommodate an eventual intensification and redevelopment in the future. Similar to urban and streetcar-type neighbourhood designs. There should be more emphasis on building mixed-use and multi-unit residential buildings, in addition to building homes closer together.

A second measure is to create a comprehensive transit plan for the city and region along which these communities will be built. We can reserve land intended for a transitway (LRT, BRT, etc.) where a transit station is to be built every so often. They need not be as frequently spaced as within the city limits, but there could be space along the lines at which new stations could be constructed should the demand arise. Each community will develop around the transit stations to enable people to get around and into the city easily without cars.

Thirdly, these communities would be designed as towns around these transit stations. The areas beside the stations would be reserved for higher density developments with shops, offices, apartments/ condos and other things you'd expect in a town centre at least within a 500m radius distance (though less can be zoned provided that the neighbourhood is open for intensification eventually). Higher density doesn't mean highrise, but a base of 3-4 stories in areas immediately beside the station would suffice with detached homes elsewhere, with upzoning permitted if the need arises in the future. This way you can build the low-rise, detached house neighbourhood many people want with a traditional town centre around a transit station that's easy to access and local. This way people may not need to travel to other places as they may have amenities, jobs, and apartments (to live in or downsize into) they like locally, and transit access to other communities and the urban areas of Ottawa.

With this, you could control sprawl, centre it around transit, create new communities that have suburban and urban qualities that people like and look for in housing (which contributes to why urban neighbourhoods are sought after and becoming so expensive). This would also reduce the need for people to use cars to get around, while creating an actual community to spend time and socialize in. Services wouldn't need to travel too far to be provided to residents, and the growth pattern couldbe controlled so that it radiates from "denser" transit stations instead of spreading out as they currently do and taking over the country side. I kind of imagine this similar to how Japan does urban and suburban development (which is all based on national standards, if I might add). Obviously, there should be emphasis on intensification downtown and in the urban and near-urban neighbourhoods first and foremost, and then retrofitting and redesigning our current suburbs to be more "urban" or at least eliminate some of the problems they create.

Also, I just really love trains and wish we had more of them. I'm envious of how Japan has built train infrastructure and how a train transit culture developed. I watch videos like this POV train ride and find it so enjoyable. The neighbourhoods are suburban yet dense, and are served by decent transit, even in smaller towns.

I just mean to say, we could be doing sprawl better to mitigate against its negative effects, and help with being more sustainable and resilient in face of climate change.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Urbanarchit

Not that I'm defending sprawl, but there could be ways to mitigate the negative effects it has on cities by rectifying the problems created by it. My understanding is sprawl is bad for several reasons:

• it's usually low-density development that forces people to travel by car for everyday tasks like work, school, groceries, and increases people's travel distance daily to accomplish these tasks while making public transportation less efficient;
• it takes away arable land that could be reserved for food production (agriculture) or left natural as forests and fields to the benefit of various animals and other important environmental phenomena that we take for granted (rainwater absorption, combatting Urban Heat Island Effect, CO2 absorption, among others);
• increases distance, and therefore amount, of services (hydro, sewage, roads, etc) needed for the sprawling communities; and
• contributes to social isolation due to its form that prevents spontaneous or common encounters with others.

I'm sure there are other problems we could add to this list or subdivide the first point, but those seem like the most significant. By understanding these issues we can work to address their negative impacts on the city, which of course would require changes to our laws/ by-laws, building codes, etc. to ensure that when we do build new communities they meet proper standards that would exacerbate these problems.

One way would be to set up standards for how neighbourhoods are designed by making the current curlicue streets and parking lots favoured in present suburban designs illegal. New neighbourhood designs would include traditional main streets and civic facilities (schools, community centres, etc.) nearby such that residents could walk there. As well, street and block designs made such that there is a general grid design making travel (walking) distances shorter and block designs easier to accommodate an eventual intensification and redevelopment in the future. Similar to urban and streetcar-type neighbourhood designs. There should be more emphasis on building mixed-use and multi-unit residential buildings, in addition to building homes closer together.

A second measure is to create a comprehensive transit plan for the city and region along which these communities will be built. We can reserve land intended for a transitway (LRT, BRT, etc.) where a transit station is to be built every so often. They need not be as frequently spaced as within the city limits, but there could be space along the lines at which new stations could be constructed should the demand arise. Each community will develop around the transit stations to enable people to get around and into the city easily without cars.

Thirdly, these communities would be designed as towns around these transit stations. The areas beside the stations would be reserved for higher density developments with shops, offices, apartments/ condos and other things you'd expect in a town centre at least within a 500m radius distance (though less can be zoned provided that the neighbourhood is open for intensification eventually). Higher density doesn't mean highrise, but a base of 3-4 stories in areas immediately beside the station would suffice with detached homes elsewhere, with upzoning permitted if the need arises in the future. This way you can build the low-rise, detached house neighbourhood many people want with a traditional town centre around a transit station that's easy to access and local. This way people may not need to travel to other places as they may have amenities, jobs, and apartments (to live in or downsize into) they like locally, and transit access to other communities and the urban areas of Ottawa.

With this, you could control sprawl, centre it around transit, create new communities that have suburban and urban qualities that people like and look for in housing (which contributes to why urban neighbourhoods are sought after and becoming so expensive). This would also reduce the need for people to use cars to get around, while creating an actual community to spend time and socialize in. Services wouldn't need to travel too far to be provided to residents, and the growth pattern couldbe controlled so that it radiates from "denser" transit stations instead of spreading out as they currently do and taking over the country side. I kind of imagine this similar to how Japan does urban and suburban development (which is all based on national standards, if I might add). Obviously, there should be emphasis on intensification downtown and in the urban and near-urban neighbourhoods first and foremost, and then retrofitting and redesigning our current suburbs to be more "urban" or at least eliminate some of the problems they create.

Also, I just really love trains and wish we had more of them. I'm envious of how Japan has built train infrastructure and how a train transit culture developed. I watch videos like this POV train ride and find it so enjoyable. The neighbourhoods are suburban yet dense, and are served by decent transit, even in smaller towns.

I just mean to say, we could be doing sprawl better to mitigate against its negative effects, and help with being more sustainable and resilient in face of climate change.

This all looks interesting and echoes a lot of previous commentary by many in various threads. Is there a North American best practice we could emulate? Not to be too skeptical but I wonder if some of this is realistic even if voters were willing to adopt it pay for it etc.

Japan and Europe have completely different taxation and economic structures that can't be directly adopted with land use changes alone.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

This all looks interesting and echoes a lot of previous commentary by many in various threads. Is there a North American best practice we could emulate? Not to be too skeptical but I wonder if some of this is realistic even if voters were willing to adopt it pay for it etc.

Japan and Europe have completely different taxation and economic structures that can't be directly adopted with land use changes alone.

Montreal. Has decent density. You don't see too many skyscrapers or 50 storey condos. Lots of low rise apartments and duplexes. A lot of the older duplexes and small single family homes and planning around them is coming to be seen as a real model for the rest of North America. It's unfortunate that Ottawa is increasingly falling into the Toronto model instead of the Montreal model. We build 50 storey condos in downtown Ottawa (well Bayview...) and then allow detached housing subdivisions in say Riverside South.

And it's not just that we allow detached housing, it's the style of detached housing we allow. We allow homes with massive lot footprints. They have detached houses in Europe and Japan, contrary to popular beliefs in these parts. What they don't have are large backyards and massive front lawns that could themselves fit a car. They have one lawn that is functional, front or back. It's usually just large enough for a patio set, a small storage shed, 2-3 vegetable patches. If it's the back that this is the functional yard, the front of the house is built steps from the curb. If they have a garage (and these aren't popular), they are usually detached on the side of the house or in the backyard with the laneway providing access. The homes themselves are smaller. 1000-1500 sqft is typical with two stories. Bungalows are rare. And if they are semis or towns, three stories is much more common. Leaf through these pics and you'll get an idea what European subdivisions are like:

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-ne...-90051239.html

The other aspect of this is zoning and mixed use. Just go across to Gatineau. Corner stores are more prevalent. Our subdivisions are retail deserts until you hit the subdivision plaza a mile away. Which for a city under snow for 6 months per year is terrible. You can't get off the bus, buy a carton of milk and then walk home in most neighbourhoods in Ottawa. I really don't see why builders can't be pushed to build more of these kinds of subdivisions. They do decently well with townhouses. They need to pushed more on detached and semi-detached. And a bit more on the urban planning.

Lastly, city wide, the amount of landspace given to parking is a real problem. Look at a satellite image of Ottawa. Easily a third of any settled area is asphalt for parking. Multi-level parking structures are expensive. But they need to be imposed on developers, businesses, etc if we are going to build a denser city. Boggles my mind that transit park n rides aren't multistorey with charges to fully or partially recover costs. Or that malls are allowed without multi-level parking. The Trainyards, for example. Just wow. Massive development inside the Greenbelt and the city allowed that.....

Effectively, you want to know what great urban planning was? It's what every Canadian city had a century ago: streetcar suburbs. To this day, those old streetcar suburb hoods are still the best places to lives. Main street with streetcar upfront with some apartments and mixed use blocks. Small detached or semis on the sidestreets. Easy walk to retail, to transit and even schools for kids.

[Truenorth00]

@urbanarchit

We aren't going to turn into Europe or Japan overnight. So we need to give up that dream. We need to simply focus on building neighbourhoods and cities that are more livable and not as massively car dependent. The city is actually doing better on transit oriented development. It's at least turned the corner here. So the issue really isn't around these spots. It's about the ever expanding suburban boundary. And suburbs that still aren't dense enough to really be walkable and transit friendly. Not to mention taxpayer friendly.

[caveat.doctor]

Originally Posted by Nowhere

There isn't much the city can do to stop sprawl, since the provincial government forced the city to allow more sprawl than Jim Watson wanted. Queen's Park requires the city to have enough available land for 15 years of sprawl.

That wasn’t quite my point - what I mean is, even within that mandated development area, the City still has the ability to shape what actually gets built. Assuming that the City did adopt better development requirements (as Urbanarchit and Truenorth00 have articulated above), anyone who still wanted sprawl-as-usual would have to go much further out of “town”, as compared to cities that don’t have such large municipal boundaries, thus limiting desirability and demand.

Originally Posted by YOWetal

This all looks interesting and echoes a lot of previous commentary by many in various threads. Is there a North American best practice we could emulate? Not to be too skeptical but I wonder if some of this is realistic even if voters were willing to adopt it pay for it etc.

There’s often good North American case examples at https://www.strongtowns.org/. I moved here from the DC area and worked briefly with Montgomery County’s planning department, they have a pretty good blog about some of what they’re up to: https://montgomeryplanning.org/blog-design/. Lots of similarities in a national capital context. Here’s a recent post about what makes good and bad (both walkable, and profitable) development near transit that’s apt as we roll out the C-Line and T-Line extensions: https://montgomeryplanning.org/blog-...veness-part-2/

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Effectively, you want to know what great urban planning was? It's what every Canadian city had a century ago: streetcar suburbs. To this day, those old streetcar suburb hoods are still the best places to lives. Main street with streetcar upfront with some apartments and mixed use blocks. Small detached or semis on the sidestreets. Easy walk to retail, to transit and even schools for kids.

Essentially this - that pretty sums up my neighbourhood near the Civic Hospital: sprouted out along the Holland Av streetcar, a complete range of apartments to homes, rental and owned, walkable to the Wellington St strip, parks and schools that my kids can (eventually) walk to themselves, roads on a grid you never feel you’re forced to take the “long way” to get around, or getting bored always walking the same route (and still quiet enough to play street hockey) and fairly good transit (as long as they don’t cancel routes).

To oversimplify, the City could just the same development and zoning standards that led to what’s covered in Ottawa’s Mature Neighbourhood overlay.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by caveat.doctor

That wasn’t quite my point - what I mean is, even within that mandated development area, the City still has the ability to shape what actually gets built. Assuming that the City did adopt better development requirements (as Urbanarchit and Truenorth00 have articulated above), anyone who still wanted sprawl-as-usual would have to go much further out of “town”, as compared to cities that don’t have such large municipal boundaries, thus limiting desirability and demand.

And yet, we're extending transit to them. So hardly any incentive to limit sprawl.

Originally Posted by caveat.doctor

To oversimplify, the City could just the same development and zoning standards that led to what’s covered in Ottawa’s Mature Neighbourhood overlay.

People love all these old neighbourhoods and yet for some strange reason don't insist on similar developments where they want to live.