Downtown Ottawa Revitalization Initiatives

[originalmuffins]

Originally Posted by Fading Isle

You want to reverse the increased productivity and morale so that a couple of fast food places can be busier at lunch? Seems short-sighted. The unavoidable work from home experiment was incredibly successful.

This presents a perfect opportunity to reorient our downtown to residents, tourists, events, and yes also office workers, instead of only orienting it to the office crowd. The most vibrant areas of cities are never their office districts. The financial district in Toronto is also completely dead other than at lunch.

My sentiments exactly. Going back to a pre-covid world is bad news for Ottawa's development and actual longterm viability of our downtown core actually having life.

[vtecyo]

Originally Posted by originalmuffins

My sentiments exactly. Going back to a pre-covid world is bad news for Ottawa's development and actual longterm viability of our downtown core actually having life.

Yeah - and no matter what people feel - we're not going all the way back to pre-covid normal. If government and private business want to retain employees - they have to continue offering WFH to compete with those who do. It's really not in their interest to pay for office space they don't use either.

I'd say this is akin to the long term change brought about by suburbanization and the automobile - maybe not on the same scale - but this isn't that new.

Hopefully there's enough redevelopment of downtown office space to housing to make difference. Of course we won't see apartments crammed at the density of cubicles - so it couldn't make up 100% of the difference. But since people who live downtown will spend more of their money there than a commuter would - perhaps it could make up a lot of the difference.

[Mille Sabords]

Originally Posted by Fading Isle

You want to reverse the increased productivity and morale so that a couple of fast food places can be busier at lunch? Seems short-sighted. The unavoidable work from home experiment was incredibly successful.

This presents a perfect opportunity to reorient our downtown to residents, tourists, events, and yes also office workers, instead of only orienting it to the office crowd. The most vibrant areas of cities are never their office districts. The financial district in Toronto is also completely dead other than at lunch.

Hah, I knew that this would touch a nerve - I was deliberate in my choice of words to provoke exactly this kind of discussion.

Lots of layers to this so let me start with the good / potential: maybe the empty office spaces that the feds no longer need can be used by high-tech firms who employ younger work forces, who are likelier to live and go out downtown. That would be a big improvement over the bureaucratic fight-to-suburbia-at 5 pm of past years. Check on that.

BUT! Increased productivity... yeah, for some. There are hard workers who respect their paycheque and their employer. But there are also many (more than we care to acknowledge) who game the system, have two jobs without telling the other employers, and hide behind their WFH arrangement to their advantage. In the case of federal bureaucrats, I am astonished at how blind they can be at the real prospect of a tory government royally kicking their asses. But even without that happening, it really strains the morale of everyone who works hard to see that so many can get away with so much. It bakes in some pretty huge unfairness.

AND - to the argument that "we shouldn't get people to go back just so a few fast food places can fill up at lunch anymore"... I am speechless. Can this be any more insulting and patronizing to the downtown core? How many more poundings is downtown expected to keep taking, decade after decade... seemingly taking modest steps forward just to be knocked back again, and still be expected to be the city's cash cow? The attitude seems to be "up to downtown to reinvest itself, I am not gonna change" - "It's my convenience above all and too bad for downtown, that'll be their problem"... or, more glibly: "come on downtown, you can do it! you can reinvent yourself (yet again)! tell us when you do (and when you clean up your street problems, too, hehe) - we may go check out a restaurant or two then!"

As a city we want a lively downtown, and that means people living and working there, going to restaurants of all kinds and entertainment venues of all kinds. Keeping downtown vibrant should be a point of civic pride.

[YOWflier]

Originally Posted by Mille Sabords

Hah, I knew that this would touch a nerve - I was deliberate in my choice of words to provoke exactly this kind of discussion.

Lots of layers to this so let me start with the good / potential: maybe the empty office spaces that the feds no longer need can be used by high-tech firms who employ younger work forces, who are likelier to live and go out downtown. That would be a big improvement over the bureaucratic fight-to-suburbia-at 5 pm of past years. Check on that.

BUT! Increased productivity... yeah, for some. There are hard workers who respect their paycheque and their employer. But there are also many (more than we care to acknowledge) who game the system, have two jobs without telling the other employers, and hide behind their WFH arrangement to their advantage. In the case of federal bureaucrats, I am astonished at how blind they can be at the real prospect of a tory government royally kicking their asses. But even without that happening, it really strains the morale of everyone who works hard to see that so many can get away with so much. It bakes in some pretty huge unfairness.

AND - to the argument that "we shouldn't get people to go back just so a few fast food places can fill up at lunch anymore"... I am speechless. Can this be any more insulting and patronizing to the downtown core? How many more poundings is downtown expected to keep taking, decade after decade... seemingly taking modest steps forward just to be knocked back again, and still be expected to be the city's cash cow? The attitude seems to be "up to downtown to reinvest itself, I am not gonna change" - "It's my convenience above all and too bad for downtown, that'll be their problem"... or, more glibly: "come on downtown, you can do it! you can reinvent yourself (yet again)! tell us when you do (and when you clean up your street problems, too, hehe) - we may go check out a restaurant or two then!"

As a city we want a lively downtown, and that means people living and working there, going to restaurants of all kinds and entertainment venues of all kinds. Keeping downtown vibrant should be a point of civic pride.

You’re a voice from the past that is sorely missed.

I’m sure people want a vibrant downtown. They just want it to become that way beforehand so they can partake. It’s someone else’s job to make things better…and so forth.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Mille Sabords

Hah, I knew that this would touch a nerve - I was deliberate in my choice of words to provoke exactly this kind of discussion.

Lots of layers to this so let me start with the good / potential: maybe the empty office spaces that the feds no longer need can be used by high-tech firms who employ younger work forces, who are likelier to live and go out downtown. That would be a big improvement over the bureaucratic fight-to-suburbia-at 5 pm of past years. Check on that.

BUT! Increased productivity... yeah, for some. There are hard workers who respect their paycheque and their employer. But there are also many (more than we care to acknowledge) who game the system, have two jobs without telling the other employers, and hide behind their WFH arrangement to their advantage. In the case of federal bureaucrats, I am astonished at how blind they can be at the real prospect of a tory government royally kicking their asses. But even without that happening, it really strains the morale of everyone who works hard to see that so many can get away with so much. It bakes in some pretty huge unfairness.

AND - to the argument that "we shouldn't get people to go back just so a few fast food places can fill up at lunch anymore"... I am speechless. Can this be any more insulting and patronizing to the downtown core? How many more poundings is downtown expected to keep taking, decade after decade... seemingly taking modest steps forward just to be knocked back again, and still be expected to be the city's cash cow? The attitude seems to be "up to downtown to reinvest itself, I am not gonna change" - "It's my convenience above all and too bad for downtown, that'll be their problem"... or, more glibly: "come on downtown, you can do it! you can reinvent yourself (yet again)! tell us when you do (and when you clean up your street problems, too, hehe) - we may go check out a restaurant or two then!"

As a city we want a lively downtown, and that means people living and working there, going to restaurants of all kinds and entertainment venues of all kinds. Keeping downtown vibrant should be a point of civic pride.

Best comment I've read in a while. Thanks!

I think the idea that WFH is broadly better for productivity and mental health will prove to be illusory - there are lots of work-based reasons to get people together in person, starting with onboarding new hires and creating an environment ripe for collaboration.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Fading Isle

You want to reverse the increased productivity and morale so that a couple of fast food places can be busier at lunch? Seems short-sighted. The unavoidable work from home experiment was incredibly successful.

This presents a perfect opportunity to reorient our downtown to residents, tourists, events, and yes also office workers, instead of only orienting it to the office crowd. The most vibrant areas of cities are never their office districts. The financial district in Toronto is also completely dead other than at lunch.

Agree I can't believe people are even claiming we should bring government office workers back to support fast food or really any business as bad as we might feel for many who are hardworking families now hurting as Covid supports disappear.

But the claim of more productivity seems doubtful. The measurable parts of government seems to have seen a drop in productivity. I don't imagine the vast swath that is difficult to measure is an exception.

[Richard Eade]

There is no doubt that the forced move to more computer-based, individual, work habits has made some fundamental changes in the way work is done.

Instead of trying to book one of the two meeting rooms, workers can now schedule an on-line meeting at a time that best suits those attending. There can be many more meetings happening at any one time than there used to be room for. And, the meeting can include representatives from anywhere, having their speech automatically translated into any preferred language for each attendee. Everyone has access to a ‘white board’ and can immediately transfer supporting documents.

Working from home, individuals can schedule their lives around the tasks that they need to do for work, and vice versa. If they need input from another person, they can send an ‘instant’ message or an e-mail. They can even have an impromptu video-meeting for a few people. Their ‘commute time’ becomes the time it takes to walk from the breakfast table to their home-office. Wear and tear on their personal vehicle is reduced, as is the cost of their vehicle insurance; while their work-related parking fees have been completely eliminated.

Yup, we have reached Utopia – but only for some.

Not everyone thrives on independence, however. There will definitely be those who miss the ‘water-cooler’ chatter; the in-person contact. Not everyone is satisfied to have 1,357,964 ‘friends’ and to Instagram pictures of their lunch from their kitchen.

Just as in school (a time more recent for many on this forum) there were those who thrived doing their work independently; while others needed to be in groups. Those who tried to function in a way that did not support them, likely didn’t succeed. There is a reason that so few graduate, compared to the number who enroll in the first semester of the first year. Not everyone needs the same environment to work their best.

Downtown developed as a place where many workers gather to do their work. This built synergies. There will always be a need for such places.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

There is no doubt that the forced move to more computer-based, individual, work habits has made some fundamental changes in the way work is done.

Instead of trying to book one of the two meeting rooms, workers can now schedule an on-line meeting at a time that best suits those attending. There can be many more meetings happening at any one time than there used to be room for. And, the meeting can include representatives from anywhere, having their speech automatically translated into any preferred language for each attendee. Everyone has access to a ‘white board’ and can immediately transfer supporting documents.

Working from home, individuals can schedule their lives around the tasks that they need to do for work, and vice versa. If they need input from another person, they can send an ‘instant’ message or an e-mail. They can even have an impromptu video-meeting for a few people. Their ‘commute time’ becomes the time it takes to walk from the breakfast table to their home-office. Wear and tear on their personal vehicle is reduced, as is the cost of their vehicle insurance; while their work-related parking fees have been completely eliminated.

Yup, we have reached Utopia – but only for some.

Not everyone thrives on independence, however. There will definitely be those who miss the ‘water-cooler’ chatter; the in-person contact. Not everyone is satisfied to have 1,357,964 ‘friends’ and to Instagram pictures of their lunch from their kitchen.

Just as in school (a time more recent for many on this forum) there were those who thrived doing their work independently; while others needed to be in groups. Those who tried to function in a way that did not support them, likely didn’t succeed. There is a reason that so few graduate, compared to the number who enroll in the first semester of the first year. Not everyone needs the same environment to work their best.

Downtown developed as a place where many workers gather to do their work. This built synergies. There will always be a need for such places.

Not all home offices are ideal for work. Children, other family members and even pets can interfere with focus.

The growing lack of separation between work and home life was a problem before covid and has increased dramatically since the pandemic and the Zoom explosion.

I was the type of person who could work from home, before covid, but I chose to do so somewhat infrequently. It was good to work from home at times to avoid the interruptions from coworkers, phones and e-mail. But, some collaborative efforts are informal and best face to face, in my opinion.

However, the Zoom phenomenom with its constant technical glitches (that I experienced repeatedly with great frustration including this week) actually have brought the worst of both worlds. Now, the constant interruptions are at home as well.

I see a great usefulness with Zoom when it is difficult to get people together in person, but I am not sold in all instances, particularly for mentorship and building relationships that are just as important in the workplace as at home.

[Richard Eade]

Agreed. The idea that Work-From-Home is the greatest thing since pre-sliced bread is only held by some people.
(I also think that there is a group out there who, like myself, like to slice their own bread to their own desired thickness.)

[originalmuffins]

Originally Posted by vtecyo

Yeah - and no matter what people feel - we're not going all the way back to pre-covid normal. If government and private business want to retain employees - they have to continue offering WFH to compete with those who do. It's really not in their interest to pay for office space they don't use either.

I'd say this is akin to the long term change brought about by suburbanization and the automobile - maybe not on the same scale - but this isn't that new.

Hopefully there's enough redevelopment of downtown office space to housing to make difference. Of course we won't see apartments crammed at the density of cubicles - so it couldn't make up 100% of the difference. But since people who live downtown will spend more of their money there than a commuter would - perhaps it could make up a lot of the difference.

Yup, fully agreed. It would be the natural progression to shifting the mentality and focus of our downtown, somewhere that can actually show we are the 4th biggest metro in the country instead of a sea of empty buildings.

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Agreed. The idea that Work-From-Home is the greatest thing since pre-sliced bread is only held by some people.
(I also think that there is a group out there who, like myself, like to slice their own bread to their own desired thickness.)

Lol, and that's why I said keep some areas as swing spaces for those who need the old style (which many who prefer the new style indicate: If you want to go in; GO IN! but don't act like the old way is better.

It's possible to reduce office footprint based on who wants to go into the office and who doesn't - forcing the ones who are more efficient with a newer model is not the way.

And it isn't the way to actually make our downtown something relevant or transform into something better.

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Agree I can't believe people are even claiming we should bring government office workers back to support fast food or really any business as bad as we might feel for many who are hardworking families now hurting as Covid supports disappear.

But the claim of more productivity seems doubtful. The measurable parts of government seems to have seen a drop in productivity. I don't imagine the vast swath that is difficult to measure is an exception.

Many metrics prove more productivity for many employees and teams: "Productivity was up 13% for the people working from home, which is a huge improvement. Of that 13% increase, about two-thirds was due to the fact they were working more minutes because they were late less, and took shorter lunch and toilet breaks. Then one-third was that they were more productive per minute." https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...0per%20minute.

Just because some prefer to have office cooler talk and the "image of working" by being in an office - doesn't mean they were more productive. That's a façade.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Not all home offices are ideal for work. Children, other family members and even pets can interfere with focus.

The growing lack of separation between work and home life was a problem before covid and has increased dramatically since the pandemic and the Zoom explosion.

I was the type of person who could work from home, before covid, but I chose to do so somewhat infrequently. It was good to work from home at times to avoid the interruptions from coworkers, phones and e-mail. But, some collaborative efforts are informal and best face to face, in my opinion.

However, the Zoom phenomenom with its constant technical glitches (that I experienced repeatedly with great frustration including this week) actually have brought the worst of both worlds. Now, the constant interruptions are at home as well.

I see a great usefulness with Zoom when it is difficult to get people together in person, but I am not sold in all instances, particularly for mentorship and building relationships that are just as important in the workplace as at home.

Again, just because some people want a place to get away from home life or think there is a lack of separation, doesn't mean forcing the way back to the old model is correct. Everyone who I talk to: PRIVATE or public sector (as some like to act like it's only public sector) prefer the flexibility. Some prefer going in but many don't. It's a joke that everyone feels that those who WFH need to prove they're getting their work done because it's very evident when someone is not doing their work.


All these comments wreak of the fear of change or modern lifestyle, the reality is: you can't build a city based on old methodologies. COVID showed that Ottawa's core was a graveyard without the forced business sector, and it can't just be a place where you just have office workers in with no one living in it, no amenities for residents/visitors/tourists, or reasons to go downtown other than "I have to go to work". Our core needs to be reimagined with density+residents, proper amenities put in place, and places that people want to visit. This is something people should understand here because this is now wreaking of NIMBY vibes. Times change, or should we just stick to horse and carriage as our preferred method of transportation?

[lrt's friend]

As we work towards more and more personal isolation, I wonder what the long-term mental health implications are going to be.

Our downtown is doomed. It is as simple as that. There are fewer and fewer reasons to go downtown. For downtown to be successful, it needs to be the city's meeting place. If not for work, then what? Most of the other reasons for meeting downtown have already been eliminated. Condos won't make downtown a meeting place for the city.

My impression is that workers want to dictate WFH regardless of the opinion of managers. I have personally heard some pretty strident opinions on this that is now spreading into the volunteer sector where community participation and interaction is critical. Zoom creates fake community. I am involved with two community groups and the WFH attitude is killing both organizations.

[originalmuffins]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

As we work towards more and more personal isolation, I wonder what the long-term mental health implications are going to be.

Our downtown is doomed. It is as simple as that. There are fewer and fewer reasons to go downtown. For downtown to be successful, it needs to be the city's meeting place. If not for work, then what? Most of the other reasons for meeting downtown have already been eliminated. Condos won't make downtown a meeting place for the city.

My impression is that workers want to dictate WFH regardless of the opinion of managers. I have personally heard some pretty strident opinions on this that is now spreading into the volunteer sector where community participation and interaction is critical. Zoom creates fake community. I am involved with two community groups and the WFH attitude is killing both organizations.

LOL, whatever you say (because all I said was condo development ). You're all right, we need to go back to the old ways: we have to stop using the internet. Modernizing is the devil

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by originalmuffins

LOL, whatever you say (because all I said was condo development ). You're all right, we need to go back to the old ways: we have to stop using the internet. Modernizing is the devil

My point was that condos don't solve all of downtown's problems and zoom meetings are not the ideal solution in all cases.

Both are beneficial, but as I said, Zoom does not really create community.

In a previous post, I mentioned that I did WFH and I saw its benefits, but I saw the benefits also of collaborating with coworkers and volunteers in person as well.

So, please don't pigeon hole me.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by FlyYOW

In terms of donors, probably. Even support to a degree. But yesterday I saw something quite surprising, which was an endorsement of Sutcliffe by well known and respected Liberal Yasir Naqvi. Maybe it’s a one-off…but if he pulls even modest support from that “sphere” it bodes very well for him.

I'd be curious I think some of that is a more politically active central core and Sutcliffe's heatmap might be similar.

The Liberal party is for sure split in general so no surprise here. I'm surprised at Naqvi thought he was towards the left edge of the party though maaybe just the riding he's in.

[originalmuffins]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

My point was that condos don't solve all of downtown's problems and zoom meetings are not the ideal solution in all cases.

Both are beneficial, but as I said, Zoom does not really create community.

In a previous post, I mentioned that I did WFH and I saw its benefits, but I saw the benefits also of collaborating with coworkers and volunteers in person as well.

So, please don't pigeon hole me.

Which is what you tried doing with my stance, because I mentioned we need more than just condos. I mentioned hybrid for the sectors that actually need it or hybrid offices for those that do want to go in. There needs to be amenities, and reasons for the average person who doesn't work there to go there (shopping, things to do, and so on). Increasing the density is a good start. We don't need to strawman then react negatively when it's returned. WFH is the present and the future, and reality is: it's widespread worldwide, so let's not try to live in the past and we need to hope for plans to modernize the city for things that actually solve the problem instead of "we need to go back to our old ways".

[Richard Eade]

I’m pulling back this thread because there seems to be a lot of discussion about the future of Ottawa’s downtown and it is taking over the 2022 Ottawa Municipal Election thread. I thought that this might be a more appropriate place for all those comments.

Ottawa’s core has developed over the last 190+ years. In general, it began as the place where the military set up its barracks, with ‘preferred’ housing close by. The main retail (market) was located in the ‘lower town’ area until more up-scale retailers started taking space around Barracks Hill. Retail and services provided the bulk of the jobs for the general population.

Because almost all of the work and amenities were located in the city’s core, living on its fringe was the preferred area for many. Living further out meant that commuting to work was a necessity. However, as the city grew, two things happened: The land nearer the core got even more expensive; and better methods of commuting were developed. For example, the electric streetcars enabled people to more easily travel from newly developed ‘sub-urban’ areas into their jobs in the core.

Gradually, people moved their homes further out from the tight core of the city. This gave them cheaper accommodations. Less expensive housing allowed them to either get more house and land (if they were fortunate enough to earn a decent wage), or to at least to keep a roof over their head (if they were not earning much money or were trying to save up). However, the ‘up-town’ / ‘down-town’ area was still the primary area for jobs and retail.

Why have I described something that, probably, everyone on this forum already knows? Because it seems that some are not taking the history of Ottawa’s development into account when they declare what they think should be done – and it should be done immediately.

As the core developed and grew, the city’s population also grew, but was still quite small. Public amenities were not as ‘necessary’ as they are today. (For example, folks could simply walk down to the river to go swimming on a hot day – so there was no real need to use scarce public funds for a public ‘swimming pool’.)

FAST-FORWARD to 1990: There are still a tremendous number of jobs clustered in the city’s core, but many are to support the government. The bulk of the buildings there are office towers, which clear out after the work-day ends – leaving a sparce population downtown in the evenings. Most of the retail and services has followed the movement of people out into the suburbs. Commuting is still, relatively, easy since buses travel directly from the suburbs to the core.

Because the office area of the downtown has grown from a few blocks to cover many blocks, the ‘dead’ area in the evening has also grown. Without activities in the area, there is no real incentive for people to travel to the downtown except for their daily office job. There was no reason at all to spend much public money to develop public facilities in the area. Some of the small parks that supported the few people who lived on the fringe of the original core might have been maintained, or they might have been developed for new office space.

In short (I know, too late for that!); Ottawa’s downtown has developed over many, many years as a place where people go to work for the day but then return to their home in the suburbs. Most retail and services remaining in the downtown have evolved to support that function. It is in the suburbs, near their homes, that people access the needed retail, services, and recreational facilities for everything else.

FAST-FORWARD to 2019: There has been a push to develop residential towers in and near the core of the city. There has also been a movement to ‘decentralize’ the offices, with government departments being moves out of the core, and into some suburbs. The goal of these changes is to make neighbourhoods more ‘complete’, allowing people to stay closer to their homes for all of their needs, including going to work.

Unfortunately, the downtown evolved over many years to be the ‘work hub’, and to change it into being just a densely-populated ‘suburb-like’ area over such a short time is difficult, to say the least. Public amenities that are enjoyed out in the suburbs, like parkland and public pools, have had to be provided by the builders of the residential towers – but those are private features, like in-building pools, exercise rooms, and roof-top terraces. Not that private facilities can’t be even nicer that public ones, but they are a cost that must be borne by only the residents of the specific building, and not the population of the city. This reinforces the cost difference between living in the downtown ‘suburb’ compared to living out in a true suburb.

As well, it is difficult to quickly pivot the retail and service landscape form what has developed, support for daily commuter activities, to what is needed for a ‘complete’ neighbourhood. When a ‘big-box’ store can buy cheap land in a suburb and begin turning a profit after two years, why would it want to spend considerably more to build a store for a downtown population? Those living downtown almost all have cars and have been willing to drive out to the suburbs to do their shopping. Most ‘downtowners’ do not seem to be willing to spend considerably more to buy their food in a downtown store. Thus, any downtown stores must be in areas of maximum density of less-mobile populations – like along Rideau Street, which has many residential towers housing university students.

Just as the Crisis of Climate Change is not that the climate is changing (it is the rate of that change), the ‘crisis’ of the core dying due to Work Form Home (WFH) is due to the rate of the change. If, all of a sudden, the majority of the commuters is removed from downtown, the economic environment that has developed over many years could fail. Just as with the climate, where there are calls to slow the climate change so that ‘normal’ environmental changes can keep up, there are calls to slow the removal of commuters. That call back from WFH does not need to be a permanent thing for all workers. There has already been a concerted effort to get more residential spaces in the core, and that will continue. As that happens, the economic environment downtown will become less dependent on commuters.

We can’t expect to suddenly change an environment that has developed over 190+ years. If we want to make drastic changes – without creating a ‘crisis’ - then those changes must be done over a longer period of time.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

As well, it is difficult to quickly pivot the retail and service landscape form what has developed, support for daily commuter activities, to what is needed for a ‘complete’ neighbourhood. When a ‘big-box’ store can buy cheap land in a suburb and begin turning a profit after two years, why would it want to spend considerably more to build a store for a downtown population? Those living downtown almost all have cars and have been willing to drive out to the suburbs to do their shopping. Most ‘downtowners’ do not seem to be willing to spend considerably more to buy their food in a downtown store. Thus, any downtown stores must be in areas of maximum density of less-mobile populations – like along Rideau Street, which has many residential towers housing university students.

I was with you until this paragraph. It's not true that those living downtown almost all have cars. According to this data (https://www.ottawainsights.ca/themes...ransportation/), even in 2011 there were 42% of households who didn't have cars. The idea that people downtown are willing and able to drive to the suburbs isn't accurate. The fact that even city services have moved to the suburbs, forcing people to drive out of the city for basic needs, is a massive policy failure.

Likewise in the case of big box stores. If we actually taxed them on the land they use for massive one-storey buildings and huge parking lots, along with the true cost of the stroads that they are on, smaller urban stores could be very competitive on price. We have made policy choices that have lead to the current state of affairs.

It's not that there isn't a significant population downtown, or that amenities like the NAC or the Convention Centre or the Market aren't big draws, it's that there is a bigger population in the suburbs and that population dominates city policy. I'd love for a borough system to be implemented, with equal capital spending on amenities like parks and pools and arenas, and see what that would do for our urban core.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by phil235

I was with you until this paragraph. It's not true that those living downtown almost all have cars. According to this data (https://www.ottawainsights.ca/themes...ransportation/), even in 2011 there were 42% of households who didn't have cars. The idea that people downtown are willing and able to drive to the suburbs isn't accurate. The fact that even city services have moved to the suburbs, forcing people to drive out of the city for basic needs, is a massive policy failure.

Indeed. People living in Centretown/Downtown/Sandy Hill will stay in those areas as much as possible if they can and avoid having to make trips to places like Billings or Trainyards if they can avoid it, to say nothing of further-afar places like Orleans, Kanata, or even Nepean.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Just as the Crisis of Climate Change is not that the climate is changing (it is the rate of that change), the ‘crisis’ of the core dying due to Work Form Home (WFH) is due to the rate of the change. If, all of a sudden, the majority of the commuters is removed from downtown, the economic environment that has developed over many years could fail. Just as with the climate, where there are calls to slow the climate change so that ‘normal’ environmental changes can keep up, there are calls to slow the removal of commuters. That call back from WFH does not need to be a permanent thing for all workers. There has already been a concerted effort to get more residential spaces in the core, and that will continue. As that happens, the economic environment downtown will become less dependent on commuters.

This is a very insightful comment. And a good analogy. I am happy to see the climate warming it's in aggregate good for Canada but the rate of change could be devastating and I think I and others underestimate this risk and factor.

Conversely many are happy to see employment leave the core and employment take place in the suburban paradises the vast majority of Canadians desire and see this as clearly positive in the aggregate. Like many of you who might disagree with my aggregate climate estimate I might disagree with this sentiment but even if I am wrong the pace it is happening now is clearly dangerous. I understand that US WFH rates are high because of large corporate polices and blue state policies. In the rest of the world they have moved on from Covid almost completely. I would argue actually Canada and the above mentioned US factors are in many ways a reaction to the unprecedent presence of Covid isn't real factors in North America. All that to say. This last winter wave where I believe we don't implement any restrictions where even public servants will continue their 50-50 ish work habits may be the last gasp and we will look more rationally at what works and what doesn't.

Traffic patterns are interesting. I have been commuting from my home to Gatineau the past few weeks and looking at the morning traffic I believe it is worse than 2019 ever was. Are these 2-3 day a week Public Servants now driving wheras before they used Transit. Did they move further away or am I just wrong?

[Richard Eade]

“Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics” Yes, statistics can be produced to prove anything that you want.

On the ‘42% of households in the Central and Inner Area don’t own a personal vehicle’ stat that you used; that area is made up, in a big part, by the two biggest universities that are in Ottawa. And, pulling more numbers from that Website, 48% of households earning under $30,000 per year have no vehicle. Most university students would, likely, fall into this ‘low-earner’ category. Ergo, I would certainly expect students to tilt the statistics. That is why I said that grocery stores exist along Rideau Street – because there is a high density of (more or less) captive customers.

Now for the other side of the stat: if 42% of households within the area do not own a vehicle, then 58% DO own at least one vehicle. However, I was talking about the downtown area, of course, not the area that you brought forth the statistic for. Your area extends down to Heron Road, between Prince of Wales and the Rideau River, so, again, the number is skewed in favour of non-ownership because of the student population of Carleton U. being included. I suspect that if students from the two universities were removed, the statistic would look very different.

That said, perhaps I over-stated things when I said that “almost all” living downtown have a car. I’m willing to modify my statement, with input from your ‘correction’, to ‘MOST households in downtown have access to at least one vehicle’.

As for people in Centretown/Downtown/Sandy Hill preferring to stay in their neighbourhood, I would agree with that. Most people, even suburbanites, would, likely, prefer to stay in their neighbourhood also – if they could get everything they wanted from within the area. That is not surprising. HOWEVER, it is obvious that people living in the core currently DO leave their neighbourhood for the necessities of life. For example, there is no Costco downtown for those Re residents to go to – they must drive to a suburban location to get their 48-pk of toilet paper.

If it were economically advantageous for a ‘big box’ store to open downtown, it would have happened. As long as people from that area are willing to travel to an area outside of their neighbourhood, corporations will take advantage of that and built the biggest, cheapest, ‘box’ that they can and simply have their customers travel to it.