Pictures of Ottawa

[FFX-ME]

A city can only support so many cafés for God's sake. Everyone wants rows of cafés everywhere: Lebreton, Landsdowne, the market yadi yadi yada... How much coffee fo Ottawans drink. DO people need to eat at restaurants every day! Melnyk is already proposing that along the aqueduct in Lebreton. Let that project go there and let the canal be the canal.

PS, there is already the terrace on the canal near UOttawa and I don't think they see much demand to open 20 more terraces.

Not to mention the huge loss of urban parkland we would lose downtown! Hell no!

[acottawa]

They only capital city I have been to that had a waterfront as dull as Ottawa is Khartoum, which has a parkway along the Nile with some trees and a walking path - must have been designed by the NCC.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by FFX-ME

A city can only support so many cafés for God's sake. Everyone wants rows of cafés everywhere: Lebreton, Landsdowne, the market yadi yadi yada... How much coffee fo Ottawans drink. DO people need to eat at restaurants every day! Melnyk is already proposing that along the aqueduct in Lebreton. Let that project go there and let the canal be the canal.

PS, there is already the terrace on the canal near UOttawa and I don't think they see much demand to open 20 more terraces.

Not to mention the huge loss of urban parkland we would lose downtown! Hell no!

Would this be where I can say that I'd love to see a café at the Rideau Falls.

[YOWflier]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

No one comes to Ottawa to walk on grass, other than the geese. No one.

Maybe people don't come specifically to do that, but when here they do that ... big time. Top 3 things to do in Ottawa, actually.

https://www.tripadvisor.ca/Attractio...a_Ontario.html

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by FFX-ME

Not to mention the huge loss of urban parkland we would lose downtown! Hell no!

The problem with our parkland as it is is that where there seem to be no parks where people are and no people where parks are. I wouldn't be completely opposed to losing 10% of greenspace in order that the remaining 90% be less vacuous and more loved.

[acottawa]

To me the best place to start would be the area between Colonel By and the Nicholas Expressway, South of Laurier, which is not actively used as a park and buildings would help to block the noise from the expressway.

[ElieB]

Originally Posted by McC

You must have missed that they added new boat launches earlier this year; Catherine McKenna portaged from home with her canoe to the opening media event, which was a pretty decent publicity stunt.

Hahaha no I did not miss those added boat launches. It was a nice gesture but it was also literally the least amount of effort and investment they could have possibly made. A whole 20 square feet of seasonal floating dock... thanks?

[ElieB]

Originally Posted by FFX-ME

A city can only support so many cafés for God's sake. Everyone wants rows of cafés everywhere: Lebreton, Landsdowne, the market yadi yadi yada... How much coffee fo Ottawans drink. DO people need to eat at restaurants every day! Melnyk is already proposing that along the aqueduct in Lebreton. Let that project go there and let the canal be the canal.

PS, there is already the terrace on the canal near UOttawa and I don't think they see much demand to open 20 more terraces.

Not to mention the huge loss of urban parkland we would lose downtown! Hell no!

I'm not advocating for the wholesale privatization of the canal front. Sure, it could stand to have more businesses (with permanent facilities and washrooms unlike the terrace at somerset.) A pavilion here or there, owned by the city, might have provided some leasing income to support new pedestrian bridge projects, for example. While also giving people permanent public washrooms along the length of the canal.

Otherwise, basic landscape design is the issue. You can design actual places and amenities along the path without having to lease them to businesses. More access points to the water, permanent gaming facilities, more seating in less archaic arrangements, public or community gardens, semi sheltered areas like gazebos(terrible example), performance spaces (for busking or professional), more space to walk and the separation of fast-travel bike paths from slower pedestrian traffic, etc etc.

[passwordisnt123]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

The problem with our parkland as it is is that where there seem to be no parks where people are and no people where parks are. I wouldn't be completely opposed to losing 10% of greenspace in order that the remaining 90% be less vacuous and more loved.

I think that's very well-put. I completely agree.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

I thought the historic Rideau Falls area was heavily industrial. Am I mistaken?

Someone say something otherwise?

"The Rideau Falls area, the north end of Lowertown/Sussex Street area (before it got "Drived"), Lebreton, the river islands, downtown Hull, were the kinds of industrial and gritty neighbourhoods"

Industrial neighbourhoods in other cities have been repurposed.

In Ottawa, they've all been flattened and replaced with nationally-significant grass, or worse.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by FFX-ME

A city can only support so many cafés for God's sake.

Yes. And?

Everyone wants rows of cafés everywhere: Lebreton, Landsdowne, the market yadi yadi yada... How much coffee fo Ottawans drink. DO people need to eat at restaurants every day! Melnyk is already proposing that along the aqueduct in Lebreton. Let that project go there and let the canal be the canal.

How about letting the market decide what the market can bear, instead of nanny-stating Ottawa into even more blandness and boringosity?

I don't know anyone who is trying to FORCE cafés everywhere, but a few of us would like to ALLOW more urban fabric to be built where currently there's little but stultifying mid-century monotonous Greberized prettyized nothingnes.

PS, there is already the terrace on the canal near UOttawa and I don't think they see much demand to open 20 more terraces.

And?

Not to mention the huge loss of urban parkland we would lose downtown! Hell no!

"Urban parkland".

No one comes to Ottawa , or to any city, for the shrubbery.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by ac888yow

Maybe people don't come specifically to do that, but when here they do that ... big time. Top 3 things to do in Ottawa, actually.

https://www.tripadvisor.ca/Attractio...a_Ontario.html

The Rideau Canal is number 3.

Maybe if the Rideau Canal had something other than shrubs and grass gracing its shores and walls, it would bump up another notch.

Your link in no way contradicts my point: people do not visit Ottawa, or any city, because of a few feet of grassy medians and some juniper hedges.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

The problem with our parkland as it is is that where there seem to be no parks where people are and no people where parks are. I wouldn't be completely opposed to losing 10% of greenspace in order that the remaining 90% be less vacuous and more loved.

Bingo.

The best "green space" (open space, public space) is that which is closely surrounded by black, brown, and grey space: residences, commerce, institutions.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by ElieB

I'm not advocating for the wholesale privatization of the canal front. Sure, it could stand to have more businesses (with permanent facilities and washrooms unlike the terrace at somerset.) A pavilion here or there, owned by the city, might have provided some leasing income to support new pedestrian bridge projects, for example.

A pavillion here or there means lots of vacuum in between. It would be the canal equivalent of the suburban "office park".

[acottawa]

The problem with the waterfront as it exists now is it is all the same, almost all of it is grass, pathway, expressway, more grass and it is rare that the waterfront supports any activity other than linear transportation (driving, walking, biking, etc). Waterfront parks are great but in very few places that could be considered a park and it mostly just looks like the mowed area beside a highway.

I think Uhuniau makes a good point about deindustralization. In many cities 19th century wharves, warehouses, factories, etc. have been repurposed into really interesting places whereas in Ottawa most of these places have been destroyed.

I would really like the NCC to consider whether all of those parkways are necessary. QEP between Bronson and Preston and Lady Grey seem particularly unnecessary and now that the hospital is not going to Tunney's I really wonder whether all of SJAM needs to be 4 lanes.

It would also be nice if the NCC better delineated what is a park (designed to be used by people) and what is the grass on the side of a freeway (where there isn't really anything people can do there). The parks could be enhanced to be more park like (water features, sports facilities, playgrounds, etc) and the decorative grass could be re-purposed into other uses.

[YOWflier]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

The Rideau Canal is number 3.

Maybe if the Rideau Canal had something other than shrubs and grass gracing its shores and walls, it would bump up another notch.

Or maybe it would fall a notch. Maybe people like it just the way it is.

[ElieB]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The problem with the waterfront as it exists now is it is all the same, almost all of it is grass, pathway, expressway, more grass and it is rare that the waterfront supports any activity other than linear transportation (driving, walking, biking, etc).

This is exactly the problem. We have this amazing wealth of greenspace, for better or for worse, but nearly all of it is designed for the express purpose of moving. And that's great if all you do is bike or run for leisure but it also expresses this idea that if you're just hanging out in any of these places you're basically loitering.

Hence my assertion that "The definition of public space in Ottawa is a 2 metre wide strip of asphalt with a painted line down the middle that says "Move along. This isn't a place for you to enjoy leisure activities. Keep it moving."

[lrt's friend]

You can scatter around cafes and sitting areas and expect to end up with the pictures that were presented. Not likely.

As one person pointed out, the city can only support so many places to go get a coffee. And it can only support so many vibrant locations. In every case, those locations have to be close to where people live, work and play. There also has to be a critical mass of people places.

When I look at Ottawa, the city backs away from the waterways. On the Rideau, to a great degree the flood plains were expropriated in the 40s and 50s and for good reason. Flooding was a major problem. The city also backed away from waterways because of industry.

Look at Rideau Falls, it used to be all industry. But even historic photos show a mostly barren Green Island. I cannot ever see this becoming a vibrant location. It is too far separated from where people live by busy highways and streets and office buildings and even the expanse of Rideau Hall. And it necessarily backs away from the Ottawa River because of the cliffs.

As I indicated above, if we want something better we need to focus on one location to create the critical mass needed and that location is Lebreton and Zibi. These are wide open slates that we can deliberately build into something where people will want to go. That is the plan. These are the places where people will live, work and play. The perfect combination.

if we look at Lansdowne and think on a greater scale, we will succeed. And it has to be a greater scale since Lansdowne already had the neighbouring Glebe and Old Ottawa South.

But if we try to scatter around, we are doomed to failure. Of course, we can make improvements anywhere, but if you want something like what was presented in the photos, then Lebreton and Zibi is where we need to go.

Leave the Rideau Canal to be mainly that place to ride your bike, jog or walk the dog. Even Lansdowne, the focus of the lively activity was necessarily placed near Bank Street, where the pedestrian traffic and transit access was available. Do you think it would have worked if everything was placed behind the Aberdeen Pavillion instead of in front? I don't think so. You would have lost the continuity of activity along Bank Street.

[ElieB]

I agree with the focused rather than scattered approach but I disagree that we should be banking on Zibi and Lebreton. Both are decades away from being complete and would have to manufacture their attraction from scratch and depend on some 20,000+ new residents expected to move into the area. But for the near future it'll just be a desolate wasteland of construction. In the end they'll take care of themselves but the city won't have any real hand in it because they've been completely privatized.

Meanwhile the canal is already a massive tourist draw, is surrounded by nothing but housing and major institutions, is public land, is used in all seasons, is right on our main transit line, etc.

[acottawa]

^^
I think those are good points, but most cities backed away from their rivers in the past as rivers were used for industry or railways or open sewers. Since then many cities have re-connected to their waterfront.

I have no idea what the café/bar/restaurant capacity of the city is. The city absorbed Lansdowne without any problems and there has been an increase in the number of restaurants and coffee shops in a number of central neighbourhoods (Elgin and Preston come to mind). I would tend to think the city could support a 10 restaurant development, particularly if it was located in a sensible way.

Also, there is more to animating the waterfront that building restaurants. Playgrounds, water features, sports facilities, snack bars and arts facilities could also liven things up. The NCC has a very puritanical/Victorian/Edwardian approach to its public spaces, where the only legitimate activities for the waterfront are those socially acceptable before WWI: carriage riding (now driving), cycling, walking, picnicking and sitting.