HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #841  
Old Posted Apr 23, 2024, 4:50 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 27,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
City tree policies are nonsense. I have seen it in action as someone working in a garden centre.

When we intensify, generally speaking, all trees are cut down on the property. If not, the roots are cut, which means the tree will go into permanent decline. Then we pave over the lot leaving little suitable space for planting trees.

Then the property owner has to sign an agreement to replace the trees. Often, the agreement stipulates what kind of tree that can be planted or not planted. The tree permitted is often totally unsuitable for the remaining planting space. For example, having a 3 m x 3 m space and requiring a potentially 75 foot maple tree to be planted, instead something better to scale of the location. It is like the City of Ottawa personnel who write these agreements haven't got a clue about trees.

Let's face it, when we pave over property, we will lose tree canopy. So, density is working against tree canopy. We shouldn't kid ourselves. The best we can do is minimize the impact.

As the person trying to sell a tree to a customer with a city tree agreement, I have to shake my head, because it becomes difficult to sell the best tree for the size of the location.
Agreed. That and demolishing well built brick and solid wood housing for new housing that is often built with lesser quality materials.

The environmental factor needs to the taken into consideration.

The City, Province and Feds are implementing policies that encourage demolishing existing structures and removing tree canopy, but have done nothing to encourage the development of parking lots, strip malls and big box areas.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #842  
Old Posted Apr 23, 2024, 7:12 PM
Williamoforange's Avatar
Williamoforange Williamoforange is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2020
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 833
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.OT13 View Post
Agreed. That and demolishing well built brick and solid wood housing for new housing that is often built with lesser quality materials.

The environmental factor needs to the taken into consideration.

The City, Province and Feds are implementing policies that encourage demolishing existing structures and removing tree canopy, but have done nothing to encourage the development of parking lots, strip malls and big box areas.
Done nothing, lol....

Better to remove 100 trees from your neighborhood then 1000's from the forests at the city edge.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #843  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2024, 1:06 PM
Proof Sheet Proof Sheet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketphish View Post
Major zoning shift would axe minimum parking, allow denser housing, save trees
A draft rewrite of Ottawa's sweeping zoning bylaw aims to help build a denser, greener city

Arthur White-Crummey · CBC News
Posted: Apr 19, 2024 2:34 PM EDT | Last Updated: 4 hours ago


The City of Ottawa is looking to eliminate minimum parking rules, save space for trees and allow more neighbourhood-based businesses through a major rewrite of its zoning bylaw.

It's only a first draft that must now go through about a year and a half of public consultation, redrafting and voting at council and its committees, but Coun. Jeff Leiper said it goes a long way to meeting the city's development goals.

"This zoning bylaw obviously allows considerably more density right across the city," said Leiper, who chairs council's planning and housing committee.

"It is going to change the way that a lot of our corridors look with those mid-rise buildings, much greater intensity around transit stations, all of it reflecting what the official plan says we were going to do."

The proposed changes, released for the first time this week, come as the city tries to spur denser housing development and simplify a knotty web of rules, many of which predate amalgamation.

As expected, the draft would allow four units on every residential lot with city services, even in the lowest-rise neighbourhoods. That was a condition for signing a $176-million housing deal with the federal government.

But the changes on parking rules are more radical than anticipated. Leiper had been expecting the new bylaw to relax minimum parking requirements for new development.

Instead, the draft imposes no minimum parking whatsoever, except on visitor and accessible spaces. It would also ban new surface parking lots in the downtown core.


<more>


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottaw...rees-1.7178873
Well the Bulldog thinks that this will be just a PR exercise.


https://bulldogottawa.com/new-housin...d-and-ignored/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #844  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2024, 1:43 PM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is online now
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Greater Ottawa
Posts: 14,200
Councillors debate city-altering zoning bylaw amendment today
How many parking spaces must be provided at a new apartment? How will the city's tree canopy be protected in the face of a housing building boom? How many units can a developer build on a single lot?

Blair Crawford, Ottawa Citizen
Published Apr 29, 2024 • Last updated 29 minutes ago • 3 minute read


The public will get its first glimpse of Ottawa’s comprehensive zoning bylaw amendment Monday, but it certainly won’t be the last look.

The draft bylaw is one of the most significant decisions facing Mayor Mark Sutcliffe and councillors during this term of council and will bring zoning bylaws in line with the city’s 2022 official plan.

There are at least 1 1/2 years of debate, surveys, open houses and online forums ahead before the final version of the zoning bylaw amendment is approved, as expected some time in the fourth quarter of 2025.

Councillors get their first kick at the can Monday, when the first draft is presented at a joint meeting of the planning and housing committee and the agriculture and rural affairs committee, to be held in city council chambers.

It is the largest overhaul of Ottawa’s bylaws since amalgamation in 2001 and will forever change the way the city grows and develops.

In the 96-page draft are the answers to questions such as, how many units can a developer build on a single lot? How close can a building be to the property line — how high can it be? How much park space is required? How will the city’s tree canopy be protected in the face of a housing building boom? How many parking spaces must be provided at a new apartment? (The draft agreement recommends none. Doing away with parking minimums is seen as a way to use land more efficiently and encourage residents to use public transit or other methods of getting around instead of private cars.)

Cities are under pressure from the federal and provincial governments to end so-called R1 zoning, a relic of the 1950s housing boom with single-family homes located in sprawling, car-centric suburbs. The provincial government banned single dwelling zoning in 2022 when it passed the More Homes Built Faster Act and Ottawa responded with what planning and housing committee chair Jeff Leiper concedes is “a bit of a creaky bylaw” to allow up to three units per lot.

Developers like the Greater Ottawa Home Builders’ Association are pushing for even more, with four units per lot.

The federal government, too, has tied payments from its $4 billion housing accelerator fund to cities that support denser development. In February, Ottawa received $176 million from the fund, which it will use to build more affordable housing. In April, it received another $37.5 million from the province as a reward for the progress it’s made toward its housing targets.

At Monday’s meeting, councillors will debate the first draft of the comprehensive zoning bylaw amendment, which is available on the city’s website along with all its supporting documents. A full draft is set for release on May 31, along with one-page summaries of key parts and background “explainers” of the reasoning behind the changes.

From June until October will be the “active consultation” of the bylaw, according to the city, with virtual open houses, digital discussions and public comments welcomed through the engage.ottawa.ca website and by email at [email protected].

In the fourth quarter of 2024, city staff will prepare any revisions to the bylaw that come from the public discussion in preparation for the release of the second draft around the end of the year. You can still submit comments during this period, but the city warns revisions might not make it into the published document.

In early 2025, active consultation will begin anew, with more virtual open houses, digital discussions and feedback invited through Engage Ottawa with a final draft being prepared in the third and fourth quarters of 2025.

It’s expected the final draft of the comprehensive zoning bylaw amendment will be debated and voted on in late 2025.

More to come…

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local...ylaw-amendment
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #845  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2024, 3:33 PM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 8,836
I am suddenly reminded that the City of Ottawa had a consultation about consultations.
__________________
___
Enjoy my taxes, Orleans (and Kanata?).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #846  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2024, 2:29 PM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is online now
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Greater Ottawa
Posts: 14,200
Here's why visitor parking spots support a city's car-free lifestyle
Vehicle storage is not the highest and best use of scarce public right-of-ways. In a livable urban environment, space is needed for wide sidewalks, bicycle lanes, bus stops, benches, and trees.

Charles Akben-Marchand
Published Apr 29, 2024 • Last updated 17 hours ago • 2 minute read


When I was in university, I briefly worked as a security guard at a downtown condo. While every resident had their own parking space, many of which went unused, the 1970s towers weren’t built with any visitor parking spaces.

Over the years, management found about a dozen places where visiting vehicles could squeeze in, and even that was often not enough.

This is because, until 2016, developers were not required to include visitor parking in new residential buildings downtown.

Residents who moved into the first condo building on LeBreton Flats learned this the hard way. While many of them believed the development would include visitor parking, it was built without any. Their visitors must now park on the street.

Changes to the City’s minimum parking requirements in 2016 reintroduced minimum visitor parking, while reducing overall parking requirements.

On April 29, the City of Ottawa will table a report on a draft zoning bylaw which extends the 2016 reforms by eliminating minimum parking requirements for residents in developments citywide.

This will mean that developers with a high focus on transit and active transportation won’t be forced to build any more expensive parking spaces than the market requires — and hopefully, this will bring down the cost of units.

But the new bylaw will still include minimum visitor parking requirements, and that’s actually a good thing.

Believe it or not, visitor parking is consistent with a car-free lifestyle. That’s because these visitors are not one’s aunt coming over from out of town. They are service providers like cable and phone technicians, tradespeople, movers, deliverers, and personal support workers. Or even for the odd time you need to rent a car for the weekend.

As society moves toward getting everything — from groceries to furniture to fast food — delivered, the cycling network expands, and public transit hopefully improves, it will continue to get easier to live without a private car.

After all, you can choose whether you live in a building with parking or not. By contrast, you can’t choose how services get delivered to you.

When private developments don’t provide space for these activities, the visitors’ vehicles end up parking on public streets (and sometimes, on the sidewalks!).

Downtown especially, vehicle storage is not the highest and best use of scarce public right-of-ways. In a livable urban environment, space is needed for wide sidewalks, bicycle lanes, bus stops, benches, and trees.

We can debate exactly how much visitor parking is required when a new residential tower is built, but at least some will be necessary to keep necessary “visitor” vehicles from being a public burden.

It won’t fix the parking situation for the current security guards at the downtown condo, but the parking rules in the City’s proposed new zoning bylaw will help reduce overall vehicle use, and that’s a good thing for our city.

Charles Akben-Marchand (centretown.blogspot.com) lives in Ottawa, rides a bike, and doesn’t own a car.

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/ak...free-lifestyle
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #847  
Old Posted May 1, 2024, 12:30 AM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is online now
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Greater Ottawa
Posts: 14,200
To the detriment of older neighbourhoods, City planners push fourplexes and more human congestion
People chose single-family streets and paid a premium for it. Now, decades later, politicians are changing the rules of the game.

Randall Denley, Ottawa Citizen
Published Apr 30, 2024 • 3 minute read


City staff and councillors say they want your opinion on the idea of replacing existing single-family homes with four-unit buildings. But do they really?

Staff presented a complex new zoning report Monday that would enable the change, but all it does is bring the zoning bylaws into compliance with the Official Plan, the big-picture document that was passed in 2021 and already relies on extensive intensification of existing neighbourhoods.

For city planners, a redo of the city’s neighbourhoods is a dream come true and their timing couldn’t be better. Planners and some politicians want to change every older neighbourhood, to recreate it the way they wish it had been done in the first place. In their imagined utopia, we’d walk or cycle to little corner stores that meet all of our needs. Rather than drive a car, we’d take transit, which would be magically saved by the miracle of density. If only the 1940s could be brought back again.

The problem, you see, is that neighbourhoods built in the last half of the 20th century simply aren’t dense enough for today’s planners. While residents might like a quiet, tree-lined street, planners long for more human congestion.

Some will recall that the city’s Official Plan was welcomed with less than universal enthusiasm. The original version, for example, suggested that Alta Vista would be much improved by having four times as many homes as it has today. Other neighbourhoods would have been similarly affected. After public outcry, the language was softened to talk about targets, but the intent didn’t change.

And then, what luck, the immigration-induced housing shortage rose to the top of the crisis list and governments were desperate to do something, anything really, to combat the problem. Among the torrent of housing policies produced by the Doug Ford government was a new rule that a single-family home could be replaced by three units without any special planning approvals.

Not to be outdone, the Justin Trudeau government demanded that cities allow four units per lot and if they didn’t, they’d be shut out of a federal housing fund. The City of Ottawa took a slightly nuanced approach to this, saying it would propose four units in its new zoning regime, without committing to actually approving it.

Now, of course, city planners are pushing four units, even if it’s unlikely that the change will have much impact on the housing shortage.

In their presentation Monday, city staff said that in any neighbourhood, the expected lot turnover is 0.5 per cent a year. That’s not going to provide many infill opportunities, especially when one considers that the most likely buyer is someone who wants to live in the existing house.

Then there is the question of who would buy these lots and build on them. By definition, that would be an investor, exactly the sort of person the federal government is actively discouraging by increasing the capital gains inclusion rate.

Even if investors want to proceed, they will have a tough time finding people to build these fourplexes. Construction labour is in short supply and the infill business is a boutique component of the housing industry. Meeting housing need requires mass production, not one-off deals.

The one thing supporters of what they like to call “gentle Intensification” have done is make it difficult to hold a contrary view. If you don’t want a four-unit apartment building next door, you’re just a mean person who doesn’t want to share your neighbourhood.

People chose single-family streets and paid a premium for it, confident that city zoning would keep their neighbourhood more or less intact. It’s not an unreasonable expectation. Now, politicians are changing the rules of the game, decades after much of the city was developed.

That might not seem fair, but when it comes to housing, the least important person in the equation is the one who buys the house and spends decades paying for it.

Randall Denley is an Ottawa journalist and author. Contact him at [email protected]

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/co...man-congestion
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #848  
Old Posted May 1, 2024, 11:29 AM
Ottawacurious Ottawacurious is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2022
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 535
Riverside south secondary plan:
https://devapps.ottawa.ca/en/applica...1-0027/details

Space for 30 story towers at Limebank/Earl Armstrong.
Link
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #849  
Old Posted May 1, 2024, 11:34 AM
eltodesukane eltodesukane is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,131
...fourplexes...
Why not sixplexes?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #850  
Old Posted May 1, 2024, 2:53 PM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 8,836
Conservative NIMBYism baffles me.

Like... why do you hate property rights, guys?
__________________
___
Enjoy my taxes, Orleans (and Kanata?).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #851  
Old Posted May 1, 2024, 2:59 PM
YOWetal YOWetal is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uhuniau View Post
Conservative NIMBYism baffles me.

Like... why do you hate property rights, guys?
Short answer they hate poor people more.

Long answer four plexes change the character of neighborhoods. Let's not pretend they don't. Kanata Lakes is a different environment than New Edinburgh even if both have wealthy people. Conservatives want to maintain the status quo and are serlfish.(liberals like change and are selfish so it get's expressed differently)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #852  
Old Posted May 1, 2024, 4:38 PM
Ottawacurious Ottawacurious is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2022
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 535
When I looked at the map, it allowing 4 stories or higher everywhere. Looked about 50/50 4's and 6's. I seem to remember the city was, in broad strokes, allowing up to 4 stories everywhere moving forward.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #853  
Old Posted May 1, 2024, 5:20 PM
TransitZilla TransitZilla is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by YOWetal View Post
Long answer four plexes change the character of neighborhoods. Let's not pretend they don't.
I mean, this type of thing also changes the character of the neighbourhood, but because the number of units is not changing, it's somehow OK...?

https://www.google.com/maps/@45.3939...8192?entry=ttu

(Compared to the 2014 view: https://www.google.com/maps/@45.3939...6656?entry=ttu)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #854  
Old Posted May 1, 2024, 8:02 PM
Multi-modal Multi-modal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ottawacurious View Post
When I looked at the map, it allowing 4 stories or higher everywhere. Looked about 50/50 4's and 6's. I seem to remember the city was, in broad strokes, allowing up to 4 stories everywhere moving forward.
This is not true, in the details much of the outer urban and suburban transects are still proposed as 2 and 3 stories max. I can sort of understand not going to a broad 4 storey maximum, but still maintaining a 2 storey maximum in some areas is ridiculous.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #855  
Old Posted May 2, 2024, 11:18 AM
Truenorth00 Truenorth00 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 28,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by YOWetal View Post
Short answer they hate poor people more.

Long answer four plexes change the character of neighborhoods. Let's not pretend they don't. Kanata Lakes is a different environment than New Edinburgh even if both have wealthy people. Conservatives want to maintain the status quo and are serlfish.(liberals like change and are selfish so it get's expressed differently)
You know what changes character just as much or more? Putting 20-30 storey condos right beside single family homes, as we do in a lot of suburbs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #856  
Old Posted May 2, 2024, 3:21 PM
OTownandDown OTownandDown is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 1,592
lol, hopefully this type of Nouveau-Riche Toronto architecture doesn't spread here more than that one, and the other one in the Glebe that pushed property boundaries a couple years ago.

The fake grecian mcmansions of middle Toronto always make me laugh. you just know the interior is covered with mirrors and painted grape vines.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TransitZilla View Post
I mean, this type of thing also changes the character of the neighbourhood, but because the number of units is not changing, it's somehow OK...?

https://www.google.com/maps/@45.3939...8192?entry=ttu

(Compared to the 2014 view: https://www.google.com/maps/@45.3939...6656?entry=ttu)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #857  
Old Posted May 2, 2024, 3:28 PM
YOWetal YOWetal is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00 View Post
You know what changes character just as much or more? Putting 20-30 storey condos right beside single family homes, as we do in a lot of suburbs.
I know there is the argument allowing 4 plexes everywhere will mean we don't need evil 20 story condos but I think those two phenomenon are largely separate. To be clear I am not against 4 plexes everywhere. It's a no brainer at this point. I am just saying it does change the character of neighbourhoods. We have to pay the price at this point for the greater good but those already in the housing market nearing retirement and looking to walk safely in their neighbourhood can't be faulted for speaking against change.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #858  
Old Posted May 2, 2024, 4:24 PM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 8,836
Quote:
Originally Posted by YOWetal View Post
Short answer they hate poor people more.

Long answer four plexes change the character of neighborhoods.
Everything changes the character of neighbourhoods. And the character shouldn't be immutable. I would love to know how and why that idea took hold in our culture. (I know it's been around for a long time, but it wasn't always ever thus.)
__________________
___
Enjoy my taxes, Orleans (and Kanata?).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #859  
Old Posted May 2, 2024, 4:25 PM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 8,836
Quote:
Originally Posted by YOWetal View Post
and looking to walk safely in their neighbourhood can't be faulted for speaking against change.
I've never felt unsafe walking anywhere because of a teardown-rebuild resulting in a fourplex.
__________________
___
Enjoy my taxes, Orleans (and Kanata?).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #860  
Old Posted May 2, 2024, 11:39 PM
Truenorth00 Truenorth00 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 28,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uhuniau View Post
I've never felt unsafe walking anywhere because of a teardown-rebuild resulting in a fourplex.
Yep. More eyes on the street make them safer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:12 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.