HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #861  
Old Posted May 3, 2024, 12:11 AM
DTcrawler DTcrawler is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 998
Quote:
Originally Posted by YOWetal View Post
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.
I don't think that has as much to do with it as you think. I agree that concerns about attracting the riff raff are commonly cited when arguing against infill, but I think that's mostly a veil for some of the reasons you mentioned earlier. One of them is simply an aversion to change.

You could propose a fourplex with reasonable height, subdued colour/materials that complement the neighbourhood, and occupy them with quiet, single professionals or young families and neighbours would still oppose it on them on the basis they they simply preferred looking at whatever used to be there, even if it was an empty overgrown lot or a mildly-maintained vacant property.

Another reason is people's disdain for developers, as a fourplex with modern materials and finishes appears to many as a beacon of corporate greed and developer profits, regardless of the benefit of added housing supply.

Basically, the majority of opposition towards changes to zoning policy stems from the mere fact that many older folks with plenty of free time and who are active in community affairs feel like they should oppose policies that favour density and so they do so. This is nothing new (the term NIMBY been around for ages) and wasn't more than a mild annoyance until now, as we've reached a tipping point in the housing crisis and the dire need for supply has eclipsed the luxury of being able to control what happens outside of one's property limits.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #862  
Old Posted May 3, 2024, 4:25 PM
Ottawacurious Ottawacurious is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2022
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 535
Quote:
Originally Posted by YOWetal View Post
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.
I agree with you. Now, how realistic this is, I'm not sure, but I'd like to see density targets per square kilometer for any new residential neighbourhood.

For example, I don't care if they want do 5 super tall towers on top of a town center or 40 six-storey buildings, but - moving forward - they should hit a density target for each neighbourhood. Is that required anywhere or is it just inferred?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #863  
Old Posted May 3, 2024, 5:00 PM
Multi-modal Multi-modal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ottawacurious View Post
For example, I don't care if they want do 5 super tall towers on top of a town center or 40 six-storey buildings, but - moving forward - they should hit a density target for each neighbourhood. Is that required anywhere or is it just inferred?
It is very much required. with a few exceptions, new neighbourhoods are getting denser and denser, with a higher proportion of townhouses, rear land towns, and stacked towns. Some of that is consumer preference, but a lot of it is City requirements.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #864  
Old Posted May 3, 2024, 5:14 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 12,600
Quote:
Originally Posted by Multi-modal View Post
It is very much required. with a few exceptions, new neighbourhoods are getting denser and denser, with a higher proportion of townhouses, rear land towns, and stacked towns. Some of that is consumer preference, but a lot of it is City requirements.
The big one is affordability especially with higher interest rates.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #865  
Old Posted May 3, 2024, 7:07 PM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 8,836
Quote:
Originally Posted by DTcrawler View Post
Another reason is people's disdain for developers, as a fourplex with modern materials and finishes appears to many as a beacon of corporate greed and developer profits, regardless of the benefit of added housing supply.
I don't understand the disdain towards "developers", other than that it's rooted in Baby Boomer nostalgia about the lost fields and woods on the fringes of their childhood towns and cities that became the suburban subdivisions that the Boomers then raised their own families in.

Who else besides home builders – "developers", if you will – are we expecting to build homes?

Harbour pilots? Chiropracters? Astrologists?
__________________
___
Enjoy my taxes, Orleans (and Kanata?).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #866  
Old Posted May 3, 2024, 7:08 PM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 8,836
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00 View Post
Yep. More eyes on the street make them safer.
I dunno, maybe the fourplex might topple over and cut me?
__________________
___
Enjoy my taxes, Orleans (and Kanata?).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #867  
Old Posted May 3, 2024, 7:58 PM
DTcrawler DTcrawler is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 998
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uhuniau View Post
I don't understand the disdain towards "developers", other than that it's rooted in Baby Boomer nostalgia about the lost fields and woods on the fringes of their childhood towns and cities that became the suburban subdivisions that the Boomers then raised their own families in.

Who else besides home builders – "developers", if you will – are we expecting to build homes?

Harbour pilots? Chiropracters? Astrologists?
That’s exactly it. It’s all misguided. I don’t understand why people are so upset about business people making money if it means revitalizing neighbourhoods and adding housing.

But no, people would rather act like they’re standing up to the big bad wolves while virtue signalling from their own homes that they had the luxury of grabbing decades ago.

The rhetoric spewed by people like Menard doesn’t help at all either, as he’d rather pretend to play Robin Hood despite the fact that his actions are handicapping our city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #868  
Old Posted May 3, 2024, 10:13 PM
ponyboycurtis's Avatar
ponyboycurtis ponyboycurtis is offline
Cigritbutt enthusiast
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: Blahttawa
Posts: 1,468
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uhuniau View Post
I don't understand the disdain towards "developers", other than that it's rooted in Baby Boomer nostalgia about the lost fields and woods on the fringes of their childhood towns and cities that became the suburban subdivisions that the Boomers then raised their own families in.

Who else besides home builders – "developers", if you will – are we expecting to build homes?

Harbour pilots? Chiropracters? Astrologists?
Harbour pilots got an audible chuckle from me. Well played sir
__________________
I don't understand how communism works.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #869  
Old Posted May 4, 2024, 2:49 AM
rdaner rdaner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by YOWetal View Post
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.
I live in Toronto and a lot of the mulitplexes going up are nicer and command the same if not greater value than the single family houses they are replacing. Multiplexes are often a sign of neighbourhood upgrading and it is the new residents who should be wary of the old timers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #870  
Old Posted May 24, 2024, 6:36 PM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is offline
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Greater Ottawa
Posts: 14,200
Five Things: Some things you might not know about Ottawa proposed zoning bylaw amendment
Councillors will spend the next year and a half debating the bylaws, consulting with the public and shaping the language.

Blair Crawford, Ottawa Citizen
Published May 24, 2024 • Last updated 2 hours ago • 5 minute read




https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local...-zoning-bylaws
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #871  
Old Posted May 31, 2024, 7:22 PM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is offline
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Greater Ottawa
Posts: 14,200
Interactive map helps explain the mysteries of Ottawa's proposed zoning changes
This will be the largest overhaul of Ottawa’s zoning bylaws since amalgamation in 2001.

Blair Crawford, Ottawa Citizen
Published May 31, 2024 • Last updated 29 minutes ago • 2 minute read


Confused by corridors? Puzzled by parking? Do you mix up your Mainstreet Zone 1s with your Mainstreet Zone 2s?

A new interactive map uploaded Friday by the City of Ottawa might help better understand the hodge podge of current zoning rules and the changes coming with the Comprehensive Zoning Bylaw Amendment.

The map, now on the Engage Ottawa website, offers a side-by-side comparison of zoning as it is now and as it will be when the new bylaws are enacted, likely in late 2025. It’s a visual representation of the 289-page first draft of the amended bylaws.

“This is a snapshot of how the city is on May 31,” said Carol Ruddy, the city’s program manager for zoning and intensification. Work on the map began more than a year ago and it uses some of the mountain of data collected for the city’s “digital twin” a virtual model of the city, above and below ground, currently in development.

The map will evolve with periodic updates as new information is mapped, legislation changes and the proposed bylaws are adjusted in subsequent drafts, Ruddy said.

Users of the interactive map can click on any area of the city and use a slider to see the current zoning and how the zoning will change with the proposed new rules. Clickable options show the zoning on a map or superimposed on air photos. Ward boundaries can be added. New floodplain mapping is shown. Eventually, it’s hoped to include information from the digital twin to show buildings in 3D.

A click brings up a window with details of the zoning, both current and under consideration.

The map also allows feedback as part of the public consultation process for the bylaw amendments.

It is the largest overhaul of Ottawa’s zoning bylaws since amalgamation in 2001 and will forever change the way the city grows and develops. Inside the draft document are new rules governing how many units can be built on a single lot, new property line setbacks, higher height limits and an end to the requirement to provide a minimum amount of parking. It allows new businesses to operate on residential streets, tightens the protection for trees and green space and encourages taller, denser development around transit hubs.

A second draft will be released in late 2024, with final approval expected in December 2025.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local...zoning-changes
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #872  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2024, 1:52 PM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is offline
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Greater Ottawa
Posts: 14,200
Ottawa's new draft zoning bylaw has dropped. Here's what's new
Planning staff say proposed zoning rules aren't about ridding Ottawa of cars

Arthur White-Crummey · CBC News
Posted: Jun 01, 2024 4:00 AM EDT | Last Updated: 6 hours ago


City staff want to allow two-and-a-half-storey homes across Ottawa, make it easier to build additions to heritage properties and tighten rules limiting how many parking spaces developers can build near transit stations.

While information about Ottawa's new draft zoning bylaw has been coming out in dribs and drabs, the full text — which includes those three recommendations — is now open for review.

It comes with a detailed map that allows residents to visualize how their neighbourhood could change if and when the bylaw passes.

Planning staff have already signalled a major shift on parking, as they aim to provide "parking choice" to developers by eliminating rules that force them to build a minimum number of spaces per housing unit.

But there are also rules that prevent developers from building too much parking near major transit stations, and they aren't going away. In some areas, they're set to get stricter.

Within 600 metres of existing or planned rapid transit stations, the limit would fall from 1.5 parking spaces per unit to just one in the downtown. In other core neighbourhoods, it would drop from 1.75 spaces per unit to 1.25.

Carol Ruddy, the city's program manager of zoning and intensification, called that "a difficult decision" and said she wants to hear what people think.

"We wanted to come out with something that was progressive, and we wanted to test it and see if we've gone too far," she said.

But she said there's one point where the rules will get looser. They previously applied to all planned major transit stations, even those with no funding slated for Stage 3 of light rail.

In the new draft, they would only apply to stations planned in the next decade.

The draft bylaw still has minimum rules for visitor parking, but they're looser than the current policy.

In the suburbs, developers currently have to build one visitor parking space for every five housing units. The draft would drop that to one for every 10, the standard that now exists for the central city.

There would also be more generous exceptions, with no visitor parking required for the first 12 or 24 units in many areas.

When it comes to bike parking, staff want to go in the opposite direction, pushing developers to provide more spaces in their buildings — including easy-access, short-term spots for visitors — to promote cycling.

For smaller apartment buildings, the required number of bike spaces would essentially double.

Ruddy said those shifts recognize that the way people get around in the city is "evolving," while still aiming to strike a balance with the continued use of the automobile.

"I don't want to ever give the impression that in zoning we're trying to do something to get rid of cars," she said. "That's not at all what the direction is with these provisions or of this bylaw."

But, in many ways, the draft bylaw does try to push cars further out of public view. There are, for example, stricter rules to shield drive-thrus and parking lots if they're adjacent to a residential area.

At first glance, the draft bylaw makes only a modest boost to building height limits in low-rise residential neighbourhoods.

In the two lowest density zones, they're set to rise just 50 centimetres to 8.5 metres, still about two storeys.

But the full text of the bylaw adds a notable exception. The tip of a sloping roof can extend higher, to as much as 11 metres, depending on its slope.

That already applies in Westboro, but the new bylaw would extend it across the entire city.

"The intent is to allow a third story where you have those dormers," said Ruddy, referring to window-shaped boxes that protrude from a sloping roof.

"That reduces the size of that roof that's going up beyond the second storey and that kind of reduces the visual impact of that third story."

Even with a flat roof, homes can rise to 11 metres so long as the top storey takes up less than half the floor space of the building below.

Ruddy explained that there's already a hodgepodge of height rules in low-density residential neighbourhoods, with many exemptions to the standard two-storey limit.

Those will be carried forward in the new draft.

The existing zoning bylaw essentially freezes heritage properties, something else that could change.

Additions can't go on front yards or poke over roofs, and there are even more restrictive rules in the centre city, which hosts most of the city's heritage buildings.

All those rules have disappeared from the new draft.

"The heritage overlay in the current zoning bylaw shrink-wraps a building to the existing size and location," said Ruddy.

That doesn't mean heritage protections are gone. The Ontario Heritage Act will still require owners to get committee approval for alterations, but Ruddy confirmed that removing the added burden of zoning restrictions will make it easier.

"We're really trying to keep zoning in its own lane here," Ruddy said.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottaw...-new-1.7221278
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #873  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2024, 3:23 PM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 8,836
Quote:
Originally Posted by DTcrawler View Post
This is nothing new (the term NIMBY been around for ages) and wasn't more than a mild annoyance until now, as we've reached a tipping point in the housing crisis and the dire need for supply has eclipsed the luxury of being able to control what happens outside of one's property limits.
It has been much more than a "mild annoyance" for a very long time.
__________________
___
Enjoy my taxes, Orleans (and Kanata?).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #874  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2024, 3:27 PM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 8,836
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketphish View Post
[B]Interactive map helps explain the mysteries of Ottawa's proposed zoning changes
The interactive map that is supposed to "help explain the mysteries" feels a lot like geocentric models of the solar system that rely on cycles and epicycles to explain the movement of the planets.
__________________
___
Enjoy my taxes, Orleans (and Kanata?).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #875  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2024, 5:29 PM
urbanforest urbanforest is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2023
Posts: 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uhuniau View Post
The interactive map that is supposed to "help explain the mysteries" feels a lot like geocentric models of the solar system that rely on cycles and epicycles to explain the movement of the planets.
Ha. The user experience is horrific, and essentially unusable on a mobile device. Between the good and well established Geo Ottawa map and the highly anticipated Digital Twin, it sorely missed my expectations.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #876  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2024, 1:34 PM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is offline
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Greater Ottawa
Posts: 14,200
Big changes are coming to how Ottawa manages urban growth
$1.8M fee is not a 'disincentive' to applicants, say city staff

Elyse Skura · CBC News
Posted: Oct 05, 2024 4:00 AM EDT | Last Updated: 5 hours ago


Owners of land outside of Ottawa's urban boundary will soon be able to apply for it to be eligible for suburban development whenever they'd like, instead of having to wait for the city to launch its own review.

But the ad hoc process will cost them $1.8 million in fees.

City planners had to come up with a new application process in a hurry after Ontario dictated an overhaul to the existing process in its latest provincial planning statement.

"It's potentially a very big change for Ottawa," said Kitchisippi Coun. Jeff Leiper, chair of the city's planning and housing committee.

Leiper said the city needs to evaluate parcels of land in a "holistic and comprehensive" way about once a decade.

"The provincial decision to allow applications to add lands to the urban boundary at any time has the potential to be a little Wild West," he said. "There are almost certainly land owners around the periphery of the city who are probably looking at this provincial decision as a payday, as a windfall."

<more>

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottaw...owth-1.7343543
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #877  
Old Posted Oct 7, 2024, 2:08 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 27,633
What's even the point of the urban boundary then? Ford had to take a step back after the Greenbelt scandal, but has now found a new way to profit developers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #878  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2025, 7:41 PM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is offline
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Greater Ottawa
Posts: 14,200
Draft 2 of Ottawa's New Zoning By-law was released on March 20th. All the details are here:

https://engage.ottawa.ca/zoning
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #879  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2025, 7:42 PM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is offline
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Greater Ottawa
Posts: 14,200
Building heights should be uniform for new housing across the city
The proposed new zoning bylaw has 2 sets of rules: one for inside the greenbelt, one for outside. Ottawa won't reach its housing goals that way.

By Jason Burggraaf
Published Apr 09, 2025 | Last updated 1 hour ago


The release of the second draft of Ottawa’s new zoning bylaw hasn’t received much fanfare. At a city council meeting on April 16, it’s expected to be officially approved for public consultation.

For those who parsed through the first draft, the second might not look that much different. But there is one key item that, if implemented, immediately stands out as a missed opportunity and a risk to Ottawa’s ability to reach its housing targets: height permissions for neighbourhoods.

When the first draft was released, it recognized the need to overhaul our zoning to match the housing goals laid out in the city’s Official Plan. It allowed four units per lot and some front-yard parking, and eliminated parking spot minimums.

While there will be differing opinions expressed about appropriate heights, densities, parking and more, the key metric we should use to evaluate our zoning bylaw is whether it will allow us to achieve our housing targets.

Yes, zoning can and does balance competing interests, such as new housing, trees and green space, which make complete communities. But if zoning does not provide a reasonable opportunity to build the sheer amount of housing we need for our growing population, then it fails us as a collective city.

The city’s Official Plan, which council adopted in November 2021, relies on increasing density in existing neighbourhoods for 25 per cent of its housing growth. That’s about 45,000 new homes over the next 20 years. Existing neighbourhoods are well-suited to accommodate this modest intensification, given that they are already characterized by roads, transit, municipal infrastructure and services, including libraries, rinks and fire stations.

Specifically, this means converting or replacing 15,000 current single-detached homes, or lots originally meant for less dense housing types, into multi-family buildings of about the same size with three or four housing units.

The second draft of the proposed zoning bylaw keeps heights in neighbourhood zones, labelled N1 and N2, inside Ottawa’s greenbelt to 8.5 metres or two storeys tall. But in the suburbs, neighbourhood zones can be 11 metres high, allowing for the construction of three-storey buildings.

It is unclear why the city would want to limit the potential for density for neighbourhoods inside the greenbelt more than in the suburbs when those very neighbourhoods have better access to amenities and public transportation.

The city’s own modelling anticipates that at most 40 per cent of lots inside Ottawa’s greenbelt and only 30 per cent of lots outside the greenbelt would take advantage of maximum zoning permissions. Why wouldn’t we want to capitalize on our best opportunities for low-rise density in these strategic areas?

Earlier this month, Mike Moffatt and the Missing Middle Initiative noted that in the last 10 years, “the proportion of ground-oriented housing built just outside of the City of Ottawa (rather than in it) grew from 9 per cent to 17 per cent.”

It is clear that Ottawans want to live in low-rise, ground-oriented neighbourhoods — and if we don’t give them that opportunity within Ottawa, they will go elsewhere to find it.

The city must proactively address our crucial housing needs. A uniform permitted height of 11 metres in N1 and N2 neighbourhood zones isn’t just about numbers. It’s about balancing neighbourhood character while promoting the development of additional homes and enhanced housing options. It’s also about giving current and future residents the opportunity to live in the kind of neighbourhood setting they want.

Ottawa’s housing future depends on practical zoning decisions — not limits that hold us back.

Jason Burggraaf is the executive director of the Greater Ottawa Home Builders’ Association.

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/bu...housing-ottawa
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #880  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2025, 1:35 PM
Alex613 Alex613 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2022
Posts: 45
That is a bit misleading. The only areas that I can find where R1 properties are being converted to N1 are outside the greenbelt. All R1 properties inside the greenbelt are being significantly upzoned and are being converted to N2 or N3 (if located in an evolving neighbourhood overlay), even N4. There is much more significant upzoning inside the greenbelt, and in particular in urbain and outer urban wards. So it makes sense to consider treating N1 and N2 differently depending on where the property located. If all R1, R2 and R3 properties had been converted in the same way, irrespective of where they are located, then yes treat them all the same, but that is not what is happening.

The City has contributed to this confusion by stating that N1 is the new R1, N2 the new R2, etc. But that is not correct. The first table in this document is useful to understand what is going on:
https://pub-ottawa.escribemeetings.c...umentId=227341
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 5:25 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

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