Ottawa Municipal Election 2010

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Well, we can pretty much wave goodbye to Doucet and Cullen it seems. Comments like Doucet's are not going to win him much support. How can the city be run by developers? If it were, tall towers would actually get built and maybe things would happen at City Hall. As it stands, we have a council with it's collective head up its collective ass, the NCC and its stonewalling of most proposals, the meddling of federal officials such as John Baird, and dealing with the government of Ontario. This city is so poorly run, it's hard to imagine that developers who usually plan things out and get things built on time were actually running the show.

[adam-machiavelli]

Cullen and Doucet will split the progressive vote. One of them should wait until 2014. I suggest Cullen.

[reidjr]

I think cullen has a out side chance he may pick up alot of votes who knows.Clive not a chance the comments he made yesterday just hurt his chances even more.If he really wants to be a serious player in the mayor race he has to handle him self better and not be so anti devlopment and anti sports.I will say this with 14 so far in the race for mayor it could ve a very exciting few months.

[adam-machiavelli]

I don't think Doucet is anti-development. The media and many people in this city always over-simplifiy candidates' campaigns to pro- and anti-development. Doucet is pro good development, as I think many of us are. I've worked on municipal election campaigns and have always been warned by senior campaign officials to never EVER discuss development with potential supporters because the candidate is screwed regardless of what is in his or her platform on development. Although I do agree that it's always important to keep the campaigning positive in the beginning. The sooner you "go negative", the nastier the campaign gets by the election date.

[reidjr]

Originally Posted by adam-machiavelli

I don't think Doucet is anti-development. The media and many people in this city always over-simplifiy candidates' campaigns to pro- and anti-development. Doucet is pro good development, as I think many of us are. I've worked on municipal election campaigns and have always been warned by senior campaign officials to never EVER discuss development with potential supporters because the candidate is screwed regardless of what is in his or her platform on development. Although I do agree that it's always important to keep the campaigning positive in the beginning. The sooner you "go negative", the nastier the campaign gets by the election date.

Look at the amount of projects he is aginst the condo with the grocery store just as an exzample.The logic ottawa needs a big park that alone scares me and i think could cost him a ton of votes.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

Well, we can pretty much wave goodbye to Doucet and Cullen it seems. Comments like Doucet's are not going to win him much support. How can the city be run by developers? If it were, tall towers would actually get built and maybe things would happen at City Hall.

Funny, I haven't seen a single condo development on Richmond Road in Westboro that ended up respecting the existing height limits. The way things work is that the developers put forth an application that violates everything left, right and centre, city staff recommend approval with a few minor changes and Council either votes for it or against it. If they vote for, it goes ahead. If against, it goes to the OMB where, because Council voted against city staff (even if defending the original zoning), the OMB finds in favour of the developers. There's never any real doubt that, in the end, one way or another, the developer will get far more height than they knew the zoning allowed for.

Why is it that city staff are routinely recommending against policies that they themselves have often prepared?

[adam-machiavelli]

Originally Posted by reidjr

Look at the amount of projects he is aginst the condo with the grocery store just as an exzample.The logic ottawa needs a big park that alone scares me and i think could cost him a ton of votes.

How does a big park "scare" you? I think it's a perfectly reasonable amenity that we should seriously consider for a number of reasons:

1. If the City is to promote smaller lots and stacked housing, it must compensate the loss of private green space with bigger and better quality urban parks.

2. Ottawa is pretty much the only major city in Canada without a large, functioning urban park. Toronto has High Park, Montreal has Mount Royal Park, Edmonton, Calgary, Regina, and Saskatoon have the river valleys, Winnipeg has Assiniboine Park, Vancouver has Stanley Park, etc.

Ottawa has nothing. By the way, Gatineau Park doesn't count because people in this city treat it as a drive-thru forest.

[reidjr]

Originally Posted by adam-machiavelli

How does a big park "scare" you? I think it's a perfectly reasonable amenity that we should seriously consider for a number of reasons:

1. If the City is to promote smaller lots and stacked housing, it must compensate the loss of private green space with bigger and better quality urban parks.

2. Ottawa is pretty much the only major city in Canada without a large, functioning urban park. Toronto has High Park, Montreal has Mount Royal Park, Edmonton, Calgary, Regina, and Saskatoon have the river valleys, Winnipeg has Assiniboine Park, Vancouver has Stanley Park, etc.

Ottawa has nothing. By the way, Gatineau Park doesn't count because people in this city treat it as a drive-thru forest.

Ottawa has around 6-8 large parks to say it has nothing is 100% false.Out of all of the major city i would say ottawa has the most green space and parks there are well over 820 parks plus massive amounts of green space..One of ottawa major issues is there is tons of green space and parks some would say to much and not enough of other things.The logic that ottawa has no big parks is so far from the truth just look up ottawa parks and you will see how may big parks there are.With that said you want a very large park fine then turn 400-600 other parks into soccer fields and football fields.Ottawa is not lacking parks and green space ottawa is lacking arena and playing fields.I have some respect for clive for how he does atnd up for what he beleaves in.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by adam-machiavelli

How does a big park "scare" you? I think it's a perfectly reasonable amenity that we should seriously consider for a number of reasons:

1. If the City is to promote smaller lots and stacked housing, it must compensate the loss of private green space with bigger and better quality urban parks.

2. Ottawa is pretty much the only major city in Canada without a large, functioning urban park. Toronto has High Park, Montreal has Mount Royal Park, Edmonton, Calgary, Regina, and Saskatoon have the river valleys, Winnipeg has Assiniboine Park, Vancouver has Stanley Park, etc.

Ottawa has nothing. By the way, Gatineau Park doesn't count because people in this city treat it as a drive-thru forest.

How are Major's Hill, Confederation Park, Lebreton Flats, and Jacques Cartier Park not "functioning urban parks"? Very few cities can boast urban parks that can handle festivals and large events right smack in the middle of downtown like Ottawa can. Add Vincent Massey Park, Lac-Leamy, Parc Labaie, the Lac-des-Fees portion of Gatineau Park and the entire Ottawa River shoreline and we've got an excessive amount that even the federal government has a hard time maintaining their share.

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by adam-machiavelli

I don't think Doucet is anti-development. The media and many people in this city always over-simplifiy candidates' campaigns to pro- and anti-development. Doucet is pro good development, as I think many of us are.

My only experience with Doucet came over a year ago at a Community Association meeting in his ward. The head of the Community Association was firmly against the application I was acting on behalf of, many of the people in the room didn't know what the fuss was all about (in other words they didn't have any fundamental objections to the development proposal), the adjacent neighbours were onside after a couple of agreed upon tweeks. Doucet basically told the head of the Community Assocation that no application was absolutely perfect and that the application would have an overall positive impact and that it should be allowed to be approved.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

How are Major's Hill, Confederation Park, Lebreton Flats, and Jacques Cartier Park not "functioning urban parks"? Very few cities can boast urban parks that can handle festivals and large events right smack in the middle of downtown like Ottawa can. Add Vincent Massey Park, Lac-Leamy, Parc Labaie, the Lac-des-Fees portion of Gatineau Park and the entire Ottawa River shoreline and we've got an excessive amount that even the federal government has a hard time maintaining their share.

And, if you want to strictly count City of Ottawa Parks, you can add:

-Strathcona
-Andy Haydon
-Mooney's Bay
-Brittania

[adam-machiavelli]

Those are all good parks. But they're not all that big. By the way, the open space along the rivers aren't parks; they're recreation corridors. That's different. Anyway, this is deviating from the topic that Clive Doucet is not as scary or anti-development as some people seem to think. I just wish the vox populi was more sophisticated and could discuss urban development in a less confrontational manner.

[reidjr]

Originally Posted by adam-machiavelli

Those are all good parks. But they're not all that big. By the way, the open space along the rivers aren't parks; they're recreation corridors. That's different. Anyway, this is deviating from the topic that Clive Doucet is not as scary or anti-development as some people seem to think. I just wish the vox populi was more sophisticated and could discuss urban development in a less confrontational manner.

Some of them are large parks large enough to hold 30,000.Maybe anti devlopment is a bit strong he speaks out alot why is he aginst a grocery store downtown etc.Let me ask you this if you had a choice one or 2 extra big parks would you take that over say 400 other parks.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by adam-machiavelli

Those are all good parks. But they're not all that big. By the way, the open space along the rivers aren't parks; they're recreation corridors. That's different. Anyway, this is deviating from the topic that Clive Doucet is not as scary or anti-development as some people seem to think. I just wish the vox populi was more sophisticated and could discuss urban development in a less confrontational manner.

I totally disagree. Of course they're parks. All of the parks I listed are pretty big, they're not just "corridors". Mooney's Bay, for example, is big enough to hold the Hope Volleyball festival. Britannia has bbqs and a big picnic shelter.

[reidjr]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

I totally disagree. Of course they're parks. All of the parks I listed are pretty big, they're not just "corridors". Mooney's Bay, for example, is big enough to hold the Hope Volleyball festival. Britannia has bbqs and a big picnic shelter.

Even look at lebreton flats may not be a true park but not many areas have a out door area that big right downtown.

[adam-machiavelli]

Obviously if it has the word "park" after its name (Mooney's bay, Britannia, etc), it is a park. I was referring to the bike path corridors. And while I appreciate our many medium-sized parks, you really can't escape the city in them. If the experimental farm became an urban park, could you imagine how great that would be?

[Kitchissippi]

There is not much city to escape from, and you can certainly escape it when you are in the middle of the experimental farm. Why does a park have to be big to be good?

[adam-machiavelli]

So that you can have a variety of uses, landscapes and views within an accessible area. Just read what Olmsted said about how he designed his parks.

[reidjr]

Originally Posted by adam-machiavelli

So that you can have a variety of uses, landscapes and views within an accessible area. Just read what Olmsted said about how he designed his parks.

So would you trade 400 parks for one big one.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by adam-machiavelli

How does a big park "scare" you? I think it's a perfectly reasonable amenity that we should seriously consider for a number of reasons:

1. If the City is to promote smaller lots and stacked housing, it must compensate the loss of private green space with bigger and better quality urban parks.

2. Ottawa is pretty much the only major city in Canada without a large, functioning urban park. Toronto has High Park, Montreal has Mount Royal Park, Edmonton, Calgary, Regina, and Saskatoon have the river valleys, Winnipeg has Assiniboine Park, Vancouver has Stanley Park, etc.

Ottawa has nothing. By the way, Gatineau Park doesn't count because people in this city treat it as a drive-thru forest.

If that's the case, then we should put the Botanical Gardens beside the Arboretum as was planned in the 80's and convert most of the remaining Central Experimental Farm into an urban park with a few outlying parts sold off to be developed with medium to high density condos, townhouses, etc.

But let's be realistic; this is Ottawa. If we do get a park, it'll be a huge grass field with some trees like always, or it'll be like Lansdowne where the cool parts of the proposal are removed for the sake of cost. People in Ottawa are also frighteningly stupid I've come to realize. Take for instance the very Botanical Gardens I mentioned. When they were proposed, it was met with stiff opposition because people felt it would "ruin the neighbourhood" and "take away from walking your dog in the Arboretum". Those were listed reasons. Further more, this city is currently incapable of coming to terms with its governance problems and taking any kind of meaningful action.

As for the idea of a large park "scaring" some on SSP, it's more than warranted when we have people live Clive and jemartin who are suggesting we either let Lansdowne continue to linger in dilapidation or say "screw fun and exciting things like professional sports in the area they've existed for over a century" to replace a sea of asphalt with a sea of grass. Not much of an improvement if you ask me.