NCC Greenbelt

[danishh]

we dont need to build in the greenbelt if we actually build transportation infrastructure to move people from outside the greenbelt to workplaces inside the greenbelt.

build commuter rail on the arnprior-nepean line to march and on the via line to richmond first. You could get them stopping at VIA and transferring to the confederation line at knoxdale and fallowfield. Maybe you can even reroute the track through the greenbelt to stop at moodie too.

[Harley613]

I can think of about 1/3 of the land in the greenbelt that should absolutely be developed with no reservations, especially the farm land separating Barrhaven from Nepean. A lot of it must be maintained as important park land but this whole idea of keeping the greenbelt sacred and whole in modern reality is a crock of shit in my opinion.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Harley613

I can think of about 1/3 of the land in the greenbelt that should absolutely be developed with no reservations, especially the farm land separating Barrhaven from Nepean. A lot of it must be maintained as important park land but this whole idea of keeping the greenbelt sacred and whole in modern reality is a crock of shit in my opinion.

I'd agree to development within 500 meters of highways and rapid transit lines, as long as it does not effect forested areas or wet lands (so farm land would be fine mostly).

We are at least seeing some new usage for former Greenbelt land in Nepean, with the new filming studio and self-driving car track. These are mostly using existing infrastructure, but it does show a willingness from the NCC to get with the times.

The Greenbelt stretch between Beacon Hill and Orléans is relatively short, taken over by mostly productive farming for local purposes, along with environmentally sensitive areas, so I would tend to preserve as much as possible.

What I would consider prime for redevelopment are the following areas:

• The Renaud-Navan Road farm land;
• 500 meters of the Pine View Golf Course;
  *once the Cumberland Transitway is complete;
• 500 meters each side of Woodroffe from Nepean to Barrhaven
  *once Stage 3 is complete
• Bell's Junction (bordered by the 417-416-Moodie-CP tracks)
  *once Stage 2 is complete

[Harley613]

I can see it already....

72086206-patterson_creek_0046-w by harley613, on Flickr

[passwordisnt123]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

[B]If Ottawa is serious about its climate emergency, it's time to consider developing the Greenbelt

Randall Denley is an Ottawa political commentator and author. Contact him at randalldenley1@gmail.com

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/co...-the-greenbelt

This just in: file photo found of Randall Denley's plan to bulldoze the Greenbelt.



Any developments of the greenbelt would be nothing more than shitty auto-dependent suburban sprawl. If we really care about climate change, we need to get way more serious about intensification, disincentivizing car use and encouraging public transit and active means of transportation wherever possible.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by passwordisnt123

This just in: file photo found of Randall Denley's plan to bulldoze the Greenbelt.



Any developments of the greenbelt would be nothing more than shitty auto-dependent suburban sprawl. If we really care about climate change, we need to get way more serious about intensification, disincentivizing car use and encouraging public transit and active means of transportation wherever possible.

But we aren't really serious about alternate transportation modes including public transit. We can tell because we still build new subdivisions based on auto-dependence and 30 minute bus schedules if we are lucky.

I totally agree, building on the Greenbelt will just build the same auto-dependent neighbourhoods. An example is Wateridge at Rockcliffe. A so-called new transit neighbourhood inside the Greenbelt with little transit. Look at Greystone Village in Ottawa East. Still the same 30 minute transit schedule. Outside the Confederation Line corridor itself, we have no intention in improving public transit. Until we stop designing based on capacity only, things will not change. More likely, auto-dependence will get worse.

A perfect example is DND headquarters at the Carling Campus. We are designing public transit to that location strictly based on capacity instead of trying to induce more people to use transit, or more truthfully, to get people not switch to private vehicles, which we know is happening.

[AR-OTT]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Look at Greystone Village in Ottawa East. Still the same 30 minute transit schedule.

In the defense of Greystone Village it's only a 10 minute walk to Lees station.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by AR-OTT

In the defense of Greystone Village it's only a 10 minute walk to Lees station.

Is there actually a back way that you can walk from Greystone to existing streets like Springhurst that give you access to Lees Ave., or do you have to go all the way around via Main St.?

[AR-OTT]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Is there actually a back way that you can walk from Greystone to existing streets like Springhurst that give you access to Lees Ave., or do you have to go all the way around via Main St.?

Google recommends taking the Rideau River Trail but maybe that is temporarily closed due to construction.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by AR-OTT

Google recommends taking the Rideau River Trail but maybe that is temporarily closed due to construction.

Not great in the winter if that's the only direct way to get to Lees Station.

[Harley613]

If they are inevitable (and they are), I would rather have new 'auto-dependent' suburbs on insensitive land in the greenbelt than extending past what has already been built.

[le calmar]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I totally agree, building on the Greenbelt will just build the same auto-dependent neighbourhoods.

My thoughts too. I hate seeing the urban boundary being constantly pushed back but building on the Greenbelt is not worth it as the result would likely be underwhelming. The City needs to get rid of that stupid requirement of its zoning by-law imposing 40% (if it's not more?) of SFH to new developments, that would be a first step.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Is there actually a back way that you can walk from Greystone to existing streets like Springhurst that give you access to Lees Ave., or do you have to go all the way around via Main St.?

Yes, there's a pathway from the north end of the development to Springhurst Park, and the pathway through Sprinhurst Park along the river is paved and lit.

According to the BikeOttawa map, it is not plowed, but hopefully it will be in the future.

Also, Greystone Village is served by 3 all day routes: 5, 16, 55.

[Innsertnamehere]

Detached houses aren’t going to disappear - Toronto has seen a dramatic shift in its housing stock over the last 15 years but new subdivisions still get built, just at much lower rates. If Ottawa had half a brain those new houses would go in the green belt along existing transit lines and near existing services instead of on the edge of town away from employment, transit, and services.

It’s a no brainer to me. Who cares if the farms that are paved over are in the green belt or on the edge of town - it’s the same result. The difference is that if the green belt is the one paved over the resulting new development will be much better suited to support more sustainable lifestyles.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by AR-OTT

In the defense of Greystone Village it's only a 10 minute walk to Lees station.

Much closer walk to Main Street, which is the centre of the neighbourhood.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Detached houses aren’t going to disappear - Toronto has seen a dramatic shift in its housing stock over the last 15 years but new subdivisions still get built, just at much lower rates. If Ottawa had half a brain those new houses would go in the green belt along existing transit lines and near existing services instead of on the edge of town away from employment, transit, and services.

It’s a no brainer to me. Who cares if the farms that are paved over are in the green belt or on the edge of town - it’s the same result. The difference is that if the green belt is the one paved over the resulting new development will be much better suited to support more sustainable lifestyles.

But there is only a couple of transit lines worth anything. We can't build the entire city along a couple of transit lines.

[DogsWithJobs]

Originally Posted by le calmar

My thoughts too. I hate seeing the urban boundary being constantly pushed back but building on the Greenbelt is not worth it as the result would likely be underwhelming. The City needs to get rid of that stupid requirement of its zoning by-law imposing 40% (if it's not more?) of SFH to new developments, that would be a first step.

Can the NCC approve development that ignores the city's rules? Since this is NCC property after all.

If they forced it to be high density and maybe even throw in some aesthetic conditions such as green roofs to blend in with the surrounding forests or something to make it more interesting.

I really don't think we should be filling the greenbelt with more low density suburbs. Why would we reward that type of development with a better location.

[le calmar]

Originally Posted by DogsWithJobs

Can the NCC approve development that ignores the city's rules? Since this is NCC property after all.

When DND, PSPC or any other governmental department decides to build something they usually comply with the city's rules, but I think it is more a matter of courtesy than anything. They could decide to ignore them altogether and do whatever they want, but that would not look so good. I am also pretty sure that the City could not develop on the Greenbelt unless the NCC agrees to it.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by DogsWithJobs

Can the NCC approve development that ignores the city's rules? Since this is NCC property after all.

If they forced it to be high density and maybe even throw in some aesthetic conditions such as green roofs to blend in with the surrounding forests or something to make it more interesting.

I really don't think we should be filling the greenbelt with more low density suburbs. Why would we reward that type of development with a better location.

There are all sorts of sites available for high-density development inside the greenbelt. It would take hundreds of years at current building rates to fill them up. The only possible thing that could possibly go on the greenbelt would be low density suburban sprawl, which at best would absorb demand for a few years before sprawl building moves back to the exurbs.

[YOWflier]

I stumbled across this (older but still interesting) article about the studio. Not sure where else to put it. Timeframes are way off hopefully there's not been a snag.



https://playbackonline.ca/2018/11/23...head-with-ncc/