General Suburban Updates

[rocketphish]

I wonder what this means for their current location at March & Carling? That would make quite the redevelopment site itself. Who owns that?

[Dzingle Bells]

Saw this ad in a recent edition of the NRU which is a publication that focuses on planning, development, and transportation in and around the GTA. I don't know that I have ever seen an Ottawa-related item in it.



Draft Plan

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by Dzingle Bells

Saw this ad in a recent edition of the NRU which is a publication that focuses on planning, development, and transportation in and around the GTA. I don't know that I have ever seen an Ottawa-related item in it.



Draft Plan

Where exactly is the space to run/extend the Kanata LRT in that corridor? or more relevant where is the space for the BRT/Bus lanes?

or the left space to either extend cranesbill street to Iber road? either by road itself or by pathway...especially considering Iber rd has a Grocery store.

Either way here are the plans:

https://devapps.ottawa.ca/en/applica...6-0020/details

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

Where exactly is the space to run/extend the Kanata LRT in that corridor? or more relevant where is the space for the BRT/Bus lanes?

That is the terminal station and the ROW would be north of the site (I hadn't realized that the plan was to have it cross Hazeldean). Robert Grant Ave. would be built to have BRT (likely similar to Chapman Mills Dr.).

or the left space to either extend cranesbill street to Iber road? either by road itself or by pathway...especially considering Iber rd has a Grocery store.

I guess the new No Frills technically has its address on Iber Rd, but in reality it is closer to Fringewood (Google has it pinned too far east). I do agree that there should be some pathways to Iber Rd. though.

I would like to see more density, especially between Robert Grant Ave. and Iber Rd.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by roger1818

That is the terminal station and the ROW would be north of the site (I hadn't realized that the plan was to have it cross Hazeldean). Robert Grant Ave. would be built to have BRT (likely similar to Chapman Mills Dr.).

I would like to see more density, especially between Robert Grant Ave. and Iber Rd.

Terminal for now, the ROW just seems to purposefully narrow in this section, specifically at the end of the LRT station. Though it looks to be the same width as Robert Grant road south of Abbott. ~45 to 50 meters. (scale may have thrown me off)

As for density, I agree, considering the transit investment and the access to retail at the north & possibly south end, that is a lot of singles. The multi-family residential will be as per dev comments "stacked dwellings, low-rise apartment buildings or possibly back to back townhouses" and zoned R4.

[acottawa]

That’s great news.

[Truenorth00]

They are fighting more housing? Shameless.

[Nowhere]

I don't see how a fenced off lawn full of pesticides and goose crap qualifies as "greenspace". Nothing worth saving there.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

They are fighting more housing? Shameless.

Ya. All those million dollar, single family homes will solve the housing crisis. The plan is for 1,480 homes over 70.89 hectares (175 acres). That’s over 475 m^2 (over 5000 sq feet) of land per home. Hardly high density.

There is also the matter of the contract saying the lad should be given back to the city, not sold for profit.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The court of appeal did not interpret the contract that way. I don’t know the details.

Obviously there is some sort of loophole that the developer is trying to take advantage of (possibly that the contract was with the City of Kanata, and it no longer exists post amalgamation). My point is I don't understand why people on here are celebrating this as a victory.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Ya. All those million dollar, single family homes will solve the housing crisis. The plan is for 1,480 homes over 70.89 hectares (175 acres). That’s over 475 m^2 (over 5000 sq feet) of land per home. Hardly high density.

There is also the matter of the contract saying the lad should be given back to the city, not sold for profit.

Something somewhat similar happened in my neighbourhood. The NCC sold Greenbelt property in the darkness of night. Nobody really knew it was happening until it was a done deal. It became a housing development, on land that was increasingly swampy as you moved west to east. It was originally part of a huge wetland complex and headwaters for a few creeks that feed into the Rideau River and the Nation River. The most swampy land was not to be built on but there is now a 'For Lease' sign on it and a new housing development is being built on a huge mound of fill. Although it is almost adjacent to shopping and transit, there is no pedestrian access unless you want to walk through swamp and old drainage ditches. Totally car dependent because it is so poorly integrated into the greater neighbourhood. Will this happen with the proposed Kanata development? Likely. Squeeze something in between existing neighbourhoods with inevitable poor access because it was planned to remain as greenspace in the long-term.

[roger1818]

Global News did an article yesterday on how it is important for cities to be able to absorb water rather than have it all immediately run off into storm sewers. Green space is one way this can be achieved. I agree we need to build more homes, but we need to be smart about it.

• Video Link

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by RuralCitizen

I understand both side of the argument. I think their arguments against the judgement is more in relation to having a promise of green space nearby as a selling point when they built and purchased the housing. A promise is a promise, it isn't the same as a vacant land that remains vacant for 50years but didn't have restrictions on being built on. I don't think they care that it is a gold course, so long as it remains a green space.

We can argue all we want about how we have tons of greenspace in the city with the Gatineau park and the Greenbelt. But proximity to green space is important too.

Is there a way to maintain a portion of it as permanent, publicly accessible green space? and convert the remainder as high density housing?

If it were me, I would put mid-rise apartments on the north side of Campeau drive and low-rise apartments where it crosses Knudson (while preserving access to the greenspace). The remainder of the golf course I would re-wild, with pathways through it (most of the adjacent streets already have pathways that connect to it).

Since the land is in such thin strips, you would need to cover almost as much land with asphalt as you would get in developable land to develop much more than that.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Marshsparrow

What's the difference to the Hunt Club forest preservation at all costs mob mentality - why aren't those people pitchforking to preserve Kanata forests or putting forward proposals to greenspace part of the golf course and balance for development?

Simple. It's not in their backyard. You have to remember. Development is never an issue. Just as long as it is not in their neighbourhood.

Originally Posted by Marshsparrow

Maybe if this city could design nice neighbourhoods that build community and put forward architecture and urbanism and balance green space that would be a start... sadly it will be garbage...

The "city" is really a reflection of the residents. A predominantly suburban population (including most of what's inside the Greenbelt) is going to be highly resistant to urbanism. And a cowardly political class will never work towards changing their attitudes.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

It's part of common law and Ontario law already, the ruling was whether the wording of the agreement was in violation of the rule. I found this article helpful as the decision was pretty technical.
https://hullandhull.com/2018/08/rule...ies-not-scary/

So, can it be argued that the agreement with the City of Kanata is only good for 21 years beyond the end of its existence or 1 January 2022, 21 years following amalgamation?

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

It's part of common law and Ontario law already, the ruling was whether the wording of the agreement was in violation of the rule. I found this article helpful as the decision was pretty technical.
https://hullandhull.com/2018/08/rule...ies-not-scary/

So they are arguing that the city of Kanata was a person who died and the City of Ottawa was it’s beneficiary. Regards of what should be done with the land, this needs to be decided by the Supreme Court to set a precedent for future cases.

[lrt's friend]

A big public amenity in any neighbourhood is greenspace. The argument here is that infill housing is better than converting private greenspace into public greenspace as per the original agreement.

Clearly, this is all about profit and not about the public good.

Intensification is not always a magic solution to our urban problems. It always puts additional pressure on our limited public amenities and it is very difficult to expand those amenities except at great expense once all available land is developed privately. The hope is that it will deliver additional private amenities but it should be emphasized that those are private and therefore also exclusive.

Focus on intensification should be on derelict and vacant properties and parking lots. When I check this part of Kanata, there seems to be other vacant land.

While we are so concerned about infill housing, there has been little effort to make our communities less car dependent and therefore reduce the need to build wider roads and larger parking lots everywhere.

[Admiral Nelson]

Originally Posted by RuralCitizen

How many of the current developments around the city are actually fully self sustaining walkable 15min neighbourhoods? (including findley creek, barrhaven, orleans, stittsville as part of the city).

Your argument is equating parkland to a golf course, as a worthless use of land. I'm sorry, but I disagree to this vision of parkland vs housing. One doesn't go without the other, especially with global temperature increase. We need to cool down the city by having parkland EVERYWHERE intertwined in the fabric of the city. We need to stop dividing the city in big blocks of function. (Housing is here, work is there, and no new green space since we already have lots elsewhere.) This mentality just isn't sustainable and increases the mediocrity of our living environment. a row of dying trees along a boulevard isn't quality "green" space

So to address climate change, your suggestion is that we intensify less? Ergo, you'd rather the demand for housing be filled on the periphery of the city? And you suppose these parts will be more conducive to 15 minute neighbourhoods?

[RuralCitizen]

Originally Posted by Admiral Nelson

So to address climate change, your suggestion is that we intensify less? Ergo, you'd rather the demand for housing be filled on the periphery of the city? And you suppose these parts will be more conducive to 15 minute neighbourhoods?

No, More intensity, mixed intensity. less backyards since parks is available to all. commercial space in every single neighborhoods

[lrt's friend]

I don't think infill housing at this site will create a new 15 minute community. On the contrary. It will be more of a car oriented development.

When I think of building desirable neighbourhoods, I think of Greenboro, because of the network of parks and multi-use pathways that run through the community. It is flawed by not being walkable to shopping but the park network is connected to schools and a community centre and public library and is a whole lot better than the garbage we build everywhere else that is oriented 100% towards cars.

But the thinking here is that the park network should be used for infill housing, because a lacework of greenspace in a neighbourhood is ultimately wasteful.

We need to do some thinking here. Because by simply cramming as many houses in as possible, the end result is that the only public accesses are designed for cars. Typically, we don't even bother with sidewalks, let alone making some space for Multi-use pathways, ie a safe pedestrian/cycling network.