[jeremy_haak]

That area of Ottawa is starting to/and will look very nice in the coming years. Lots of nice shiny enw buildings going up. Too bad they aren't taller. :(

I know a lot of people have this sentiment, and I must admit that I do too. The skyline in Ottawa looks awfully squat. On the other hand, height doesn't make a whole lot of difference at the street level. Beyond 10 stories or so, the building's interaction with the street stays much the same.

With that in mind, I wonder if it wouldn't be better just continuing with smaller office developments. The CBD will fill out more, getting rid of the few remaining surface lots downtown, and it will likely expand more as well, hopefully predominately as an axis down Bank St. and Rideau St. While I'm not all that keen on having a huge CBD, I am very keen on greater mixed-use areas, with a large residential population, as well as a daytime business population. If development is able to follow major axes, higher order transit along those routes would be that much more effective.

I guess I'm wondering what other people think about how effective a greater quantity of smaller scale office and residential developments spread further throughout the city than just downtown could go to improve the overall urban fabric and whether the potential benefits would outweigh the benefits of building higher. (What would you consider the benefits anyway, besides a certain level of prestige?)

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

I would at least like to see some variation in height and a defined and existant skyline.

[Cambridgite]

As nice as downtown Ottawa is on street level, it's certainly not a city where one goes to to gawk at the skyline. There's a lot of buildings in the 10-25 storey range, but you guys need at least a few signature buildings to define your skyline. Other than that, I'd rather see the expansion and infill of mixed-use districts.

[O-Town Hockey]

In order for the taller buildings to not look out of place I think we would need at least 4-5 no more than 45 storey buildings within the CBD. Otherwise, they will stand out like a sore thumb and do exactly what grumpy Ottawans have been saying for years about tall buildings; that they overpower and ruin existing sightlines.

[Kitchissippi]

Personally, I find that the concept of a "exciting skyline" has become a bit car-centric. In most people's view, it's the view of a city from afar, driving in. If there's nothing tall , it's "boring" because you cant see it from the highway.

if you look up the definition of skyline it's: "an outline of land and buildings defined against the sky." Height is not a major factor. If it's land AND buildings, Ottawa has it good. The escarpment adds at least 10 storeys to Place de Ville :)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2211/1810214643_0b27fb55f4_b.jpg

[O-Town Hockey]

I agree with you that our skyline could be worse. Height is not the biggest issue, it is the lack of variety in height along the edges of our skyline. From the perimeter, it is impossible to tell that there is a huge variety in building heights in our CBD.

[harls]

I agree we could use a little more variety in height, but it's not that bad density-wise..

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/101/305797326_e2c7c32a4f_b.jpg (http://farm1.static.flickr.com/101/305797326_e2c7c32a4f_o.jpg)

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/82/224453561_1b26e3c403_b.jpg (http://farm1.static.flickr.com/82/224453561_1b26e3c403_o.jpg)

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1012/1321528918_d23d2aa44b_b.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1371/1321530732_a43e2371c5_b.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1370/1321528166_5cdf8cc2e2_b.jpg

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Some of those shots remind me of Quebec City...



Anyway, yes, our skyline could be worse, but it could also be much better. Judging from where the last available infill spots in the downtown area are, we could easily build som 40-50 storey tall buildings and they wouldn't impact the skyline too drastically.

[O-Town Hockey]

Anyway, yes, our skyline could be worse, but it could also be much better. Judging from where the last available infill spots in the downtown area are, we could easily build som 40-50 storey tall buildings and they wouldn't impact the skyline too drastically.

I still stand by my opinion, 40 max! The 2-3 towers (to be realistic on numbers) would stand out too much otherwise.

[harls]

I wish the three 17-storey towers proposed by Brookfield would be reconsidered... the west end of downtown seems to be more relaxed when it comes to building height. 30 storeys would look mighty fine at Kent and Queen. 40, even better.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

:previous: Yep, it seems that way. Same could be said for the Market. Pretty much anywhere that is a good distance from Parliament have slightly relaxed height-restrictions.

[O-Town Hockey]

An interesting article from the Ottawa Citizen. Let's start building up!
Link: http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/greaterottawa/archive/2007/07/04/great-skylines-and-ottawa-s.aspx

Great skylines, and Ottawa's
Just ran across this page offering a list of the world's 30 greatest skylines (it's over a year old, but barring major disasters, these things don't change much). It's purely subjective but backed up by some unusually lovely photos and some thoughtful explanations. In Toronto-based Luigi Di Serio's opinion, Hong Kong has the best skyline in the world, Chicago is No. 2.

Toronto, with the CN Tower and the Rogers Centre, comes in at No. 7:

Toronto is a meeting place, a crossroads of many cultures and ethnicities. Toronto is downtown Canada, the biggest city in the country with a skyline to match. Toronto has 7 structures in its skyline that stand at over 200 metres, including the astonishingly tall 553 metre, CN Tower, which is often referred to as the tallest free-standing structure in the world. While mostly untrue (because there are taller TV masts in the world), the CN Tower possess the world's highest observation deck, making this city's skyline one of the most immediately identifiable.

Pittsburgh is No. 16. Pittsburgh? I thought. But have a look at the photo. Under the right conditions, Pittsburgh is a pretty good-lookin' town. Montreal sneaks in at No. 30.

Prospects for making Ottawa's skyline distinctive have been hampered a bit by the old rule that nothing was allowed to be taller than the Peace Tower — at least nothing nearby, which meant nothing downtown where somebody might actually want to build something that high. The rule stopped being closely enforced at some point, but the result has been that the most distinctive building in town, Parliament, is walled in by a bunch of towers just slightly taller than it is.

There's also a lack of great vantage points for a city built in a wide valley. Nevertheless, as these photos show, Ottawa can look pretty good, too. Here's one by Citizen photographer Julie Oliver:



and one (taken from a hot-air balloon) by Mike Carroccetto:



and a third, this one a panorama, by Ashley Fraser:



There are also some lovely shots on Flickr, and doubtless readers can point to more.


But this wasn't meant to be a post about photos, it was supposed to be about architecture. Ottawa's not as big as the cities that make Di Serio's top-30 list (even Pittsburgh's metro population is about 2.4 million), and it's not as rich, with fewer big companies or rich individuals looking to make statements about public art with their architecture. But great buildings don't need to be private. There's Parliament itself, of course, and the National Gallery, and the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto just opened its Michael Lee-Chin Crystal expansion, which, whatever you think of it (I'm not a fan), certainly makes a statement.


Why don't we have distinctive buildings like these built here anymore?

[TheMeltyMan]

Personally, I find that the concept of a "exciting skyline" has become a bit car-centric. In most people's view, it's the view of a city from afar, driving in. If there's nothing tall , it's "boring" because you cant see it from the highway.

I agree, that most of the "exciting" skyline moments happen from a vehicle around the perimeter, but modesty doesn't exactly help a city. Get rid of all pretension and we'd be living in tunnels under a forest.

Ottawa has a high tolerance for a modest skyline and seems to be strangely conservative about the whole thing. I could definately see room for a push in height down Bank street towards the Queensway(?) and for a few 180-200 meter buildings.

I think that urbanity should be as urbane as possible.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

I propose 5-8 40+ storey towers throughout the CBD and the Market/Rideau area in select spots and 30 storey towers everywhere else where it will work.

[Aylmer]

woah! take it slow!
we should begin by puting up some 35-40 story buildings and then progress to 45-50 and then 55-60!

It'll take a decade or so but we are not Dubai!!! (not yet)

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

:previous: Did you not just see how I said only 5-8 40+ towers in only certain areas and to lift general height-restrictions to 30 storeys?

That is slow! :rolleyes: :P

[Aylmer]

it would be my preference that we go up with 45storys tomorrow but honestly, the city council will kill anything to unusual.

C'est la vie...
C'est la ville...
C'est Moi!

[the capital urbanite]

Ottawa condo supply tightens, other cities driven by speculators

Garry Marr and Bert Hill
CanWest News Service

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

Speculation is now the key driving force behind the condominium market, according to a survey Re/Max released on Wednesday.

The real estate company estimates that 50% of all sales activity in downtown Vancouver can be linked to investors while the figure in downtown Toronto is approximately 60% to 85%.

"The impact of speculation, especially in Canada's largest condominium markets, has yet to be determined but concerns for the future are relevant," said Elton Ash, regional executive vice-president of Re/Max of Western Canada. "This is a major factor that could influence prices in the years to come."

In Ottawa, however, the report said that demand for condominium apartments and townhouses has chopped the supply by 20 per cent to 642 units today compared to a year ago.

Developers in Ottawa are rapidly adding new projects with particular interest in high-end projects. More than three per cent of condos sold so far this year were priced above $500,000. A total of 2,527 condominiums were sold in the first nine months of the year, up 11 per cent from a year earlier. The average price rose six per cent to $197,206.

While Ottawa has caught the condo bug, it is not the raging condition in many other more expensive markets where high prices of single-family units are out the reach of most first-time buyers. In the first nine months of the year the number of condos sales in Calgary reached 7,350 and in Edmonton 6,133 - up to three times the number of sales in Ottawa in cities with about the same population. In Toronto, condo sales were 10 times more and in Vancouver sales were eight times more than Ottawa.

Re/Max said 12 of the 15 markets it surveyed across Canada had condominium sales up 10% over the first nine months of the year compared to a year earlier. It found eight markets had sales growth of more than 20%

Kitchener-Waterloo was the hottest market in the country with a 59% jump in sales followed by Regina at 57%. The real estate company says the rising price of low-rise home was behind the trend.

"Deteriorating affordability levels in major Canadian centres have led to the resurrection of the condominium lifestyle in recent years," said Michael Polzler, executive vice-president of Re/Max Ontario-Atlantic Canada. "Condominiums are clearly the answer to the skyrocketing cost of land and shelter that has all but eradicated the dream of home ownership for many first-time buyers."

Vancouver is rated as the strongest condo market in the country with 60% of all sales in the city falling into that category.

Prices are also rising across the country for condominiums. Re/Max says five of the 15 markets surveyed had double digit price increases for condominiums over the last year.

New benchmarks for prices were set across the country for high-rise apartments. In Vancouver, a home sold through the MLS system for $18-million last year. Calgary also set a new record with a condo there selling for $3.7-million Winnipeg had a condo unit sell for $1.25-million.

[Mille Sabords]

60-85% investors in downtown Toronto? Stand back, folks, that one's gonna hurt! And 50%+ in Vancouver?

All I can say is, I'll take a moderately-paced market over an overheating one any day.

At least, Vancouver has the Olympics in a couple of years to sustain the frenzy, and Alberta has both the oil and gas going strong plus their two big cities are deprived of apartments compared to the eastern Big Three (Tor, Ott, Mtl) so they are catching up by building the appropriate supply of apartments for cities their size.

Toronto worries me. The impact of the high Canadian dollar is just starting to be felt (Brampton lost x thousand jobs in the auto sector just last month, etc.) and the entire GTA is still a manufacturing-heavy economy.

Ottawa on the other hand has languished behind other cities the last 4-5 years in terms of the housing market. We used to be the third most expensive real estate market, we've dropped down to 5th if we just take the Big Six. Since we've already lost much of our high-tech manufacturing during the 2001 bleedfest, we are better insulated against the vagaries of the Canadian dollar. And I'd be curious to know what % of speculators are gambling on our condo market...

[ikerrin]

I wish the three 17-storey towers proposed by Brookfield would be reconsidered... the west end of downtown seems to be more relaxed when it comes to building height. 30 storeys would look mighty fine at Kent and Queen. 40, even better.

When is Brookefield scheduled to build, or are they still waiting for tennants?

[Canadian Mind]

build up you guys, I quite like to see how the parliament buildings, that crazy round thing, and the castle-like thing are all walled in by steadily walled in by more modern buildings... as long as it is set up so that the sun can always shine on parliament, i have no qualms with walling the place in... Make the history of the city that much more visual and impacting.

[cityguy]

I don't think Ottawa will get a building over 35 storeys.The majority of office space in this city is rented by the goverment,and a tall shiney tower is looked at by the public as too extravagant.I remember a friend who worked for the Public Works dept.telling me that millions were spent on a property bought from Nortel to "tone it down".

[Aylmer]

Cheer up!
the day is coming and I can taste it!
think of the desification taking place! 25-27 floor buildings are plopping up!
we could realy have an impressive skyline with a building of only 45 stories and a couple of 35s to blend it in.

just wait!!!!

[cityguy]

^I can't wait,I'll be dead by the year 3000.

[Aylmer]

The population for Ottawa-Gatineau is supposed to reach 1,4million by 2012,
1,5 by 2016, 1,6million for 2021, 1,7million for 2026 and 1,9 million by 2031!

even 2012 might bring some major construction!

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

^I can't wait,I'll be dead by the year 3000.

:lmao:

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

The population for Ottawa-Gatineau is supposed to reach 1,4million by 2012,
1,5 by 2016, 1,6million for 2021, 1,7million for 2026 and 1,9 million by 2031!

even 2012 might bring some major construction!

Gotta disagree with ya there, dude.

Even with the projected population increases, Ottawa would have to become Chicago, T.O. or New York overnight in order to get some serious construction. It will never happen within our lifetimes and certainly not until the height restrictions are lifted, which certainly won't be happening any time soon...

[Aylmer]

:haha: :yes: :jester: :D :cheers: :P Sorry...
I am a radical optimist:D :) ;) :cool:

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

:haha: :yes: :jester: :D :cheers: :P Sorry...
I am a radical optimist:D :) ;) :cool:

Hey, no worries. :cheers:

I find it very admirable that someone your/my age is so interested, optimistic and passionate about matters in the Outaouais. You just need to be a little more realistic. ;) :haha: :jester: :cheers: :notacrook:

[Aylmer]

I feel young and appreceated!
but there are some albertan posters who really pis* me off.
nmmmnasdf
sorry, my cat likes to type...

anyway, High-Tech is a stable industry. and we could have a boom at any given time!

Mabe next week, a boom will spark the construction of 55 story buildings!

[jeremy_haak]

I feel young and appreceated!
but there are some albertan posters who really pis* me off.
nmmmnasdf
sorry, my cat likes to type...

anyway, High-Tech is a stable industry. and we could have a boom at any given time!

Mabe next week, a boom will spark the construction of 55 story buildings!

Generally we don't plan with the assumption of booming, but I suppose it's okay to be optimistic.

Honestly, how did you expect people to react with a post like this one?

Question;
dose it bother the slightest of people to know that the calgarian urban footprint is only slightly smaller than NewYork and it's boroughs?
Calgary may have the boom but not the population zoom!

That's pretty much the definition of flame bait right there. Take a moment to think about what you're posting and whether it makes any sense or not.

This is way off topic though. Oops!

[Aylmer]

I wanted to either get more information from them, get their opinion or start a casual conversation...

[waterloowarrior]

Downtown commercial height restrictions: Time to go
http://www.ottawabusinessjournal.com/296005584642636.php
Wed, Aug 26, 2009 3:00 PM EST
http://www.ottawabusinessjournal.com/temporaryimages/tm25176.jpg


It is a generally accepted principle at city hall that combating urban sprawl across Ottawa requires a new look at density levels in residential developments.

This new philosophy culminated a few years back in city council's decision to support urban intensification as a way to make better use of available development space in and around our urban core; namely, more allowed units and more height, to allow for better use of available residential land. More height allows a developer to create something other than a short, squat rectangle and instead deliver a thinner tower, which lets more sun shine through and increased landscaping.

Nowhere is this more necessary than in the downtown commercial district where, once again, we face one of the lowest vacancy rates in the country as well as some of the highest rental rates. I would guess most residents probably don't understand why this is, or how it came to be.

Ottawa's downtown core is the preferred location for many different types of organizations. The federal government – by far and away the largest occupant of office space in the core – will likely always have a large contingent of employees that need to be near Parliament Hill in order to attend meetings, briefings and simply make government work. Other groups, such as national lobby groups, embassies and federally funded agencies, for whom proximity to the seat of power is not simply a "nice to have," would also say that a downtown location is essential.

Yet there is almost no space available to lease anymore. Tenants have little choice and less leverage than ever when it comes to negotiating leases unless they start their search very early. They can also expect to pay close to twice the rent downtown than in other parts of the city. Does this make sense?

Should the need to locate in Ottawa's downtown core cost your firm twice what it costs in Nepean or Kanata? Should it cost more than Toronto or Montreal? Certainly I agree there should be a premium paid for a better-quality building in a better location; that is basic real estate common sense. But a 100-per-cent premium over the suburbs? And don't get me started on the parking costs...

The solution is to allow for greater density on future development, which translates simply to more height. But in Ottawa, this is easier said than done. The National Capital Commission currently protects several dozen sight lines designed to preserve the views and skylines around national heritage buildings in and around Parliament Hill. These are some of the most photographed views of Ottawa and are represented in almost every postcard rack you might come across.

A significant aspect of the development restrictions are to ensure that the skyline behind and around Parliament Hill remain uncluttered and in virtually the same state as the 19th century. In other words, to ensure that from almost any point you stand to look at Parliament Hill, there is nothing behind it.

My question is this: Is this a realistic viewpoint for helping keep Ottawa moving forward and growing as it should?

Would Toronto be the same without the CN Tower? Would New York or Chicago or Shanghai be the modern symbols of commerce and trade without their signature skyscrapers? Is it right to insist Parliament Hill remain as the most prominent feature in the core ... forever? Would it be so terrible to have some architecturally pleasing, 45- or 50-storey towers providing a modern contrast to the Gothic style of the Peace Tower?

Is having a pretty postcard from every angle worth putting up with inflated rents and ugly buildings in the core?

If the answer to that question is yes, then the citizens of Ottawa had better prepare for some major development projects outside of the core as the need to expand continues.

According to recent trends, should the federal public service and its entourage of supporting Crown agencies continue to grow at present rates, then within the next decade we could easily run out of sites for new construction within the core.

Without a plan to accommodate new growth, we could find our city stifled in a very real and expensive way. You can't knock down old buildings to make way for new development without first moving existing tenants out of existing space. Thus, there needs to be available development sites in the core to ensure those people have someplace to move.

As always, the real victims are taxpayers and business owners forced to bear the consequences of significantly higher office rents as a result of a restriction on new supply. Downtown rents continue to rise and the assessed property taxes rise with them.

If you think about it, we have one arm of the government, the NCC, creating an artificial cap on supply, another arm of the government, the federal public service, creating huge demand which is driving up rents, and finally the City of Ottawa assigning higher property taxes based in part on the rents the feds are paying.

Since the federal government occupies more than 50 per cent of the core, the majority of the rental premium is borne by you and me.

Maybe it's time for a new way of thinking.

Darren Fleming is senior principal and broker of record for Cresa Partners.

[kwoldtimer]

Well, there's one unbiased party heard from! Not sure what "ugly" buildings have got to do with his arguments about height and density, although Centretown certainly has more than its fair share of ugly. Would it be so terrible to have some beautiful 45 or 50 (or 60!) towers downtown? I don't think so. Is there any likelihood of it happening. I don't think so. It seems to me that the current state of affairs is not ideal from either an aesthetic (too tall already) nor an economic (not tall enough) point of view. What to do, what to do. :shrug:

[Aylmer]

I feel young and appreceated!
but there are some albertan posters who really pis* me off.
nmmmnasdf
sorry, my cat likes to type...

anyway, High-Tech is a stable industry. and we could have a boom at any given time!

Mabe next week, a boom will spark the construction of 55 story buildings!

OMG. Reading my early posts is embarrassing...

:ahhh:

[harls]

Ain't the internet grand?

I remember posting this in an old thread and thought it would be topical to post here.. what a 45+ storey building(s) would do to Ottawa's skyline..

Something around this height on Lyon would drastically change things...

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3074/2796180547_b0b2147e79_b.jpg

[BlueJay]

Ain't the internet grand?

I remember posting this in an old thread and thought it would be topical to post here.. what a 45+ storey building(s) would do to Ottawa's skyline..

Geez, look at that NCC, we can still see the Peace Tower....Who would of thought..................

[BlueJay]

Ain't the internet grand?

I remember posting this in an old thread and thought it would be topical to post here.. what a 45+ storey building(s) would do to Ottawa's skyline..


oh wait, after looking at this Pic more and more, it looks like you placed the buildings in the parking lot behind diamonds, and the gluepot pub.

Claridge bought that lot and apparently they have plans to build a 17fl office tower and a 24fl condo.

Well, at least i can look at your rendering and dream.:cool:

[harls]

Yeah, I made that almost a year ago to the day. I figured it'd never happen.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Ain't the internet grand?

I remember posting this in an old thread and thought it would be topical to post here.. what a 45+ storey building(s) would do to Ottawa's skyline..

Dear God! Is that the start of an actual skyline?! ;)

[lrt's friend]

Will our transportation infrastructure be able to support this kind of intensification downtown even if the tunnel is built? Downtown has some very awkward geography.

[Mille Sabords]

Will our transportation infrastructure be able to support this kind of intensification downtown even if the tunnel is built? Downtown has some very awkward geography.

*yawn*

[eternallyme]

Geez, look at that NCC, we can still see the Peace Tower....Who would of thought..................

Here is what I would have done personally:

The historic core (where to draw the line is debatable - Queen, Albert, Slater or Laurier) and the Market area should have kept very tight restrictions on height (no taller than the top of Parliament's roof) to preserve the historic nature being a national capital. Not a lot different than current rules. South of there, there should be no height restrictions - if they wanted a 40, 50, 60-story building then go ahead.

That would have likely created a completely different downtown as commercial towers would exist at least to Somerset, if not all the way to Gladstone.

[lrt's friend]

*yawn*

I know, I know. If we want to do this, we better be thinking about a full scale metro east-west, more than BRT from Gatineau, and maybe a Bank Street subway or at least a separate allignment to get the N-S LRT through downtown. The two go hand in hand. Once the 25 storey barrier is broken, you can count on a race to build multiple towers downtown and our transit system better be ready for it. As it stands, it won't be able to handle it.

[O-Town Hockey]

An interesting article in the Citizen today by Ken Gray with an underlying theme of "stop urban sprawl" and a bit of a pitch to get LRT moving.

Ottawa: She ain't pretty, she just looks that way
A picturesque setting hides disregard for the earth, air and water that sustain us

By Ken Gray, The Ottawa CitizenOctober 22, 2009 9:16AM

The following is the text of a speech sponsored by the Community Foundation of Ottawa that Citizen editorial board member Ken Gray gave at the auditorium of the Ottawa Public Library, main branch, on Tuesday.

- - -

We newspaper types are a devious lot. Last Christmas, with lots of newspapers to publish and few days to do it during the holiday period, we were busy.

Still, each week my column space relentlessly requires filling. So I needed something fast. This is where the devious part comes in. In the column, I asked Ottawans to write in about what kind of city they wanted. Seemed innocuous enough. No interview, a bit of spelling and I'm done. Furthermore, if five or six readers respond, why they've written my next column. Perfect ... an old newspaper trick.

So what happens? We get an avalanche of letters to the Citizen. Blind luck. It seems this little missive resonated with Ottawans. Despite their outer reserve, residents really care about their community. You wouldn't know this from their low voter turnouts at municipal election time, but there it was. So I had columns for weeks. It was like angling for perch and landing a marlin. Fish for dinner.

Not only did I catch a school of letters, I also hooked the Community Foundation of Ottawa. When the good people there asked me to make this speech, they said they wanted me to talk about "The Ottawa you want." With pleasure.

So what did our readers want? A person by the name of Luke White said it well: "A place where we are all encouraged to be whatever we want to be."

Michael Allen of the United Way dwelled on community collaboration and partnerships, where the beliefs and interests of citizens are recognized, where the humblest residents have value no matter their background. A place where everyone thrives and shares.

Others responded, very eclectically. They wanted emphasis on arts and culture; a car-free city; more bike racks and paths; a vibrant downtown; more cafés, bars and nightclubs with later opening hours; better transit; sexual and ethnic tolerance; retention and improvement of national institutions; more parks; more people places along our rivers; more representative democracy; and a place that cherishes its creative people.

The list goes on and on. But more than anything else, Ottawans wanted a green community.

Now that I have fulfilled my commitment to the Community Foundation to speak about "The Ottawa you want," I would like to take this idea a step further, which is "The Ottawa You Get."

In that regard, I had friends from Tennessee who visited Ottawa a few years ago. When I returned the visit in Knoxville, another Tennessean asked them: "What is Ottawa like?"

"It's beautiful," they responded.

And it is ... physically. But from our 21st-century environmental perspective, sadly, this is a dirty city in ways that matter. In keeping with my fishy theme, I will quote the title of a song by the old Saskatchewan rock group The Northern Pikes in reference to Ottawa, "She ain't pretty. She just looks that way." And in that regard, I will speak to the basic elements that make up our city: water, earth and air.

First, water. When Leeds-Grenville MP Gord Brown met with the Citizen editorial board, of which I'm a member, he told us he was concerned that sewage systems in his riding outside Ottawa were so bad that he feared that effluent from his area would flow down the Rideau past the Parliament Buildings. Sheepishly, I had to tell him that the City of Ottawa had beat him to it.

We're quite good at this. As of late this summer, this city had poured 964 million litres of sewage and untreated storm water into the Ottawa River, more than double the year previous because of heavy rainfall, something we should expect more of as global warming continues. In old parts of the city, storm and sanitary sewers are not separated, so heavy rain overwhelms the Pickard water treatment plant in Gloucester. Officials must open the gates and allow untreated sewage into the river. Thus we spoil one of the greatest resources of fresh water in North America. We are not alone. Most cities on the continent, due to a lack of infrastructure money, must do the same. Still, we are the national capital and should set an example for others. We must preserve the Ottawa River, its beaches where we play, and the critical water that we drink.

Let's move onto the second of the three elements of Ottawa, the earth. Ottawa takes up too much of it. The urban area of this city has about the same development density as suburban Toronto. We're just too spread out. Why? Well, because our municipal governments of the 1970s and '80s decided to jump the Greenbelt to create communities such as Barrhaven, Kanata and Orléans. The suburban model is, by definition, not particularly dense, but add the Greenbelt to the mix, plus vast open spaces and parking lots and you get an urban area that has suburban density. That's very wasteful and environmentally degrading. That's Ottawa.

Let me explain. Paving the land is the ultimate desecration of the environment. Nothing can grow on a parking lot. By spreading out the community, you eliminate oxygen-producing plants and replace them with pavement. You destroy productive farmland.

But more than that, pavement creates unnatural water runoff. Water normally drains into the ground where it is filtered of contaminants. Also that process slows the flow of water to our rivers, reducing flooding. When water drains off Highway 417, it does not flow into the ground but into enormous storm sewers that rush polluted water into our rivers. That water is contaminated with petroleum products, brake fluid, heavy metals, chemicals, dirt and rubber compounds. Suburban storm sewers have all these substances plus the animal feces that closes our beaches after rainstorms. Our poor use of the earth pollutes our water.

Land pollution also causes problems for the last basic element of Ottawa, the air. Ottawans love their cars. Because our community is so spread out, residents must drive long distances and idle their cars in traffic jams to get to and from work. The lack of a modern light-rail transit system means Ottawans remain wedded to their cars.

In a profound irony, the superhighways 417, 416 and 174, plus the major arterial roads leading from the suburbs, are extended by the Greenbelt, which was created in part to protect an environmentally sensitive area. But by building suburban development across that green space, we lengthened commutes from the suburbs, which resulted in the Greenbelt causing the production of extra tonnes of greenhouse gases. Oddly, the Greenbelt's interaction with the automobile is environmentally degrading.

Ottawa is also very late in building commuter rail. Edmonton, Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto have commuter rail and, soon, Kitchener-Waterloo will too. Even the two oil capitals of North America, Calgary and Houston, both have surface light rail through their downtowns -- Calgary's C-Train being arguably the most successful light-rail operation on the continent.

Electric light rail is environmentally sensitive. Instead, Ottawa has a diesel-bus Transitway and a massive use of cars. Ottawa, as the capital of a wealthy G8 nation, should be setting an example for visitors from the rest of Canada and the world. Instead, in terms of light rail, the nation's capital is an embarrassment. She ain't pretty, she just looks that way.

Were I a smart federal politician, I might consider an urban strategy for Canada. Not only is it needed but 80 per cent of Canadians live in cities. That's a lot of votes. Much of the industry and wealth creation of the nation occurs in cities. In a country that currently lacks a national vision or strategy, a smart politician would go to the voters with the message that he or she aims to make your neighbourhood a better place. Only the federal government has the money to do this. It would cause problems in provinces because municipalities are a provincial responsibility, but a good leader could deal with that. A certain good leader south of the border, Barack Obama, is currently developing an urban strategy. If the U.S. can do that, why can't we?

Perhaps in ending, I would leave you with an ancient Athenian quote brought to my attention by a reader in a letter to "The Ottawa you want."

"We will leave this city not only not less, but greater, better and more beautiful than it was left with us." To accomplish that, we have much to do.

Ken Gray is a Citizen editorial board member who produces a monthly podcast, Inner City, at ottawacitizen.com/innercity and a blog, The Bulldog, at ottawacitizen.com/bulldog .

His column runs on Wednesdays.

E-mail: kgray@thecitizen.canwest.com.

[dennis1]

How about

2 60s

5 40s/50s

8 or 10 30s?

[adam-machiavelli]

I remember reading an article somewhere that said the typical marginal point of highest ecological efficiency is 6 to 8 floors.

[YOWetal]

I remember reading an article somewhere that said the typical marginal point of highest ecological efficiency is 6 to 8 floors.

That would make sense for the building itself, but you need to factor in where the rest of the people will be housed when comparing to a 14 story building for example.

[dennis1]

http://www.xtra.ca/public/Ottawa/Are_height_restrictions_keeping_Centretown_down-4456.aspx

My decision to move to the suburbs was whimsical. On short notice and during an unsuccessful apartment hunt, a relative of mine said she had a spare room in her new house — in Kanata.

Cheap, cheap rent. A short commute downtown to where I work and play. Very close to the park-and-ride (which sounds like a more exciting place than it actually is, by the way). That's the mental arithmetic I did when carless, and looking back, careless, I made Kanata my new home.

Four painful months later, I find myself living downtown again. With the move comes the realization that my place should be smack in the middle of everything. Not that I didn't enjoy my 20 minute trots to Food Basics, or the two-kilometre excursions from where I lived to Starbucks.

[d_jeffrey]

http://www.xtra.ca/public/Ottawa/Are_height_restrictions_keeping_Centretown_down-4456.aspx

So an old frigid woman is against huge erections in her backyard? What's new?