[waterloowarrior]

http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/public_consult/beyond_2020/events/index_en.html


Session One: An Evening with Dimitri Roussopoulos, founder and CEO of Urban Ecology
How do we reconcile community aspirations for intensification with the principles of the Official Plan? Hosted by Councillor Clive Doucet.
May 27, 2008
7 to 9 p.m.
Council Chambers – City Hall
110 Laurier Avenue West

Session Two: Panel Discussion - The Economics of Intensification
The panel will discuss the “big picture” costs of sprawl and who pays for it.

Topics will also include tools to quantify the relative costs of different development patterns, a developer’s point of view of the real costs and the challenges of financing projects, and identifying the actual demand for intensification – from affordability to who’s driving the demand today and into the future.
May 29, 2007
7 to 9 p.m.
Ben Franklin Place – Former Council Chambers
101 Centrepointe Drive
Moderator
Kathleen Petty, Host, CBC Morning
Speakers:
Pamela Blais, Metropole Consultants, Toronto
Doug Pollard, Senior Researcher, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
Rick Morris, Domicile Developments, Inc.
Ray Simpson, Hemson Consultants


Session 3: Panel Discussion - Intensification That Fits
Supporting Intensification Through Good Design and Collaboration

The panel will put forward their ideas on tall buildings, considering the local context for the design of national chain stores, how to find that perfect “fit” for intensification projects and cultivating productive relationships between all stakeholders when an intensification project is proposed.
Moderator:
Elisabeth Arnold, Former City Councillor and Former Director, Centre for Sustainable Community Development, Federation of Canadian Municipalities
Speakers:
Peter Clewes, Architects Alliance, Toronto
Dennis Eberhard & Tom Smith, Smart Centres
Michael Geller, Simon Fraser University
Basil Cavis, Canada Lands Company, Montreal
June 3, 2007
7 to 9 p.m.
Ben Franklin Pace – Former Council Chambers
101 Centrepointe Drive






Register for the Forum today! (https://ottawa.ca/cgi-bin/form.cgi?dir=beyond_2020&form=intensification_en)


Everyone will definitely want to visit Session 3.... given some of the recent discussions on the forum, I'm sure that Session 2 will also be quite interesting. I wish I was in Ottawa for this and not at school!

[Aylmer]

I'll be at number three!
(Cool! It rymes!)

I'm No.8: Anyone else coming?

:)

[Rathgrith]

I`m in Jonquiere, Quebec right now. But I wish I was going. A la prochaine!

[Franky]

I planned on attending all three sessions. I guess I'll register for the third session too. Number "12"...

[m0nkyman]

I've registered for the first one. Something about having to travel to the 'burbs for a session about urban intensification strikes me as too ironic... ;)

[Mille Sabords]

I made the trip to the ol' debt-free land of Nepean to see the second one, "The Economics of Intensification". What an excellent session. Each of the speakers had many valuable and relevant things to say and for the city to ponder. It all boils down to political cojones but, when you get down to it, it's really not black magic to get the urban form we would want to see. Pamela Blais' outline on how development "pricing" is tilted toward low-density forms, and Ray Simpson's very lucid presentation on how people's habits must change and cities must embark on a conscious effort to pursue this type of change, were right on the money.

[clynnog]

I've registered for the first one. Something about having to travel to the 'burbs for a session about urban intensification strikes me as too ironic... ;)

I'm sure few people at the City of Ottawa twigged to the irony of the location of the session. That would require thinking out of the box and that kind of thing is verbotten at 110 Laurier.

[waterloowarrior]

Increase number of DC zones to discourage sprawl, planning expert tells forum
By Peter Kovessy (peter.kovessy@transcontinental.ca), Ottawa Business Journal Staff
Fri, May 30, 2008 12:00 PM EST

Ottawa can encourage intensification by expanding the number of geographic development charges zones to more accurately reflect the municipal costs of servicing sprawl, suggests a leading planning consultant.
Pamela Blais, the principal of Toronto-based Metropole Consultants, praised Ottawa's current zone-based development charges policy that levies different levels of fees on development inside the Greenbelt, outside the Greenbelt, and in the rural area.

However, she suggested the city could go further in introducing policies to discourage sprawl during a town hall meeting Thursday evening on the economics of intensification.

"Efficient development subsidizes inefficient development under average costing," she said.

"The prices we charge for different development don't reflect the price of different types of development."

Ms. Blais was joined on the panel discussion by three other planning experts, including Rick Morris, vice-president of Ottawa-based Domicile Developments, who explained the costs of a successful infill project to an audience of roughly 100 people at Ben Franklin Place in Nepean.

Holding a $400 copper elbow joint in his hand to illustrate his point, Mr. Morris said rising demand for raw materials from India and China is contributing to construction costs increasing faster than the general inflation rate.

He later said his company has found it usually requires a zoning amendment to permit an additional one or two storeys in order to make a project economical.

"The height limits (contained in the zoning bylaws) do not work in today's environment," he said.

Mr. Morris also shared his observations on intensification efforts in Westboro, where he said demand for residential units was driven by the increase in retail stores along Richmond Road, where the Mountain Equipment Co-op store spurred additional commercial development.

In separate presentations, Ray Simpson of Toronto-based Hemson Consultants argued there needs to be greater investment in public spaces such as streetscapes and parks to develop a market for intensified communities while Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. (CMHC) senior researcher Doug Pollard demonstrated a new software tool that estimates the costs of community developments and compares alternative development scenarios.

The software is expected to be available from the CMHC in the coming weeks, said Mr. Pollard.

The city's final forum on intensification is scheduled for June 3 at Ben Franklin Place and is titled, 'Intensification that fits: supporting intensification through good design and collaboration.'

Ongoing challenges are pushing Ottawa's infill developers outside the city core. See the (http://www.ottawabusinessjournal.com/336474907262307.php) OBJ's story from May 20. (http://www.ottawabusinessjournal.com/336474907262307.php)

[waterloowarrior]

a more negative take on the discussion at the forum....



Economics often drives city planning, expert warns
Citizens must police development to get the city they want, activist warns
Maria CookOttawa Citizen
Sunday, June 01, 2008

OTTAWA - Residents who want to protect neighbourhoods from over-scaled and ugly development must roll up their sleeves and get involved in the political and planning process, says a longtime Montreal urban activist.

"Do not think that it is the city-employed planners who are going to negotiate with the developers a development project in the public interest," says Dimitri Roussopoulos, founder and CEO of Urban Ecology, a think-tank on sustainable urban development.

"A lot of what happens in neighbourhoods and cities is driven by very influential and powerful economic interests," he told a public meeting on intensification at City Hall last week.

"If the citizenry of the City of Ottawa is not organized to survey and to watchdog the urban planning process ... you are screwed."

The city held two public forums last week to discuss its intensification policy, which aims to put more buildings and people within the urban boundary to limit costly suburban sprawl.

The policy is part of the city's official plan, which is currently under review and revision.

Intensification is supposed to be a good thing. Yet 200 people turned out last Tuesday, and another 130 people on Thursday at Ben Franklin Place in Nepean, mostly to protest the effects the policy has had in just a few years.

"They see their schools closing, their green space declining and the quality of life shrinking," says Capital Councillor Clive Doucet. "That's why you're seeing so much resistance from all the wards experiencing densification."

In theory, intensification is supposed to make a city more sustainable and cost-effective by making better use of limited resources such as land and municipal services. It saves money by not extending roads and services to suburbs. Higher density should create a more vital street life with more choices and activities.

In reality, communities are seeing excessive height and increased traffic, noise and shade. They are losing trees and amenities such as toboggan hills. Families with children are leaving. Meanwhile, developers continue to push for suburban development.

The negative effects are aggravated by the fact that central area taxes subsidize unsustainable sprawl, which further erodes Ottawa's character as a city of parks, trees, vistas and closeness to nature.

So far, under the aegis of intensification, Centretown, Vanier, Sandy Hill and Lowertown have seen highrises approved over the objections of residents.

The big money for developers is in high-end condos in established areas.
Rideau-Rockcliffe Councillor Jacques Legendre told the Tuesday meeting that he refuses to sit on the city's planning committee any longer because he is disenchanted with the disregard for zoning, the official plan and community design plans, all of which took years to develop.

"There's not much wrong with our current official plan," he said. "It has all the right words. The problem is that nobody, absolutely nobody, starting with the councillors around the table and city staff, pays the least attention to the principles in there. There's chapters about what is compatible intensification. That's what's ignored time and time again."

There is a disconnect between the fine words in the official plan and what people want and the reality of what actually gets built, says Mr. Doucet.

He says six storeys is usually the maximum building height with which
people are comfortable.

The problem is the policy planners who write about good intensification that fits well into neighbourhoods are not the same planners who negotiate with developers, he explains.

Those are site planners. They interpret intensification in a simplistic way, equating it with highrises, and regularly recommend zoning changes to accommodate developer demands for increased height on sites.

"After years of work on official plan and design guidelines, site planners then come forward to council and say they have talked to the developers and they want to change a six-storey height limit to 11 storeys," says Mr. Doucet.

Council often approves these requests because it is dominated by suburban and rural voices. "From a rural or suburban point of view, a tax grab is a good thing," says Mr. Doucet. "It pays for sprawl."

He has seen suburban councillors vote against two-storey buildings in their wards and in favour of 24-storey buildings in Centretown.

Rideau-Vanier Councillor Georges Bédard said the City of Ottawa has 20 years worth of land for houses and a century's worth for apartments without changes in zoning or expanding the urban boundary.

He suggests development should focus on brownfields and areas beyond the core where the city wants to boost transit ridership. Intensification applies equally, if not more, to newer areas and is fundamental to the success of public transit.

Mr. Roussopoulos said he wasn't surprised by the turnout at last week's public forums.

"People are taking their neighbourhoods and their cities with a seriousness that is without precedence in this country."

Public forum
The last session takes place Tuesday, from 7 to 9 p.m. at Ben Franklin Place (former Nepean council chambers.) The theme is "Intensification that fits: Supporting intensification through Design, Compatibility and Collaboration."

© Ottawa Citizen 2008

[Mille Sabords]

:previous: Yeah, I'm surprised Maria Cook would write a piece like this one, she's usually more upbeat with respect to urbanization. Although the session with the councillors, from what I heard, was anything but a bridge-builder - it was more of a chance for a few councillors to grandstand and pump fists in front of their devotees. Nothing to do with city-building.

[lrt's friend]

And this is why people get upset and there are so many clashes between developers and communities. People have no faith in the official plan because exceptions are made on a regular basis. Of course, this also drives up the price of land because developers believe they can get away with going considerably beyond the height limit, and they also use this to generate windfall profits. The system is broken. There is something to be said about human scaled intensification, instead of putting monster towers up in lowrise communities.

[d_jeffrey]

And this is why people get upset and there are so many clashes between developers and communities. People have no faith in the official plan because exceptions are made on a regular basis. Of course, this also drives up the price of land because developers believe they can get away with going considerably beyond the height limit, and they also use this to generate windfall profits. The system is broken. There is something to be said about human scaled intensification, instead of putting monster towers up in lowrise communities.

Community plans are just another form of NIMBYism. There's a time where neighborhood's need to grow up. Clive Doucet seems to favor an european flair with his 6 storey high buildings, but it's too low to allow for a concrete shell and be cost effective. So you end up with cheaply made wooden frames. As I remember someone who mentioned in an article that neighborhood's should be frozen for 50 years. I find it ridiculous.

The problem is not with high rises, as many seem to point out. It's the lack of ammenities that come with these high rises. Where are the schools, child parks, football fields for the new residents. If done right, a highrise can minimise the effect sun blocking and wind, but in Ottawa they are done as to occupy the full land they are on. The blocky design doesn't help for the wind either.

As for being human scaled, if people are scared of a 12 storey-high building, they need help from a psychiatrist.

[lrt's friend]

Community plans are just another form of NIMBYism. There's a time where neighborhood's need to grow up. Clive Doucet seems to favor an european flair with his 6 storey high buildings, but it's too low to allow for a concrete shell and be cost effective. So you end up with cheaply made wooden frames. As I remember someone who mentioned in an article that neighborhood's should be frozen for 50 years. I find it ridiculous.

The problem is not with high rises, as many seem to point out. It's the lack of ammenities that come with these high rises. Where are the schools, child parks, football fields for the new residents. If done right, a highrise can minimise the effect sun blocking and wind, but in Ottawa they are done as to occupy the full land they are on. The blocky design doesn't help for the wind either.

As for being human scaled, if people are scared of a 12 storey-high building, they need help from a psychiatrist.

If a 12 storey building is out of place, it is out of place. Just like the library replacement in Ottawa South. This is a perfect example of a money making scheme that both disregards the official plan and the wishes of the community and will spur widespread objections.

I am sure there are many places where high rise buildings are suitable (eg. the old industrial site along the Vanier Parkway), but there are many more places where those 3, 4, 5 and 6 storey buildings would be better. And they don't have to be badly designed. Just look at what was built on Echo Drive facing the Canal, near the end of Main Street. Also what was built opposite to the entrance to Carleton University.

And when it comes to intensification and amenities, you are basically stuck with the schools and parks that are already there. There is no room to suddenly add new parks and schools in existing neighbourhoods for the most part.

Generally speaking, if we are talking about high rises, we are mostly talking about condos these days, and generally the market for condos is not for families with children. In downtown Vancouver, high rises are generally too expensive for the average family.

As far as cost effectiveness, again, this is because we have allowed land prices to be driven up too high, and that has been contributed by the fact that too often developers are allowed to exceed height limits. Perhaps, the official plan needs to be updated to allow high rises in certain sectors, but for the most part, the official plan should stand, and then developers will understand the true value of each piece of property.

[clynnog]

Where are the schools, child parks, football fields for the new residents.

I trust you are referring to soccer fields as I don't see too many kids in Ottawa playing football (CFL or NFL) in their spare time. "Footie" is where it is at these days in Ottawa. Bring on Euro 2008...albeit w/o my favourite team.

[d_jeffrey]

I trust you are referring to soccer fields as I don't see too many kids in Ottawa playing football (CFL or NFL) in their spare time. "Footie" is where it is at these days in Ottawa. Bring on Euro 2008...albeit w/o my favourite team.

I was refering to soccer, as it's the only true football IMO.

As for building new schools, there is nothing that prevents putting schools in mid-rises or high rises, like many hospitals and universities are now doing. Sure it's not common, but it's starting to get there.

And I disagree when people say a 12 storey building is out of place just because of height, you can effectively incorporate any building height, as long as the design and implementation is there.

[waterloowarrior]

England not making it was very disappointing. I'll be cheering for the Dutch instead since I have some Dutch ancestry.... as long as my least favourite teams (Portugal and Italy) get knocked out I'll be happy ;)

also, from the OP

3.6.3 (mainstreets)

Redevelopment and infill are encouraged on Traditional and Arterial Mainstreets in order to optimize the use of land through increased building height and density. Any proposal for infill or redevelopment will be evaluated in light of the objectives of this Plan. This Plan supports building heights in the range of four to six storeys on Traditional Mainstreets and up to eight storeys on Arterial Mainstreets. Greater building heights will be considered in any of the following circumstances:
Specific building heights are established in the zoning by-law based on a Community Design Plan or other Council-approved study;
The proposed building height conforms with prevailing building heights or provides a transition between existing buildings;
The development fosters the creation of a community focus where the proposal is on a corner lot, or at a gateway location or at a location where there are opportunities to support transit at a transit stop or station;
The development incorporates facilities, services or matters as set out in Section 5.2.1 with respect to the authorization of increases in height and density that, in the opinion of the City, significantly advance the vision for Mainstreets;
Where the application of the provisions of Section 2.5.1 and Section 4.11 determine that additional height is appropriate.(part of 4.11)

Pattern of the Surrounding Community: Where the height, building mass, proportion, street setback and distance between buildings for the proposed development varies from the pattern for the area, the proposed design may compensate for this variation through its treatment of other characteristics common to the surrounding community;

[clynnog]

England not making it was very disappointing. I'll be cheering for the Dutch instead since I have some Dutch ancestry.... as long as my least favourite teams (Portugal and Italy) get knocked out I'll be happy ;)


Yes, I guess England are the big team casaulty in all of this...but frankly they were awful in the qualifiers when they needed to win. The Premier League is awash with money with players coming from all over the world, and english players sitting on the bench on many teams.

My 2nd choice will be either NL or ES....if either of them win, the celebrations in Ottawa will be muted at best...if IT win then look out corsa Italia.

This is veering OT, but still interesting.

[jeremy_haak]

I'll be cheering for NL.

[nccwatch]

12 storeys? Try three.


Dispute highlights challenge of infilling
Rothwell Heights residents battle 10-house proposal
Patrick Dare, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Everyone from the Ontario government to academics and environmentalists is telling city planners and councils that municipalities must build more housing and businesses on less land. The City of Ottawa has made intensification central in its planning guides.

But yesterday, a modest proposal to build 10 high-end semidetached houses at 741 Blair Rd. drew opposition from neighbours in Rothwell Heights, who said such a dense development would mar the neighbourhood of large single-family homes on very big lots. The fact that the developer, Routeburn Urban Developments, has a track record of doing tasteful, interesting infill developments in Ottawa didn't sway them.

The group said they didn't want 10 more houses in their neighbourhood and didn't want new neighbours in three-storey homes looking into their backyards. One neighbour said such a dense development would be like "a bomb" going off in the community.

Some members of the planning committee said if Ottawa can't handle such a modest attempt at intensification, the city is in deep trouble. Somerset Councillor Diane Holmes said the increase doesn't come close to the highrise development being approved for her downtown ward. She said if such a "minor piece of intensification" can't make it through City Hall, "we're going to blow ourselves off this planet."

Barrhaven Councillor Jan Harder said suburban communities such as Barrhaven and Kanata must accept buildings of some height to generate the population to support public services such as transit.

The city's planning staff urged the planning committee to approve the zoning change to allow the 10-unit development, but Beacon Hill-Cyrville Councillor Michel Bellemare led the charge to stop it.

He initially proposed rejecting the development in favour of approving a few single-family homes. When that motion was defeated, he introduced another motion, at the behest of the Rothwell Heights Property Owners Association, proposing that six houses be allowed. That motion was also defeated.

In the end, a motion from Kanata South Councillor Peggy Feltmate carried, allowing eight houses to be built.

The issue is to go to full council on June 25.

Lloyd Phillips, the development consultant working on the project for the builder, said the company's owner will consider what to do next, particularly the economics of building such a small development.

Mr. Phillips said the case shows the challenge for such infill projects and how old attitudes are hard to shake.

"Things have changed. It's not the 1970s anymore," said Mr. Phillips.

Alta Vista Councillor Peter Hume, who chairs the planning committee, said people are fighting hard for the status quo in their neighbourhoods. He said the city needs to require that developers offer such things as greenspace and pools to benefit a neighbourhood when more intensive land development is allowed.

"There is a tremendous amount of opposition to any kind of change," Mr. Hume said.


© The Ottawa Citizen 2008

[kwoldtimer]

Six homes vs ten vs eight!? Seems like a horizontal version of the debates that plague highrise proposals downtown. Had Ms. Holmes been laying down, she would immediately have grasped how excessive the developer's original proposal was! :rolleyes:

[adam-machiavelli]

That article is a sensationalist bomb going off on my computer.

[waterloowarrior]

Urban Intensification: Friend or Foe? (http://www.westwellington.ca/index.html)
West Wellington is BOOMING!...It's THE place to live, eat and shop in Ottawa... but is it improving our quality of life? Is it sustainable?

The WWCA in partnership with Collected Works is hosting an interactive discussion on community intensification with leading experts in the field.

Tuesday, October 21, 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Collected Works, 1242 Wellington Street West (at Holland)
Speakers:
Member of the City of Ottawa's urban design policy department
Representative from Windmill Developments (GCTC)

[waterloowarrior]

Everyone do the survey!! it's interesting

Intensification in the City of Ottawa
Tell Us What You Think (http://ottawa.ca/residents/public_consult/beyond_2020/intensification_en.html)

[Mille Sabords]

:previous: Waterloowarrior's right - speak now or forever hold your peace...

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

:previous: Waterloowarrior's right - speak now or forever hold your peace...

Did it earlier this afternoon. :cool:

[m0nkyman]

Odd that it didn't ask for any identifying information, even on a voluntary basis. I'd have liked to have been added to an email list to keep up to date with what is going to be recommended.

[waterloowarrior]

it's due Nov 7, so do it tonight! :)

[waterloowarrior]

the survey results are available in the OP staff report.... scroll down until you get to the orange. A couple of my suggestions made the list of 'other actions' :cheers:

http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/ara/2009/02-02/ACS2009-ICS-PLA-0029%20ENGLISH.htm

there are some really good ones out there...
Nothing. All the processes needed to ensure intensification are already in place. They just need competent staff to implement them and politicians to actually listen to staff recommendations and keep their uniformed opinions to themselves.

lol.. someone had a bad experience

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

lol.. someone had a bad experience

Um, I think that may have been me. :lmao:

[waterloowarrior]

Intensification gets city working group

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Intensification+gets+city+working+group/2434318/story.html
BY NECO COCKBURN, THE OTTAWA CITIZENJANUARY 12, 2010 11:48 PM


OTTAWA — A new City of Ottawa intensification working group would be aimed at gaining better community acceptance on issues such as parking, design and zoning, while making sure the city meets the needs of developers, says the chairman of council’s planning and environment committee.

Councillor Peter Hume said the city has embraced the idea of intensification — increasing the density of the urban population to reduce sprawl — but has not been “as active as we could be” to ensure that communities embrace it and developers are satisfied with the city’s application process.

“Communities are skeptical and they view intensification with a very leery, almost with a jaundiced eye,” he said.

Under a new “Intensification Implementation Group,” approved by the planning committee on Tuesday, teams would address and clarify policies and procedures on intensification-related issues. Potential issues include design, zoning, hydro capacity, sidewalk requirements, noise and signage issues.

The teams, made up of staff members, a member of council and development industry representatives and affected organizations and agencies, would work on specific projects and report back to the group, which would be governed by a steering committee that includes council members, along with the city’s director of infrastructure services and city general managers.

Any changes to standards and new policies suggested by the group would need approval from the planning committee and city council.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

[waterloowarrior]

Review of outdated policies takes aim at urban sprawl
Friday, 22 January 2010
By Kelsey Parsons
http://centretownnewsonline.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1304&Itemid=94
Views : 22
Favoured : None
Published in : Centretown News, News

A new City of Ottawa task force is aiming to review old policies that may be barriers to the environmentally-friendly strategy of concentrating more residents in the downtown core.

One way to achieve this concentration, known as “intensification,” is by turning existing buildings like single family detached homes, into buildings that house more people.

Other ways include converting unused spaces into living areas. In theory, this leads to increased use of public transit and other forms of transportation such as bicycles.

“Intensification is one of the key ways of reducing urban sprawl,” says Sabrina Bowman, of Ecology Ottawa.

“If you reduce urban sprawl, you reduce the amount of green space and agricultural land that is being eaten up by development.”

The goal of the review group is to reduce this urban sprawl by updating and possibly revising the rules that govern developers in the city.

In regards to Centretown, the “Secondary Plan” will be reviewed, which deals with building restrictions and intensification in historical areas.

This “Centretown Secondary Plan” was created in the mid-1970s in response to the development of high-rises near residential neighbourhoods. It currently limits how many stories buildings can have in the area.

A review of the plan is long-overdue, says Alain Miguelez, the city’s program manager for development review.“Any plan that’s over 30 years old should be refreshed.”

The historical streets and buildings of Centretown are one of the focuses of the potential revisions, and though there have been no conclusions about the future use of these areas, Miguelez says the group is now considering the question of what direction these sites should take.

“We want to make sure we’re not mummifying those streets, that we’re allowing them to grow organically, that we’re allowing new opportunities for those buildings to be used, and that we’re allowing the city to sprout diversity in buildings that people cherish,” says Miguelez.

“We don’t want to end up with a city that is, because of bylaws and practices, not the best that it can be.”

While they minimize land use and communiting times and make the city more 'walkable,' some worry these policies may push out lower-income groups in favour of high-priced condominiums.

“Intensification often goes hand-in-hand with gentrification,” says Chris Henschel, national manager of domestic and international affairs at the Canadians Parks and Wilderness Society.

“It would be good to see some mixed-use developments rather than just expensive condo units being built everywhere, and some subsidized housing or community housing going in along with the condos.”

Residents are also concerned about preserving the historical value and design of those areas, says David Flemming, president of Heritage Ottawa.

“It’s a balancing act,” says Flemming of the relationship between developers and maintaining the heritage of Centretown.

One example of a good compromise, says Flemming, is a proposed development on Bank Street in Centretown, where the facades of the current buildings will be maintained while a new 17-story office building will be built behind them.

“It is increasingly important to respect the community design,” adds Shawn Menard, president of the Centretown Citizens Community Association. “Putting up 30-story buildings in Centretown doesn’t make sense and abuses the community design plan.”

Despite their concerns, Henschel, Flemming and Menard say they agree that intensification is necessary in Ottawa to deal with a growing population.

“In principle I think urban intensification is a good thing, as long as it is done right,” says Henschel.

[waterloowarrior]

Make Intensification Moderate, Chiarelli says
http://communities.canada.com/OTTAWACITIZEN/blogs/bulldog/archive/2010/03/29/make-intensification-moderate-chiarelli-says.aspx
By KENNETH_GRAY MON, MAR 29 2010 COMMENTS(1) THE BULLDOG


College Councillor Rick Chiarelli supports moderate intensification of urban development, but not to the extent that inner-city neighbourhoods are destroyed. Here is an opinion piece the councillor submitted to The Bulldog:

As you know, I was the person who submitted the motion last month to
re-open the urban boundary issue. I said from the beginning I was
doing so for two reasons:

1) When we find ourselves on the edge of potentially expensive court
proceedings (multiple proceedings in this case), it is best if Council
gets a good picture of what the costs and risks will be and that
Council makes an informed and deliberate decision about whether to
proceed and incur the costs and risks; By bringing my motion forward,
I was happy that Council was able to review the costs and the risks
associated with defending its position on the boundary. So, instead of
the costs being unexpectedly large as in the cases of the pig farm and
the Manotick matters, this time it is happening with our eyes wide
open. I am happy with that outcome.

2) In constricting the urban boundary, Council sold the public on the
notion that doing so would require "moderate" intensification -
approximately 15% in neighbourhoods and in forms compatible with
existing communities. A consistent, moderate approach is all that is
needed to reach our targets. Several of us actually went out and sold
that concept to residents at the neighbourhood level. We held public
meetings. We pleaded the case.

However, as development applications come it, it appears the word
"moderate" is often forgotten and much larger and inapropriate and
incompatible developments have been applied for and approved. The
curious project in Westboro in front of a property that is a candidate
for Heritage designation doesn't fit in with the built form of that
area and it is way beyond the definition of "moderate".

Introducing my motion presented an opportunity to shine some light on
this concern.

Devotees to intensification and to a constricted urban boundary should
pay attention because extreme decisions in favour of intensification
have implications for the intensification policy's very survival.

Right in my ward, I went into Qualicum-Graham Park, Redwood Community
and Morrison Gardens to seek residents' support for the part of the
new official plan that would move the height expectations from the
current two storey single family home configuration to double that,
four storeys.

Residents accepted this as part of the "moderate" intensification
effort. Then what happened? Sadly, embarrassment. Only months later an
applicant came forward asking to build three buildings of 20 storeys
18 storeys and 18 storeys. What did Council do? It approved 12, 8 and
6 storeys - right in the middle of two storey single family homes
where the residents had just agreed with the City on a new four storey
limit.

What does the public say? "We agreed to four storeys so they gave us
12. Bait and switch!"

Also, at Clyde and Merivale, Council ignored its own traffic advice
and approved an enormous big box store complex at one of the most
failed intersections in the City, without first developing a proper
set of traffic mitigation measures - all in the name of intensification.

I don't intend to revisit every example, but we approved "moderate
intensification that respects existing neighbourhoods", we didn't
approve "anything goes" for developers.


After introduction of my motion, staff have now agreed to come forward
with a decision-making famework that is supposed to help Council
adhere to the "moderate" part of "moderate intensification".

It is true that I withdrew my motion and I voted in favour of
Council's current position constricting the urban boundary. My points
were made.

However, that does not mean my concerns have disappeared.

My communities actually WANT to embrace intensification, however, they
also value the global character of their neighbourhoods and the
traditional features that identify them. Wanting to protect
communities should be compatible with moderate intensification. When
decision-makers forget moderation and approve inappropriate/
incompatible development in episodes of intensification overdose, I
believe City-wide support for a constricted urban boundary and the
resulting need to intensify is in jeopardy.

[m0nkyman]

/me sees red at the previouse post. Will post coherently later.

[adam-machiavelli]

Dear Rick and your constituents: you and your properties are hogging valuable space. While you get your quick commute into downtown, less wealthy people are forced to live outside the Greenbelt and spend more time and money on commuting costs. Please stop being greedy and give up some land so that everyone has an equal opportunity for a quick commute.

[RTWAP]

I agree with Rick. If the city wants to change the zoning for neighbourhoods to 12 stories or 20 stories or whatever, then go through the process of changing it. Doing these haphazard one-offs is deceptive and stupid. It undercuts the city's ability to influence the size and form of new developments/redevelopments.

I'm not commenting on the merits of individual proposals, but there should be transparency in the process. Developers, landowners and neighbours should know what size is approvable and what isn't. And the variables should be well defined.

Specifically on the Draper proposal, if the rules allowed for more height through gradual stepping up, while maintaining a neighbourhood level facing and interaction consistent with the surroundings then maybe a sufficiently large piece of land might allow a 10 or 12 story building. But right now it's all vague interpretations, gut reactions and backroom discussions. Followed by the inevitable OMB appeal that reveals the complete mess of a process that the city's been following up to that point.

[adam-machiavelli]

Please explain to me why it's so important to care about the built form of surrounding buildings when 5 to 20 years from now, many of those old wide Modernist bungalows may be long gone and replaced with semi-detached homes at double the density.

[waterloowarrior]

12 myths about intensification from a visiting Dutch architect
http://communities.canada.com/OTTAWACITIZEN/blogs/designingottawa/archive/2010/03/30/12-quot-myths-quot-about-intensification.aspx

[RTWAP]

Please explain to me why it's so important to care about the built form of surrounding buildings when 5 to 20 years from now, many of those old wide Modernist bungalows may be long gone and replaced with semi-detached homes at double the density.

That argument could be made in favour of any development, anywhere, for any density.

I agree that large redevelopments should generally result in increased density, and that at their edges they don't need to perfectly mimic the existing neighbourhood. Townhouses across from wide bungalows isn't jarring. Up/down duplexes of good quality and finish would probably be fine too. Those options could have five times the density of the facing properties, and the development density would build from there as you moved into the interior.

[Aylmer]

Ulrich Franzen's Street

http://urbanomnibus.net/2009/02/ulrich-franzens-street/

A 1969 video that proposes dramatic changes to the character and usage of streets in New York City. Some of the ideas are a bit out there, though.

:)