[rodionx]

http://www.ottawabusinessjournal.com/291989667957262.php

Are Two Ottawa Downtowns Better Than One?
Fri, Jun 20, 2008 3:00 PM EST

Given its obvious strategic importance to Canada, Ottawa's business core is a comparatively small neighbourhood. It spreads over a mere 152 acres between Bronson and Elgin north of Gloucester Street. It is so small that if Toronto's downtown Rogers Centre, Air Canada Centre and their surrounding parking lots were transported here their combined land size would consume all of Ottawa's prime core property.

Compounding problems of a small downtown size are inflexible zoning policies and other physical impediments that inhibit capacity to grow. Vertical expansion is compromised by pronounced height restrictions. Surrounding residential zones block outward growth. The canal and Ottawa River block growth in other directions. Ottawa's commercial downtown is squeezed into what is essentially a sealed box that is impervious to the long-term growth of its daytime employment population. With each new office development our core's land supply diminishes. Geography and inelastic zoning grips it like a noose, strangling rather than nurturing capacity.

The long-term consequences of our shrinking downtown will present many planning obstacles and short-term complications are already in evidence. Firms employing more than 500 people looking for new downtown offices today can count on the fingers of a single hand their accommodation choices if they are to remain in a single building.

In struggling to create new employment space, the City may eventually learn to shed itself of dinosaur-age height regulations. Or, it may find ways to integrate Centretown's residential land south of Gloucester with commercial uses. These neighbourhoods tend to decay naturally as commercial developments expand next door. This gradual decay paves the way for a logical land use transformation that our city's current plan is inhibiting.

There is another option for core area employment growth. On the edge of downtown's southwestern flank, Preston Street is gaining traction as a new "core" business location, and fast. This is a neighbourhood that stretches along Preston Street in a corridor from Carling Avenue north to Somerset, with several blocks on its east and west side ripe for new commercial development. Like Ottawa's traditional core, Preston's tenants can chose from among a myriad of stores and restaurants. The street atmosphere is engaging and Dow's Lake, Chinatown and Little Italy are a pleasant walk from any local address. Inside, buildings offer downtown-like amenities such as underground parking, 24-7 manned security, video surveillance, and fully equipped gyms, often with supervised programs. Interior common areas are awash with decorative appointments – a "water-wall" at Dow's Lake Court, for example.

Of strategic importance to tenants, this emerging secondary core is not located downtown, but near downtown. They can enjoy the amenities and services of a vibrant core area and avoid the last few kilometres of traffic congestion to access their offices. Its growing popularity is evident in the bottom line. Today, Preston Street tenants happily pay a $45 rent rate per foot each year and monthly parking of $150. These prices are virtually the same as those charged by landlords a block from Parliament Hill.

Herein lies a clue for future development and planning.

The relentless momentum empowered by forces of supply and demand may now be sending clues to the city to stretch its traditional notion of our downtown boundary. If the Preston corridor might anchor a new southwest core, could the city not imagine a broader mixed-use district that spreads east along Carling Avenue's north side connecting to Parliament Hill? The zoning of the aging neighbourhoods within this sector could be reconfigured for a balanced mix of commercial and residential uses. Where inner-city residential zones now exist at the expense of commercial uses, the two land uses may co-exist in the larger core district. This concept will encourage the kind of innovative land-use and architecture that is in growing evidence on Preston. It will also provide more space for growing businesses trapped in our old downtown box.

Two interconnected downtowns, where intensification of floor space is encouraged and blended with neighbouring developments, will enable a larger inventory of building choices. This would effectively increase the supply and diversity of development that will create a larger selection of lower priced buildings as well as classy high-end offices. The same strategy would likewise create a more diversified mix of residential buildings and prices too.

In the context of a bigger commercial district, the Preston corridor may one day be to Ottawa's traditional downtown what Toronto's Yonge & Bloor area is to its King and Bay, or what New York's Midtown is to Wall Street. Ottawa's proposed light rail plan runs squarely down the spine of its potential new secondary commercial district too, and not coincidentally. This new infrastructure will escalate the development momentum of Ottawa's secondary core entrenching it as a vital new and welcomed commercial zone.

Ultimately our businesses and residential associations will need to co-operate with city planners, politicians and other stakeholders to welcome land use changes that market forces are encouraging. From a commercial office perspective, it is very clear the increasing intensification of Preston Street is desirable. Whether city residents and administrators will inhibit this land use like old downtown remains an unknown.

Two commercial Ottawa downtowns seem better than one. Hopefully this second time around our city administration will get the zoning right by opening the planning box to increase its employment capacity.

Paul Bennett, M.A., vice-president/broker

[Aylmer]

Amen.

:)

[adam-machiavelli]

Ottawa should have many downtowns. It'll cut down commuting time and costs.

[rodionx]

I agree with the basic premise that Ottawa would benefit from multiple cores, but the guy lost me with this paragraph...

Or, it may find ways to integrate Centretown's residential land south of Gloucester with commercial uses. These neighbourhoods tend to decay naturally as commercial developments expand next door. This gradual decay paves the way for a logical land use transformation that our city's current plan is inhibiting.

Evidently my home (and the homes of 20,000 other people) is not a logical land use, unlike the suburban McMansion this guy undoubtedly lives in. I'm also surprised a real estate broker didn't notice the cranes for the Mondrian and Hudson Park, or hear about Claridge's and Richcraft's proposed developments on the edge of the business district. Doesn't look like decay to me, and it's partly thanks to the city's plan.

Preston would benefit from commercial developments, certainly, but if brokers like this are given free reign, they'll do for Preston Street and Centretown what they did for Sparks street and downtown Hull: depopulate them and turn them into nighttime wastelands. The city is right to inhibit that sort of thing.

[Mille Sabords]

Evidently my home (and the homes of 20,000 other people) is not a logical land use, unlike the suburban McMansion this guy undoubtedly lives in. I'm also surprised a real estate broker didn't notice the cranes for the Mondrian and Hudson Park, or hear about Claridge's and Richcraft's proposed developments on the edge of the business district. Doesn't look like decay to me, and it's partly thanks to the city's plan.

Preston would benefit from commercial developments, certainly, but if brokers like this are given free reign, they'll do for Preston Street and Centretown what they did for Sparks street and downtown Hull: depopulate them and turn them into nighttime wastelands. The city is right to inhibit that sort of thing.

I can't put words into the mouth of the article's author but your reaction is a bit too jumpy. What he expressed in a clumsy way ("decay") is actually just the normal process of urban densification that the City tried to stop with the Centretown Plan. The aim back then was to preserve residences in and around the downtown core, at a time when people were abandoning the urban areas of cities. Today that premise no longer holds; people are returning to live downtown.

If I read him correctly, what the guy is trying to say is that given the opportunities that exist when a big city's downtown starts pushing its edges, there will always be someone willing to sell an old small building (residential or not, decaying or not - therein lies the tragedy of heritage loss, actually) because even making that seller rich means someone else will make a lot more money building a taller and denser building.

The contradiction he's pointing at here is that, while most would agree we want to preserve the old Victorian gems in Centretown, the rigid limits on height and the line in the sand that holds "downtown" to Gloucester Street and not an inch south, are missing what could be great opportunities to mix in some employment and other uses, and denser residential buildings, in the areas just south of the downtown core.

In older cities like Paris, there have been entire new downtowns created far from the centre where highrises wouldn't clash with traditional 19th century streets. But Paris is all filled in already, and Ottawa is far from it.

Preston will be a great place for denser development (office and residential) since it will have the equivalent of subway service under the transit plan. But the Centretown Plan has to be rewritten, I think.

[lrt's friend]

We cannot allow developers or brokers to buy up buildings next to the CBD and allow them to decay in order to force the city to expand the CBD. We need orderly development designed to improve centretown neighbourhoods and make people want to live there. Decay does just the opposite, encouraging people to move to the suburbs. This just leads to furthering the error of expanding a barren single use CBD, which promptly empties of people at 5:00 pm each day. Any major development in the Preston Street area must complement the character of the area and not destroy it. It must be mixed use, and it absolutely depends on the construction of and integration with rapid transit.

The problem with multiple downtowns is that it has been attempted in Gloucester, Orleans, Nepean and Kanata and has been mostly a dismal failure. The car culture in the suburbs just makes suburban downtowns a few buildings in between massive parking lots. Until we are really willing to build these other downtowns with density and serve them with rapid transit, they will never be successful or places that have any appeal.

[Mille Sabords]

We cannot allow developers or brokers to buy up buildings next to the CBD and allow them to decay in order to force the city to expand the CBD. We need orderly development designed to improve centretown neighbourhoods and make people want to live there. Decay does just the opposite, encouraging people to move to the suburbs. This just leads to furthering the error of expanding a barren single use CBD, which promptly empties of people at 5:00 pm each day. Any major development in the Preston Street area must complement the character of the area and not destroy it. It must be mixed use, and it absolutely depends on the construction of and integration with rapid transit.

The problem with multiple downtowns is that it has been attempted in Gloucester, Orleans, Nepean and Kanata and has been mostly a dismal failure. The car culture in the suburbs just makes suburban downtowns a few buildings in between massive parking lots. Until we are really willing to build these other downtowns with density and serve them with rapid transit, they will never be successful or places that have any appeal.

There are problems with "not allowing" too. The Centretown Plan made it too big a gamble for people to quickly flip property on the edge of downtown (it assumes a rezoning that would be nearly impossible to obtain, to make the effort worthwhile) - but it doesn't mean that decay has been prevented. Since a parking lot is a permitted use, for instance, how many cool old houses do you think were allowed to rot or became the victims of an "unfortunate fire"? And how many more are rooming houses, which yes provide cheap housing for people who need it, but also means that the landlords get to stop caring about the building? When you say "we cannot allow brokers or developers..." - at best, under planning legislation, the city can make it harder for people to contemplate this type of purchase... but you can't prohibit someone from buying property.

Therein lies the problem. Centretown south of the CBD has so many parking lots and decrepit buildings, it's depressing. And you just know that those parking lots make more money with the cars than they possibly could with a new building that conforms to the zoning (ie. 3 storeys). So, what to do? If 3-storey buildings are way past the point of viability because the land is so well located and therefore so expensive, do we remain content with parking lots, or do we revisit the situation?

By the way, comparing the "downtowns" of Kanata and Orleans to Preston is an apples-to-oranges. Preston is an urban street close to the urban core and it is a walkable district that forms part of the city's dense fabric. None of the suburban downtowns are that, you have to drive to them, they're disconnected (and therefore they cannot take off as pedestrian precincts).

[ajldub]

There are many other possible 'second downtown' locations asides from Preston. The funny thing is they are all in federal hands. The ones that come to mind immediately are Lebreton Flats, Tunney's Pasture, Rockcliffe airbase, and the Booth Street federal precinct. All massive chunks of property that could totally shift the dynamics of the city if were they to be planned and developed aggressively but appropriately. If the feds would free up some of this land we wouldn't even have to have this thread.

Anybody walked around Tunney's pasture lately? I mean what is going on there? A few condemned buildings, a few half-occupied concrete behemoths, a few square kilometres of surface parking, excessive greenspace, and no inhabitants except a few civil servants playing volleyball and scoping each other out at lunchtime. It is such a dump that it has actually erased itself from most people's minds, but it could be Lebreton Flats Part Deux. If the feds were to give the go ahead on selling off that utter failure of a neighborhood lot by lot they could drum up at least $50 million.

[rodionx]

Therein lies the problem. Centretown south of the CBD has so many parking lots and decrepit buildings, it's depressing. And you just know that those parking lots make more money with the cars than they possibly could with a new building that conforms to the zoning (ie. 3 storeys). So, what to do? If 3-storey buildings are way past the point of viability because the land is so well located and therefore so expensive, do we remain content with parking lots, or do we revisit the situation?

If the author of the original article were talking about building dense residential buildings on Centretown's many parking lots and crappy rental properties, then I'd agree. Those developments bring in more residents, more life, and by extension, more amenities. However, he's talking about 9-5 commercial developments. He tips his hand in this paragraph (emphasis mine):

Surrounding residential zones block outward growth... Ottawa's commercial downtown is squeezed into what is essentially a sealed box that is impervious to the long-term growth of its daytime employment population.


Given the choice between a gungy triplex and a new condo building, I'll take the condo building. But if the choice is between a gungy triplex and a commercial dead zone where suburban traffic streams into and out of the neighbourhood and the coffee shops and drugstores close at six p.m. I'll take the triplex.

Neighbourhoods like Little Italy and Chinatown (and downtown Hull, and LeBreton Flats), take decades to form and, as the example of Kanata town centre shows, they can't be replicated. In contrast, commercial developments with 24 hour security, fully equipped gyms, and big parking lots can be built anywhere and fast. Right now, residents of Hull are paving over their yards because it's so lucrative to rent parking there. Their land is probably worth more because of it, but who'd want to live there? That's why the city has a legitimate role to play in placing restrictions on how space is used downtown.

[jeremy_haak]

If the author of the original article were talking about building dense residential buildings on Centretown's many parking lots and crappy rental properties, then I'd agree. Those developments bring in more residents, more life, and by extension, more amenities. However, he's talking about 9-5 commercial developments. He tips his hand in this paragraph (emphasis mine):



Given the choice between a gungy triplex and a new condo building, I'll take the condo building. But if the choice is between a gungy triplex and a commercial dead zone where suburban traffic streams into and out of the neighbourhood and the coffee shops and drugstores close at six p.m. I'll take the triplex.

Neighbourhoods like Little Italy and Chinatown (and downtown Hull, and LeBreton Flats), take decades to form and, as the example of Kanata town centre shows, they can't be replicated. In contrast, commercial developments with 24 hour security, fully equipped gyms, and big parking lots can be built anywhere and fast. Right now, residents of Hull are paving over their yards because it's so lucrative to rent parking there. Their land is probably worth more because of it, but who'd want to live there? That's why the city has a legitimate role to play in placing restrictions on how space is used downtown.

I don't think that the choices are so black and white. What reason do you have to believe that it would become a 9-5 commercial deadzone? The city does have a role to play in planning the development in the CBD, and it is faced with several realities: there is a shortage of office space in the CBD which means that many companies/organizations are choosing to locate outside of the CBD in suburban office space which is cheaper, but more importantly, has large amounts of space available; the present measures aren't preserving Centretown at all and the situation now is such that the land values are going beyond a point where the permitted activities are sustainable; and access to the downtown is becoming an ever greater issue.

I think the city has to consider:

1) relaxing height restrictions within the CBD at select locations which would have a low impact on sight lines and which are candidates for development.

2) expanding growth of large-scale commercial office developments beyond the CBD in a controlled manner

3) establish design guidelines and other policies for integrating these developments into existing communities such that they strengthen these places by drawing people into the community and offering them a mix of uses that extend the usefulness of the development beyond regular business hours.

4) with the framework in place for the sensitive placement of these large-scale developments into communities beyond the CBD, develop plans for the growth of this type of development in the Preston area, the margins of the CBD, especially extending along and adjacent to existing main streets.

[Sebastien Gauthier]

That's a very interesting article. Actually Ottawa's situation reminds me of what's going on in Quebec City. The problems in Quebec City are very similar in nature and are composed by the fact that there is so many nimbys who oppose any developments downtown just for the sake of opposing. And talking about height restrictions, in Quebec City you can't build higher than 12floors. That's nuts. At least in Ottawa which is about the same population as Quebec City, you have a real downtown even if it's a small one. Quebec City is basically just one big suburb without a core.

[Mille Sabords]

That's a very interesting article. Actually Ottawa's situation reminds me of what's going on in Quebec City. The problems in Quebec City are very similar in nature and are composed by the fact that there is so many nimbys who oppose any developments downtown just for the sake of opposing. And talking about height restrictions, in Quebec City you can't build higher than 12floors. That's nuts. At least in Ottawa which is about the same population as Quebec City, you have a real downtown even if it's a small one. Quebec City is basically just one big suburb without a core.

You're a little too harsh on Québec City. And everyone has naysayers, including Montreal. But there are developments in Québec City that make me green with envy when it comes to the quality of their architecture and their sensitivity to context. I hope to get over there at the end of the summer to catch some the 400th parties. :cheers:

[Sebastien Gauthier]

@ Mille Sabords

I don't think I'm too harsh on Quebec City. This is an agglomeration of 750,000 people, just a little bit less than Ottawa if you don't count Gatineau. Yet, they haven't build a skyscraper with 20 or more floors in the last 30 years!!! Can you believe it!!!! As a result, this city is incredibly sprawled, there's no real downtown, no business district etc. It still looks like a big village. That city is about the worst possible example of urban development that I've ever seen. Some people will tell you that they can't build skyscraper since they're a historic city. Pllllease. Boston is a historic city too and it didn't prevent them from developing a vibrant city core while conserving all their heritage buildings. Also in Quebec City, you have to deal with well organized citizens committees who are having a destructive influence by systematically opposing every developments. You also have completely inappropriate zoning policies and an urbanism service that has absolutely no vision whatsoever. They're now building a satellite downtown in Ste-Foy which is 9 KM from the city's natural downtown. It's like Ottawa building another downtown in Kanata or Orleans. That's utterly crazy how the city is managed in Quebec City.

[d_jeffrey]

@ Mille Sabords

I don't think I'm too harsh on Quebec City. This is an agglomeration of 750,000 people, just a little bit less than Ottawa if you don't count Gatineau. Yet, they haven't build a skyscraper with 20 or more floors in the last 30 years!!! Can you believe it!!!! As a result, this city is incredibly sprawled, there's no real downtown, no business district etc. It still looks like a big village. That city is about the worst possible example of urban development that I've ever seen. Some people will tell you that they can't build skyscraper since they're a historic city. Pllllease. Boston is a historic city too and it didn't prevent them from developing a vibrant city core while conserving all their heritage buildings. Also in Quebec City, you have to deal with well organized citizens committees who are having a destructive influence by systematically opposing every developments. You also have completely inappropriate zoning policies and an urbanism service that has absolutely no vision whatsoever. They're now building a satellite downtown in Ste-Foy which is 9 KM from the city's natural downtown. It's like Ottawa building another downtown in Kanata or Orleans. That's utterly crazy how the city is managed in Quebec City.

I spent one week in QC city last winter, and you'll never see me live there. While the old QC quarters are extra nice, the rest of the city is a monumental fiasco. You think you have bad buildings and transit here? hahaha

[Mille Sabords]

@ Mille Sabords

I don't think I'm too harsh on Quebec City. This is an agglomeration of 750,000 people, just a little bit less than Ottawa if you don't count Gatineau. Yet, they haven't build a skyscraper with 20 or more floors in the last 30 years!!! Can you believe it!!!! As a result, this city is incredibly sprawled, there's no real downtown, no business district etc. It still looks like a big village. That city is about the worst possible example of urban development that I've ever seen. Some people will tell you that they can't build skyscraper since they're a historic city. Pllllease. Boston is a historic city too and it didn't prevent them from developing a vibrant city core while conserving all their heritage buildings. Also in Quebec City, you have to deal with well organized citizens committees who are having a destructive influence by systematically opposing every developments. You also have completely inappropriate zoning policies and an urbanism service that has absolutely no vision whatsoever. They're now building a satellite downtown in Ste-Foy which is 9 KM from the city's natural downtown. It's like Ottawa building another downtown in Kanata or Orleans. That's utterly crazy how the city is managed in Quebec City.

J'admets que je ne connais en fait que le coeur touristique de Québec et pas du tout la banlieue mais, si j'en crois ce que tu dis, Québec est aux prises avec le même genre de paranoîa qu'Ottawa quand ça vient à intégrer le progrès avec le patrimoine: une gang de réactionnaires obnubilés par la sainte mission de conserver la noblesse de l'Ancien en ne touchant à rien et en ne posant aucun geste audacieux. Je nous reconnais là-dedans crois-moi. C'est dommage quand on voit la créativité qu'on retrouve même dans des villes européennes aussi reculées et secondaires que Glasgow ou Valladolid, sans rien dire des phares comme Barcelone ou Lyon. Rien n'est perdu, évidemment - ça laisse une job intéressante à un urbaniste qui a des couilles et qui aime assez sa ville pour s'attaquer à la question, mais c'est frustrant. Mais à voir Montréal évoluer depuis l'époque Drapeau (autrefois, grands projets, grandes ambitions - et maintenant, nimby's et timidité), y'a toujours un retour du balancier.:D

[Acajack]

C’est peut-être juste une impression, mais j’ai toujours trouvé que les banlieues de Québec étaient très, très loin du centre. Par exemple, si je compare Val-Bélair à des banlieues équivalentes à Ottawa comme Orléans et Kanata, me semble que c’est beaucoup plus loin du centre-ville.

Par contre, le parcours de la Grande-Allée en allant vers le Vieux-Québec est superbe. Et honnêtement, je vais peut-être me faire planter, mais même le développement typique de banlieue le long du boulevard Laurier n’est pas si laid lorsqu’on le compare à ce qui se fait dans des endroits semblables ailleurs en Amérique du Nord.

[O-Town Hockey]

Boston is a historic city too and it didn't prevent them from developing a vibrant city core while conserving all their heritage buildings.

You don't even have to look that far. Montreal is a great example of a city with well-preserved historic areas and districts with a great downtown filled with towering skyscrapers.

http://www.go-montreal.com/image/areas_oldmtl.jpg
A nice shot with old Montreal in the foreground and the CBD skyline in behind.

http://web.mac.com/vmo1/iWeb/VMO1E/Main_files/nuitvm_1_1.png
Another interesting perspective.

[cityguy]

Lower Preston st. is a good idea ,there's several parking lots that need development.Maybe an area where there is little by-laws so developers can build tall.

[d_jeffrey]

No second downtown is necessary. The expansion has already started on Rideau St. and on LeBreton flats, the rest will continue to flow...