[Dado]

Back in August, Planning Committee voted to delete sidewalks from a number of streets in Mattamy's Half Moon Bay development south of the Jock River.

http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2010/08-24/englishdisposition79.htm


3. COMMUNITY SIDEWALKS - MATTAMY SUBDIVISION, HALF MOON BAY
TROTTOIRS COMMUNAUTAIRES - LOTISSEMENT HALF MOON BAY DE MATTAMY
(Deferred at the the Planning and Environment Committee meeting of 8 December 2009 / Reporté de la réunion du Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement du 8 décembre 2009)
ACS2010-CCS-PEC-0035 BARRHAVEN (3)

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve the deletion of the requirement to construct the following sections of sidewalk in Mattamy’s Half Moon Bay Subdivision:

Phase 1
- All of Foxhound Way west of Freshwater Way
- All of Sunset Cove Circle
- All of Watermusic Bay and River Rock Avenue

Phase 2
- All of Baynes Sound Way and Blue Aster Street
- Nutgrove Avenue north of Blue Aster Street

CARRIED


This was based on the following Planning report and earlier efforts by Councillor Harder at Mattamy's behest:

http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2010/08-24/3 - ACS2010-CCS-PEC-0035 - Harder - Sidewalks in Half Moon Bay Final.htm

For reference, this is Mattamy's map of the development:
http://www.mattamyhomes.com/Ottawa/Communities/Barrhaven/HalfMoonBay/images/SiteMap1.pdf

All the streets but Freshwater Way are named on the map, and that street is fairly easy to figure out which it is.

The interesting thing is that the streets in question run the gamut from those containing detached houses on 50' lots to those which are entirely townhouses. This basically sets a precedent for the future for all future developments where streets are comparable to these. That wouldn't be the end of the world if we started designing (or rather insisting that developers design) our residential streets differently, for example as woonerfs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woonerf) as in the Netherlands, but I don't imagine this is going to happen any time soon.

Now look at the rationale:


The proposed sidewalk deletions as contained in the recommendation affects only those lands located in Mattamy’s Half Moon Bay Subdivision Phases 1 and 2. This is an area where the majority of the homes have been completed and occupied for a period of almost two years. Staff is prepared to support the proposed sidewalk deletions in light of driveway paving and front yard landscaping having been completed for the majority of the homes. If the developer were to return at this time to install sidewalks as previously approved, it would cause too much disruption to the homeowners. As well, the streets affected by the proposed sidewalk deletions will have low traffic volumes due to them providing local access only, they do not provide an important link between homes and a particular destination such as a school, and there are no OC transit stops.

In other words, they landscaped the place where the sidewalks were supposed to go, then pleaded to be allowed to not build the sidewalks, and essentially got away with it (barring denial by the full City Council). And of course we can't disrupt the residents of a new development, either. No way. Residents of existing neighbourhoods can endure the hammering of infill development and tear-down replacement all summer long, but residents in new suburbs can't be expected to endure the construction of a sidewalk.

This item follows on from one in December 2009 that deferred it until a policy discussion on suburban sidewalk standards was presented to Committee, which was expected at the time in April 2010. According to the recent report, this policy discussion now isn't expected until "early 2011" and the sidewalk issue in question was brought back due to the construction season coming to a close.

It gets even more interesting when one reads the minutes from the original meeting in December (I suspect the minutes of the recent meeting will be as interesting once they become available):

http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2009/12-08/minutes66.htm


Mike Wildman, Manager Developmental Review, Suburban Services, provided the following background information, and staff’s feedback on the proposed recommendations:

The newer high-density neighbourhoods have very short setbacks from the front of a home to the edge of the right-of-way followed by a sidewalk. The concern from residents is that the setback from a vehicle parked in the driveway to the sidewalk is too short to provide adequate sight lines.
This issue originated from an incident where a cargo van was pulling out from a driveway and the driver was unable to see a child on a tricycle that was travelling on the sidewalk. Following this incident, the ward Councillor, Councillor Harder contacted staff requesting an examination of how the sidewalk standards are being applied on tighter, high-density local streets.

...


So the solution to a driver not thoroughly checking before reversing out of a driveway is to remove the sidewalks. There's a reason drivers are supposed to reverse into spaces. Car drivers can get away with it since visibility is good enough in most cases, but drivers of larger vehicles can't.

It will be interesting to see what comes of this sidewalk policy discussion. If it results in an emphasis on share space and woonerfs for certain residential streets, it might be an improvement to suburban design, but, as always, I have my doubts.

[waterloowarrior]

August 2010 PEC minutes are up
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2010/08-24/minutes79.htm

there was a recent EMC article about this as well
http://www.emcbarrhaven.ca/20100916/news/No+sidewalks+for+seven+Half+Moon+Bay+streets:+council

You've raised some good points Dado, this is a weird situation. I'm also interested to see the results of this future report

[MaxHeadroom]

I remember hearing about this and emailed Councilor Harder about it last year. Reason being, I used to live in a townhouse in an older Orleans development without sidewalks, and the property line was only about 10 feet in front of the garage door, with another 20-25 feet to the curb. When we got that record snowfall a couple of years back, we ran out of places to put the snow shovelled out of our driveways and I had to call a company to haul away some of the snow. If we had sidewalks to shovel, too, I have no idea what we would have done.

As long as traffic on the street is not excessive, and cannot ever be due to no opportunities for future expansion (ie crescents or cul de sacs) then why bother with sidewalks? They cost money to maintain and replace.

[lrt's friend]

The sidewalks need to placed right on the curb like in the older parts of the city, where space is an issue. If we want people to walk to schools or shops or to use public transit, we need sidewalks. On quiet streets, sidewalks on one side are enough. On busy collectors and arterials, sidewalks on both sides.

In my part of the city, there are missing sections of sidewalk on a 4 lane major street and nothing but a narrow paved shoulder which often disappears in winter. It is down right scary to have to walk along there. The city has said it is not a priority to close the relatively short gaps. In most of our community, there are no sidewalks. It is no wonder that few people walk anywhere.

[waterloowarrior]

OPA to remove some sidewalks
http://app01.ottawa.ca/postingplans/appDetails.jsf?lang=en&appId=__86MA5N

[waterloowarrior]

OPA staff report.... a bit of a half-hearted endorsement :)
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2012/07-09/14%20-%20ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0169_Sidewalk.pdf

[McC]

So glad I can afford to live in a art of town where people aren't opposed to sidewalks; although we'll see if that changes when it comes time to prioritizing the completion of some of the missing sidewalk links with future s37 monies.

[Dado]

Much of Ottawa West (the residential areas flanking Richmond Rd) doesn't have sidewalks on most residential streets and it's not like this is a source of concern.

That said, most of the same streets also don't have curbs, either.

I think curbless, sidewalkless streets work in a way that curbed sidewalkless streets don't. The former seem to work in a "shared street" type fashion where pedestrians are seen to belong whereas the presence of curbs in the latter seem to be an indication to motorists to regard the street as "theirs". I can't quite put my finger on it but there is a definite difference in "feel" between a residential street with no curbs at all and one with curbs but no sidewalks.

[eternallyme]

Much of Ottawa West (the residential areas flanking Richmond Rd) doesn't have sidewalks on most residential streets and it's not like this is a source of concern.

That said, most of the same streets also don't have curbs, either.

I think curbless, sidewalkless streets work in a way that curbed sidewalkless streets don't. The former seem to work in a "shared street" type fashion where pedestrians are seen to belong whereas the presence of curbs in the latter seem to be an indication to motorists to regard the street as "theirs". I can't quite put my finger on it but there is a definite difference in "feel" between a residential street with no curbs at all and one with curbs but no sidewalks.

No curbs and no sidewalks also give it more of a rural feel...which would be desirable for many residents. Worst is curbs and no sidewalks, I agree, since those don't solve the safety problem or the land privacy problem.

Certainly on collectors and arterials, there should always be sidewalks and curbs both sides. But on local streets, it might be safer if there are NO sidewalks or curbs - slowing cars down as children would be more likely to play.

[Dado]

OPA staff report.... a bit of a half-hearted endorsement :)
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2012/07-09/14%20-%20ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0169_Sidewalk.pdf

The entire basis for this discussion seems a bit screwy, to be honest.

This all started apparently as a result of suburbanites being unable to fit two cars in their driveways between the sidewalk and the garage door (god forbid anyone park their car in their garage...) with the result that sidewalks were being impinged upon. Ok... but if that's the case, why should the discussion be limited to a few streets?

Staff have now made an exception for a few streets where deleting some sidewalks arguably isn't too big a deal. Staff didn't give much of a real rationale (they basically just kept writing on about the various layers of policies and plans), relying on the fact that the status quo seems acceptable to local residents. However, since the impetus for this change and the rationale (as seen by local residents) of not being able to fit two cars in still applies to other streets where sidewalks will continue to be required, City Staff have now created a bit of a problem for themselves in the future for other new streets where the exceptions don't or can't apply.

In effect, what has happened is that being able to fit two vehicles between the street/sidewalk and the garage can now be considered a legitimate planning issue. Why should suburbanites on low-volume streets be able to park two cars when those on ever-so-slightly busier streets or those with schools and the like not be able to do the same? I can well see that the response will be to increase setbacks where policy requires a sidewalk to ensure that two cars can be accommodated.

[Dado]

No curbs and no sidewalks also give it more of a rural feel...which would be desirable for many residents.

I think I'd go more with village feel than rural feel myself, unless the street has still got open ditches (and a few places actually do).


Worst is curbs and no sidewalks, I agree, since those don't solve the safety problem or the land privacy problem.

Certainly on collectors and arterials, there should always be sidewalks and curbs both sides. But on local streets, it might be safer if there are NO sidewalks or curbs - slowing cars down as children would be more likely to play.

My inclination is an all-or-nothing approach, so if you want curbs you put in a sidewalk too.

While we're at it, I'd also decamber the streets, too: make them drain into the centre and put the drains there rather than at the edges (a number of private streets do this, as it happens). Street edge draining is bad enough with curbs, but without them it's downright annoying.

[McC]

Much of Ottawa West (the residential areas flanking Richmond Rd) doesn't have sidewalks on most residential streets and it's not like this is a source of concern.

That said, most of the same streets also don't have curbs, either.

I think curbless, sidewalkless streets work in a way that curbed sidewalkless streets don't. The former seem to work in a "shared street" type fashion where pedestrians are seen to belong whereas the presence of curbs in the latter seem to be an indication to motorists to regard the street as "theirs". I can't quite put my finger on it but there is a definite difference in "feel" between a residential street with no curbs at all and one with curbs but no sidewalks.
In my experience of very occasionally walking up them from Richmond, those streets can get pretty challenging in the winter with snowbanks, parked cars and some jackasses who insist on driving without being influenced by any of these conditions...

[Uhuniau]

In my experience of very occasionally walking up them from Richmond, those streets can get pretty challenging in the winter with snowbanks, parked cars and some jackasses who insist on driving without being influenced by any of these conditions...

The concept of such roads as "shared" completely falls apart with any amount of snow, and even some amounts of rain.

[waterloowarrior]

here is the finished product
nutgrove
http://goo.gl/maps/IpDpR

sidewalk vs no sidewalk
http://goo.gl/maps/PGhDd

rear laneways vs driveway
http://goo.gl/maps/yWg7x

[Dado]

:previous:

You can see a few cases of where two cars are parked on a driveway and if there had been a sidewalk it would be blocked.

Madrid Ave looks really weird on the north side without a sidewalk, though the sidewalk which wasn't built was actually slated to be on the south side.

http://goo.gl/maps/yWg7x



Any idea what happened to the sidewalks policy?

It's been two years since I started this thread, and the policy was originally supposed to have been in discussion then but was delayed at the time until the spring of 2011, which of course has long since passed.

[eternallyme]

I do think future areas should try on locals to have no sidewalks, no curbs and open ditches...

[McC]

...
rear laneways vs driveway
http://goo.gl/maps/yWg7x

Not kidding, I literally had nightmares about these streetviews. Turning 360 on Waterlilly Way is bloody haunting.

[Dado]

:previous:

Did you check out Ambler Lane as well? Not sure what I think about that.

Note that the link actually sends you to Madrid Ave. Still, I prefer the 3-storey townhouses with garages on Madrid and Waterlilly to the 2-storey versions you commonly see elsewhere, such as on nearby Haydon Circle (tee hee!).


I do think future areas should try on locals to have no sidewalks, no curbs and open ditches...

No, just draining the streets to the centre would suffice (which is what is done in a lot of private streets and lanes). That in and of itself would remove part of the rationale for sidewalks anyway.

Every year it at this time of year it starts: puddles and mini ice rinks form at the sides of streets because water can't drain through the snow and ice dams that end up at curbs and edges of the street. We're designing urban streets with structured drainage, not Roman Roads through conquered wilderness.

[McC]

:previous:

Did you check out Ambler Lane as well? Not sure what I think about that.


wow that's bleak; that's the rear of the units right? I've never been a fan of the townhouse surrounded on all sides by asphalt. not a fan at all.

I wish we'd (still) do townhouse parking like this http://goo.gl/maps/mwIO8 (yes, the exteriors of the townhouses themselves don't have much to recommend them, but I can testify that at least they're well-laid out inside). I guess it costs more to sink a garage, but it leaves a lot more space for yards and things, which I always thought was one of the big reasons people wanted to live in the far flung 'burbs in the first place, no?

[Dado]

Here's more bleak, in Kanata:

https://maps.google.ca/?ie=UTF8&ll=45.321782,-75.891902&spn=0.011919,0.01929&t=h&z=16&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=45.321655,-75.892271&panoid=0FLhxZKN__xrmf8dwImbvQ&cbp=12,250.18,,0,9.71

And again, off Maple Grove between Kanata and Stittsville:

https://maps.google.ca/?ie=UTF8&ll=45.289441,-75.918531&spn=0.005963,0.009645&t=h&z=17&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=45.289428,-75.918686&panoid=UzBGirjAop2UMQfbukUV2g&cbp=12,236.23,,0,6.41

Yet it looks quite decent from the other side:

https://maps.google.ca/?ie=UTF8&ll=45.289365,-75.918649&spn=0.005963,0.009645&t=h&z=17&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=45.289029,-75.918734&panoid=VksrDn7mCgZBiCx-W8pSlw&cbp=12,273.39,,0,-0.4

It's kind of difficult because you trade off getting one decent looking street for one ugly lane, versus having every street with garages and driveways.

Still, we can do better. Here's an example from Calgary, Garrison Woods, from the front:

http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Calgary,+AB&aq=0&oq=Calgary&sll=45.250157,-75.800257&sspn=0.759922,1.234589&vpsrc=6&t=h&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Calgary,+Division+No.+6,+Alberta&ll=51.018709,-114.110892&spn=0.010664,0.01929&z=16&layer=c&cbll=51.018734,-114.11071&panoid=Y0VzbiQZg5VtUKJKKFcbWQ&cbp=12,330.07,,0,1.4

and from the land behind:

http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Calgary,+AB&aq=0&oq=Calgary&sll=45.250157,-75.800257&sspn=0.759922,1.234589&vpsrc=6&t=h&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Calgary,+Division+No.+6,+Alberta&ll=51.019357,-114.11145&spn=0.010664,0.01929&z=16&layer=c&cbll=51.019007,-114.11145&panoid=0TRGKp2U3wsVSw83MNXt5Q&cbp=12,9.37,,0,9.42

Here's another pair:

http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Calgary,+AB&aq=0&oq=Calgary&sll=45.250157,-75.800257&sspn=0.759922,1.234589&vpsrc=6&t=h&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Calgary,+Division+No.+6,+Alberta&ll=51.021098,-114.114068&spn=0.010609,0.01929&z=16&layer=c&cbll=51.021094,-114.113917&panoid=N2urE1J04NLCVOzXjKXlKA&cbp=12,231.94,,0,4

And from the lane behind:

http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Calgary,+AB&aq=0&oq=Calgary&sll=45.250157,-75.800257&sspn=0.759922,1.234589&vpsrc=6&t=h&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Calgary,+Division+No.+6,+Alberta&ll=51.02068,-114.11396&spn=0.010609,0.01929&z=16&layer=c&cbll=51.020687,-114.114114&panoid=mgfPMvbjNP1kz442krY8dw&cbp=12,322.16,,0,6.51


Not pretty, but not downright bleak like ours, either.

There's something about having detached garages that seems to make some difference. It also allows for some actual outdoor space between the house and the garage.

[waterloowarrior]

here's some interesting designs in Vancouver
covered parking, homes fronting on streets and pedestrian laneways
http://goo.gl/maps/2uakP

park-facing singles with rear laneways
http://goo.gl/maps/zwLmH

trees can make the laneways more pleasant
http://goo.gl/maps/tlPsY

variety of accesses
http://goo.gl/maps/TeSQT

making use of a cul-de-sac
http://goo.gl/maps/13XqI

small front yards and a treed streetscape
http://goo.gl/maps/UOSxe


France - not that this is a well-planned area, but compare the scale of infrastructure. street lights for example
http://goo.gl/maps/D6gjp

France - recessed parking + public art as traffic calming
http://goo.gl/maps/MCTF6

Prague - What about blending the garage in with the house ?
http://goo.gl/maps/mDyvB

Prague - street furniture intergrated into the public right of way
http://goo.gl/maps/Xlzn1

[Dado]

France - not that this is a well-planned area, but compare the scale of infrastructure. street lights for example
http://goo.gl/maps/D6gjp


Granted that part of the development looks like a French imitation of American suburbia, but then look at this nearby:

https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=france&hl=en&sll=48.856583,2.352104&sspn=0.173707,0.468636&t=h&gl=ca&hnear=France&layer=c&cbll=48.839371,2.711142&panoid=19tFSz-mLuJuzxIHm5aRyw&cbp=12,263.6,,0,6.71&ie=UTF8&hq=&ll=48.839314,2.710973&spn=0.005381,0.009645&z=17&vpsrc=6

Could you even imagine someone coming up with an entire new-build district looking like this over here? Just look at how narrow the streets have been made - one way in some cases. And with ground-floor commercial too. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure this is new-build since all the buildings look to be relatively recent and from the air it has a "planned" look to it.

Or this, part of the same development:

https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=france&hl=en&sll=48.856583,2.352104&sspn=0.173707,0.468636&t=h&gl=ca&hnear=France&layer=c&cbll=48.838153,2.712592&panoid=-lbZ0wGGhxSfPipwb42kQA&cbp=12,232.78,,0,4.71&ie=UTF8&hq=&ll=48.838107,2.712196&spn=0.005409,0.009645&z=17&vpsrc=6

That's what passes for a main street - it's named after Charles de Gaulle, after all. Just a two-lane street with a bikeway in the trees and a couple of one-way one-lane frontage streets with parking along both sides. It's not even like this place is unfriendly to cars - it's just not gushingly super friendly to them.

Granted, it's all within a half kilometre of an RER station, but it's still impressive.

And look at the RER station itself, specifically the bicycles:

https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=france&hl=en&sll=48.856583,2.352104&sspn=0.173707,0.468636&t=h&gl=ca&hnear=France&layer=c&cbll=48.836908,2.710422&panoid=zKG7ZVKNL63TVKC88y6_sA&cbp=12,201.02,,0,6.61&ie=UTF8&hq=&ll=48.836885,2.710297&spn=0.010819,0.01929&z=16&vpsrc=6



I don't know what the French think of this development, but by our standards if someone came out with something like this here, we'd all fall off our chairs in shock.

[WarProphet]

It would be wonderful if Ottawa can build bike lanes like those.

Biking is way too dangerous in Ottawa.

[Dado]

Here we are in Almere in the Netherlands:

https://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Almere+Stad,+The+Netherlands&aq=1&oq=Almere&sll=49.784811,1.988525&sspn=2.716887,4.938354&vpsrc=6&t=h&gl=ca&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Almere,+Flevoland,+The+Netherlands&ll=52.374276,5.218506&spn=0.004991,0.009645&z=17&layer=c&cbll=52.374179,5.218541&panoid=HyssUtSLPoJT3zuAJPeCNQ&cbp=12,356.97,,0,-7.01

This is at the central railway station in Almere.

What you have to know about Almere is that it is a new city in Flevoland. Flevoland is a giant polder, reclaimed from a large lake (former inlet of the North Sea) post war. Absolutely everything that you see above or upon zooming out is less than 40 years old because before that it was under water.


Many of you will know I'm not a fan of BRT, but that's more because we misuse the concept here in Ottawa. If you look at Almere carefully you'll find at-grade busways throughout the city. The central railway station above has a large bus station below it and the street to the left has some bus lanes running down the middle of it (under construction).

Here's a pedestrian street nearby (pan to the right to see the pedestrian entrance to the station rather than the bus terminal access):

https://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Almere+Stad,+The+Netherlands&aq=1&oq=Almere&sll=49.784811,1.988525&sspn=2.716887,4.938354&vpsrc=6&t=h&gl=ca&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Almere,+Flevoland,+The+Netherlands&ll=52.374486,5.219772&spn=0.005017,0.009645&z=17&layer=c&cbll=52.374476,5.219691&panoid=XXkWmTsD2f47zNlzgZB2wA&cbp=12,190.66,,0,2

And a pedestrian square nearby:

https://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Almere+Stad,+The+Netherlands&aq=1&oq=Almere&sll=49.784811,1.988525&sspn=2.716887,4.938354&vpsrc=6&t=h&gl=ca&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Almere,+Flevoland,+The+Netherlands&ll=52.372167,5.217755&spn=0.004991,0.009645&z=17&layer=c&cbll=52.372156,5.217754&panoid=MqEzkOaXSoGRw2EMJK6YKw&cbp=12,141.44,,0,0.3

But that's not the end of it. They've even got themselves a shopping centre to the south which is at least partly outdoors (it appears to be built on top of its own parkade):

https://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Almere+Stad,+The+Netherlands&aq=1&oq=Almere&sll=49.784811,1.988525&sspn=2.716887,4.938354&vpsrc=6&t=h&gl=ca&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Almere,+Flevoland,+The+Netherlands&layer=c&cbll=52.370639,5.218401&cbp=12,0,,0,0&photoid=po-73419222&ll=52.370639,5.218401&spn=0.002587,0.004823&z=18

And here's some winter fun at the shopping centre:

https://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Almere+Stad,+The+Netherlands&aq=1&oq=Almere&sll=49.784811,1.988525&sspn=2.716887,4.938354&vpsrc=0&t=h&gl=ca&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Almere,+Flevoland,+The+Netherlands&layer=c&cbll=52.370336,5.21868&cbp=12,0,,0,0&photoid=po-45418887&ll=52.370637,5.218399&spn=0.002574,0.004823&z=18


Here's one of many views of the low-impact busway network (pan around 360):

https://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Almere+Stad,+The+Netherlands&aq=1&oq=Almere&sll=49.784811,1.988525&sspn=2.716887,4.938354&vpsrc=6&t=h&gl=ca&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Almere,+Flevoland,+The+Netherlands&ll=52.395611,5.25501&spn=0.01003,0.01929&z=16&layer=c&cbll=52.395611,5.25501&panoid=g8reBb9Adi8fDrfQj7bRfg&cbp=12,54.4,,0,3.4

If all that weren't enough, this is a secondary train station in Almere, complete with another bus terminal on the busway network (busways feeding railways - what a concept!). Pan around and see what else the Dutch have placed near to a secondary rail station:

https://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Almere+Stad,+The+Netherlands&aq=1&oq=Almere&sll=49.784811,1.988525&sspn=2.716887,4.938354&vpsrc=6&t=h&gl=ca&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Almere,+Flevoland,+The+Netherlands&ll=52.376411,5.244126&spn=0.005017,0.009645&z=17&layer=c&cbll=52.376365,5.243957&panoid=UcjoCM8CWQ4NpujjzVLVsQ&cbp=12,37.65,,0,12.71

That's right: a grocery store which can share the same parking lot. It's not even all that spectacular or even pretty (though a lot better than what we manage) - it's just a whole pile more practical. On the other side of the railway they have some offices (a bit too grassy for my taste, but no worse than what we do) and a school. You'll also find higher density buildings nearby, on both sides of the canal and railway, again on a towers-in-the-park model.


It's rather galling to consider what the Dutch do with a "tabula rasa" and what we do with essentially the same thing in suburbs like Kanata, Barrhaven and Riverside South.

[waterloowarrior]

Could you even imagine someone coming up with an entire new-build district looking like this over here? Just look at how narrow the streets have been made - one way in some cases. And with ground-floor commercial too. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure this is new-build since all the buildings look to be relatively recent and from the air it has a "planned" look to it.


Yes, I looked it up and it's a French new town, only 25 years old... fairly autocentric community, but the width/scale of infrastructure/right of ways and spacing between buildings makes it look much more compact than typical Ottawa suburbia and it has a walkable downtown.

Here's a development in the UK that's featured in its manual for streets (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/manual-for-streets)... when designing communities at design speeds of 30km/hr or less you have a lot more flexibility in what you can do (e.g. 10.5m frontage to frontage distance)
http://goo.gl/maps/zkiJ2
http://goo.gl/maps/mcGrp

This Swedish subdivision isn't too much different than ours, but compare the right of way and setback
http://goo.gl/maps/MZUdr
vs
http://goo.gl/maps/ubmSp
http://goo.gl/maps/9btx5
http://goo.gl/maps/1cuot

[Proof Sheet]

And again, off Maple Grove between Kanata and Stittsville:

https://maps.google.ca/?ie=UTF8&ll=45.289441,-75.918531&spn=0.005963,0.009645&t=h&z=17&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=45.289428,-75.918686&panoid=UzBGirjAop2UMQfbukUV2g&cbp=12,236.23,,0,6.41


Great links...I think I have found a kindered spirit in looking through Google Street View. That is a very bleak setting. What happens when you back out of these spots, stop the car and close the door (unless you have an electric garage door opener/closer)...you are basically parked in the road between the rows of garage doors.

Oh well, it could be worse...we could have an urban environment like this.

http://goo.gl/maps/YhNrU

[McC]

at one time those were Craftsman houses; so sad to see them rotted out and boarded up like that.

[Dado]

Yes, I looked it up and it's a French new town, only 25 years old... fairly autocentric community, but the width/scale of infrastructure/right of ways and spacing between buildings makes it look much more compact than typical Ottawa suburbia and it has a walkable downtown.

Here's a development in the UK that's featured in its manual for streets (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/manual-for-streets)... when designing communities at design speeds of 30km/hr or less you have a lot more flexibility in what you can do (e.g. 10.5m frontage to frontage distance)
http://goo.gl/maps/zkiJ2
http://goo.gl/maps/mcGrp

The Brits do love paving (but with pavers) places out of existence... and parking up on the sidewalks (what they call "the pavement"), as can be seen elsewhere in the same development. It's probably just as well the streets in the two examples are built without sidewalks/pavements.


This Swedish subdivision isn't too much different than ours, but compare the right of way and setback
http://goo.gl/maps/MZUdr
vs
http://goo.gl/maps/ubmSp
http://goo.gl/maps/9btx5
http://goo.gl/maps/1cuot

Uggg... and the Kingston one is especially bleak.

Yet it's not like we're entirely incapable of creating narrower rights of way and reduced setbacks, as this example from Beaverbrook in Kanata shows:

https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=kanata,+on&hl=en&sll=45.282274,-75.681869&sspn=0.005835,0.014645&t=h&gl=ca&hnear=Kanata,+Ottawa,+Ottawa+Division,+Ontario&layer=c&cbll=45.324247,-75.891691&panoid=iNhNMDpzN-6hGJ8eEb6j8w&cbp=12,47.89,,0,0.9&ie=UTF8&hq=&ll=45.324302,-75.891634&spn=0.005959,0.009645&z=17&vpsrc=6

It's not as narrow as its European counterparts, but it's nothing like what we usually get today. Ironically, the only places we seem to get narrow streets now are in private/condo developments, like this one near the Metropole in Westboro:

http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Ottawa&ie=UTF8&om=1&hq=&hnear=Ottawa,+Ottawa+Division,+Ontario&ll=45.400092,-75.752621&spn=0.011903,0.01929&t=h&z=16&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=45.400173,-75.752656&panoid=dyaeWot1HxuUF1CzXxGkpA&cbp=12,166.59,,0,11.61

(there's another opposite Lanark Ave at Scott, West Village Private, but Google didn't enter it).

I wonder to what extent snow storage and removal considerations are driving RoW requirements... but then the irony is that the extra wide streets end up generating more snow to clear.

[jeremy_haak]

I've heard that fire departments can be a driver to wider ROWs in some cases.

Buy new truck. Update ROW requirements to satisfy its new fleet. Build subdivision to new standards. Low-rise subdivision can now be adequately serviced by this (http://kscian.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/img_1335.jpg).

[Acajack]

I wonder to what extent snow storage and removal considerations are driving RoW requirements... but then the irony is that the extra wide streets end up generating more snow to clear.


And what about setbacks?

In either case I am not sure it has much to do with snow. First of all places like Sweden also get snow, plus secondly setbacks and ROWs are generous in parts of North America where there is no snow.