NCC Greenbelt
|
They should build small "villages"; Medium density pockets of land which are axed on transit.
Self-sustained and environmentaly freindly! :) |
NCC Greenbelt development debate
This should be an intense debate. Personally, I agree that it is a discussion whose time has come.
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/...3-37cfc92497e8 ========================================================== Greenbelt development under review 21,500 acres could be used for housing; nearly 14,000 without doing any harm: city paper Mohammed Adam, The Ottawa Citizen Tuesday, June 17, 2008 For the first time, the City of Ottawa has identified more than 13,700 acres of the Greenbelt, worth about $1.6 billion, that could be developed without damaging the integrity of the capital's most treasured natural landmark. The land, about a quarter of the 49,400-acre (20,800-hectare) belt, is enough to provide more than 20 years of urban land for housing and employment if the National Capital Commission decides to open it up for development, says a white paper released by the city last week. It is the first time since the Greenbelt was created in the 1950s that a government body has put out a serious proposal on developing property that has been kept immune to development. It is also the first time that anyone has put a figure on its value. Assembled for $40 million (in 1966 dollars), about 85 per cent of the belt, made of up of farms, woodland, wetland, trails and scrubland, is undeveloped. Today, shorn of the environmentally sensitive lands that are virtually untouchable, the Greenbelt has about 21,500 acres (8,746 hectares) of theoretically developable land. Those 21,500 acres are worth $2.5 billion, a city estimate based on the going market price of $120,000 an acre for urban land. The city believes that, realistically, only 13,700 acres (5,560 hectares) can be developed without doing lethal harm to the Greenbelt as a whole. Ian Cross, author of the white paper and the city's manager of research and forecasting, says in the end, the fate of the Greenbelt will be decided by the NCC, which owns and manages the land. However, it is useful for the coming debate on the future of the city's most prized natural asset to ask whether the Greenbelt envisaged by French planner Jacques Gréber almost 50 years ago is still relevant. "Right now we are building on farmland outside the urban area and the question is, does it make sense to protect agricultural land in the Greenbelt when we continue to build farther out?" Mr. Cross said. "The primary purpose of the Greenbelt was to contain urban development, but that is gone. It didn't work. Building sustainable communities in the Greenbelt may be the appropriate evolutionary development." In its white paper, the city laid out three development options for discussion as the federal government considers the future of the once sacrosanct belt. The options are: - Corridor development along major roads in the Greenbelt such as Highway 417 in the west, Highway 416 to Barrhaven and Highway 174 to Orléans. - High-density mixed-use development along existing or planned rapid-transit lines such as the east and west sides of the Woodroffe transitway, south of Hunt Club Road, to encourage high transit use. - Extension of urban land into the Greenbelt in existing neighbourhoods in areas such as north and south of Hunt Club west and the west side of Orléans along Innes Road. The Greenbelt has long been treated with such reverence that it was considered taboo to contemplate any development on it beyond the public institutions such as the Ottawa Airport and research centres that call it home. A series of experts' reports, including one recently from the Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy, have all said the Greenbelt has fuelled sprawl, instead of containing it. Last year, NCC chairman Russell Mills became the most influential voice in the city to advocate some strip development along the Greenbelt to reduce urban sprawl. And when she announced the NCC's review this spring, chief executive Marie Lemay said "everything is on the table. You've got to ask the basic question: Is the use we have now what we want for the next 10 to 15 years or are there parts where we want something different?" But others, prominent among them Larry Beasley, a noted urban planner and former chief planner of Vancouver, and Environment Minister John Baird, oppose development in what they consider an important part of the city's heritage. Mr. Baird vowed to fight any such move. The white paper notes that with 141 kilometres of city roads, 43 kilometres of water pipes and 39 kilometres of sewer pipes running through the Greenbelt, the cost to the city and to commuters of continued expansion beyond the belt is running high. The extra travel through the Greenbelt during the peak period costs drivers $60 million annually. It also costs the city an extra $10 million a year to run buses through the Greenbelt to outlying areas. The cost of vehicle emissions is incalculable, Mr. Cross says. For all those reasons and more, he says, it makes sense to put the Greenbelt into the equation so that whatever the final decision is, all the issues will have been thrashed out. - - - By the Numbers 49,400 - Total number of acres in the Greenbelt. 21,500 - Number of acres of theoretically developable land in the Greenbelt. 13,700 - Number of acres that could be developed without affecting the integrity of the natural landmark. |
I don't think this city and its developers are mature enough to consider developing the Greenbelt. Only a few years ago we were squandering available land within the Greenbelt on single family homes in Centrepointe and Central Park. Even in the Westboro area, I have seen 2 or 3 homes demolished only to provide larger lots for McMansions (go to Denbury between Dovercourt and Tilbury and you'll see reverse intensification happening).
I think the Greenbelt should be held intact for at least another 50 years before considering development. We should even look at its purpose as carbon offsetting. While it has not contained urban sprawl, I think it will force the development of the suburban town centres into denser satellite cores. |
Quote:
Mind you, if we start the process today of talking about the Greenbelt, knowing the players involved (NCC, etc.) it will probably be 50 years before anything happens anyway!! :haha: As I said, I think the discussion is a worthwhile one. I've long believed that the Greenbelt feeds a self-righteous fake environmentalism of the worst kind and perpetuates the very real problems we have in trying to bring the scale of this city back to the pedestrian. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
there's a pretty big response on the citizen's website so far
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/...f-d17416bcb0d1 |
Quote:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3135/...b2770cea_b.jpg |
Quote:
"High density node" = Centrum or Innes Road with just enough stacked townhouses and seniors' residences to hide the parking lots. |
Looks like Mr. Baird's at it again... check the front page of the Citizen today.
|
Quote:
And I had the dubious displeasure of having met, shook hands with and had a conversation with this man... :rolleyes: :hell: :yuck: |
Bah, what else is he gonna say. Most of the people who vote for him are probably the old grannies with bungalows backing onto Greenbelt property anyway. Mr Baird will be long gone when the right decision is made about the Greenbelt.
|
I just don't get this pave over everything mentality that I see on this forum. Knock down every low density house in the city, and build skyscrapers regardless of the impact on the various neighbourhoods. Sensitive and attractive intensification is very difficult accomplish and I have previously talked about how intensification has made a royal mess of our community. Everybody here seems to look down there noses at anybody who lives in a single family home, extolling the virtues of high density living, not understanding that this is not what everybody wants. Now the desire to sell off the Greenbelt. For what?
Our family was forced to sell the family farm in the name of the Greenbelt. Our family was forced to sell the family homestead for a road that was never built. For all the suffering that was inflicted in creating the Greenbelt, let's preserve it. You are kidding yourself that such a selloff will make this city any better. You are kidding yourself if you think we will end up with some utopian urban development on that land. Opening up that land will just result in more mediocre suburban style development. |
Things are not perfect, I agree. Developing on the Greenbelt now would probably end up with more suburban wasteland, I agree. Lots of infill in mature neighbourhoods introduce suburban monstrosities that disfigure charming streetscapes, I agree.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't have a bigger picture when planning. The proper way to intensify residential neighbourhoods is to urbanize their fabric. Much of the piecemeal infill we see now is inflicting extra distortions, although it is technically intensification. Although sometimes, small-scale infill projects hit the right note. The one in New Edinburgh by Larco that proposes to replace a corner-lot bungalow with 6 townhouses close to the street with rear lane parking is one of them. A project like that densifies a residential neighbourhood with a human-scaled form and design that actually improve the street. High density living is not what everyone wants, I agree. But some people DO want it. Their choice shouldn't be restricted. And those who do want that choice will look for their choice in high-density areas. Makes sense. So, the areas that are already vibrant and mixed-use, ARE the logical candidates for intensification. It's also too simplistic to describe what the city said in their white paper as "pave it all over". If you read it, as I did, they're actually quite careful. Most of the Greenbelt won't change. The Greenbelt will be preserved. It will always be there. It will be smaller and have a different shape, but it will stay. What they are saying, and I agree, is that out of all the various types of lands on the Greenbelt, let's look at the more marginal ones as places to grow instead of taking up similar types of land further out. |
I wouldn't trust any 'expert', bureaucrat or politician with coming up with a definition of 'marginal' lands, and a definition that might actually stick. If we don't say no now, I can see a gradual selloff of more and more of the Greenbelt over time in order to develop adjacent properties as development pressure builds and there is the need for more cash by the NCC. Maybe the most environmentally sensitive lands will be preserved, but even that will be at risk as development encroaches closer and closer.
If you look at the proposed map of corridors to be developed, it is easy to see how the Greenbelt could be reduced to islands over time. And we forget hundreds of people who paid a premium for housing that backs onto the Greenbelt. Also think of communities like Blackburn Hamlet and Bells Corners which have a special character because they are surrounded by the Greenbelt. As far as developing land further out, at least it is individual owners who will be benefitting from the sale of that land and they are selling the land on their own timetable. In most cases, land is sold as farmers decide to retire. |
I agree that the environmentally sensitive areas of the Greenbelt such as Mer Bleu, Old Quarry Trail, Stoney Swamp etc. should be preserved at all cost, but much of the area surrounding Ottawa is farmland. Specifically, the area just West of Bayshore and North of Barhaven along Woodroofe strike me as perfect spots for development. These areas are already served by high-frequency public transit and are along major arterial roads. It's funny that many people would protest such development for environmental reasons, but they fail to realize the amount of farmland (arguably more appropriately located) is disappearing outside of the city in Carp, Carleton Place, Riverside South, etc. Who decided that those agricultural areas within the city are so much more important than those outside the city? It's sheer selfishness to force people to move further and further into exurbia, lengthening commutes, and increasing the cost to service new homes when there is perfectly good land within the city along major transit corridors just waiting to be developed. And don't get me even started on the Experimental Farm, a strip of which along Baseline and along Carling should have been developed 20 years ago!
|
With all the parking lagoons both inside and outside the Greenbelt as well as former brownfields and other unused sites available, I really don't see the point of touching the Greenbelt.
The talk of using the Greenbelt is to decide between ripping up farmland further out versus ripping it up further in. Great choice. Shouldn't we be keeping it all, and using the stuff closer in for more intensive agriculture? Losing strawberry farms in the city that one can take the kids to for an afternoon would be a real loss on so many levels. Developing tracts of the Greenbelt is basically a way of avoiding doing something that developers seem loathe to do - not creating any more parking lots and redeveloping all the ones we have. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 6:46 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.