Ken Gray: NIMBY watch

[reidjr]

Originally Posted by gjhall

You could just tax the hell out of the suburbs.

Sure but that likely could lead to the likes of nepean and orleans separating from ottawa.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by gjhall

You could just tax the hell out of the suburbs.

What city are you living in? Last I looked they tax the hell out of everybody, whether inside or outside the Greenbelt.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by gjhall

You could just tax the hell out of the suburbs.

And, by rights, you probably should.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

What city are you living in? Last I looked they tax the hell out of everybody, whether inside or outside the Greenbelt.

Really?

Are Ottawa taxes that bad? As compared to... what? where?

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by adam-machiavelli

People move to the suburbs when urban housing becomes unaffordable. Housing can be made more affordable in urban areas by using off-the-shelf designs, cheaper interior finishes, and building on smaller lots. Don't forget a comprehensive transit network to reduce commuting costs.

Please re-read what you wrote. How does this make urban living more attractive? People also go to the suburbs so that they can afford those little extras in their home. Cheaping down the designs is not going to make urban living more attractive. In fact, cheaply built housing will be the slums of the next generation.

Let's think about this and examples in other countries. 'Project' developments in the United States became crime ridden slums that made everybody in the area flee to the suburbs. Then the commie blocks of the former Soviet Union represented the failure of that society to offer decent housing to the masses. Row upon row of substandard high rises without any design merit.

I saw a tremendous amount of this in Soeul, South Korea. Row upon row of almost identical highrises that were only distinguished with numbers on the sides of the buildings. And what did people do to deal with their drab lives? Acohol of course. That was the solution in the Soviet Union as well. Cheap vodka.

If you want to live in the city, it has to very attractive to make up for a price differential and that is something that cannot be avoided.

Block busting is also not going to be the answer either. Quick destruction of neighbourhoods by allowing quick infilling risks the same results of American cities where people fled the inner city.

[gjhall]

Originally Posted by reidjr

Sure but that likely could lead to the likes of nepean and orleans separating from ottawa.

That's fine. Then we introduce congestion pricing with a border around the city. Thanks for $16 for driving to work. Oh, you want to take the bus? Non-resident price: $8.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Cheaping down the designs is not going to make urban living more attractive. In fact, cheaply built housing will be the slums of the next generation.

Not necessarily so. Some of the veteran's housing that was built — cheaply — after WWII are now prized neighbourhoods: Carlington near the Civic Hospital; that little pocket south of Beechwood (the people who NIMBIED against the Landry St. redevelopment),

Let's think about this and examples in other countries. 'Project' developments in the United States became crime ridden slums that made everybody in the area flee to the suburbs. Then the commie blocks of the former Soviet Union represented the failure of that society to offer decent housing to the masses. Row upon row of substandard high rises without any design merit.

Indeed. Now, remind me: where are such buildings being built, today, in Ottawa?

Block busting is also not going to be the answer either. Quick destruction of neighbourhoods by allowing quick infilling risks the same results of American cities where people fled the inner city.

Incremental development, one property at a time, is the very opposite of "block-busting" development.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

Ken Gray responds to some of the comments here http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2011/...ts-your-hurry/

Hooray! I gotsed quoteseded.

[adam-machiavelli]

lrt's friend,

You are taking my comments to their logical extreme. Building small houses on narrow lots is a great way to promote affordable urban living.

[reidjr]

Originally Posted by gjhall

That's fine. Then we introduce congestion pricing with a border around the city. Thanks for $16 for driving to work. Oh, you want to take the bus? Non-resident price: $8.

The thing is ottawa would lose a big chunk of its tax base if you look at nepean and kanata the way both are growing orleans and stittsville are aslo growing at a rapid pace i don't think it would help anyone if the city was to lose those 4 areas.As for the boarder thats fine but keep in mind that would have work both ways you live in the core but drive out to say nepean or kanata the fee is $16.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by adam-machiavelli

lrt's friend,

You are taking my comments to their logical extreme. Building small houses on narrow lots is a great way to promote affordable urban living.

Am I? We already seeing complaints about the quality of designs of infill housing. You were talking about standard designs and cheaper finishes. It is more difficult to use standard designs on infill when every situation will be different. The issue of housing size is a completely different. That does not necessarily have to tie in with 'cheaping out' the housing, which was my main issue with your comment.

One problem I do agree is this obsession with oversized homes. I do not understand the attraction and an aging population is going to make that less appealing in the future but the market is dictating that and I would hate to see government control over what is being built as this is when you get to my extreme example.

My overall concern relates to the comments of 'cheaping out' housing designs in the urban setting mixed with comments of facilitating replacement of existing housing stock, much of it that is still in good condition and which gives most older neighbourhoods their character and attraction. It is the latter that relates to my concerns about block busting where developers go in and buy a few houses and because regulation has been so reduced, we get anything in replacement. If what is built in replacement is so unattractive or so overbearing, we will soon be pushing existing residents out.

[S-Man]

In the latest NIMBY angry woman letter post on Ken GREY's blog, she describes a huge condo complex encroaching on her Robinson Avenue home. What condo complex is she talking about?

[lrt's friend]

Not necessarily so. Some of the veteran's housing that was built — cheaply — after WWII are now prized neighbourhoods: Carlington near the Civic Hospital; that little pocket south of Beechwood (the people who NIMBIED against the Landry St. redevelopment),

Yes, that housing was built cheaply but it was a reflection of the times. There was an extreme housing shortage right after the war, and this type of housing was used to deal with that. The people who moved in, were previously housed in army barracks so this was a big step forward for those people. Also, these houses are single family homes with a decent lot which is different from infill housing today. Finally, I expect that most if not all of those homes have been upgraded since the late 40s when they were built. Expectations are different today. We are not facing a housing shortage so people do want some quality in new housing designs. There may be a market for a cheaply designed house of modest size with cheap finishes, but if that is the case, you would think more would be built.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by S-Man

In the latest NIMBY angry woman letter post on Ken GREY's blog, she describes a huge condo complex encroaching on her Robinson Avenue home. What condo complex is she talking about?

I can't imagine this location being a good place for a high rise condo. It is such a secluded area with only one street access. This was originally a small blue collar neighbourhood next to the original Hurdman's Bridge, the railway tracks leading to Union Station, the city's coal bins and the old coal oil factory.

[gjhall]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I can't imagine this location being a good place for a high rise condo. It is such a secluded area with only one street access. This was originally a small blue collar neighbourhood next to the original Hurdman's Bridge, the railway tracks leading to Union Station, the city's coal bins and the old coal oil factory.

This is all getting ridiculous. Those townhouses are the ugliest infill project in town. People don't get it. Her neighbours probably objected to her home being built, and rightly so as it is fugly.

And no self-respecting Sandy Hiller would agree that she even lives in Sandy Hill. Not sure what to call that little pocket... Queensway View? Freeway Village? City of Ottawa Yard Town?

But she bring up one interesting point about Gatineau. Why not have all the NIMBYs move there? Their silly threat is more of a gift. Please, please go! Go now!

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Finally, I expect that most if not all of those homes have been upgraded since the late 40s when they were built.

Crazy fact: just about any home can be upgraded, no matter when it was built!

There may be a market for a cheaply designed house of modest size with cheap finishes, but if that is the case, you would think more would be built.

If someone wants to build them, I say let them!

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I can't imagine this location being a good place for a high rise condo. It is such a secluded area with only one street access. This was originally a small blue collar neighbourhood next to the original Hurdman's Bridge, the railway tracks leading to Union Station, the city's coal bins and the old coal oil factory.

I don't see how any of those things preclude any particular type of housing.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by gjhall

But she bring up one interesting point about Gatineau. Why not have all the NIMBYs move there? Their silly threat is more of a gift. Please, please go! Go now!

Seriously though! Can we start a Relocate the NIMBYs to Gatineau fund?

[Ottawan]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Seriously though! Can we start a Relocate the NIMBYs to Gatineau fund?

I'd generally support it, but we've got some nice forward-looking forumers from over on that side. Harls, Aylmer, Acajack, Cre47, I'm sure there are others who are slipping my mind at the moment. I wouldn't wish the NIMBIES on them!

[S-Man]

When I mentioned that woman's letter, I was hoping one of you could fill me in on what development she's talking about. I'm not aware of any building going up in the Lees area. Anyone??