NCC Greenbelt

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by KHOOLE

Let the LRT breach the Greenbelt toward various "town centres"

The NCC has always been, and still is, adamantly opposed to any such "breaches" in its precious stupid Greenbelt.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

It's all because of votes. Toronto has more than 3x the number of votes as Ottawa, and the GTA has 6x as many.

That still doesn't justify the traditional funding formula in which the province paid 100% of the capital costs of transit projets in Toronto, but not in Ottawa.

Fair's fair. If Ottawa isn't given the same proportional cost-sharing of capital projects as the GTA, it's time for Ottawa to stop being in Ontario.

[S-Man]

Look at what transit projects were promised in TO during the last provincial election (in which 44% of Ottawa voters voted) - More than $2 billion in subway/LRT alone, if I'm notmistaken. One year, one city. We're still sitting on the $600 million Ottawa got (how many years ago?) for LRT,a number which hasn't changed since.
Hell, Kitchener-Waterloo now has Go Train service to Toronto!

What did Minister Bob the Knob Chiarelli give us durng the election? Widenings for the 417 in the east (split) and west (Scotiabank area), to make it easier for commuters coming in from the suburbs/exurbs. I rolled my eyes, as the underground Baseline station hub (in his riding) continues to sit empty as it seeks money for completion phases (built the year previous), and not a cent more given to LRT, even though it was finally passed by council and serious work is being done to make it happen.

Is there a directive at Queen's Park that provincial funding can only go to car-centric uses in Ottawa? I kinda figured what with all the green everything bullcrap coming out of QP and all that new cash going to the province in the form of HST paid on Ottawa gasoline, there's be some money to go around.

Great thinking - tax gasoline to discourage driving, then invest that money into new roads and to handle more private vehicles.

[gjhall]

Originally Posted by S-Man

Look at what transit projects were promised in TO during the last provincial election (in which 44% of Ottawa voters voted) - More than $2 billion in subway/LRT alone, if I'm notmistaken. One year, one city. We're still sitting on the $600 million Ottawa got (how many years ago?) for LRT,a number which hasn't changed since.
Hell, Kitchener-Waterloo now has Go Train service to Toronto!

What did Minister Bob the Knob Chiarelli give us durng the election? Widenings for the 417 in the east (split) and west (Scotiabank area), to make it easier for commuters coming in from the suburbs/exurbs. I rolled my eyes, as the underground Baseline station hub (in his riding) continues to sit empty as it seeks money for completion phases (built the year previous), and not a cent more given to LRT, even though it was finally passed by council and serious work is being done to make it happen.

Is there a directive at Queen's Park that provincial funding can only go to car-centric uses in Ottawa? I kinda figured what with all the green everything bullcrap coming out of QP and all that new cash going to the province in the form of HST paid on Ottawa gasoline, there's be some money to go around.

Great thinking - tax gasoline to discourage driving, then invest that money into new roads and to handle more private vehicles.

The reason is simple: ask and you shall receive. All the funding in the GTA is coming because there are multiple municipalities and regional governments, and they are all proposing new projects continually, whereas Ottawa makes a plan for LRT, cancels it, then applies for a totally different project, and sure enough, it gets funded.

Doesn't explain the 33-33-33 vs 100 funding structure, but the province can't fund projects that aren't proposed.

The next test will come with the Western extension of LRT and where the province lands on funding.

[reidjr]

Originally Posted by gjhall

The reason is simple: ask and you shall receive. All the funding in the GTA is coming because there are multiple municipalities and regional governments, and they are all proposing new projects continually, whereas Ottawa makes a plan for LRT, cancels it, then applies for a totally different project, and sure enough, it gets funded.

Doesn't explain the 33-33-33 vs 100 funding structure, but the province can't fund projects that aren't proposed.

The next test will come with the Western extension of LRT and where the province lands on funding.

Even with some projects that are proposed one city in some cases does get more then another city does it happen all the time no but it does happen.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

The mechanism is easy.
You want to build there?
You build urban.
You don't want to build urban?
Fine. Don't build there.

Should be the same rule for any new greenfield or brownfield development, but the municipality doesn't have all the powers it needs to impose that, nor the will to use those few it does have.

You just negated your concept of "easy" with your last sentence.

The DNA of traditional main streets came from a time when ordinary entrepreneurs could buy a lot on a main thoroughfare, build a building and set up shop, and be somewhat assured of a steady stream of loyal patronage from nearby residents. It gave a slow rate of return on investment, but a nest egg on a small scale.

Nowadays, only large developers can afford to speculate and buy the large tracts of land available, and dictate what goes in based on terms that are profitable to them. Somehow they have determined that big box power centres offer a quicker buck and a cheaper, controllable investment than cutesy, fuzzy village main streets owned by a gaggle of shop owners.

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Where are these mythical "town centres"? Never seen one. And that kind of a transit plan is only a different way of subsidizing sprawl, just as effective as giving the suburbs lots of 6-lane roads and ample parking.

Whether or not you recognize the present pathetic collection of malls and big box stores as "town centres", they were concepts in the city's plans left up to the developers to execute. Making them LRT terminals turn them into local transit hubs (something transferless BRT doesn't really achieve) and raise the value of the land enough to make massive surface parking lots a wasteful use.

[Dr.Z]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

...The Greenbelt as constituted, and as made sacred by generations of unthinking greenspace fetishism, has accellerated and enhanced sprawl, made the sprawlurbs into unplaces, helped ensure they can't be retrofitted into anything urban, and added significantly to private and public costs in Ottawa.

The Greenbelt is an environmental and economic monstrosity.

Its the 400 series highways and the all of the major arterials that punched through the Greenbelt that provided the elastic geography to make the suburbs viable. There is no way the Greenbelt itself would further sprawl without these connections.

The Greenbelt has a variety of features within it; not all of it is ecological, but not all of it are cornfields either. The airport is indeed a blemish. It does provide an abundance of all season passive recreation almost throughout its swath though. Some people place higher values on some attributes of the Greenbelt than others so I can see how some people wouldn't care about one aspect or how some can be passionate about others.

Development on those few concession blocks of non-ecological table lands within the Greenbelt will not make or break anything. It would just delay urban expansion for a few years.

IMO there is a bigger net loss by developing on the greenbelt than not. What is to be gained by developing on those tablelands in the Greenbelt? The arterials have no capacity at peak anyways and undoubtly the builders would make a case that this is infill so that infrastructure would not fully be recovered by development charges and end up being partly funded through taxes. What would be the benefit again?

[Luker]

Nice and informative post Dr. Z.

Nonetheless, based on your last paragraph, is it not a lack of good policy approaches then that are constraining our options. Should the city not be able to emphasize the utility and necessity of this (greenbelt land) for city-building (in key areas) while at the same time gaining much needed revenue and concessions from developers...

The way I see it, considering most of the greenbelt and experimental farm are not being used to the extent they could or should. Further specific and key nodes should be eligible for development as it would aid city coffers and city building attempts... Further we could avoid costly area where single loading occurs on corridors and infrastructure.. e.g., Carling, Fisher, Baseline at the EX-Farm, 417 on the way over Kanata Hill, around Bayshore / 417 / 416 / bells corners, as well as many areas in east and south Ottawa as well..

[Dr.Z]

Originally Posted by Luker

Nice and informative post Dr. Z.

...while at the same time gaining much needed revenue and concessions from developers...

... the greenbelt and experimental farm are not being used to the extent they could or should. Further specific and key nodes should be eligible for development as it would aid city coffers and city building attempts... Further we could avoid costly area where single loading occurs on corridors and infrastructure.. ..

It would be revenue neutral. There are a specified amount of people aging into homeownership and net migration to Ottawa. Its not like these rates will change just b/c a couple of concession blocks in the Greenbelt opened up: i.e. the housing demand would remain the same. All development would do is shift some of the housing, maybe 2000 people from outside of the Greenbelt to within the Greenbelt within that timeframe: you are only changing the supply location. Ergo, revenue neutral from the City's perspective.

[Kitchissippi]

Bear in mind that the key factor that drives suburban sprawl is the demand for cheap low-rise housing and large homes on big lots, not "urban" type housing. There is more than enough room within the Greenbelt for urban redevelopment for decades to come. Land value has little effect on high rise development since construction costs make up most of the expenditure. It is the perceived value of location that allows developers to charge more (and thus make more money), so releasing cheap land in the Greenbelt half the price of downtown property for high rise construction is not going to miraculously result in affordable $100K condos. The allegation that the Greenbelt causes sprawl is patently false; in fact it makes further sprawl more expensive, and urban intensification more attractive.

Look on either side of the Greenbelt farm land, at some recent developments like the Laurentian High School site on Baseline and the RioCan centre in Barrhaven. Is there any assurance that what can happen in between will be any different? Obviously land isn't yet too expensive enough in either location that it can still be squandered on sprawling boxes and massive parking lots.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Bear in mind that the key factor that drives suburban sprawl is the demand for cheap low-rise housing and large homes on big lots, not "urban" type housing. There is more than enough room within the Greenbelt for urban redevelopment for decades to come. Land value has little effect on high rise development since construction costs make up most of the expenditure. It is the perceived value of location that allows developers to charge more (and thus make more money), so releasing cheap land in the Greenbelt half the price of downtown property for high rise construction is not going to miraculously result in affordable $100K condos. The allegation that the Greenbelt causes sprawl is patently false; in fact it makes further sprawl more expensive, and urban intensification more attractive.

Look on either side of the Greenbelt farm land, at some recent developments like the Laurentian High School site on Baseline and the RioCan centre in Barrhaven. Is there any assurance that what can happen in between will be any different? Obviously land isn't yet too expensive enough in either location that it can still be squandered on sprawling boxes and massive parking lots.

I wonder if Ottawa is become a "double-Greenbelt" area? The second Greenbelt being rural Ottawa and the lands up to the largest communities outside Ottawa, which will likely grow faster as land prices increase.

[BlackRedGold]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Look on either side of the Greenbelt farm land, at some recent developments like the Laurentian High School site on Baseline and the RioCan centre in Barrhaven. Is there any assurance that what can happen in between will be any different? Obviously land isn't yet too expensive enough in either location that it can still be squandered on sprawling boxes and massive parking lots.

The centre in Barrhaven was designed to transition into an urban form which is different from pretty much every other big box development in the city. I don't think land was been squandered there, just waiting for a time where an urban form makes sense.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

I wonder if Ottawa is become a "double-Greenbelt" area? The second Greenbelt being rural Ottawa and the lands up to the largest communities outside Ottawa, which will likely grow faster as land prices increase.

It's a repeat of what happened before amalgamation (which is the main reason why the suburbs sprawled beyond the control of the city) — people are escaping the City of Ottawa's higher property values and tax rates, and the outlying municipalities are more than happy to get the extra tax base. As with the highway 174 issue, we are already seeing a clash between what the municipalities (and the province) want.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by BlackRedGold

The centre in Barrhaven was designed to transition into an urban form which is different from pretty much every other big box development in the city. I don't think land was been squandered there, just waiting for a time where an urban form makes sense.

You could say that about all big box development. They are all designed to be built cheaply and recoup costs within a decade or less. The steel frames could all be recycled, and the prefab panels ground back for cement. The point was that much of the land value outside the core are still not high enough for urban development, so it really cannot be forced especially with inadequate transit infrastructure.

[S-Man]

As I've said in the past, the suburban big box outlet/town centre is the pinnacle of car-oriented development, but even these evolve somewhat. I've given the example of the Kanata Centrum as being the absolute worst.

Kitchissippi says Barrhaven RioCan/Marketplace is no different, which was absolutely true when it was built. What is interesting is the planning catch-up performed years after it was built. Obviously, planning won't be able to move the complex nearer to the city,nor make the one-storey retail buildings incorporate residential uses on upper floors.

All they could do after the fact was move the new Southwest Transitway underneath Strandherd Drive and through the center of the grid-layout marketplace mostly below grade. By having this in the centre of the complex, rather than the fringe, there is overall less walking distance between any given store and the bus station. While the surrounding residential area is currently only four storeys tall (which Orleans can't seem to stomach even today), those buildings are about 250 metres from the Marketplace station, with retail in between. You can almost reach out and touch the back of the retail buildings from those apartments.

The second phase of the 'town centre' as they call it, will be on the south edge of the complex and incorporate a Transit station into its design. That land has been zoned for up to 12 storeys for years now (I think the plan was passed in 2006). Minto is already hinting at future condo towers on its website.

You can say big deal, but given the community and retail already existed as purely car-centric, it seems at least some attempt at design and catch-up is going into this part of Sprawlhaven. In their 2011 annual report, the Barrhaven BIA found that 7 out of 10 consumer dollars spent by Barrhaven residents are spent in Barrhaven.

[S-Man]

Just to add - Barrhaven's transitway runs the 95 buses all the way to the very end (Barrhaven Centre, whch is currently just a field behind RioCan). I have caught a 95 bus heading downtown here at 1 a.m. (visiting friend, car in shop) and arrived back at Bayview (near where I live) less than 40 minutes later.

If you lived 250 metres away from this station, or closer, there would be no transfer nor much waiting in order to get downtown for work.

As for urban design, at Longfields Station two stops up the line in Barrhaven, 8 and 4 storey buildings are being planned (Campanale Homes) around that station. Granted, these represent only small to moderate bursts of density in a low-density community, but it's better than nothing. Certainly, this did not exist a few years ago.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by S-Man

Just to add - Barrhaven's transitway runs the 95 buses all the way to the very end (Barrhaven Centre, whch is currently just a field behind RioCan). I have caught a 95 bus heading downtown here at 1 a.m. (visiting friend, car in shop) and arrived back at Bayview (near where I live) less than 40 minutes later.

If you lived 250 metres away from this station, or closer, there would be no transfer nor much waiting in order to get downtown for work.

As for urban design, at Longfields Station two stops up the line in Barrhaven, 8 and 4 storey buildings are being planned (Campanale Homes) around that station. Granted, these represent only small to moderate bursts of density in a low-density community, but it's better than nothing. Certainly, this did not exist a few years ago.

Was that land kept aside for after the Transitway, or did they get lucky there that no one wanted to develop it?

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Nowadays, only large developers can afford to speculate and buy the large tracts of land available, and dictate what goes in based on terms that are profitable to them.

The land can still be profitable to them, but on a form that serves the public interest now, and over time.

Our municipalities don't have all the legal tools they need to make this happen, and are too lily-livered and wimpy to use the few that they do.

There is no conflict between profitable land use, and sane land use. None. The only obstacle standing in the way is 1950s car-centred thinking.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Whether or not you recognize the present pathetic collection of malls and big box stores as "town centres", they were concepts in the city's plans left up to the developers to execute.

And that's just it: the foxes were left in charge of the henhouses, and they built shithouses. (How's that for a mangled metaphor?)

The city should have dictated the terms and forms of the "town centres". Instead we got Orleans, and Kanata Centrum.

[S-Man]

I'm not sure if the Barrhaven Transitway corridor was factored into initial plans - Barrhaven was supposed to get LRT along a perpendicular route in 2006 but then it was cancelled. The Transitway wasn't announced until 2009, I think. I think they got lucky and the final phases of retail were able to incorporate the last-minute corridor. The earlier finished phases just had their parking lot gouged out for the Strandherd bus underpass.

As for the term 'town centres', I think in the '80s the city was actually thinking 'Town Car centres'.