Official Plan Update

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

I believe an artificial cap on new developments is counter-productive though, as that would encourage additional growth in outlying areas, which results in lost tax revenue for the City of Ottawa (and longer commutes).

There are a few numbers mandated by the province...maximum land supply of 20 years, minimum 10 years of land designated for growth and minimum three years zoned/draft approved. Boundary expansions also have to be justified as part of a comprehensive review. This applies to the neighbouring municipalities as well -> Clarence-Rockland/UCPR recently got in trouble with the province for approving an urban boundary expansion without the proper justification.

[Dr.Z]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

First question - how many new starts are projected to be necessary through 2031?

I believe an artificial cap on new developments is counter-productive though, as that would encourage additional growth in outlying areas, which results in lost tax revenue for the City of Ottawa (and longer commutes).

Q1: 2031 Households = 489,000
2011 Households = 376,000
2011-2031 new households = 113,000

Q2: what is this artificial cap you post of?

[gjhall]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

and so it begins

http://ottawa.ca/en/city_hall/planni.../op_mp_review/

should be interesting as Dr. Z noted whether there will be any more land added after all the extra parcels added through the OMB process

PPS update is looming... here is the Sept 2012 draft version
http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page9990.aspx

OBJ article on retail vs employment lands
http://www.obj.ca/Real-Estate/Non-re...sts-for-land/1

Notice of Special Meeting under Section 26 of the Planning Act

City of Ottawa Official Plan Review
Provision of Urban Residential Land
November 27, 2012
9:30 a.m. Champlain Room
Ottawa City Hall, 110 Laurier Avenue West

As required by Section 26 of the Planning Act, a special meeting will be held to discuss the sufficiency of the urban residential land supply to accommodate the housing projections to the year 2031.

At the meeting:

• Staff will provide information on current land supply, projected growth needs and the necessity for changes to the Official Plan.
• The public will have an opportunity to make submissions to Planning Committee on this issue.

My understanding is that staff were directed to use the same 2031 horizon for this OP update to avoid a new urban boundary discussion.

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by gjhall

My understanding is that staff were directed to use the same 2013 horizon for this OP update to avoid a new urban boundary discussion.

Yep I checked the staff report and their initial analysis was that the 1013 gross ha (which is now up to 1103) meant a 19 year land supply from 2013 onwards (i.e. beyond 2031), and they expect the detailed analysis to be presented in Nov. 2012 will confirm this

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by Dr.Z

Q1: 2031 Households = 489,000
2011 Households = 376,000
2011-2031 new households = 113,000

Q2: what is this artificial cap you post of?

If 113,000 new households (at an average of 3 people per household) are added, that will require about 38,000 new housing starts. Even at a 50% non-greenfield rate (aggressive urbanization), it will require about 9,000 acres for additional residential development - or about 3,500 hectares (whether already approved or additional).

An artificial cap would be an allowance of less land, or a boundary freeze. That would just shift the development elsewhere.

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

If 113,000 new households (at an average of 3 people per household) are added, that will require about 38,000 new housing starts. Even at a 50% non-greenfield rate (aggressive urbanization), it will require about 9,000 acres for additional residential development - or about 3,500 hectares (whether already approved or additional).

An artificial cap would be an allowance of less land, or a boundary freeze. That would just shift the development elsewhere.

The 113k households already includes the PPU reduction (which is more like 2.3-2.4 PPU), so there will be around that number of new units (should be slightly more taking into account vacancies and demolition)

Projected split for household growth 2011-2031 is 36% inside greenbelt (+41k), 55%(+62k) outside greenbelt, 10% rural (+11k).

For greenfield communities the split required in the OP is 44-55% singles, 10%+ apartment, remainder as other multiple dwellings. Minimum density of 34 units per net hectare.

Intensification targets are 36% in 2007-2011; 38% in 2012-2016; 40% in 2017-2021; 42% in 2022-2026; and 44% in 2027-2031.

Some key factors to consider are the growth in senior households and the growth in 1-2 person households (now 61.5% of households).

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

The 113k households already includes the PPU reduction (which is more like 2.3-2.4 PPU), and with vacancies there will be slightly more than 113k units built.

Projected split for household growth 2011-2031 is 36% inside greenbelt (+41k), 55%(+62k) outside greenbelt, 10% rural (+11k). Unit split is 40%+ townhomes/apartments.

For greenfield communities the split required in the OP is 44-55% singles, 10%+ apartment, remainder as other multiple dwellings. Minimum density of 34 units per net hectare.

Some key factors to consider are the growth in senior households and the growth in 1-2 person households (now 61.5% of households).

A possible breakdown of future developments, and what I recommend for growth plans:

Inside Greenbelt - 45% of future development - 70% condos/apartments with some of very high density, 25% medium density (townhouses/dense singles), 5% low density (standard singles, mostly infill of existing communities)

Outside Greenbelt - 45% of future development - 25% condos/apartments (focus on town centres and transit corridors), 30% medium density, 35% low density, 10% very low density (up to 3 households/acre, restricted to areas farthest from the transit corridors)

Rural - 10% of future development - Generally very low density, except near villages (even there low to very low, with no transit requirement).

[Dr.Z]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

If 113,000 new households (at an average of 3 people per household) are added, that will require about 38,000 new housing starts. Even at a 50% non-greenfield rate (aggressive urbanization), it will require about 9,000 acres for additional residential development - or about 3,500 hectares (whether already approved or additional).

An artificial cap would be an allowance of less land, or a boundary freeze. That would just shift the development elsewhere.

The household projection comes from the population projection. You've confused the 113,000 households figure as population.

113,000 households = 113,000 housing starts. 113,000 housing starts will not all be singles. The projected singles and semis starts will be less than half of this amount, let's say 45% or 50,000 units for a high estimate (much higher than the decling single shares across the country). At 25 units per hectare just under 2000 ha are required to accommodate this demand. The supply of vacant urban land exceeded 2000 ha at the end of 2011 that did not include the 1100 ha added by the OMB. Unless some major event happens that increases the singles share of total housing starts dramatically (dare I say "dramastically") there appears to be more than enough urban area for singles to 2031.

I understand what an artificial cap is, I asked though b/c your post suggested that there will be an articifial cap? What is the nature of this suggested artificial cap or am I reading your post wrong?

[waterloowarrior]

residential land reports http://app05.ottawa.ca/sirepub/mtgvi...&itemid=115049

[waterloowarrior]

interesting article about how the scoring was wrong for one of the OP parcels but it somehow managed to make its way into the approved urban boundary
http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2013/...medium=twitter

[Dr.Z]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

interesting article about how the scoring was wrong for one of the OP parcels but it somehow managed to make its way into the approved urban boundary
http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2013/...medium=twitter

Not sure I would call that interesting. A bit of a mess though.

What is interesting is the amount of effort that he undertook to look into the scoring, yet he never wrote, sorry that's not what he does, let me try again, yet he never criticizes Council or the OMB for adding so much more land than what is needed to the Urban area. In their last decision the Board added more land than what THEY even said was needed. Not one sentence on that.

He gets into the weeds on the scoring of a couple of points on a parcel but doesn't see the forest of extra land added.

What's with the Citizen columinsts - is it obvious to anyone else the hate-on they have for the City? In all the cities that I have lived I have never seen such biasim in local journalism.

[McC]

Originally Posted by Dr.Z

What is interesting is the amount of effort that he undertook to look into the scoring, yet he never wrote, sorry that's not what he does, let me try again, yet he never criticizes Council or the OMB for adding so much more land than what is needed to the Urban area. In their last decision the Board added more land than what THEY even said was needed. Not one sentence on that.

He gets into the weeds on the scoring of a couple of points on a parcel but doesn't see the forest of extra land added.

I think you're criticizing Reevely for not saying in *this* blog post (not column) the same things that he's said in previous blog posts. I'm not going to defend Reevely's choice of blog topics or what you see as his editorial bias, but I will testify that he's written extensively about this clusterfudging file, here are two previous examples that I found without trying very hard:
http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2012/...-sure-why-not/
http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2012/...-ever-covered/

[adam-machiavelli]

Have they considered designating low-density existing neighbourhoods as urban expansion/new growth areas? Sort of like a 21st Century version of "urban renewal".

[Capital Shaun]

Originally Posted by adam-machiavelli

Have they considered designating low-density existing neighbourhoods as urban expansion/new growth areas? Sort of like a 21st Century version of "urban renewal".

I agree with the concept but it'll be a hard sell for most neighbourhoods. Expect NIMBY's trying to declare those neighbourhoods as having some sort of heritage status requiring protection.

Vanier is probably one of the few places that'll complain very little. It's close to downtown and it's filled with many houses that probably aren't worth saving. There's quite a few poorly maintained properties in there. The downside is if rental/home prices start increasing too quickly in that area it will displace many people who can't afford higher prices.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Capital Shaun

Vanier is probably one of the few places that'll complain very little. It's close to downtown and it's filled with many houses that probably aren't worth saving. There's quite a few poorly maintained properties in there. The downside is if rental/home prices start increasing too quickly in that area it will displace many people who can't afford higher prices.

The displacement began years ago. Places that used to be seedy low-rent have been taken over by students, with landlords who are much happier to be renting to them. On a % basis, resale prices and rents are rising in the old Near East (Vanier/Overbrook) faster than almost anywhere else in the city.

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by Dr.Z

Not sure I would call that interesting. A bit of a mess though.

What is interesting is the amount of effort that he undertook to look into the scoring, yet he never wrote, sorry that's not what he does, let me try again, yet he never criticizes Council or the OMB for adding so much more land than what is needed to the Urban area. In their last decision the Board added more land than what THEY even said was needed. Not one sentence on that.

He gets into the weeds on the scoring of a couple of points on a parcel but doesn't see the forest of extra land added.

What's with the Citizen columinsts - is it obvious to anyone else the hate-on they have for the City? In all the cities that I have lived I have never seen such biasim in local journalism.

It's interesting because you rarely see newspapers get into this level of detail in urban planning. Without this investigation, we'd never know about the error because it was understandably kept under wraps due to the timing of discovery. I think in previous articles he has gone into the questionable decision-making by the OMB and Council that lead to so much land being added, and he also lays the blame on them for why this land was included in the first place at the end of the article.

Public Open house on Tuesday Jan 29th
http://ottawa.ca/en/city-hall/public...anuary-29-2013

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by Capital Shaun

I agree with the concept but it'll be a hard sell for most neighbourhoods. Expect NIMBY's trying to declare those neighbourhoods as having some sort of heritage status requiring protection.

Vanier is probably one of the few places that'll complain very little. It's close to downtown and it's filled with many houses that probably aren't worth saving. There's quite a few poorly maintained properties in there. The downside is if rental/home prices start increasing too quickly in that area it will displace many people who can't afford higher prices.

Isn't Vanier a heritage neighbourhood for the Ottawa francophone community?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

Isn't Vanier a heritage neighbourhood for the Ottawa francophone community?

Yes indeed but it has largely been given up on and forsaken by the community's élite and leadership.

[Dr.Z]

Originally Posted by McC

I think you're criticizing Reevely for not saying in *this* blog post (not column) the same things that he's said in previous blog posts. I'm not going to defend Reevely's choice of blog topics or what you see as his editorial bias, but I will testify that he's written extensively about this clusterfudging file, here are two previous examples that I found without trying very hard:
http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2012/...-sure-why-not/
http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2012/...-ever-covered/

Yes but my point is those blogs above are about an inch thick and a mile wide - I would not say they are 'extensive' in substance. Comparatively he focusses much more effort on the differential in points between a couple of parcels and doesn't really touch the big picture which has a greater impact. Its like putting 98% of your resources into why a button on the radio on your car doesn't work while not worrying that the engine has seized.

Anyways, I find it odd that in Ottawa the media coverage is so blatent in their one-sided criticism.

[Dr.Z]

Originally Posted by adam-machiavelli

Have they considered designating low-density existing neighbourhoods as urban expansion/new growth areas? Sort of like a 21st Century version of "urban renewal".

?

Existing neighbourhoods are already urban. The purple areas in the OP are are existing areas that are targetted for new growth. Am I missing something in this suggestion?