Citizen urban planning articles and a reaction

[rakerman]

Ottawa Citizen - Building a better capital - Feb 3, 2012

Ottawa Citizen - Ottawa: The place where forward-thinking hits a blank wall - Feb 3, 2012

I thought the first article about the NCC was so out to lunch that I wrote a rant about Ottawa planning - a rant about Ottawa urban planning (transportation slice).

[S-Man]

The people who chose to comment on those stories certainly weren't the constructive ones, for the most part. Hence an agreement that things need to be done...followed by a sole-issue rant against Lansdowne.

Or, an agreement that more faculites for bikes are needed....followed by a rant about 'developers', as if a city grows out of the gound like a beansprout without the guiding hand of man.

Then a dose of the usual self-loathing/vaguely directed anger.

If the capital wants to actually improve for the better and CHANGE, the NCC should be allowed to sit at the table mainly as a courtesy, but in no way should they ever be allowed to guide the planning, as absolutely nothing will happen.
And if the above people are the ones who show up at the final NCC meetings (how nice they decided to consult Ottawans), there isn't going to be anything constructive coming out of it.

For the last time, cities - and especially their downtowns - are not empty green parks free of people and jobs. The people doing the complaining about the current state of the city on those forums are advocating for less people and fewer buildings, obviously for their own comfort, rather than advocatng for building a city that WORKS.
Urban stagnation, suburban sprawl, huge tax hikes, and a downtown filled with green grass and people on bikes sounds great for the Ken Greys of the world (ie - comfortable retirees), but does nothing for the people still working and living there.

Build and plan for the next generation, not for making the golden years of Boomers more comfy.

[reidjr]

Originally Posted by S-Man

The people who chose to comment on those stories certainly weren't the constructive ones, for the most part. Hence an agreement that things need to be done...followed by a sole-issue rant against Lansdowne.

Or, an agreement that more faculites for bikes are needed....followed by a rant about 'developers', as if a city grows out of the gound like a beansprout without the guiding hand of man.

Then a dose of the usual self-loathing/vaguely directed anger.

If the capital wants to actually improve for the better and CHANGE, the NCC should be allowed to sit at the table mainly as a courtesy, but in no way should they ever be allowed to guide the planning, as absolutely nothing will happen.
And if the above people are the ones who show up at the final NCC meetings (how nice they decided to consult Ottawans), there isn't going to be anything constructive coming out of it.

For the last time, cities - and especially their downtowns - are not empty green parks free of people and jobs. The people doing the complaining about the current state of the city on those forums are advocating for less people and fewer buildings, obviously for their own comfort, rather than advocatng for building a city that WORKS.
Urban stagnation, suburban sprawl, huge tax hikes, and a downtown filled with green grass and people on bikes sounds great for the Ken Greys of the world (ie - comfortable retirees), but does nothing for the people still working and living there.

Build and plan for the next generation, not for making the golden years of Boomers more comfy.

I don't think some people fully understand what the end result would be if there was less buildings downtown your places like Kanata and Orleans even Barrheaven would become much bigger then they are.

[Ottawan]

Barrheaven, n.

Where those who aspire to more-car-than-people located on generically named crescent-cul-de-sac (I'm sure it's possible) households go once they have suddenly passed on from road-rage-induced brain aneurysms.

[rakerman]

This time a focus on built-form planning.

the sky gods are puzzled – Ottawa urban planning (built form)

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by reidjr

I don't think some people fully understand what the end result would be if there was less buildings downtown your places like Kanata and Orleans even Barrheaven would become much bigger then they are.

Which makes them all the more difficult to service, and increases costs, traffic, and pollution among other things.

[S-Man]

Oh, Rakerman...you are incorridgeable!

Forget sprawl in Orleans, Kanata (Teronville) and Barrhaven - the drain now is from Carleton Place, Rockland and Kemptville. To meet demand, we send convenient 4-lane highways out to communities where they don't contribute to the city's tax base.

[AuxTown]

Originally Posted by S-Man

Oh, Rakerman...you are incorridgeable!

Forget sprawl in Orleans, Kanata (Teronville) and Barrhaven - the drain now is from Carleton Place, Rockland and Kemptville. To meet demand, we send convenient 4-lane highways out to communities where they don't contribute to the city's tax base.

I agree. The damage is done in our well-established suburbs. Ottawa needs to work hard to keep the current urban boundaries and prevent further sprawlification. At least growth in CP, Kemptville etc. is not on our dime to service as they are not part of Ottawa.

[reidjr]

Originally Posted by S-Man

Oh, Rakerman...you are incorridgeable!

Forget sprawl in Orleans, Kanata (Teronville) and Barrhaven - the drain now is from Carleton Place, Rockland and Kemptville. To meet demand, we send convenient 4-lane highways out to communities where they don't contribute to the city's tax base.

Is there really that much devlopement in Cp & Kemptville?

[S-Man]

Yup, relatively speaking, and in Rockland, too.

[AuxTown]

Originally Posted by reidjr

Is there really that much devlopement in Cp & Kemptville?

According to this document: http://carletonplace.ca/photos/custo...20Analysis.pdf Carleton Place's population grew 11% between 2001-2006. I would say a large percent of those people are commuting to the West end or even downtown.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by S-Man

Oh, Rakerman...you are incorridgeable!

Forget sprawl in Orleans, Kanata (Teronville) and Barrhaven - the drain now is from Carleton Place, Rockland and Kemptville. To meet demand, we send convenient 4-lane highways out to communities where they don't contribute to the city's tax base.

Except "we" did no such thing. The MTO, with a little bit of funding from the feds, did. The MTO, with the connivance of the NCC, also took Gréber's plans for grand Parisian boulevards (regardless of what you think of that idea), such as the Queensway, and turned them into plans for expressways and freeways.

Given that the residents of these places mainly use MTO roads while their own communities are generally self-serviced, it's not like they cost Ottawa taxpayers much money, either. Their overall effect on us is probably a wash in the end. It's not like it was pre-amalgamation where the suburbs really were benefiting from urban taxpayers.

[Dr.Z]

Originally Posted by O-Town Hockey

....Ottawa needs to work hard to keep the current urban boundaries and prevent further sprawlification....

The Provincial Policy Statement and the Planning Act do not permit this to happen; to paraphrase, "if you have land and the demand for housing, thou shalt expand your boundary to accommodate."

If Council says no thank you, the OMB steps in, looks at the above law and says, "Yes you shall," and rewrites your documents for you.

[reidjr]

Originally Posted by Dr.Z

The Provincial Policy Statement and the Planning Act do not permit this to happen; to paraphrase, "if you have land and the demand for housing, thou shalt expand your boundary to accommodate."

If Council says no thank you, the OMB steps in, looks at the above law and says, "Yes you shall," and rewrites your documents for you.

They could boot the omb out.

[amanfromnowhere]

Centretown praised as example of 'new urbanism'
Friday, 17 February 2012
By Nikki Gladstone

Published in : Centretown News, News

Lauren Mitsuki, Centretown News


The Corktown Footbridge in Centretown has been praised as a leading example of new urbanism.

Centretown residents hoping to maintain the traditional character of their streets have attracted some high-profile support after Peter Katz, a leading American urban planner, extolled the merits of the “new urbanism” movement in a recent Ottawa lecture.

The concept of new urbanism – a neighbourhood-based, pedestrian-friendly, accessible community centered on public transit – has been touted by Katz and others as a back-to-the-future solution to problems facing many North American cities.

Katz, currently the planning chief for Arlington County, Virginia, is also an author and one of the founding proponents of new urbanism, a design movement that first arose in the 1980s. The concept intertwines the traditional concept of community-style living with walkability, bike lanes, and access to transit systems.

He said the new urbanism approach to city planning not only has less environmental impact than suburban sprawl, but is also more economically sustainable.

“I was lucky 15 or 20 years into my love affair with great urbanism, to find an incredibly powerful financial support for it,” he said.

Katz’s lecture, held at city hall on Feb. 9, focused on the benefits building new downtown residential buildings out of wood, rather than cement, and at heights of no more than seven storeys.

New urban developers do not look favourably on Ottawa suburbs, with cookie-cutter home designs, big-box “power centres” and neighbourhoods located lengthy commutes away from most residents’ jobs.

If Ottawa did end up deciding to move more towards the new urban concept of design, Centretown would be ahead of the curve, says Nelson Edwards, a founding member of Ottawa-based Urban Forum, sponsor of Katz’s lecture.

With its older homes, close-knit streets, bike paths, parks and squares, and greater levels of community engagement, Centretown is at the forefront of the financially stable, community-based new urban Ottawa design.

But Katz didn’t only touch on finance. In fact, he said, to make every decision based on dollars would be a mistake.

“For every tall building you need a diversity of other buildings, some of which may not pay their way, but society decides they’re important,” he said.

For Centretown, where community leaders are frequently involved in defending the neighbourhood from oversized condominium developments, Katz’s proposed bolstering zoning laws with “form-based” building codes that require new projects to further adhere to community-friendly scales and styles.

For Katz, this kind of regulation “promotes harmony (on streets) and with the neighbours.”

The lecture was part of an Urban Forum series that began in 1997 as an opportunity for professional associations involved in the design and planning of communities to come together and share ideas.

Edwards says there are essential aspects of Centretown that new urbanism communities should have. He adds that many older communities built before the Second World War have many values intrinsic in their make-up that new urbanism celebrates.

“For Centretown,” he says, “it reaffirms the qualities and characteristics we should cherish and protect, but it also helps us realize the new qualities that we should capture in our new communities.”

http://www.centretownnews.ca/index.p...2969&Itemid=94

[amanfromnowhere]

Most downtown development projects involve zoning changes
Friday, 17 February 2012
By Paul Clarke
Published in : Centretown News, News

City officials have disclosed information that reveals a large discrepancy between the percentage of approved rezoning amendments in Centretown compared with the rest of the city.

Richard Kilstrom, city manager for development and urban design, says 70 per cent, or seven of 10 site-plan applications in Centretown approved by city council in 2011 involved rezoning amendments.

A site-plan application is a development proposal that includes all of the features planned for the property. In some circumstances, it can trigger a review process if the plan requires changing a property’s land use or the construction of a building.

In contrast to the Centretown applications, only 11 per cent, or 27 of 241 site-plan applications across the rest of the city, included rezoning changes.

Despite the discrepancy, city officials argue the statistics don’t tell the full story.

“The reality is we have a lot of legacy-zoning that was put in place when the planning objectives for the city were completely different,” says Alain Miguelez, city manager for development and review for inner urban areas, in reference to the 1960s when the city encouraged urban sprawl.

To put it into context, five of the applications approved in Centretown allowed developers to build higher than the current zoning bylaw, says Miguelez.

City officials and Coun. Peter Hume, chair of the planning committee, say the statistics underscore the need to update Centretown’s zoning bylaws and to approve the new community design plan.

This would create a coherent planning strategy that reflects the city’s priority to increase urban density, they say.

“The issue is about whether our zoning bylaws meet what everyone would consider to be the modern realities of development in Ottawa,” says Hume.

“The new community design plans provide a lot more certainty for everyone and a clearer interpretation of what is expected.”

A community design plan translates the principles and policies of the city’s official plan to the community level.

It is created by the city through public consultation with residents, landowners and local businesses and is the backbone of any significant change in a community, according to the City of Ottawa's website.

In a recent example of an outdated zoning bylaw, city council approved the development of a 23-storey condominium tower at 203 Catherine St., despite the fact the current zoning bylaw allows seven-storey buildings.

In defense of its decision, council pointed to the new community design plan as justification that the current zoning bylaws along the Catherine Street corridor are out of touch with what the community wants.

Support for a comprehensive and up-to-date planning strategy is widespread among residents, as the Centretown Citizens Community Association and the Dalhousie Community Association are both in favour of the new community design plan.

“We know intensification is the aim of the city and understand developers often push the city to see what they can get, which is why we are updating the community design plan to make sure the city gets the intensification it wants while respecting the needs and assets that are important to the community,” says Robert Dekker, vice-president of the CCCA.

Eric Darwin, president of the Dalhousie Community Association, goes a step further.

He describes some of the zoning bylaws as backward policies, while emphasizing the need for a coherent planning strategy to get everyone on the same page.

“Buildings should be judged on their merit and not on whether they have the right to build it,” he says.

http://www.centretownnews.ca/index.p...2983&Itemid=94

[Uhuniau]

I fail to see how a 150-year-old neighbourhood is an example of "new urbanism".

Someone seems to think that term means something it does not.

[S-Man]

I like the name 'Dekker'.

On topic: two pointless news articles.

[kevinbottawa]

Here's a planning article from the Citizen.

The eerie uniformity of a planned city

Ottawa should never be like Paris, but we can learn a lot from how the French capital was developed, writes Elizabeth Payne

By Elizabeth Payne, Ottawa Citizen March 22, 2012


I expected many things during my recent trip to Paris, but I didn't expect this: To be reminded of Ottawa.

Before you snort - no, Ottawa is no Paris, even if MoneySense magazine thinks that this is a pretty nice place to live - let me explain.

It wasn't the invigorating Vélib cycle along the Seine that made me think of Ottawa. Although that is not such a stretch. We have followed Paris's example and installed some Bixi bike stations around Ottawa recently, after all. And the happy crowds biking on the roadway closed to motorized vehicles on Sundays could have been doing the same thing along the Rideau Canal. Without the view of the Eiffel Tower. And, OK, maybe they were better dressed.

But what made me think of Ottawa is the strong arm of central planning that is evident everywhere along the beautiful streets and wide boulevards of modern Paris. There are lessons to be learned by a city like Ottawa in which we agonize over planning decisions - as Queen's University professor David Gordon discussed in a speech at the Urban Forum Wednesday.

Paris is a beautiful city, of course. But it looks the way it does largely because of a fairly brutal and exacting course of demolishing and rebuilding done under the eye of Napoléon III by his urban planner Baron Georges-Eugène Haussmann that left virtual-ly no stone, or medieval neighbourhood, unturned. It was an authoritarian style of central planning that created an eerily uniform perfection, something modern democracies would have little stomach for, no matter how precious the results. And our cities might be better for it - even Ottawa, in which the confluence of the national capital and the city creates such a fraught climate for urban development.

Ottawa had its own experiment in clearing out a neighbourhood with LeBreton Flats - and the results haven't exactly been a roaring success. Imagine flattening the entire centre of the city and then rebuilding it to exacting, if beautiful, standards. Or, perhaps, flattening an entire city and, like LeBreton Flats, dithering over what to do with it.

Paris was rebuilt to rid the city of its unhealthy, sewerless medieval neighbourhoods, in part, although, it should be noted, many cities accomplished the same without flattening them. The renovation also served a political purpose. Broad, open boulevards were harder to barricade; airy, meticulously planned and laid out neighbourhoods were harder to hide in and foment discontent.

It was controversial, especially given the mass expropriation of properties "for public interest" involved. On the order of 20,000 houses were destroyed and another 40,000 rebuilt between 1852 and 1872.

It took a single-minded vision and iron-fisted authority to accomplish the rebuilding of modern-day Paris. It now stands as a monument to the importance of beauty and what cities can be. Its ideas are brilliant, but it should not be seen as exactly a model for modern cities.

Every time a new condo tower is proposed for Ottawa, which seems to be almost weekly, someone invokes Paris and the fact that it strictly limits most buildings to around six storeys. If it's good enough for Paris, why not Ottawa, they ask.

In fact, what Ottawa can learn from Paris is that cities can affect the way people live, for the better, not that cities must be centrally planned and monolithic. In fact some of the most exciting urban planning ideas come from the ground up.

As Queen's professor Gordon points out, Ottawa has a mixed history of planning - some good, some bad, and some, in his words, ugly. Those that worked - great planning decisions according to Gordon - include the Parliament Buildings competition, the creation of Gatineau Park, leaving the ByWard Market alone and the current city hall. I would add to that list the new convention centre and, I hope, the redevelopment of Lansdowne Park.

And then there were the duds - the placement of Scotiabank Place and Barrhaven among them, in his view.

Despite the duds, Ottawa has some great pieces and that is how an increasingly good city should continue to build - not with an iron fist of central planning, but one step at a time, learning from mistakes, building on successes.

Paris? Non, but maybe that's not such a bad thing.

Elizabeth Payne is a member of the Citizen's editorial board.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/busines...#ixzz1prrQ5ZGq

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by O-Town Hockey

I agree. The damage is done in our well-established suburbs. Ottawa needs to work hard to keep the current urban boundaries and prevent further sprawlification. At least growth in CP, Kemptville etc. is not on our dime to service as they are not part of Ottawa.

By doing that, you would INCREASE development outside the City of Ottawa even further as developers would have no other place to go, and possibly even send jobs out there if the City blocks infrastructure connections as companies would not like it seeing a lot of their employees end up gridlocked...such is especially true to Rockland which still is a 2-lane road...