Escarpment Area District Plan

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by cityguy

Not bad,but a little sterile.

Well it's only just a proposal. We'll have to wait and see what exactly goes up there.

[AuxTown]

An interesting article from the Centretown News:

Huge project transforms escarpment area

By Jessa Runciman


After two years of preparation, the Escarpment Area District Plan was presented at a city planning and environment committee meeting last week to unanimous approval.

The community development strategy proposes an extensive urban facelift in the area surrounding the north end of Bronson Avenue, including new stretches of green space, redevelopment of existing Ottawa Technical High School property, low- and high-rise residential buildings and eventually forging a connection with the city’s planned light rail transit system.

“Some of the elements of this plan I think are truly exciting,” said Coun. Peter Hume, the committee’s chair.

“There are lots of great opportunities to make that gateway much better than it is today, because it certainly isn’t an inviting entrance to our downtown core.”

The plan is intended to implement a key component of the Downtown Ottawa Urban Design Strategy, an award-winning visionary document completed in 2004 by city planners to enhance the quality of urban experience in the Capital by providing a guide for downtown design.

The escarpment strategy aims to generate a diverse and attractive Centretown community, bridging the gap between the downtown core and the LeBreton flats development taking shape farther west.

Landscape architect George Dark has been appointed by the city as the plan’s chief designer. He acknowledged the challenge of such a large undertaking, but noted that things are off to a good start.

“It’s big and it’s complicated and it takes a lot of time,” Dark said. “But having a clear plan that’s endorsed by [the planning committee] is a great departure point. I’m thrilled it went through this well.”

The proposal’s initial popularity is due in part to input from escarpment area residents themselves, who participated in a consultation process of workshops and informal discussions to determine the expectations of stakeholders.

Many of the residents attended the committee meeting to show support for the plan, and to stress the importance of preserving heritage and ensuring accessibility to transit within the congested neighbourhood.

Members of the Nanny Goat Hill Garden co-operative in particular were enthusiastic about the formalizing of their community garden as a central part of the plan’s proposed park landscape.

“I sincerely thank the committee for its openness to consider this issue as a priority,” said Rosemary Taylor, the garden’s caretaker. “Carrying forward the intention to maintain this key green area as livable space for the area and its residents is crucial.”

Coun. Diane Holmes was presented with fresh produce by patrons of the garden in appreciation of her active support for the project. She was pleased with the planning committee’s motion of approval, but reminded members of the 25-year-long road ahead if the sweeping redevelopment plan is given the go-ahead by city council.

“It’s a very inspiring study and it will be quite a challenge for us to…make sure that this study is the vision we try and implement over the many years it will take to bring this to fruition,” said Holmes. “It’s a very good start.”

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

How come it does not show the LRT or the tunnel portal into the escarpment?

The assumption made during the concept design is that the LRT will be buried from Booth east. You can see the start of the tunnel on the west of Booth in some of the drawings.

Interestingly, the sewer system for the area is predominantly a combined sanitary/storm system. Adding the new development will exceed the capacity of the existing system. During the cancelled N-S LRT project the sewer systems of Albert and Slater were to be re-built as separate sanitary and storm systems. This would have provided the required capacity for the Escarpment Development. Now what will happen? I expect that the roads will need to be torn up for the sewers under a different budget.

[waterloowarrior]

looks like the school board may be selling the Technical HS site soon if this proposal goes through
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Ot...105/story.html

[Ottawan]

Kudos to waterloowarrior for finding the old thread to bring forward on a story like this rather than simply posting a new thread. SSP is great for providing the history behind projects and issues as they are debated from the very beginning to completion. By bringing threads forward, we enhance that.

Kudos to the City of Ottawa for keeping their reports online for years. If you go to the first post in the thread, those documents are still online at the links provided.

[Ottawan]

I may be wrong, but I believe that I heard somewhere that municipalities have the right of first refusal to purchase school properties before they are put on the full market.

Either way, I'd like to see the City of Ottawa purchase a portion of the site for a new Main Branch of the Ottawa Public Library.

[MountainView]

Great idea for a new main branch of the public library! And then build some condos on top of it to help fund the new branch and perhaps there would still be room to have a park? Although there is a basketball court / dog park direct adjacent to the site now.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by MountainView

Great idea for a new main branch of the public library! And then build some condos on top of it to help fund the new branch and perhaps there would still be room to have a park? Although there is a basketball court / dog park direct adjacent to the site now.

Why a park? WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY?

[kevinbottawa]

I just went through the escarpment plan documents on the city's website. I have mixed emotions. The plans for the high school site are good but the South Lebreton part seems to be completely overrun by greenspace; there has to be a balance. It looks like they parked those buildings in the middle of a park; it doesn't look like an urban village. The plans for the athletes village for the 2015 Pan An Games in Toronto strikes a better balance between development and greenspace in my opinion.

[MountainView]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Why a park? WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY?

Because there is currently that large-ish (wasted albeit) greenspace there now which could be built up by an office tower/condo. And therefore the people in the apartments and condos across the street will cry because their view of the sun will be blocked - and because this is Ottawa. If it wasn't Ottawa, to hell with the park!

[c_speed3108]

Originally Posted by Ottawan

I may be wrong, but I believe that I heard somewhere that municipalities have the right of first refusal to purchase school properties before they are put on the full market.

Either way, I'd like to see the City of Ottawa purchase a portion of the site for a new Main Branch of the Ottawa Public Library.

Here is the list of bodies that get first crack at purchase:

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/reg...s_980444_e.htm

3. (1) An English-language public district school board shall issue a proposal to sell, lease or otherwise dispose of the real property to each of the following bodies on the same day:

1. The French-language public district school board the area of jurisdiction of which includes the property.

2. The English-language separate district school board or Roman Catholic school authority the area of jurisdiction of which includes the property.

3. The French-language separate district school board the area of jurisdiction of which includes the property.

4. The board of a Protestant separate school the area of jurisdiction of which includes the property.

5. The English language college, within the meaning of Regulation 771 of the Revised Regulations of Ontario, 1990 as that regulation read immediately before it was revoked by Ontario Regulation 36/03, for the area in which the property is located.

6. The college known as Collège d’arts appliqués et de technologie La Cité collégiale, if the property is located in the geographic area of,

i. the Frontenac Management Board, as set out in paragraph 3.3 (b) of an Order made under section 25.2 of the Municipal Act on January 7, 1997 and published in The Ontario Gazette dated February 15, 1997,

ii. the upper-tier municipalities of Renfrew; Lanark; Prescott and Russell; Leeds and Grenville; or Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, or

iii. the local municipality of Ottawa.

6.1 The college known as Collège Boréal d’arts appliqués et de technologie, if the property is located anywhere other than in the geographic areas listed in subparagraphs 6 i, ii and iii.

7. The university named in the Schedule the head office of which is nearest to the property.

8. The Crown in right of Ontario.

9. The municipality in which the property is located.

10. If the property is located in an upper-tier municipality, that upper-tier municipality.

11. If the property is located in the geographical area within which a local services board may exercise its jurisdiction, the local services board.

12. The Crown in right of Canada. O. Reg. 444/98, s. 3 (1); O. Reg. 303/03, s. 2 (1); O. Reg. 146/04, s. 2 (1, 2); O. Reg. 415/05, s. 1 (1); O. Reg. 290/08, s. 2 (1).

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Why a park? WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY?

Because there aren't many parks or sports fields in Centretown.

[eternallyme]

4, 6.1, 10 and 11 do not apply in Ottawa.

If none of those groups want it, the order afterward should be:

13) Any educational authority, for the use as an independent school

14) Any religious institution, for the use as a religious academy

15) Any other university that currently exists within 100 km of the site in the Province of Ontario

16) Any public authority, such as a Public Library

17) Any other quasi-governmental authority, such as the National Capital Commission

18) Private developers for general purpose

[c_speed3108]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

4, 6.1, 10 and 11 do not apply in Ottawa.

If none of those groups want it, the order afterward should be:

13) Any educational authority, for the use as an independent school

14) Any religious institution, for the use as a religious academy

15) Any other university that currently exists within 100 km of the site in the Province of Ontario

16) Any public authority, such as a Public Library

17) Any other quasi-governmental authority, such as the National Capital Commission

18) Private developers for general purpose

Disposition to Others after Proposal Process

12. (1) If a board does not receive an offer from a body to which a proposal is issued or referred under section 3 or 4 before the expiration of the 90-day period referred to in subsection 10 (1) that complies with section 7 or 8, as the case may be, the board may, subject to subsections (2) and (3), sell, lease or otherwise dispose of the property at fair market value to any other body or to any person. O. Reg. 444/98, s. 12 (1); O. Reg. 415/05, s. 7 (1).

(2) If the proposal referred to in subsection (1) is only for the lease of property, the board that issued the proposal may, under subsection (1), lease but not sell or otherwise dispose of the property, and the lease shall be for the term specified in the proposal. O. Reg. 444/98, s. 12 (2).

(3) A board shall not sell, lease or otherwise dispose of property under subsection (1) unless it provides written evidence satisfactory to the Minister that,

(a) it first issued a proposal of the sale or lease of the property to each body to which a proposal must be issued under section 3 or 4, as the case may be; and

(b) no offer was received by the board from a body to which the proposal was issued or referred under section 3 or 4 before the expiration of the 90-day period referred to in subsection 10 (1) that complies with section 7 or 8 as the case may be. O. Reg. 444/98, s. 12 (3); O. Reg. 415/05, s. 7 (2).

(4) For the purposes of subsections (1) and (3), the reference to compliance with section 7 or 8 means as determined under subsections 10 (3) and (4) if those provisions were applied in the case of the offer. O. Reg. 444/98, s. 12 (4); O. Reg. 415/05, s. 7 (3).

[McKellarDweller]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

looks like the school board may be selling the Technical HS site soon if this proposal goes through
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Ot...105/story.html

Thanks for posting this! I missed it this morning. This gives me extra hope for Broadview Avenue Public, of concern to me.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by kevinbottawa

I just went through the escarpment plan documents on the city's website. I have mixed emotions. The plans for the high school site are good but the South Lebreton part seems to be completely overrun by greenspace; there has to be a balance. It looks like they parked those buildings in the middle of a park; it doesn't look like an urban village. The plans for the athletes village for the 2015 Pan An Games in Toronto strikes a better balance between development and greenspace in my opinion.

A lot of that is related to topography, though. It's not too surprising that the various cliffs and embankments (e.g. above the aqueduct east of Empress) are going to be park. The only bit that I see that could be developed and isn't is the area between Albert and Slater where the cliffs peter out - interestingly an earlier plan (see below) did propose something for this location.

But the real story here is frankly that it doesn't matter what is planned. Both the N-S LRT EA and the DOTT EA ran roughshod over the Escarpment Plan. Here, for example, is what the N-S LRT EA proposed would happen just west of Bronson:



Just look at Commissioner! It even gets a pair of its own little underpasses.

I do realize that the Escarpment Plan came out after (2008) the N-S LRT was dead and gone, but the Escarpment Plan followed on from the earlier Downtown Ottawa Urban Design Strategy, which came out in 2004 before the N-S LRT EA (2005) and showed something roughly similar for the Escarpment, but it too had been ignored in the N-S LRT EA:



There's just no way that the N-S LRT would have allowed the Escarpment district to be developed in anything like the way envisaged in the DOUDS or the later Escarpment Plan because it chopped up the parcels willy-nilly, effectively sterilizing much of the area to development. There was just no sense of any kind of need to preserve readily-developable parcels of land in the area.

The Escarpment Plan, for its part, envisaged the tunnel portal being west of Booth, but both the DOTT EA and its more recent modification place the portal well east of Booth. There's nothing per se wrong with that, but the fact is that the DOTT EA did not even acknowledge that its plan would require that the Escarpment Plan be modified. That may actually have been grounds to challenge the DOTT EA at the MoE since it failed to take into account the "environment" consisting of existing City of Ottawa plans.

The upshot today is that nothing is going to happen in the south Lebreton area now until after the tunnel is built because there is no single master plan guiding everything.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

Because there aren't many parks or sports fields in Centretown.

Seriously?

There's an absolute shitpile of parks, and it's an economic waste of land to build new sportsfields smack downtown.

What is with this town and its fixation on parks, parks, parks, parks, parks?

[S-Man]

There are plenty of parks. And that area's right near the river, whose shoreline is all park. Density is whats called for on the old high school site.

[c_speed3108]

I think there is tons of parks and parkland downtown if ones idea of a park is some place to walk their dog or a bike path.

Downtown is much weaker on things like sports fields or parks with stuff to do in them.

I think keeping _some_ of the sports field area along with the basketball sort of area might be a good idea. Another interesting idea that has been done in NYC in a few places would be to build some sort of large structure for say office space or something, but build it not too tall in area where the field presently is. You could take advantage of the cliff/retaining wall and put the sports field back on top of the structure.


This is an example on the site of the old Yankee stadium. Although it is sitting on top of parking:

http://maps.google.com/?ll=40.828042...00368&t=h&z=18

High Line elevated park is another sort of example:

http://www.thehighline.org/

Things spans blocks but it here is a starting point:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=High+l...33951&t=h&z=18

[citizen j]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Why a park? WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY?

Because everybody knows that good urban planning dictates it should be easier to find a "park" (read "vacant lot with sod") than a grocery store, a school, a cinema, a library, a bookstore, a decent restaurant, a well-designed building, or an LRT station. Grass is king.