Waterfront Development Opportunities Past, Present and Future

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by phil235

Chicago also has a massive, multi-lane pseudo-highway running along most of its waterfront. That's a bigger barrier to the waterfront than we have.

I think that you are right about getting the density closer to the water. Even if the distance is short, non-interesting blocks create a psychological barrier between the water and the city. Chicago has parks along most of the waterfront, but what it does well is allowing density right up to the parks to give more people quick access. That would work here. And anywhere we don't have big parks (Zibi, Lebreton, Bayview), we should be getting development close to the water while maintaining a decent public right of way for restaurants, squares, playgrounds etc.

Yes, if we want a lively waterfront, it needs to be attractive. So, we need it to have lots of people living and working nearby, easy access to public transit and have appealing public spaces.

We have great opportunities at Zibi and Lebreton but at the moment, much of it is barren wasteland, so it actually repels people. It is dominated by the Sir John A. MacDonald Parkway, but that can change radically with great urban design. But not all urban design is great design. Much of downtown west of Bank Street is not attractive to pedestrians. This is something the city should be studying.

We generally shouldn't be eager to eliminate our planned green spaces. It also plays an important role in a great city, for more passive uses. It is not possible or desirable to have everywhere a hive of activity. This is a lesson we need to learn from this pandemic, when so many have been seeking the outdoors during the lockdown. I know all Greenbelt locations near where I live have been well used during the lock down. If all of that had remained or returned to private hands, where would people have gone? I suspect Ottawa's abundance of greenspace has allowed this city to handle the pandemic better than Toronto or Montreal.

[eltodesukane]

This could be part of an extended waterfront park along Rideau river, but more buildings will go there. (a missed opportunity)
https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=245845

[J.OT13]

Vancouver, but it could relevant for Ottawa-Gatineau.

• Video Link

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Vancouver, but it could relevant for Ottawa-Gatineau.

• Video Link

Very relevant, I would say. Thanks for sharing.

Ottawa's riverfronts are Vancouver seawall 2.0 or even 3.0 given the length of them and how they are designed as parks and multi-use paths far beyond the seawall. The best we can do is re-imagine the riverfront at Zibi and Lebreton if we want a more urban, lively environment. We can make improvements elsewhere, but we need to focus on this location in particular.

[Harley613]

One video that encapsulates my life-long opinion about the general shitiness of our own waterfront. Brilliant.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The best we can do is re-imagine the riverfront at Zibi and Lebreton if we want a more urban, lively environment. We can make improvements elsewhere, but we need to focus on this location in particular.

That is clearly our best chance to get something more vibrant. Infinitely harder to do it in existing parks, so it really has to happen at Zibi if we have any chance of a decent stretch of vibrant waterfront. Maybe continue it when Scott paper moves out in 75 years or whatever.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Harley613

One video that encapsulates my life-long opinion about the general shitiness of our own waterfront. Brilliant.

At least it isn't all private property. The squalor that preceded the parks and parkways was even worse.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by phil235

That is clearly our best chance to get something more vibrant. Infinitely harder to do it in existing parks, so it really has to happen at Zibi if we have any chance of a decent stretch of vibrant waterfront. Maybe continue it when Scott paper moves out in 75 years or whatever.

Surely we are quickly approaching the point when that site is worth more as developable land than the paper products factory is no? It must be worth in the hundreds of millions assuming a decent amount of density would be approved and clean up isn't too onerous.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Surely we are quickly approaching the point when that site is worth more as developable land than the paper products factory is no? It must be worth in the hundreds of millions assuming a decent amount of density would be approved and clean up isn't too onerous.

It is owned by the NCC, leased to Kruger until 2053.

[J.OT13]

The interesting thing is, our use of waterfront property is worse than Vancouver's. They have properly separated cycling and walking paths, adjacent to parks and/or development, for the most part. We have MUPs next to 2 to 8 lanes of traffic.

On the Kruger plant, I'm not too concerned about it. Our pathway system remains intact, even with the plant. It's not useful in the heating of Zibi. I don't feel like it's that noticeable. And it's nice to have some products produced here instead of shipped from hundreds or thousands of kilometers away.

[YukonLlama]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

The interesting thing is, our use of waterfront property is worse than Vancouver's. They have properly separated cycling and walking paths, adjacent to parks and/or development, for the most part. We have MUPs next to 2 to 8 lanes of traffic.

Watched this the other day and I agree with you. I really enjoyed biking and wandering around Vancouver's waterfront. While his criticisms were fair, I still felt there was a decent amount of amenities around the paths. Plus, Vancouver being Vancouver, loads of families, singles and elderly people were making use of it in their own ways. It's not the best design, but at least it's still used by the community.

Beyond the Parliament Area, I rarely see people use the Waterfront path in Ottawa, but there's a reason for that: it was specifically built for leisurely car rides into the city over actual substance. I'm all for protecting wild life and such, but there are ways to repurpose park areas with people and animals in mind. We have so many interesting natural features in this city, we might as well make use out of it.

[Uhuniau]

You'll see a lot of familiar themes coming up on this feedback board for the SGEC consultation that the NCC just did:

https://www.placespeak.com/en/topic/...lan/#/place-it

[J.OT13]

The Transport Ministry has been working hard to try and get the ok to demolish these ruins because of "safety issues". Meanwhile, no rush on the A50 where people are killed every year. All they added was a short fence where people can feel safe for two minutes, and widening bit by bit.

La valeur des ruines des rapides Deschênes sera réévaluée par le ministère de la Culture

Mathieu Bélanger, 8 mai 2023
LeDroit



Le ministère des Transports du Québec (MTQ) devra pour un temps lever le pied sur sa volonté de démolir les ruines des rapides Deschênes. Le Droit a appris que le ministre responsable de l’Outaouais et ministre de la Culture et des Communications, Mathieu Lacombe, vient de demander à son ministère de déclencher une nouvelle analyse de la valeur patrimoniale des vestiges de la première centrale hydroélectrique de la région.

Quelques heures plus tôt, la conseillère municipale d’Action Gatineau, Caroline Murray, faisait savoir qu’elle lançait une pétition devant être déposée à l’Assemblée nationale d’ici la fin de la session parlementaire par le député libéral de Pontiac, André Fortin.

«Je pense que c’est normal pour moi aujourd’hui, alors que la communauté se manifeste une fois de plus en mettant sur pied une pétition, de me tourner vers l’équipe de mon ministère pour qu’une réévaluation de la valeur des ruines soit faite, a indiqué le ministre Lacombe. On peut conclure que la mobilisation citoyenne y est pour quelque chose.»

La dernière évaluation patrimoniale faite par le ministère de la Culture du Québec était arrivée à la conclusion que les ruines des rapides Deschênes n’avaient pas suffisamment de valeur pour être citées par le gouvernement du Québec. Or, les critères d’analyse ont changé depuis. Une nouvelle façon d’évaluer la valeur patrimoniale des immeubles est en vigueur depuis ce printemps au Québec.

«Je demande à mon ministère de refaire l’évaluation en tenant compte des nouveaux critères et quand on aura les conclusions on sera davantage en mesure de se positionner comme équipe gouvernementale sur la suite des choses pour les ruines, a indiqué M. Lacombe. Dans l’intervalle, ça veut dire que pendant qu’on procède à cette réévaluation du site, le ministre des Transports ne pourra pas aller de l’avant avec la démolition. Je peux l’assurer. Au terme de l’évaluation, si le ministère de la Culture arrive à la conclusion que les éléments patrimoniaux sont suffisants pour que le gouvernement classe les ruines, elles ne pourront plus être démolies. Je ne sais pas quelle sera la conclusion, mais on va refaire l’analyse de manière rigoureuse et transparente.»

Gatineau invitée à revoir sa position

Caroline Murray milite comme plusieurs des citoyens de son quartier pour la préservation des ruines des rapides Deschênes depuis son arrivée en politique municipale. Elle a tenté, il y a un an, de faire adopter une résolution par le conseil municipal demandant au gouvernement du Québec de ne pas démolir ces vestiges. Une majorité du conseil, dont la mairesse France Bélisle, s’est opposée à cette résolution, par crainte de «se mettre un bras dans le tordeur» pour une infrastructure qui ne lui appartient pas. La mairesse avait alors évoqué la possibilité de faire du lieu un site symboliquement historique, mais sans s’opposer à ce que le MTQ retire les ruines de la rivière.

Le lancement des appels d’offres pour préparer la démolition des ruines par le ministère, il y a deux semaines, a relancé ce débat. Une demande formulée pour une rencontre avec la mairesse est cependant demeurée lettre morte, précise la conseillère.

«Il n’y a pas de résolution claire du conseil, mais moi je suis élue pour représenter mes citoyens et l’association des résidents de mon quartier, explique-t-elle. C’est une demande phare qu’ils ont depuis longtemps. Je crois que ces ruines sont essentielles pour l’histoire de Deschênes. Ne pas les préserver serait une grave erreur. Je m’attends à ce que la mairesse nous supporte et j’espère que cette pétition recevra l’appui de tous mes collègues au conseil municipal.»

Le député de Pontiac n’a pas hésité à parrainer la pétition qui est actuellement hébergée sur le site de l’Assemblée nationale. Il se désole que la décision du MTQ de démolir les ruines ne tienne pas compte des demandes répétées de la communauté. ll y a deux semaines, le cabinet de la mairesse Bélisle rappelait au Droit que le site des rapides Deschênes était considéré comme «très dangereux» par le MTQ. L’excuse de la dangerosité des lieux n’est pas suffisant aux yeux du député de Pontiac pour démolir les vestiges.

«Des risques sur nos cours d’eau, il y en a partout, insiste-t-il. On réussit toutefois à protéger les gens, à les avertir du danger, à sécuriser les lieux. Actuellement, le site des ruines des rapides Deschênes est très mal sécurisé. Avant d’arriver avec la solution extrême de la démolition, il y a beaucoup d’éléments qui pourraient être mis en place pour sécuriser l’endroit.»

M. Fortin invite aussi le conseil municipal à reconsidérer sa position dans le dossier. «Chaque fois que quelqu’un prend le temps de bien regarder ce dossier à fond, il comprend rapidement l’importance de la préservation de ce site de notre patrimoine, a-t-il dit. Ce serait bien que la Ville de Gatineau prenne une position claire. Je m’attends aussi à une position du ministre de la Culture. On ne peut pas laisser la préservation de notre patrimoine entre les mains de gens au ministère des Transports.»

https://www.ledroit.com/actualites/a...IXYGOIEHIGUEY/

[J.OT13]

Long story short, City needs to decide if the expropriate the residents and businesses within the flood zone or build ridiculously expensive dykes and levees to protect the few hundred (466) properties.

I think it would be best to expropriate and re-naturalize the areas effected. Spending what would likely be billions on flood mitigation would be a temporary solution. Those mitigations would likely need to be bonified overtime as climate change progresses and require maintenance and repairs. Flood protection for Pointe-Gatineau, Boulevard Hurtubise and other areas could consequentially cause more/new flooding elsewhere, while denaturalizing could reduce flooding across the region.

Inondations : de grands bouleversements à l’horizon pour Gatineau
Par Mathieu Bélanger, Le Droit
20 mars 2024 à 04h00

Des années de grands bouleversements attendent les secteurs de Gatineau les plus sévèrement touchés par les inondations de 2017 et 2019. Le risque de revivre la même chose, voire pire dans les prochaines années, est qualifié d’«intolérable» dans quatre zones riveraines de la ville où «le statut quo ne peut pas être envisagé», stipule un important rapport confidentiel d’experts dont Le Droit a obtenu copie.

https://www.ledroit.com/actualites/a...KOT6RABIGJMUQ/

[Mille Sabords]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Long story short, City needs to decide if the expropriate the residents and businesses within the flood zone or build ridiculously expensive dykes and levees to protect the few hundred (466) properties.

I think it would be best to expropriate and re-naturalize the areas effected. Spending what would likely be billions on flood mitigation would be a temporary solution. Those mitigations would likely need to be bonified overtime as climate change progresses and require maintenance and repairs. Flood protection for Pointe-Gatineau, Boulevard Hurtubise and other areas could consequentially cause more/new flooding elsewhere, while denaturalizing could reduce flooding across the region.

https://www.ledroit.com/actualites/a...KOT6RABIGJMUQ/

I'm going to disagree. I think they should build dykes and retaining walls. Urban fabric is urban fabric, it has to be preserved. It can and will be densified over time. I don't see the logic in de-urbanizing areas that are already inhabited, especially when those are (1) close to the centre and (2) waterfront. If being on the waterfront can be made safer, then to me it's a no-brainer.