NCC Greenbelt

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by RTWAP

Farming is the lowest intensity industrial use ever. Farms in the city should be intensified and farms outside the urban area should be protected from encroachment.

EDIT: For example, http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ie=...10378&t=h&z=13

A lot of those fields are Agriculture Canada's. Much like the Experimental Farm, it is a vital research facility that helps keep the Capital a centre for agricultural technology, the same way the NRC has helped attract the high tech industry here.

The fact that these fields are surrounded by urban areas is actually an advantage, as it isolates conditions and avoids contamination from and to surrounding agricultural areas. As for the Experimental Farm, it has a rich history of developing wheat and Canola strains that were crucial in making the Prairies what they are now. With regards to public use, there is something magical about riding a bicycle through the farm, it's like a micro vacation. Reducing it would also make the Agriculture Museum into a pointless showcase where feed and produce would have to be trucked in. If anything, it should be a reminder of how much land it takes to feed a city.

If the Greenbelt and Experimental Farm were ever to be rethought, it should be because of some important use, not something as banal as more housing.

As an aside, there are so many "hidden" things about the Capital that Ottawans fail to appreciate. For example, how many of us know that the Olympic Medals were all fabricated here with talent and skill from the local colleges? It makes one realize Ottawa is more than just politics and bureaucracy, and it's the little things we take for granted that raises it above the ordinary. Why can't we be proud of the fact that we have a farm in the middle of the city?

[RTWAP]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

A lot of those fields are Agriculture Canada's. Much like the Experimental Farm, it is a vital research facility that helps keep the Capital a centre for agricultural technology, the same way the NRC has helped attract the high tech industry here.

The fact that these fields are surrounded by urban areas is actually an advantage, as it isolates conditions and avoids contamination from and to surrounding agricultural areas. As for the Experimental Farm, it has a rich history of developing wheat and Canola strains that were crucial in making the Prairies what they are now. With regards to public use, there is something magical about riding a bicycle through the farm, it's like a micro vacation. Reducing it would also make the Agriculture Museum into a pointless showcase where feed and produce would have to be trucked in. If anything, it should be a reminder of how much land it takes to feed a city.

If the Greenbelt and Experimental Farm were ever to be rethought, it should be because of some important use, not something as banal as more housing.

As an aside, there are so many "hidden" things about the Capital that Ottawans fail to appreciate. For example, how many of us know that the Olympic Medals were all fabricated here with talent and skill from the local colleges? It makes one realize Ottawa is more than just politics and bureaucracy, and it's the little things we take for granted that raises it above the ordinary. Why can't we be proud of the fact that we have a farm in the middle of the city?

Proud? Hmmm... I always thought it was kinda cool, in a quirky way, but proud? No.

I lived on Fisher and biked and jogged through the Farm countless times. It's still not a good use of the land. I'm familiar with the history, but that doesn't mean it should remain the same forever. Things change over time. As far as I'm concerned there are really only two bad ways of managing it. Either try to deny all change, or let change happen uncontrollably. It's much better to have a vision and move in that direction. If the farm property east of Fisher were turned into a park, with the Agriculture Museum as an integral component, then it could be a real jewel for the city. One that people use and enjoy.

In the Inner City podcast that Ken Gray did with Diane Deans (September'09) she made a good point. The Greenbelt was intended to make a positive change to the environment. But it's single biggest effect right now is to promote sprawl in the areas beyond, and thereby extend the commute of a significant portion of the city population. The Greenbelt causes the release of more pollution and greenhouse gases. It's a shame.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by RTWAP

In the Inner City podcast that Ken Gray did with Diane Deans (September'09) she made a good point. The Greenbelt was intended to make a positive change to the environment. But it's single biggest effect right now is to promote sprawl in the areas beyond, and thereby extend the commute of a significant portion of the city population. The Greenbelt causes the release of more pollution and greenhouse gases. It's a shame.

THe Greenbelt does NOT cause sprawl and the release of more pollution and greenhouse gases. That's clearly caused by poor planning decisions and people's bad habit of driving everywhere. In fact, the answer to offsetting the pollution and carbon emissions could very well lie in keeping the Greenbelt green. If commuting is the problem then solve it by extending less polluting electric LRT beyond the Greenbelt, and stop widening the roads. It seems to me, attacking the Greenbelt is yet another way for Ottawa city hall to avoid admitting its responsibilities and simply blame things on the NCC's decisions.

Are the green open spaces and farms that offensive? No.
Are there plenty of ugly, rundown areas within the city that should be redeveloped? Yes.
Is there enough land for development for years if we use it wisely? Yes.

BTW, if that's the same Diane Deans who was on the news the other night referring to the LRT project as a "$2.1 billion downtown tunnel", she should get her facts right about the city she's part of running before she comments on something beyond her jurisdiction.

[RTWAP]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

THe Greenbelt does NOT cause sprawl and the release of more pollution and greenhouse gases. That's clearly caused by poor planning decisions and people's bad habit of driving everywhere. In fact, the answer to offsetting the pollution and carbon emissions could very well lie in keeping the Greenbelt green. If commuting is the problem then solve it by extending less polluting electric LRT beyond the Greenbelt, and stop widening the roads. It seems to me, attacking the Greenbelt is yet another way for Ottawa city hall to avoid admitting its responsibilities and simply blame things on the NCC's decisions.

Are the green open spaces and farms that offensive? No.
Are there plenty of ugly, rundown areas within the city that should be redeveloped? Yes.
Is there enough land for development for years if we use it wisely? Yes.

Are you saying that there is enough development land inside the greenbelt to last 10 years? If you are, do you have anything to back that up?

I'm in favour of infill and intensification, but I think that it's not the total solution to a growing population and growing demand for housing. Assuming that there is some portion of development that will occur in what is currently farm fields, why would you want that development to be at the fringes of the city when you could intensify the Greenbelt?

To be clear, I'm not suggesting they just sell the whole thing off to Ashcroft et al. But if they set very aggressive targets for intensity, and mandated a transit-oriented development then I would be in favour. I don't want Barrhaven North, and if that's the only current option then I would keep the land as it is until the situation changes.

What bothers me is people like John Baird who dismiss the idea out of hand as a complete non-starter. Protecting those suburban fields instead of rural fields seems to me to be the suburban large lot fantasy writ large.

[waterloowarrior]

Here's the agenda for the greenbelt forum
http://www.canadascapital.gc.ca/bins...-130745&lang=1

[waterloowarrior]

just a reminder for those interested, there is a National Public Forum on the Greenbelt tomorrow (Wednesday) between 7:00 p.m. to 9:15 p.m. at the National Arts Center (Panorama Room), 53 Elgin Street in Ottawa

the presentations from sessions during the day on Wednesday and Thursday in the links above will be webcasted

[waterloowarrior]

archived webcast and presentations are now available at the link two posts above

[rakerman]

this is a bit off-topic, but is there a good map that shows clearly defined boundaries of the greenbelt?

There's this NCC one which is... ok, but I'd like to be able to see it in Bing or Google Maps.

http://www.canadascapital.gc.ca/bins...-125385&lang=1

[waterloowarrior]

more greenbelt events next week
http://www.canadascapital.gc.ca/bins...tion_EN&lang=1

[waterloowarrior]

ken gray's blog has a bunch of discussion about the future of the greenbelt
http://communities.canada.com/ottawa....aspx#comments

also there's an RFP out for the review of the 1999 Plan for Canada's Capital

http://www.merx.com/English/SUPPLIER...qAumy3Qg%3d%3d

[bcmom]

and support whatever you think is the best plan. From what I have read "no development at all" folks are making their voice heard far more loudly than those who would favour limited development.
Is there not an argument to be made that the Greenbelt has driven up the price of land in the core, thus impacting the supply of affordable housing in the city?

[bcmom]

http://www.canadascapital.gc.ca/bins...-133665&lang=1

[acottawa]

I'm not sure I trust the NCC to handle development on the greenbelt. The recent experience with the federal government selling off greenspace (Central Park, Le Plateau, or even the domicile development in Bell's Corners) is more generic sprawl. I would rather they sit on it for another 20 years, maybe by then either NCC management or local developers will be adopt a more creative approach.

I'm not sure developping the greenbelt would have any effect on property prices. Whatever large developers end up with the land would release it a little bit at a time to keep prices high.

[RTWAP]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I'm not sure I trust the NCC to handle development on the greenbelt. The recent experience with the federal government selling off greenspace (Central Park, Le Plateau, or even the domicile development in Bell's Corners) is more generic sprawl. I would rather they sit on it for another 20 years, maybe by then either NCC management or local developers will be adopt a more creative approach.

I'm not sure developping the greenbelt would have any effect on property prices. Whatever large developers end up with the land would release it a little bit at a time to keep prices high.

While I support some judicious development, I agree that the NCC should not be handling it. They should either pass the land to Canada Lands Corp. or create a new entity with participation from the city and local, regional, and national planning experts to design an oversee the creation of a new dense neighbourhood built around new high-speed transit lines.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by bcmom

and support whatever you think is the best plan. From what I have read "no development at all" folks are making their voice heard far more loudly than those who would favour limited development.
Is there not an argument to be made that the Greenbelt has driven up the price of land in the core, thus impacting the supply of affordable housing in the city?

In Ottawa's case, not really since there are few restrictions on development outside the Greenbelt, and Ottawa was never really a high-cost market for homebuyers. Outside the Greenbelt, the developers should be given the onus, planning any land they want, and then subject to approval and hearings.

There are some Greenbelt areas, though, that have little value compared to development potential:

1) Southwest of Bayshore, east of Highway 416 - The only acceptable design there, IMO, is high-density residential (expansion of the Bayshore area). A pedestrian bridge across Highway 417 would be necessary.

2) Northeast Barrhaven - Combined with the new RCMP HQ, it would be a good institutional/industrial area, potentially opening the way for redevelopment elsewhere in the city. Maybe a new DND HQ?

3) Airport area - This would be a good place for amenities for air travellers to improve the airport. It would be one rapid transit station (or a 3 minute drive) away from the terminal, and would be limited to commercial amenities such as hotels and convention facilities.

4) Southeast Hunt Club - This ties into my idea for a Hunt Club transportation corridor, and also makes use of the protection for rapid transit in the expanded median. It would be north of the protected forest area. The section west of Hawthorne would be residential, and east of Hawthorne industrial.

The more environmentally sensitive Greenbelt areas, IMO, are:

1) Mer Bleue - no one in their right minds would develop that!
2) Stony Swamp
3) Green's Creek area
4) Forest area at Leitrim well south of Hunt Club
5) Hilly forest between Kanata and Bayshore

[RTWAP]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

In Ottawa's case, not really since there are few restrictions on development outside the Greenbelt, and Ottawa was never really a high-cost market for homebuyers. Outside the Greenbelt, the developers should be given the onus, planning any land they want, and then subject to approval and hearings.

There are some Greenbelt areas, though, that have little value compared to development potential:

1) Southwest of Bayshore, east of Highway 416 - The only acceptable design there, IMO, is high-density residential (expansion of the Bayshore area). A pedestrian bridge across Highway 417 would be necessary.

2) Northeast Barrhaven - Combined with the new RCMP HQ, it would be a good institutional/industrial area, potentially opening the way for redevelopment elsewhere in the city. Maybe a new DND HQ?

3) Airport area - This would be a good place for amenities for air travellers to improve the airport. It would be one rapid transit station (or a 3 minute drive) away from the terminal, and would be limited to commercial amenities such as hotels and convention facilities.

4) Southeast Hunt Club - This ties into my idea for a Hunt Club transportation corridor, and also makes use of the protection for rapid transit in the expanded median. It would be north of the protected forest area. The section west of Hawthorne would be residential, and east of Hawthorne industrial.

The more environmentally sensitive Greenbelt areas, IMO, are:

1) Mer Bleue - no one in their right minds would develop that!
2) Stony Swamp
3) Green's Creek area
4) Forest area at Leitrim well south of Hunt Club
5) Hilly forest between Kanata and Bayshore

In your development area #1, I'd add that there is plenty of unremarkable farmland between Kanata and Bayshore that should be converted to a mix of development land and natural land. Most of it is west of the 416. The escarpment (hilly forest) should be protected, and perhaps additional buffer lands and nature corridors recovered from the current adjacent agricultural lands.

The area north of Barrhaven between Cedarview and the Rideau River would make a great high-density mixed use suburb. It has the size to support a real mixture of live/work/play with critical mass for each. If that area was developed in conjunction with the future extension of rapid rail south of Hunt Club to Barrhaven then it could benefit from TOD right from the start. It would probably require re-routing the transit line west from beside Woodroffe to a more cross country route that could gain maximum TOD benefit by exposing more development land to the rapid rail benefits.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by RTWAP

In your development area #1, I'd add that there is plenty of unremarkable farmland between Kanata and Bayshore that should be converted to a mix of development land and natural land. Most of it is west of the 416. The escarpment (hilly forest) should be protected, and perhaps additional buffer lands and nature corridors recovered from the current adjacent agricultural lands.

The area north of Barrhaven between Cedarview and the Rideau River would make a great high-density mixed use suburb. It has the size to support a real mixture of live/work/play with critical mass for each. If that area was developed in conjunction with the future extension of rapid rail south of Hunt Club to Barrhaven then it could benefit from TOD right from the start. It would probably require re-routing the transit line west from beside Woodroffe to a more cross country route that could gain maximum TOD benefit by exposing more development land to the rapid rail benefits.

I disagree on the section north of Barrhaven even though it is definitely not environmentally-sensitive, that is the Agriculture Canada lands and if they want to ever give it up, they could move the Experimental Farm there (with a main visitors entrance at Fallowfield Station fo convenient transit access) while converting the existing farm to a central park.

As for other lands between Bayshore and Kanata, I thought about them and it might be workable for industrial zoning, like more Nortel campuses, but those may be going empty anyway.

[waterloowarrior]

I think all or almost of the farmland east of Woodroffe is privately farmed (leased to farmers by NCC). The farmland north of Fallowfield between Greenbank and Woodroffe was purchased by the NCC in 2000 (not including the large research complex and NRC site). I assume that Agriculture Canada still owns the land west of Greenbank.

[RTWAP]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

I disagree on the section north of Barrhaven even though it is definitely not environmentally-sensitive, that is the Agriculture Canada lands and if they want to ever give it up, they could move the Experimental Farm there (with a main visitors entrance at Fallowfield Station fo convenient transit access) while converting the existing farm to a central park.

I like the Central Park idea. I posted a fair bit in that thread.

I don't understand why you'd want to devote that much land inside the urban boundary to factory farming. If they wanted a small demonstration farm as part of a museum then sure, but I'd rather have that as an Experimental Farm retaining part of the Central Park.

Originally Posted by eternallyme

As for other lands between Bayshore and Kanata, I thought about them and it might be workable for industrial zoning, like more Nortel campuses, but those may be going empty anyway.

Why industrial? Why not mixed use? The Nortel Campus is a good start on the work component of mixed use hub. Build some highrises residential and office where some of the parking lots currently are, and build residential and retail on the adjacent lands.

[RTWAP]

I don't know if anyone else attended any of the forums. I went to Sportsplex for a bit. I asked about the justification for having agricultural land protected inside the urban boundary. I was directed to have a conversation with both an NCC staffer and someone from the Friends of the Greenbelt group (or whatever they're called). Their argument was that farms are good. As though anyone proposing development of those farmlands would do so because they think farms are bad or something.

I pointed out that I would rather have X acres of farmland inside the urban boundary, on a rapid transit line, be developed at high density instead of 2X or 3X acres of farmland outside the urban boundary. Their response was that the farmland outside the boundary was much lower quality, while the farmland that happened to be at the city limits in the 60's was much superior. I'm having trouble believing that.

They also stated that provincial rules prevent the conversion of farmland to land used for development. We know that is false. There are restrictions and hoops you need to jump through, but the city keeps growing nonetheless.