General Update/Rumour thread

[m0nkyman]

Especially with all the government subsidies built into the lifestyle...

[eemy]

Originally Posted by m0nkyman

/me smacks his head into the nearest brick wall.

So... instead of actually refusing to issue development permits for subdivisions outside the greenbelt, as was the original intention, they're just going to totally surrender the idea of stopping urban sprawl.

Good to see the NCC is keeping it's record of idiocy intact.

The NCC is just a landowner, so I don't see what role it plays in issuing development permits for land outside the greenbelt. As far as the city is concerned, the OMB ruled that the city's estimates for the growth that could occur within the greenbelt were unrealistic and so some developer wanting to build on some land between Stittsville and Kanata should be free to. So much for the city being able to stop it either.

What Russ Mills is proposing may not be such a bad idea. With freeing certain land along transportation corridors in the Greenbelt for development, overall transportation should also be reduced. In a sense, it allows the city to sprawl inward rather than outward. If, by all indications, the city has no choice but to free up that land, it might as well be closer to the core than on the periphery.

[ajldub]

If they do move forward with developing the greenbelt, they should finalize plans for a ring road first because this city will need it one day and it's much cheaper to plan for it when the land is still in government hands. And they should keep a large part of it for a groomed park. I know there is an equal amount of parklovers and parkhaters in Ottawa and on this board, but one thing Ottawa really lacks is a massive park like Hyde Park London, Central Park NYC, or Mont-Royal, Montreal. And though it would be away from downtown, if you were to build it the condo density would flourish around it.

And now some bananamen for everybody...

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Not that I would mind having something as awesome as Central park here in Ottawa, is it just me, or does everyone forget about little old Gatineau? It's a frickin' 5-10 minute drive from the core.

[ajldub]

Gatineau is nice but unless you live in Chelsea you can't walk to it. Plus it's a forest, not a groomed park.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by ajldub

Gatineau is nice but unless you live in Chelsea you can't walk to it. Plus it's a forest, not a groomed park.

Then the very same could be said for any park in the greenbelt; you'd have to drive to it.

Also, the NCC plans to create a "groomed park" on the current Scott Plant site in Gatineau in the future.


I hate to say it, but if Ottawa was ever going to create an urban park that people could walk to, that opportunity passed us by years ago.

[ajldub]

Well the idea would be that you'd develop the land around it for people to live in, like the condos around Central Park in New York. Plus there's lots of communities on the edges of the greenbelt that can walk to it. And I'm talking about a massive park you could lose yourself in for hours, not the little piece of land next to the museum of civilization.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Well the idea would be that you'd develop the land around it for people to live in, like the condos around Central Park in New York.

Well unfortunately, we're not New York.

Given that the areas near the greenbelt are pretty darn suburban, the NIMBY's will be out in full force against any major condo developments that will "block the sun" or "ruin the sightlines". On top of that, How do you expect to create a massive park in Ottawa, in the suburbs(which are VERY car dependent), so far away from the core and decent/frequent BRT and expect it to garner support/momentum/funding?

Instead of putting a park way out in farmer's fields country, why not stick it on a parcel of land in the urban area that is served very well by transit? The Agriculture Farm.

Kick the farm out into the greenbelt/boonies, and develop most of the park into a huge park and develop all around it.

[ajldub]

I am well aware that we're not New York. I'm suggesting we build a park modelled on Central Park in that city, that's all.

Move the farm and turn that property into a park? Buy up the properties around it and develop them instead? Sounds feasible. While we're at it, how about we disassemble the parliament buildings too, then rebuild them stone by stone on the EB Eddy site so we can put condos on parliament hill instead?

What I guess you didn't read in my original post was the idea that if you build a really classy park it will spur development around it. Both Hyde Park in London and Central Park in New York were surrounded by farmer's fields when they were planned, and the developers snatched up the opportunity to build around them. And there's enough space in the thick of the greenbelt to build without casting shadows on the NIMBYS.

And if you don't believe large-scale developments in the suburbs that shift the gravity of a city can be built in this country, check out this website: www.downtownmarkham.ca. Or for that matter, just check out Kanata.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Move the farm and turn that property into a park? Buy up the properties around it and develop them instead? Sounds feasible. While we're at it, how about we disassemble the parliament buildings too, then rebuild them stone by stone on the EB Eddy site so we can put condos on parliament hill instead?

har har.

If you would kindly dispense with the sarcasm, you would see that we already have the Arboreteum and gardens in the area; all we need to do is expand on them.

Keep the buildings(since most of them are old and nice and shouldn't be destroyed), develop large portions of the farm fields, and let the rest be sold off to develop condos.

It's feasible, especially with the proposed transitway extension onto Baseline. At the north end of the park you'd have the 85 and the O-Train and at the south end you'd have a shiny new part of the transitway.

What I guess you didn't read in my original post was the idea that if you build a really classy park it will spur development around it.

Oh no, I read that just fine. But when you look at Ottawa, large, classy park in Suburbia doesn't really jump to mind...

Both Hyde Park in London and Central Park in New York were surrounded by farmer's fields when they were planned, and the developers snatched up the opportunity to build around them.

Yeah, and the same could happen if we try to convert the Agriculture Farm into a classy park. There are a tonne of "farmers fields" that could be bought up and spur development.

And there's enough space in the thick of the greenbelt to build without casting shadows on the NIMBYS.

Perhaps, but it would still be a pretty rough sell. Especially if council ever got hold of it. You also forget that NIMBY's will be there and complain, whether or not it affects them...

And if you don't believe large-scale developments in the suburbs that shift the gravity of a city can be built in this country, check out this website: www.downtownmarkham.ca. Or for that matter, just check out Kanata.

I never said it wasn't possible.

And I've been to Kanata many times. Three Claridge Condo Towers, a big-box shopping centre, Scotiabank Place, tonnes of golf courses, a Business Park and crescent after crescent of houses that look so delightfully similar. Oh, and let's not forget about the lovely transit connections out there.



While a massive park would be great, putting it out in the burbs to serve only a handful of people in communities that could walk to it seems to go against the mission to fight urban sprawl.

Shoddy transit connections to the park would also suck terribly.

And developing a new community full of condos/whatever in the burbs is still urban sprawl. Hopefully it could help make the burbs more self-sufficient and thus reduce auto emissions spent driving into town each day, but we'd need to see some proof of this.

I honestly believe that we should focus on trying to find development opportunities within the core, instead of looking to suburbia for the ansawers.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

P.S. That Markham Master Plan project is really interesting. If only Ottawa could think up something like that for Victoria Island/Bayview Yards/LeBreton Flats; Lord knows we have the room for such a project.

[expat-ottawan]

That development on Gilmour is just what Centretown needs. People, living between pedestrian shopping streets, within walking distance of the cbd. Nine storeys is too much for Gilmour and Metcalfe? Presumably, to avoid the urban blight that Wellington West as become. You'd think at some point, the parking lots would become dreary. Not yet. Sad. It could be such a good, livable and, horrors, vibrant place.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Well, the self-proclaimed Queen of Centretown, Diane Holmes, won't allow it because it is "too tall".

What bull.

Overall, I don't mind Holmes since she ahs a pretty good track record as far as I can tell, but when she does stuff like this, it pisses me off.

[waterloowarrior]

a few notes about 330 Gilmour:
- it is an Ashcroft Homes development under the Alavida Lifestyles banner, called (the) "Carillon"
-an excerpt from the report

Staff reviewed the project within the context of the Guidelines contained within the "Centretown Heritage Conservation District", the Provincial Policy Statement, the Cultural Heritage Impact Statement and the Official Plan policies regarding development adjacent to designated heritage resources. As presented, the building does not meet the Guidelines as it is not designed with the recommended three to four story heights for new construction in the District. It does not have regard for the heritage character of the area as described in the Centretown District, and the proposed project has not has not demonstrated that it conserves the cultural heritage value of adjacent properties. Based on these reasons, the Department does not support the proposed development.

Staff are currently completing a report dealing with the re-zoning of the property that does not support the nine-storey height but would allow seven storeys on the site. A Site Plan for the proposal is also being considered. The project is subject to design review under the "Downtown Ottawa Urban Design Strategy." The project has been reviewed and extracts from the Review Panel's comments are included as Document 6.

[m0nkyman]

And from Document 6:

* At nine stories tall this building is at the high end of the 5-9 storey medium profile range and immediately adjacent to a low profile heritage area to the south. Reference has been made to the transition in building height to the adjacent properties. This is not so, and is very evident when referring to the streetscape elevations. Losing density (height) at the ends would allow for a step down to the OBE and the Church. Failing that, altering the brick/stone ratio to glass could achieve visually some of this. This is not as effective as reduced height and therefore a view to the sky.

Emphasis mine.
Is Ashcroft Homes a smart enough developer to take the hint?

[ajldub]

I'm confident that 330 Gilmour will get built. This is just the first step in the dance. One says 9, the other says 5, they agree on 7 and both secretly get what they want while saving face.

What ever happened to that building that was proposed for rideau street across from the hospital that was converted to condos? I remember a pic up on this website, but haven't heard anything since. That area could use a little new growth...

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by ajldub

What ever happened to that building that was proposed for rideau street across from the hospital that was converted to condos? I remember a pic up on this website, but haven't heard anything since. That area could use a little new growth...

I think you are talking about 594 Rideau (Rideau and Charlotte)... it was recommended for approval by P&E Committee but refused by council. It's at the OMB right now.

[Mille Sabords]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

P.S. That Markham Master Plan project is really interesting. If only Ottawa could think up something like that for Victoria Island/Bayview Yards/LeBreton Flats; Lord knows we have the room for such a project.

You got it. New Urbanism isn't just for the burbs (although it's the only way to build if we ARE going to build on greenfields). It should be the norm in the urbanized parts of the city, instead of the suburban garbage with garages in front we keep getting time after time. I don't know how the city even allows such insults to its established neighbourhoods.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

So sad and yet so true.

There have been some fairly good examples of Urban infill that fits in with the area nicely and there aren't garages that dominate the fronting of the development.

Just look at those fairly new townhomes near the Bay and Gloucester area. There are also some pretty decent ones on Percy as well.

[ajldub]

Thanks for the update, waterloo warrior... that's one I'd really like to see get built. Guess we'll have to wait until March.