HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2008, 4:11 AM
citizen j's Avatar
citizen j citizen j is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
With all the parking lagoons both inside and outside the Greenbelt as well as former brownfields and other unused sites available, I really don't see the point of touching the Greenbelt.

The talk of using the Greenbelt is to decide between ripping up farmland further out versus ripping it up further in. Great choice. Shouldn't we be keeping it all, and using the stuff closer in for more intensive agriculture? Losing strawberry farms in the city that one can take the kids to for an afternoon would be a real loss on so many levels.

Developing tracts of the Greenbelt is basically a way of avoiding doing something that developers seem loathe to do - not creating any more parking lots and redeveloping all the ones we have.
Hear, hear.
__________________
The world is so full of a number of things
-- Robert Louis Stevenson
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2008, 4:39 AM
Dado's Avatar
Dado Dado is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mille Sabords View Post
When you put it that way it's hard to argue to the contrary. But, as good as it is, your argument rests on the premise that the industry, the city and communities are ready now to accept higher land coverage, taller buildings, higher densities and good urban form starting tomorrow morning 9 am. Which they aren't. All these people who get excited over whether a new building has 8 storeys instead of 6 are blind to the big picture. The two are related and inseparable.
Somehow - and call me crazy if you really disagree - but somehow I think there would be much greater acceptance of throwing up, say, 15 storey towers on parking lots devoid of anything else than of putting up 8 storey buildings where the locals have already agreed to 6. And land coverage? I can't really see any issue there - it's hard to increase beyond 100% after all. Redevelopment might even lead to a few trees and small gardens being planted. And good urban form? I didn't even know anyone was opposed to it. In fact, it would appear that with respect to intensification of parking lots, there isn't likely to be any community opposition to speak of. I would hope the City wouldn't be opposed, especially since the newest big box estate at Barrhaven has been laid out to "allow" it in the future (as an aside, doesn't this strike anyone as a teensy bit odd?). Anyhow, it would appear that the only group of the three that you list that would be opposed to parking lot intensification tomorrow morning at 9 am is ... industry.

This is what gets me about intensification as it actually plays out. What's so special about a few dozen acres along the oldest streets in the city that calls for them to be intensively built up while there exists much larger tracts of land - often not far away (I can name several around here - will someone please redevelop that *@#&^! parking lot north of Westboro Transitway Station with a nice 12-storey mixed use development? Please? bring it on! anyone?) - that escape to continue on as parking lot? You know, big picture? Canadian Tire just built a new store on Carling near Churchill. It replaced a parking lot with a 2-storey store. Yippee. It's a start, but where are the other 6+ storeys that site could have supported with ease?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2008, 12:28 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,823
Quote:
Somehow - and call me crazy if you really disagree - but somehow I think there would be much greater acceptance of throwing up, say, 15 storey towers on parking lots devoid of anything else than of putting up 8 storey buildings where the locals have already agreed to 6. And land coverage? I can't really see any issue there - it's hard to increase beyond 100% after all. Redevelopment might even lead to a few trees and small gardens being planted. And good urban form? I didn't even know anyone was opposed to it. In fact, it would appear that with respect to intensification of parking lots, there isn't likely to be any community opposition to speak of. I would hope the City wouldn't be opposed, especially since the newest big box estate at Barrhaven has been laid out to "allow" it in the future (as an aside, doesn't this strike anyone as a teensy bit odd?). Anyhow, it would appear that the only group of the three that you list that would be opposed to parking lot intensification tomorrow morning at 9 am is ... industry.

This is what gets me about intensification as it actually plays out. What's so special about a few dozen acres along the oldest streets in the city that calls for them to be intensively built up while there exists much larger tracts of land - often not far away (I can name several around here - will someone please redevelop that *@#&^! parking lot north of Westboro Transitway Station with a nice 12-storey mixed use development? Please? bring it on! anyone?) - that escape to continue on as parking lot? You know, big picture? Canadian Tire just built a new store on Carling near Churchill. It replaced a parking lot with a 2-storey store. Yippee. It's a start, but where are the other 6+ storeys that site could have supported with ease?
Sometimes I am totally mystified by what gets built. A self-storage building is now going up near Bank and Hunt Club, surrounded by retail, condos and offices. It is within walking distance of the Transitway and future LRT. What a waste of that land! Is this the type of intensification that we are looking for? Surely, self-storage could have been built in some industrial park instead of such a prominent location so close to rapid transit.

The worst thing, they unnecessarily removed a row of mature spruce trees that existed right on the boundary of the property. Why couldn't a 6 or 8 foot buffer have been left to protect those trees when the building is being constructed elsewhere on that lot? I guess they were simply going to get in the way of construction equipment and it was going to be easier just to get rid of them. Those trees can never be replaced and had been a beautiful feature of that location for decades.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2008, 5:54 PM
clynnog clynnog is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 463
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
Sometimes I am totally mystified by what gets built. A self-storage building is now going up near Bank and Hunt Club, surrounded by retail, condos and offices.
That self storage company has big expansion/building plans in Ottawa. They run a facility near Jetform Park and they just opened one near Prince of Wales/Hunt Club. They are building in Kanata behind Canadian Tire, they are going to build on the old Capital Dodge site and they pile drove the land at Bank/Hunt Club. Their business model is based on exposure and not to be buried away in the back of an industrial park.

I'm not saying if it is right or not....I am just stating the facts.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2008, 11:39 PM
Dado's Avatar
Dado Dado is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
Sometimes I am totally mystified by what gets built. A self-storage building is now going up near Bank and Hunt Club, surrounded by retail, condos and offices. It is within walking distance of the Transitway and future LRT. What a waste of that land! Is this the type of intensification that we are looking for? Surely, self-storage could have been built in some industrial park instead of such a prominent location so close to rapid transit.
Maybe it's to provide storage space for all those condo dwellers who find they don't have enough room for all their stuff but still want it nearby...

Quote:
The worst thing, they unnecessarily removed a row of mature spruce trees that existed right on the boundary of the property. Why couldn't a 6 or 8 foot buffer have been left to protect those trees when the building is being constructed elsewhere on that lot? I guess they were simply going to get in the way of construction equipment and it was going to be easier just to get rid of them. Those trees can never be replaced and had been a beautiful feature of that location for decades.
That's the kind of thing that really perturbs me about modern construction methods. Everything that ever was is razed and replaced. I was cycling through Kanata a few weeks back on my way back from a ride in the country and in the area of Kanata Rd and Goulbourn Forced Road there's a new subdivision going in. It's on rocky shield and while it's a bit of a shame to see woods developed, it's better than plowing under farmland in the grand scheme of things. But what got me was the fact that there was not a single tree left standing from what used to be forest. Surely to goodness some of the trees in the future backyards or along the lot lines and beside the future roads could be left in place.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2008, 2:20 PM
Luker Luker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 362
Not in Ottawa. Logic.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2008, 4:14 PM
Richard Eade Richard Eade is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Nepean
Posts: 1,946
I agree that 'Infill' has lost a lot of its meaning in the recent years.
In this picture, you can see the original mid-50s houses and their trees. Behind them is a development which went in in the early 80s. It is a neighbourhood of garages with attached houses in the back. Note that the trees and bushes between the two belong mostly to the older properties. There just isn't the space for large trees on the small lots.
Then, notice the re-development which happened in the early 2000s! It is a lot-line to lot-line single home. Huge resources for one family.


But this discussion does seem to be getting away from Greenbelt Development.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2008, 5:53 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,823
This is exactly what has happened in our community except oversized houses tend to placed on tiny lots, making them look totally ridiculous with absolutely no back yard. Infill housing has resulted in the removal of almost all trees and the streetscape is now dominated by garages, driveways and cars parked in front of the houses just as demonstrated in the photo. The original 1950s housing had well treed lots and cars and garages tucked in to the sides and rears of the houses. Infilling has certainly intensified the community but it has also become a lot less attractive, despite the more upscale nature of the newer housing.

I would take the appearance of older neighbourhoods any day, with on-street parking, garages behind the houses accessed by narrow driveways and tree lined streets.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2008, 5:10 AM
city-dweller's Avatar
city-dweller city-dweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 357
First, hello to those in this city forum. I have lived in Ottawa for one year, but I am from Vancouver. Thanks for the link waterloowarrior.

First I have issue with the some of the language(in the link):

"The strongest argument in favour of developing portions of the Greenbelt is to foster “sustainable development”. "

Just so were clear on my interpretation of sustainable development: -development that balances social, economic, environmental demands today without sacrificing the ability to meet future needs.

Fostering more sustainable development by densifying city areas is the right approach, but why the protected green belt? The outlying communities should be densified with rapid transit connecting them to each other and the inner urban area. With no stopping between inner and outer urban areas, a high speed (pick your favorite technology) would be better. I believe the continued expansion beyond the greenbelt in the 70s was a mistake, but the residents of these areas shouldn't have to suffer(commute etc). The housing and commute issues are driving this agenda on the political side.(will be popular with many of these residents)

The need for this land in the future in its current state is evident (food prices). I would call the proposal's environmental impacts understated with no mention of mitigation of heat island effect and carbon sink. I hope the environmental assessment will be about whether an area should be developed or not, and not just what mitigation is necessary for approval.

The social element should focus on more affordable housing stock in the inner urban area. Less commuting = more time at work or home. More people will still be driving from these communities given the current or proposed infrastructure.

The economics are simple. Many people can not afford to live close to where they work. Building new developments on existing city infrastructure as proposed has lower marginal cost and maximizes the utility (no pun intended ) Greenbelt is irrelevant in this calculation. The city wants to increase tax base, which is not bad. Arguing lack of tax base from these areas as a burden is erroneous. Create higher densities on either side. To be fair, most Canadian cities are in great need in infrastructure investment without adequate revenue sources.

I mention a few things here. Many items in the report(webpage) show positive economic, social and potentially environmental outcomes. Just because the report covers all three subject areas does not make it sustainable development. Urban development of land is linear we use the land to build on and recycle the built environment (eg. brownfields), but we do not return the land for 'green use'. This is land needed as is in the future.

Note: The transportation plan should be incorporated with any land-use development plans.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2008, 12:48 PM
eemy's Avatar
eemy eemy is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,456
^ I think the biggest argument in favour of developing select parts of the Greenbelt is that its alternative would not be infill and intensification within the Greenbelt, but continued greenfield development beyond the Greenbelt. At least the Greenbelt land already has easy access to services and transportation infrastructure.

I suppose you could argue that the city could restrict the amount of lower density development occurring on greenfield sites and require all new development to be infill and intensification; however, there are two majors problems with this approach:

1) Neighbouring municipalities, particularly Carleton Place and Rockland and Gatineau to a certain extent, would probably draw more development away from Ottawa itself as a result.

2) The city is required to have a 10 year supply of land available for development. I believe there is/was an OMB case regarding this issue where developers were challenging the amount of land the city had made available for development. I don't know the outcome, but I have a feeling that if all greenfield development were halted, the OMB would side with developers, and development would go ahead anyway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted May 29, 2009, 10:06 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,243
Greenbelt Master Plan Review

HAVE YOUR SAY ABOUT THE GREENBELT’S FUTURE!
Public Consultation

The Greenbelt consists of over 20,000 hectares of green space, forming a crescent‐shaped band that surrounds the nation’s capital. It is a living symbol of Canada’s rural landscape and ecologically sensitive areas — with a mix of farms, forests and wetlands — which also provides important space for recreational uses, federal institutions and research facilities.

The Greenbelt is like an “Emerald Necklace” and exists as a living war memorial to the Canadians who gave their lives in the Second World War.
Starting at Shirleys Bay just north of Kanata, it circles down through Stony Swamp and Pinhey Forest, then continues east through the experimental farm, where it arcs back northward through Mer Bleue and then follows Green’s Creek to the Ottawa River. The Greenbelt reaches over a distance of 45 kilometers and ranges in width from two to ten kilometers.

The National Capital Commission (NCC) has begun a review of the 1996 Greenbelt Master Plan, which guides how the Greenbelt is used, managed and protected, now and in the future.

Join the discussion!

As a very first consultation, the NCC wants to inform and engage citizens while assessing the Greenbelt’s existing conditions. We want to know what you think the Greenbelt’s greatest features are, and what you see as the pressures and trends that should be considered when planning the Greenbelt of the future.

NCC staff will be at the following locations to provide information, answer questions and receive your comments:

Thursday, June 11, 2009
World Exchange Plaza, 11 am to 2 pm
Billings Bridge Shopping Centre, 3 pm to 7 pm

Friday, June 12, 2009
Rideau Centre, 11 am to 2 pm
Bayshore Shopping Centre, 3 pm to 9 pm

Saturday, June 13, 2009
St. Laurent Shopping Centre, 9:30 am to 9 pm

Several consultations will take place until the approval of the final Master Plan, planned in the fall of 2011. The next public
consultation, planned in the fall of 2009, will consist in public workshops on the vision statement for the Greenbelt of the future.

All relevant information, including a questionnaire, is also available through the NCC’s website. Please send your comments and
completed questionnaires by June 22, 2009, via mail or email to the
appropriate address listed below.

National Capital Commission Telephone: 613‐239‐5000
Public Affairs TTY: 613‐239‐5090
202–40 Elgin Street Email: info@ncc‐ccn.ca
Ottawa ON K1P 1C7 Website:

http://www.capitaleducanada.gc.ca/bi...-113585&lang=1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted May 30, 2009, 4:04 AM
eternallyme eternallyme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,243
There are four areas of the Greenbelt that I think should be opened for development:

1) The area surrounding Bayshore, Bells Corners and Crystal Beach, east of the railway tracks and north of Richmond Road, south of the Queensway and in the Moodie Drive area. It should be a mix of very high-density residential (i.e. similar to the Bayshore area) in the eastern part, and industrial in the western part. The area west of Nortel should not be touched, nor should the equestrian park.

2) The area south of Fallowfield Road and east of Woodroffe Avenue. It should be designated industrial/institutional to go along with the new RCMP Headquarters. Perhaps DND HQ?

3) The area surrounding the airport to the north and east, along the future transit corridor. It should be zoned commercial, for airport travel uses.

4) The area south of Hunt Club, along/east of Conroy, west of Highway 417 and north of the forest preserve (NOT including it!). It should be residential west of Hawthorne and industrial east of Hawthorne, to match up with the areas to the north of Hunt Club (and its projected alignment). It would also fit better with my thought of a rapid transit (LRT?) corridor along Hunt Club.

None of them are very valuable greenspace, and all of them are partially developed or would be advantageous for development over the next 30 years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted May 30, 2009, 2:57 PM
adam-machiavelli adam-machiavelli is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,244
A fellow student in my planning school is currently conducting a review of the ecological significance of different parts of the Greenbelt. Come next year, expect a big fuss over the results.

Also, the strategic elements of DND HQ are already being moved to Ogilvie & Blair within the next 10 years. The Federal Government now realizes moving RCMP HQ so far out was a big mistake and so pretty much all future moves of federal government offices will be within the Greenbelt.

I think the NCC's latest real estate strategy is very good: sell valuable small plots on the inside edge of the greenbelt and use the money to buy cheap big plots on the outside edge. In case you haven't noticed, the primary example of this is the NCC's sale of lots along Hunt Club and at the south end of Blossom Park and subsequent purchase of vast tracts of the Mer Bleue Bog.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Sep 12, 2009, 10:04 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,243
there's info here from the June 09 Greenbelt consultations
http://www.canadascapital.gc.ca/bins...-125385&lang=1

this one is especially interesting.. a slideshow showing the evolution of land acquisitions and disposals in the Greenbelt between 1951 and 2008.
http://www.canadascapital.gc.ca/gree...SlideShow.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2009, 8:45 PM
RTWAP's Avatar
RTWAP RTWAP is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 528
I just wanted to weigh in on this topic. I would like to see some of the lands developed, but I wouldn't trust the typical developer to do it. I'd love to see Canada Lands Corp. handle the development. They know how to build actual communities with engaging streetscapes instead of suburban garage montages.

Also, I had the rare luxury to grow up near a small enclosed wood (80,000 sq feet) and it was great. If they do develop, I hope they take the opportunity to plant some urban forests and let the land revert to nature. Those islands of nature can be absolute treasures for kids.

And 20-25% sounds about right. Leave all the non-farmland untouched, and provide for buffers and connecting channels as required to ensure wildlife doesn't get stranded.

If the city ever decides to use the existing rail lines in the west end for transit then park-n-rides at baseline&richmond (fed from the 416) and at 417&Moodie would be no-brainers.

And the block bounded by Woodroffe, Greenbank, Fallowfield and Hunt Club is crying out to be used for something other than corn.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2009, 8:27 PM
canadave canadave is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam-machiavelli View Post
A fellow student in my planning school is currently conducting a review of the ecological significance of different parts of the Greenbelt.
I can't wait to hear how beneficial to the environment the airport is.
__________________
The Ottawa Project: Urbanism and public space in Ottawa
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2009, 7:26 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,243
got this from OPPI

Help Us Create a Proud Future for Canada’s Capital Greenbelt!
By: Jean-Francois Morin
Printer Friendly Version

As Canadians, we are blessed with 20,350 hectares of publicly owned natural, agricultural and rural lands that surround Canada’s Capital. The National Capital Greenbelt, owned and managed by the National Capital Commission (NCC), was first imagined by the 1950 Gréber Plan and was conceived as a means to limit urban sprawl, protect Canada’s Capital countryside and provide home for large institutions.

Greenbelt 2060 Vision Workshop

The NCC is currently updating the 1996 Master Plan that guides the management of the National Capital Greenbelt. On November 25th and 26th national and international experts and stakeholders will participate in an in-depth vision session.

Some topics covered:

What does the Greenbelt represent for Canadians across the country?
How might the Greenbelt contribute to quality of life, community sustainability and relief of urban sprawl?
What vision should guide the Greenbelt to the year 2060?

Share your Ideas during the Vision Workshop!

The NCC wants to hear your thoughts on the future of the National Capital Greenbelt. From November 25 to January 15, join in the discussion by viewing webcasts of the Vision Workshop presentations and by sharing your ideas on our online forum.

Public consultation meetings in the Capital region will take place early in December. For more information, please contact us at:
1-800-465-1867
ATS: 1-866-661-3530
info@ncc-ccn.ca
www.canadascapital.gc.ca/greenbelt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2009, 8:40 PM
RTWAP's Avatar
RTWAP RTWAP is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 528
I hope they sell most of the farmland in the Greenbelt to CLC for intense development.

On a related note, does anyone else think the Experimental Farm should be changed? I think they should develop the stretch between Merivale and Fisher, and use the proceeds to enhance the Agricultural museum, and turn the area between Prince of Wales and Fisher into a large urban park (Central Park-ish), augmenting the Arboretum and Gardens.

That's an area that could greatly benefit from a design competition.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Nov 2, 2009, 10:19 PM
Kitchissippi's Avatar
Kitchissippi Kitchissippi is offline
Busy Beaver
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,358
I doubt that significant portions of the Greenbelt will be sold off, nor should it be. Assembling a similar thing would be near impossible in this day and age and the NCC would not give up on this concept just because of the sentiments of the day.

A good chunk of the Experimental farm was sold not too far back and Ashcroft squandered it on that atrocious development called Central Park.

The NCC gets bashed a lot but I think they have been relatively good stewards of the Greenbelt I doubt the city nor the provincial government could ever do a better job.

I'm a big fan of the Greenbelt. I believe that for intensification to be sustainable, it has to be balanced with dilution elsewhere, where the landscape and environment have a chance to breathe. A good analogy for this would be storm water ponds -- it used to be that storm water concentrated with pollutants was flushed out into the rivers as soon as possible, but now the wisdom is to hold it and let nature deal with it one small bite at a time. I hope the Greenbelt continues to play an ecological role in the far future.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2009, 6:51 AM
RTWAP's Avatar
RTWAP RTWAP is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitchissippi View Post
I doubt that significant portions of the Greenbelt will be sold off, nor should it be. Assembling a similar thing would be near impossible in this day and age and the NCC would not give up on this concept just because of the sentiments of the day.

A good chunk of the Experimental farm was sold not too far back and Ashcroft squandered it on that atrocious development called Central Park.

The NCC gets bashed a lot but I think they have been relatively good stewards of the Greenbelt I doubt the city nor the provincial government could ever do a better job.

I'm a big fan of the Greenbelt. I believe that for intensification to be sustainable, it has to be balanced with dilution elsewhere, where the landscape and environment have a chance to breathe. A good analogy for this would be storm water ponds -- it used to be that storm water concentrated with pollutants was flushed out into the rivers as soon as possible, but now the wisdom is to hold it and let nature deal with it one small bite at a time. I hope the Greenbelt continues to play an ecological role in the far future.
Do you feel the same way about the farm portions of the Greenbelt as you do about the natural areas?

I would like to see development of the farm portions. I'd establish buffers and connections for the natural areas to ensure they continue to thrive. I'd also convert some of the existing farmland back to forest. When I was growing up in Bayshore, we had farmland nearby that contributed nothing to our neighbourhood. But we also had an urban forest, bounded by streets and paths, with an abandoned house among the trees. It was a very enriching childhood environment. I'd love to see a deliberate attempt to create something like that.

Regarding Central Park, I agree that it was terrible. Who had the not so brilliant idea to just sell the land to a develop and let them do whatever they wanted. If they develop more of the farm they should not just sell it off to a developer. Use the Canada Lands approach. Create a development plan and then let builders build to those plans.

I guess it comes down to land use. I don't think farming in the middle of the city is a good use. It provides a pleasant view, perhaps a little monotonous though. But to me it makes no sense to have wide open spaces and not be able to use them for any public activity.

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

There is a transit line running down Woodroffe. There might be a large public institution at the SW corner of Woodroffe and Hunt Club if the Civic Hospital does end up moving there. But the whole square bounded by Fallowfield, Cedarview, Hunt Club and Woodroffe would be a much better place to develop than the equivalent amount of farmland west of Stittsville. Put in high density development along Woodroffe, with density varying in proximity to the major roads . Follow the path of the stream through the area with a ribbon park and landscaped SWM features. Keep the forested sections as urban forests.

Last edited by RTWAP; Nov 3, 2009 at 7:07 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:30 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.