HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #221  
Old Posted May 17, 2012, 2:26 AM
Ottawan Ottawan is offline
Citizen-at-large
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Expat (in Toronto)
Posts: 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
It looks like the City of Ottawa continues to live in a state of denial:

"Ottawa continues to be Canada's fourth largest city in census population, behind Toronto, Montreal and Calgary, and Ottawa-Gatineau the fourth largest CMA, behind Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver."

http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/cit.../2012/04-24/10 - ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0099 Census Results.htm


Oh really? We're still the fourth largest CMA ("behind Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver") are we? For some strange reason though, Statistics Canada doesn't agree:

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tabl...emo05a-eng.htm


__________________________ -- 2008 -- 2009 -- 2010 -- 2011
Montréal (Que.) ___________ 3,764.8 3,817.8 3,869.8 3,908.7
Ottawa-Gatineau (Ont.-Que.) 1,200.9 1,219.7 1,238.4 1,258.9
Toronto (Ont.) ____________ 5,536.8 5,638.2 5,742.4 5,838.8
Calgary (Alta.) ___________ 1,188.3 1,221.9 1,242.5 1,265.1
Edmonton (Alta.) __________ 1,128.0 1,157.0 1,175.5 1,196.3
Vancouver (B.C.) __________ 2,279.1 2,336.0 2,388.6 2,419.7


(pardon my use of underscores as spacers)

The Calgary CMA went past the Ottawa-Gatineau CMA in 2009. Every year, the Calgary CMA grows by at least 20,000 while every year the Ottawa-Gatineau CMA grows by no more than about 20,000.

Oh yes, I know that City Staff have some esoteric argument with Statistics Canada over population counts, but whatever validity this argument has in Ottawa would likely apply all the more in Calgary.

It's time to face the facts: Ottawa-Gatineau is no longer the fourth but has dropped to being the fifth largest CMA. Worse still, Edmonton is catching up - they added 68k between 2008 and 2011 whereas we added 58k (and Calgary 77k): such an indignity that would be to be kicked out of the top five.
Actually, you're wrong, and believe it or not the professionals at the City are right (if we use Stats Canada properly). You are quoting the projected numbers, estimates based upon the 2006 census & other surveys that were recently disproved when the 2011 census results were released, which clearly show Ottawa-Gatineau as the 4th largest CMA, still ahead of Calgary:

Ottawa-Gatineau CMA = 1,236,324

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-re...ustom=&TABID=1

Calgary CMA = 1,214,839

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-re...ustom=&TABID=1

It would also be good to remember that this isn't the first time that Calgary/Edmonton seem to be on the verge of eclipsing Ottawa in numbers. Ottawa grows constantly, while those cities are prone to boom/bust. I don't think one should predict their relative sizes too far out.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #222  
Old Posted May 17, 2012, 8:21 AM
Kibb Kibb is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 102
edit: oops I hit reply before reading the rest of the thread and Ottawan already said it. So i removed what i wrote.

Ya you read the estimates Dado
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #223  
Old Posted May 17, 2012, 5:48 PM
eternallyme eternallyme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,243
Ottawa-Gatineau should stay ahead of Edmonton for a while, if not indefinitely. Ottawa-Gatineau is under-drawn (and so is Calgary, about equally), while Edmonton covers a much larger area, so the difference should be about 150,000. If those are corrected to make more logical sense, there would be open water between 4/5 and 6.

Back in the days, Winnipeg was ahead of both Alberta cities and not far behind Ottawa, but has fallen way back to clearly the third tier of Canadian metropolitan areas (along with Quebec City and Hamilton).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #224  
Old Posted May 17, 2012, 6:06 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 23,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.OT13 View Post
We will at least beat Montreal one day.
By "one day", I mean 100 years or so. Montreal is still in Québec, bill 101 will never be abolished, sovereignty will always be an issue and protesters will always be extremist (note FLQ in 1970, tuition hike protests...). It will never be as attractive to people and new business as it was in the 50s and 60s and so will likely never see the same rate of growth as Ottawa.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #225  
Old Posted May 18, 2012, 1:30 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is online now
Unapologetic Occidental
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Province 2, Canadian Empire
Posts: 68,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.OT13 View Post
By "one day", I mean 100 years or so. Montreal is still in Québec, bill 101 will never be abolished, sovereignty will always be an issue and protesters will always be extremist (note FLQ in 1970, tuition hike protests...). It will never be as attractive to people and new business as it was in the 50s and 60s and so will likely never see the same rate of growth as Ottawa.
You actually think that Ottawa can make up a difference of 2.8 million in 100 years? Especially given that Montreal continues to grow, albeit at a slower rate than Ottawa?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #226  
Old Posted May 18, 2012, 5:37 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 23,983
If Ottawa (National Capital Region) and Montreal (Greater Montreal Area) grow like clockwork until the end of time, we will beat Montreal in 130 years;

NCR (13 971 252) and Montreal (13 274 670). Of course, this is an extremely unrealistic way to view the situation. Montreal could win back favour it might have lost in 1976 (PQ won its first election), Ottawa's jobs might be outsourced or replaced with computer programs, Vancouver could be destroyed by an earth quake and Calgary and Edmonton WILL run out of oil eventually (I have no predictions on the time frame).

If Ottawa loses its # 4 or even #5 spot, who cares; I much prefer a stable, predictable manageable growth rather than the growth spurs in the west. Besides, we have a lot to look forward to by the end of the decade; dozens of new condo towers, a few more office buildings, Lansdowne, the first branch of a rapid transit system, Rideau Centre expansion, 3+ new high class hotels (Germain, ALT, Re and possibly a new 500-600 room hotel at the Rideau Centre).

I'm satisfied of how fast we're growing and I don't mind if go down a few spots, we might regain our spot eventually.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #227  
Old Posted May 22, 2012, 7:16 AM
FiereSansVoiture's Avatar
FiereSansVoiture FiereSansVoiture is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Gatineau
Posts: 95
According to the current production rate, Alberta's oil reserve will last at least 400 years.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sables_...'Athabasca
Hence, if Calgary's oil industry were to decline it would't be because of the ressource's deplition but because the oil price would drop du to new energy technologies.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #228  
Old Posted May 22, 2012, 7:53 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 23,983
My apologies to Calgarians but... DAMN!!!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #229  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2012, 9:04 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,244
Quote:
https://twitter.com/davidreevely/sta...35580278460419
David Reevely
‏@davidreevely

City's lost its effort to clarify whether it needs to expand its urban boundary another 163 ha. It does, OMB ruling says. ‪#ottawa‬ ‪#ottpoli‬
uh oh
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #230  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2012, 7:27 PM
Dr.Z Dr.Z is offline
From the Planning Paradox
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 129
Meh - it only adds another year or so of supply. In total still far better than the 2500 to 3000 hecatres (!!!) that was also on the table last year.

The decision also does not really answer the question the City asked: what evidence was the 850ha that excludes Fernbank based on? The chair just says it was a "...Board number derived from Ottawa numbers some higher in the original quantum hearing and many weighting and propensity considerations."

The numbers in play were 997ha (City, updated from the previous 850ha), 2,500ha (GOHBA) and 3,000ha (Tamarack). Last time I checked 850 + 163 does not equal 997. So the Board was able to dive into all of the propensity evidence, through out the witness conclusions, make their own calculations and find their OWN supply that is a 16ha difference than the updated City number? I didn't realise the Board was so sophisticated and technical

It's simple math really. The demand was originally determined that 850ha of NEW urban area would be required. If Fernbank, now being Urban is ineligible, then the 850ha should be adjusted to 687ha because the exercise is looking for NEW urban land to accommodate the demand. Or if the Board was intending to use the "...Ottawa numbers some higher in the original quantum" then it would 997 - 163 = 834ha. If Fernbank is eligible for urban expansion then we need more new land. If Fernbank is not eligible we need less new land.

I can't believe after all of this, a simple addition rather than subtraction gets it all wrong.
__________________
"What about the children?! Won't somebody please think of the children!?"

Last edited by Dr.Z; Jun 5, 2012 at 7:38 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #231  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2012, 7:47 PM
eternallyme eternallyme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,243
The best solution is to hand the ball over to the developers, show what they have, and then take it on a case-by-case basis. Let the developers freely plan whatever they want (show us what they would do with the 3,000 hectares or more), and force it to City Council and public hearings.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #232  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2012, 7:54 PM
Proof Sheet Proof Sheet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,860
Quote:
Originally Posted by eternallyme View Post
The best solution is to hand the ball over to the developers, show what they have, and then take it on a case-by-case basis. Let the developers freely plan whatever they want (show us what they would do with the 3,000 hectares or more), and force it to City Council and public hearings.
3000 hectares developed completely by the big boy developers in Ottawa would look something like this assuming that there are no hinderances due to servicing, terrain etc

http://goo.gl/maps/zuKy

Last edited by Proof Sheet; Jun 6, 2012 at 3:58 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #233  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2012, 11:25 PM
gjhall's Avatar
gjhall gjhall is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,297
Good piece on Hume's blog today that Joanne Chianello tweeted - nice to see him smack down the Paris myth: http://peterhumeottawa.blogspot.ca/2...aris-myth.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #234  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2012, 12:28 AM
Proof Sheet Proof Sheet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,860
Quote:
Originally Posted by gjhall View Post
Good piece on Hume's blog today that Joanne Chianello tweeted - nice to see him smack down the Paris myth: http://peterhumeottawa.blogspot.ca/2...aris-myth.html
He speaks the truth when he says there are no sfr's in the City limits. Paris has a peripheque ring road that is based on the limits of the City itself. Within that area there are no sfr's, basically no gas stations, no drive-thrus etc. There are virtually also no buildings greater than 6 floors.

Once you get outside the City limits, you hit the ban lieu's where the commie blocks are and after about 10 or more km from the centre, you may start to see sfr's/row houses (usually with on street parking)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #235  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2012, 4:35 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 Dr.Z View Post
Meh - it only adds another year or so of supply. In total still far better than the 2500 to 3000 hecatres (!!!) that was also on the table last year.

The decision also does not really answer the question the City asked: what evidence was the 850ha that excludes Fernbank based on? The chair just says it was a "...Board number derived from Ottawa numbers some higher in the original quantum hearing and many weighting and propensity considerations."

The numbers in play were 997ha (City, updated from the previous 850ha), 2,500ha (GOHBA) and 3,000ha (Tamarack). Last time I checked 850 + 163 does not equal 997. So the Board was able to dive into all of the propensity evidence, through out the witness conclusions, make their own calculations and find their OWN supply that is a 16ha difference than the updated City number? I didn't realise the Board was so sophisticated and technical

It's simple math really. The demand was originally determined that 850ha of NEW urban area would be required. If Fernbank, now being Urban is ineligible, then the 850ha should be adjusted to 687ha because the exercise is looking for NEW urban land to accommodate the demand. Or if the Board was intending to use the "...Ottawa numbers some higher in the original quantum" then it would 997 - 163 = 834ha. If Fernbank is eligible for urban expansion then we need more new land. If Fernbank is not eligible we need less new land.

I can't believe after all of this, a simple addition rather than subtraction gets it all wrong.
Any time anyone (read: developer) feels like defending the OMB, I'm just going to rant and rail about this Fernbank business - all of it. It has been a gong show from beginning to end that proves beyond any doubt that the OMB has no concept of "planning principles".

The OMB should never have added the various Kanata-Stittsville lands to the urban boundary without considering the knock-on consequences of doing so. One of those consequences was stranding a rural exclave (what we now refer to as the Fernbank lands) within the enlarged urban boundary. There was nothing fundamentally different about these lands in the exclave from any of the surrounding land that was added to the urban boundary from a planning perspective. The only difference is that its owners didn't take the City to the OMB to whine about the urban boundary.

Regardless of who brought the case, the OMB should have, well, looked at a map and noticed that by adding the subject lands they were going to be creating an enclave in the urban area. Leaving behind that kind of rural exclave is pretty much a gross violation of all the supposed principles and orderliness that the OMB uses to justify its decisions. It's the kind of planning mistake that no one else involved in planning would make because it was going to make the orderly planning of the Kanata-Stittsville area more difficult.

And now, at the next round, City Council opted to fix the OMB's mistake by adding only those lands to the urban boundary. City Staff had recommended adding more land in total - 850 ha - but first on the list were the Fernbank lands. Yet somehow the geniuses at the OMB figure that the Fernbank lands should now just be added to the urban boundary and the 850 ha added on top of that. Sort of.

It's as if the OMB is back-fixing its own mistake - in effect saying "add in the Fernbank lands that we should have added in the last time around were we not such incompetent morons" - and then going about adding the amount of land that City Staff determined were needed as if the Fernbank lands were not also being added. I don't suppose it occurred to the OMB that had they not screwed up the first time around and had added the Fernbank lands then that this time around the amount of new land needed would be correspondingly less?
__________________
Ottawa's quasi-official motto: "It can't be done"
Ottawa's quasi-official ethos: "We have a process to follow"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #236  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2012, 5:43 PM
eternallyme eternallyme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proof Sheet View Post
3000 hectares developed completely by the big boy developers in Ottawa would look something like this assuming that there are no hinderances due to servicing, terrain etc

http://goo.gl/maps/zuKy
And that - or at least large parts of it - would likely be voted down by City Council. But at least ask them to show what they would do, rather than give weak numbers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #237  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2012, 6:22 PM
Dr.Z Dr.Z is offline
From the Planning Paradox
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
I don't suppose it occurred to the OMB that had they not screwed up the first time around and had added the Fernbank lands then that this time around the amount of new land needed would be correspondingly less?
No apparently it didn't cross their minds that Fernbank would absorb the future demand. It's as if Fernbank will be populated by people not accounted for by future births or migration.
__________________
"What about the children?! Won't somebody please think of the children!?"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #238  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2012, 6:59 PM
McC's Avatar
McC McC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proof Sheet View Post
He speaks the truth when he says there are no sfr's in the City limits. Paris has a peripheque ring road that is based on the limits of the City itself. Within that area there are no sfr's, basically no gas stations, no drive-thrus etc. There are virtually also no buildings greater than 6 floors.

Once you get outside the City limits, you hit the ban lieu's where the commie blocks are and after about 10 or more km from the centre, you may start to see sfr's/row houses (usually with on street parking)
your sentiment is correct, but your facts are pretty off base. Much of Paris is 8 floors (dropping to 4-6 on the smallest side streets or oldest buildings); but the top 1 or 2 floors are usually set back, and further confusion comes from the French practice of calling the 2nd floor above ground "le premier étage". There are also many sections that were rebuilt in the 60s and 70s that stretch up to twelve stories (a lot like the kind of stuff on Somerset St between Metcalfe and Cartier). here are examples of both building forms on opposite sides of the same street just a few blocks from the Eiffel Tower (spin around the streetview): https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Paris...29.05,,0,-9.87 Gas stations can be found on the ground floors of buildings, often at or beside entrances to underground parking garages. And there are even a couple of curious corners of Paris, e.g., in Belleville and Montmartre, that have attached 2-3 storey houses with private gardens; see: https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Rue+d...40.71,,0,-4.18 and https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Rue+d...112.5,,0,-4.28, respectively.

Update: I also forgot to note that larger and taller buildings have been going up over the last 15 years in a huge redevelopment scheme around Bercy in the southeast corner of the city.

Once you get outside the Périphérique you see all kinds of built forms, there's the Radiant City, Post-Stalinist and other (generally awful) styles of mega block apartments with all the social ills that stereotype le banlieu, but there are also suburban cities that have boulevards that look just like central Paris and are surrounded by smaller row houses and, yes, even single family homes. Look at: https://maps.google.com/maps?q=metro...2gDwOojXbyXm-A

This is Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, the first metro stop south of the Périph on Ligne 7, I don't know this area at all, I chose it completely at random. The Place above the station could be anywhere in Paris that has newer buildings constructed to the 'classic' form. Then move the streetview 2/3 blocks southwest and you're on a residential street with detached, semi- and attached family homes (and yes on street, or rather, on-sidewalk parking in the French village style): https://maps.google.com/maps?q=9+Rue...rance&t=m&z=16

This is dense urban living to be sure, and these places probably cost a fortune (living in the Petite Couronne can even be more expensive than in central Paris because you can actually live in a house near a park, with a car, etc., but can still access around Paris on the Metro/RER/Tramway, with all the benefits comes all the cost).

Last edited by McC; Jun 7, 2012 at 10:25 AM. Reason: added more streetviews
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #239  
Old Posted Jun 7, 2012, 2:47 AM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
Any time anyone (read: developer) feels like defending the OMB, I'm just going to rant and rail about this Fernbank business - all of it. It has been a gong show from beginning to end that proves beyond any doubt that the OMB has no concept of "planning principles".

The OMB should never have added the various Kanata-Stittsville lands to the urban boundary without considering the knock-on consequences of doing so. One of those consequences was stranding a rural exclave (what we now refer to as the Fernbank lands) within the enlarged urban boundary. There was nothing fundamentally different about these lands in the exclave from any of the surrounding land that was added to the urban boundary from a planning perspective. The only difference is that its owners didn't take the City to the OMB to whine about the urban boundary.

Regardless of who brought the case, the OMB should have, well, looked at a map and noticed that by adding the subject lands they were going to be creating an enclave in the urban area. Leaving behind that kind of rural exclave is pretty much a gross violation of all the supposed principles and orderliness that the OMB uses to justify its decisions. It's the kind of planning mistake that no one else involved in planning would make because it was going to make the orderly planning of the Kanata-Stittsville area more difficult.

And now, at the next round, City Council opted to fix the OMB's mistake by adding only those lands to the urban boundary. City Staff had recommended adding more land in total - 850 ha - but first on the list were the Fernbank lands. Yet somehow the geniuses at the OMB figure that the Fernbank lands should now just be added to the urban boundary and the 850 ha added on top of that. Sort of.

It's as if the OMB is back-fixing its own mistake - in effect saying "add in the Fernbank lands that we should have added in the last time around were we not such incompetent morons" - and then going about adding the amount of land that City Staff determined were needed as if the Fernbank lands were not also being added. I don't suppose it occurred to the OMB that had they not screwed up the first time around and had added the Fernbank lands then that this time around the amount of new land needed would be correspondingly less?
The Board did recognize the need to expand the entire area in the Del-Brookfield decision http://www.omb.gov.on.ca/e-decisions...22_%232092.pdf. That's why the Fernbank CDP included these lands as well.

Quote:
The Board is cognizant of and agrees with the evidence of Mr. Jacobs that if the
Board determines that the Del/Brookfield and Westpark lands should be included within
the Urban Area designation that the entire area between Stittsville and Kanata down to
Fernbank Road should be included in further planning studies. While the area of lot 29
concession 11 of the former Township of Goulbourn is not before the Board if the
Municipality so desires the Board would approve including this area within the General
Urban designation amendment being directed for 1997 Regional Official Plan.
Also in looking at the context, consider that that Del-Brookfield was pre-2005 PPS, pre-Ottawa 2003 OP (original appeals), and pre-Bill 51. Urban boundary expansions are no longer appealable outside of comprehensive reviews.

Last edited by waterloowarrior; Jun 7, 2012 at 3:07 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #240  
Old Posted Jun 7, 2012, 11:58 AM
Proof Sheet Proof Sheet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,860
Quote:
Originally Posted by McC View Post
your sentiment is correct, but your facts are pretty off base. Much of Paris is 8 floors (dropping to 4-6 on the smallest side streets or oldest buildings); but the top 1 or 2 floors are usually set back, and further confusion comes from the French practice of calling the 2nd floor above ground "le premier étage".
Thanks for your post.I've been to Paris twice (May 1989 and July 2006). The 1st time totally within the Peripheque and the 2nd time both in and out of the Peripheque. I have relatives who live here:

http://goo.gl/maps/LFnS

This building was typical of many in the area. The top floor was previously rented out for caretakers of the building, servents etc. I believe the top floor or two were set back a bit as they had more of an area to walk around outside the unit.

Parking was all on street through permits. Nearby were some single family homes, but they were generally joined to others. One thing I find about the suburban areas of continental cites in europe is the predominance of high walls in front of homes and gates. Suburban areas in the UK and Ireland tend to have more open front yards with grass and a lack of high walls offering privacy. Just an observation, but the areas in question in Paris are quite sealed off from the street.
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 1:01 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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