HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #281  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2013, 4:24 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 Dr.Z View Post
Yes but my point is those blogs above are about an inch thick and a mile wide - I would not say they are 'extensive' in substance. Comparatively he focusses much more effort on the differential in points between a couple of parcels and doesn't really touch the big picture which has a greater impact. Its like putting 98% of your resources into why a button on the radio on your car doesn't work while not worrying that the engine has seized.
As pointed out, he has already looked at that in the past.

If anything, his focus on the minutiae in this instance gives the audience a good sense of just why in the larger picture things have gone so wrong.

Quote:
Anyways, I find it odd that in Ottawa the media coverage is so blatent in their one-sided criticism.
I don't find it one-sided at all, but even if it was it'd be hard to notice given the actions of the subject they're covering.

Ottawa is the capital city of a country that generally scores well on international rankings for governance and freedoms. As such, the City of Ottawa should be an example of open and participative municipal government... but it isn't. You'd be hard-pressed to name one major initiative in the last decade that hasn't been beset by a secretive and/or controlling bureaucratic mentality (N-S LRT, Lansdowne, 2008 OP/TMP update, DOTT/OLRT planning, new central Library, PRESTO, Bayview-Carling Planning study, OLG Casino, etc.). Heck, they've even taken to ceasing the production of written summaries of committee meetings. They even pursued one of their own engineers who found and drew attention to serious flaws in the Carp flood plain model.

The only initiative that comes to mind that didn't meet with extensive negative coverage was the Laurier segregated bike lanes, and that was essentially a citizen initiative that managed by some minor miracle to get somewhere. The media coverage on that was fairly balanced.

As I said, even if Ottawa-area media were biased against the City, it would be hard to tell.
__________________
Ottawa's quasi-official motto: "It can't be done"
Ottawa's quasi-official ethos: "We have a process to follow"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #282  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2013, 5:53 PM
Dr.Z Dr.Z is offline
From the Planning Paradox
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
As pointed out, he has already looked at that in the past.....


As I said, even if Ottawa-area media were biased against the City, it would be hard to tell.
As pointed out he looked at them in the past but no where near the detail or opinionated analysis as this last bit of investigation. Its not so much yes/no he covered an issue but the depth to which an issue has been covered. But maybe it has to do with the fact that he can get dirt on the City via FOI requests, whereas GOHBA would just tell him to pound sand.

I see where you are coming from now re: City bias. My bias meter focuses more on postivity; in the last 3 years I can only think of ONE article that was postive in regards to the City for planning matters. By comparison the Toronto Star or Vancouver Sun have a far less critical ratio. By this measure to me the bias is pretty clear-cut.

Anyone wanna place odds on a negative article post-open house?
__________________
"What about the children?! Won't somebody please think of the children!?"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #283  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2013, 4:46 PM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
Yes indeed but it has largely been given up on and forsaken by the community's élite and leadership.
Really?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #284  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2013, 5:05 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
Unapologetic Occidental
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Province 2, Canadian Empire
Posts: 67,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uhuniau View Post
Really?
Yeah, it's a bit surprising I guess and it does have a small group of boosters but overall one really gets the impression it's been written off. Orleans is really where it's at: with Shenkman (lots of French shows), movie theatres showing occasional movies in French (historically largely unheard of in Ottawa aside from art house films at the Bytowne), the new Cité collégiale campus, etc.

The secondary bastion for French in Ottawa (far behind Orleans though) is kind of a reconquista of the Sandy Hill and Lower Town areas. Both these areas were pretty francophone in the past, then the French element - at least in terms of residents - declined substantially and has modestly bounced back. You have everything that revolves around the University of Ottawa, plus some institutions like the theatre centre La Nouvelle Scène (undergoing a major renovation soon), etc.

The eastern part of downtown Ottawa is a good location for francophone institutions, since it is close to the Quebec side which is probably 25% or so Franco-Ontarian in origin, and represents a huge potential market - the main one in many cases - for festival, theatre, music and other performances in French in downtown Ottawa.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #285  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2013, 5:33 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,243
A bunch of new documents have been posted to the city's website, including the open house boards and policy proposals
http://ottawa.ca/en/city-hall/public...er-plan-review
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #286  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2013, 8:55 PM
McC's Avatar
McC McC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,057
sounds like it was a lively meeting

Quote:
It’s bikes vs. cars, developers vs. neighbourhoods as city begins review of official plan: Let the debating over Ottawa’s future begin

By David Reevely, Ottawa Citizen January 29, 2013 3:02 PM

It's bikes vs. cars, developers vs. neighbourhoods as city begins review of official plan

OTTAWA — Every few years, politicians at City Hall are required by law to tear down the paper they put up to conceal basic disagreements about what kind of city Ottawa ought to be. The process began Tuesday morning, with arguments kicking off about everything from cars versus bikes to how tall buildings ought to be on main streets.

Formally, the city was beginning a year-long review of its massive official land-use plan, its transportation plan and its infrastructure plan, which need to be updated every five years.

Think of it as the moment at a family dinner when everybody’s had a couple of drinks and starts saying what they REALLY think. Only it doesn’t last until dessert. It lasts until December.

Consider an exchange between a public-health expert the city brought in from Peel region west of Toronto, a specialist in how urban design affects our health, and Barrhaven Coun. Jan Harder.

We have to stop building a city as if easy motoring is all that matters, Dr. David Mowat said in a presentation in the council chamber, tossing up stat after stat showing that Canadians are fatter, lazier and sicker than we have been in living memory, and it’s scientifically provable that it’s because as a people, we live in our cars rather than walking.

“Many of our health problems are not problems of individual volition,” he said. It’s not like we don’t know that eating too much and sitting all day are bad for us. “They’re actually a normal response by normal people to an abnormal environment.”

Canadians, and Ottawans are no exception, get as much “recreational” exercise at the gym and on weekend bike rides as we ever did, he said. But we get less and less incidental exercise all the time — we don’t walk to work, our kids don’t bike to school, we don’t carry groceries home a few blocks rather than dumping them in a car trunk. One in 10 Canadians is diabetic now, Mowat said, and if current trends continue it’ll be one in six by 2031.

“There is no longer any doubt, the connection between walkable communities and serious, serious consequences,” Mowat said in City Hall’s council chamber.

Sure, responded Harder, who’s vice-chair of city council’s planning committee and had a place of honour next to Mowat. “But we cannot forget that the vast majority of people in this city are dependent on cars and always will be dependent on cars,” and we need a city that allows for that.

She chairs the library board and compared interest in, say, cycling, to library patrons’ interest in electronic books. It’s the library’s biggest growth area, but it’s still a niche market.

“Is it feasible to think that if we invest millions of dollars in cycling in the downtown lanes, that that’s going to attract new riders cycling from Kanata to the downtown core?” Harder asked. “It doesn’t. It really doesn’t.”

In the next round, Tamarack Homes’s director of development Michelle Taggart challenged the planning committee’s chair, Peter Hume. Among other things, he’d said in a presentation of his own, the city wants its official plan and its zoning codes to match up. They’ll do the plan first, then rewrite the zoning code in 2014, he said, “such that there is absolute certainty for all.”

He’s been saying that for years, because the mismatch between the more general land-use plan and the more precise zoning tends to be resolved in favour of whatever developers want to do and that drives neighbourhood activists crazy. But this time he added that the city wants to create new categories for taller buildings and impose tighter design standards on them; the current plan treats everything over 10 storeys the same.

Taggart, in a Q&A session, said she appreciates the desire for certainty but the city needs to be flexible, too.

“What you’re going to get is a lot of short, fat buildings with no through passages for walking,” she warned. Tamarack is working on a project on Kent Street where it wants to include a small street-level park, the kind of the city wants, but it’ll only happen if Tamarack gets to build something taller than the zoning allows.

Hume exploded. What we’ve got with the current “flexible” regime is tall, fat buildings with no through passages, he said, and a whole lot of fighting along the way. How about we try stricter rules?

“If there’s a better way to avoid that conflict, the development industry hasn’t come forward to say what it is,” he said.

Kanata North Coun. Marianne Wilkinson said she thinks part of the problem is that developers are so used to having a free hand that they pay too much for land, then have to push the development rules as hard as they can to make their money back.

Actually, suggested Minto’s vice-president Jack Stirling, the city’s been at fault for its insistence on holding in suburban development. Land is scarce, he said. A lot for a school, something that has little inherent value to a developer, cost $175,000 a decade ago; it’s $400,000 now.

The city also intends to keep the height limits on “traditional main streets” like Bank or Preston or Wellington West at four to six storeys. Stirling’s happy to hear about higher design standards and lower demand for roads, but the six-storey limit on main streets is a serious problem.

“It’s lovely to talk about a four-to-six-storey building, but there’s no such thing economically,” he said. The building code says buildings that tall have to be made of concrete rather than wood, which is cheaper. They need sprinklers and elevators, which are expensive.

“We’ve taken them through the economics of building a building and shown them why you don’t really start to break even in concrete until you’re at least 12 storeys,” Stirling said.

Fine, Hume said: If this really doesn’t work, we’ll know it in five years and we can change the rules then. In the meantime, he pointed to the Eddy, a high-end six-storey condo project on Wellington Street in Hintonburg, as evidence that Stirling is wrong.

Here’s something most everybody agreed on: There’s a lot of talking to do before the new plans become law at the end of the year.

Everyone shares a general vision of a city we can be proud of, Stirling said. “I like to think we’re getting close to it, and sometimes I do. But we’ve still got a ways to go.

dreevely@ottawacitizen.com

ottawacitizen.com/greaterottawa
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/bi...#ixzz2JOrX5V7S
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #287  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2013, 9:08 PM
Proof Sheet Proof Sheet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by McC View Post
sounds like it was a lively meeting
Peter Hume can get quite annoyed at those who don't totally agree that he is the smartest councillor of the bunch.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #288  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2013, 9:10 PM
McC's Avatar
McC McC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,057
I know how that feels ;-)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #289  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2013, 2:15 AM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,243
some big changes to the height policies proposed
http://ottawa.ca/en/preliminary-poli...tall-buildings

Quote:
Building Height

The current plan defines high-rise buildings as buildings of 10 storeys or more and all these buildings are treated the same. The proposed changes will introduce three categories:
  • High-rise A: 10-19 storeys (permitted in certain designations and in Community Design Plans)
  • High-rise B: 20-30 storeys (permitted in Community Design Plans only)
  • High-rise C: 31+ storeys (permitted in Community Design Plans only)
Community Design Plans or Transit-Oriented Development Plans will be required to establish maximum building heights and locations for intensification within the boundaries of their study areas, based on proximity to the rapid transit network and compatibility with the surrounding neighbourhood. This is the most comprehensive approach to planning for height and density.

Where there is no Community Design Plan, the Official Plan will identify where specific building heights shall be located, with the tallest buildings located adjacent to the rapid transit network. These heights are described below:

Mixed-use centres and employment areas:
  • 10-19 storeys adjacent to rapid transit station
  • up to nine storeys elsewhere, transitioning to low-rise areas
Mainstreets – no change to current policies:
  • up to six storeys on traditional mainstreets in older neighbourhoods
  • up to nine storeys on arterial mainstreets elsewhere
Major urban facilities such as shopping centres, hospitals and major sport facilities :
  • up to nine storeys

General urban area:
  • six storeys adjacent to the supplementary rapid transit network
  • four storeys elsewhere
Greater heights permitted in the existing Zoning By-law are not proposed to change.

Buildings over 30 storeys can be considered for some mixed-use centres around rapid transit stations, following further study. The plan will set criteria for these buildings, based on proximity to transit, compatibility, and design.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #290  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2013, 7:25 PM
rakerman rakerman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 748
shortcut to master plan review

http://ottawa.ca/liveableottawa

There's a survey up on the site, the results from the survey will go to council.

They also have the display boards (but not the presentations) from Jan 29, 2013 up.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #291  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2013, 7:41 PM
McC's Avatar
McC McC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,057
the survey is kind of annoying
Quote:
Question: Do you support or oppose a proposed height limit of 10-19 storeys for buildings located immediately beside a major transit station? (Terry Fox Station, Place d’Orléans and Bayview Stations)

Support
Somewhat support
Unsure
Somewhat oppose
Oppose
Compared to what alternative? a limit of 6 storeys? 29? no limits at all? hard to give an answer without that. Doubly hard when Bayview is lumped in with Kanata and Orleans, and we already know that +100m buildings are in the cards immediately adjacent to Bayview Station.

Likewise, what does "opposing" the proposed height limits on TradMainSts and Arterials mean? does it mean the limit should be lower? higher? no limits? should heights vary? be consistent? who knows!

etc.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #292  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2013, 9:42 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 Dr.Z View Post
I see where you are coming from now re: City bias. My bias meter focuses more on postivity; in the last 3 years I can only think of ONE article that was postive in regards to the City for planning matters. By comparison the Toronto Star or Vancouver Sun have a far less critical ratio. By this measure to me the bias is pretty clear-cut.

Anyone wanna place odds on a negative article post-open house?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
I don't find it one-sided at all, but even if it was it'd be hard to notice given the actions of the subject they're covering.
Q.E.D.


Or to elaborate the point, what McC has just described is exactly the kind of thing the City is always doing. The results of this survey could be twisted whichever way is desired, just as was the case for the 2008 TMP surveys.
__________________
Ottawa's quasi-official motto: "It can't be done"
Ottawa's quasi-official ethos: "We have a process to follow"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #293  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2013, 11:49 PM
Capital Shaun Capital Shaun is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by McC View Post
the survey is kind of annoying

Compared to what alternative? a limit of 6 storeys? 29? no limits at all? hard to give an answer without that. Doubly hard when Bayview is lumped in with Kanata and Orleans, and we already know that +100m buildings are in the cards immediately adjacent to Bayview Station.

Likewise, what does "opposing" the proposed height limits on TradMainSts and Arterials mean? does it mean the limit should be lower? higher? no limits? should heights vary? be consistent? who knows!

etc.
Yep. It's a terrible survey. I didn't finish it on my first try as I simply got frustrated at some of the questions.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #294  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2013, 5:11 AM
eternallyme eternallyme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,243
In the era of Agenda 21 becoming a common attack issue, this is going to be interesting...although they should have stuck to an Ottawa-based anti-sprawl expert though.

There are some places that 50+ storeys should be acceptable though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #295  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2013, 5:31 AM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,243
I'm skeptical about Agenda 21 being an issue. I've never heard a planner talk about it in real life and the only time I've seen it mentioned in Ontario is in some crackpot letters to the editor which also include phrases like "letters patent"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #296  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2013, 5:49 PM
gjhall's Avatar
gjhall gjhall is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterloowarrior View Post
I'm skeptical about Agenda 21 being an issue. I've never heard a planner talk about it in real life and the only time I've seen it mentioned in Ontario is in some crackpot letters to the editor which also include phrases like "letters patent"
I think that's what eternallyme meant...nut jobs attacking planning as a whole
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #297  
Old Posted Feb 1, 2013, 5:36 AM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,980
My god, that survey is crap.

At my work, we would never allow that garbage to see the light of day. (We are kind of in the survey business.)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #298  
Old Posted Feb 1, 2013, 2:39 PM
McC's Avatar
McC McC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,057
before asking a question, making sure you understand what the answer means is a pretty basic guideline for survey design.

Last edited by McC; Feb 1, 2013 at 4:15 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #299  
Old Posted Feb 1, 2013, 9:15 PM
Dado's Avatar
Dado Dado is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,521
And it's not just us, either. Ontario Green Party Ottawa-Centre candidate Kevin O'Donnell was tweeting about it yesterday; here's one such example:


Kevin O'Donnell ‏@ODonnell_K

#LiveableOttawa survey asks if we should delay transportation projects. Wish I could provide discreet answers for roads vs transit/ped/bike
__________________
Ottawa's quasi-official motto: "It can't be done"
Ottawa's quasi-official ethos: "We have a process to follow"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #300  
Old Posted Feb 4, 2013, 3:23 PM
eternallyme eternallyme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,243
Those nut jobs are primarily out in the rural areas anyway.

As for new roads, what roads are over capacity? That should be looked at before planning things out. Some may also be desirable to downsize existing roads (i.e. reduce Bronson Avenue to 2 lanes and dead-end it at Carleton University as many of us suggested).
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 1:58 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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