NCC Greenbelt

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by KHOOLE

The emphasis should no longer be Ottawa as a capital city but Ottawa as a national capital region.

That's been the emphasis for decades. It has resulted in the stupid Greenbelt, suburbanizing decentralization of federal facilities, and the general mess that Ottawa is in today.

We are long past the concept of Sunday afternoon scenic drives on the Driveway beside the canal or to the island park midway on the Champlain Bridge.

That "concept" is still at the heart of that new and "improved" Greenbelt plan. "Capital Arrivals" = "Pretty trees to look at as you drive into Ottawa on a 1950s parkway".

The role of the NCC should also be to go beyond bicycle paths and to facilitate mobility within the area. The belt should be breached to facilitate transit and create neighbourhoods on a human scale.

The NCC has actively obstructed every single plan, ever, to run transit lines through its precious, previous, Greenbelt. It continues to do so.

[reidjr]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Most of the "work" the NCC does is pointless featherbedding.

So things such as the canal are pointless?

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by reidjr

So things such as the canal are pointless?

I believe he said "most", not "all", and even then, the NCC has stymied and limited the canal in several ways.

[Kitchissippi]

If the farm land in the Greenbelt were sold tomorrow, it would just result in suburban sprawl closer to the city, guaranteed. Even if you forced an "urban" form on it, you will not get people who prefer the suburbs to live in it, nor the people who buy condos in intensified older neighbourhoods (case in point LeBreton and Place des Gouverneurs not selling well). The mechanism for creating new traditional main streets and walkable communities from scratch is dead, and you can't blame that on the Greenbelt because it is happening in every North American city. Until this city wraps itself around a truly visionary transit plan it is not going to happen.

The best thing the city can do is extend electric LRT beyond the Greenbelt and into each of the suburban "town centres". The induce redevelopment and intensification of the big box complexes and the sea of parking lots around them.

[KHOOLE]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

The best thing the city can do is extend electric LRT beyond the Greenbelt and into each of the suburban "town centres". The induce redevelopment and intensification of the big box complexes and the sea of parking lots around them.

I Agree:

"The belt should be breached to facilitate transit and create neighbourhoods on a human scale" (me Jan 27)

Let the LRT breach the Greenbelt toward various "town centres" to intensify those town centres and make them more human friendly and useful. This way, cars are taken off the roads and we save on infrastructures.
A good example is Innes Rd in Orleans with all its shopping malls and immense parking lots that are nearly empty most of the time 24/7. Why can't there be an LRT to take people downtown to, say, the new LRT Campus station to be built?
Most of the people in the east end work in the east end or downtown anyway. That's why the 417 westward clears out in the morning as soon as you go past the Metcalfe ramp.
Get rid of the belt in "Greenbelt" but save the green and make it better.
The old Nortel campus, Q-C Hospital, Nepean Sportsplex and the airport are all part of NCC's greenbelt. They don't have to be.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

If the farm land in the Greenbelt were sold tomorrow, it would just result in suburban sprawl closer to the city, guaranteed. Even if you forced an "urban" form on it, you will not get people who prefer the suburbs to live in it, nor the people who buy condos in intensified older neighbourhoods (case in point LeBreton and Place des Gouverneurs not selling well). The mechanism for creating new traditional main streets and walkable communities from scratch is dead, and you can't blame that on the Greenbelt because it is happening in every North American city. Until this city wraps itself around a truly visionary transit plan it is not going to happen.

The best thing the city can do is extend electric LRT beyond the Greenbelt and into each of the suburban "town centres". The induce redevelopment and intensification of the big box complexes and the sea of parking lots around them.

Could the condo issue also be oversupply considering the demand?

Extending the LRT might work, but where is the money going to come from? It would likely cost about $7 billion to build all the extensions across the Greenbelt in every direction. Also that in the suburbs only works for some areas near the central parts.

My recommended plan is a 40-40-20 plan for new development in the region:

40% in new intensified areas or condos in the core and suburban subcentres

40% in new single family homes and townhomes in the suburbs and other lower-density developments

20% in new larger areas in the outlying communities and rural Ottawa (that may be a bit generous though, depending on current supply and demand)

[S-Man]

The areas identified for greenbelt additions aren't likely to mess with any existing plans for urban expansin - the parcels are in weird areas away from (or at least adjacent to) existing zoned urban land. I still say they should concentrate on greenspace worth protecting outside of the greenbelt, rather than the short-shighted greenbelt itself.

Referring to Kitchissippi's reference to slow sales at Lebreton and Cyrville, th former site is currently constrained by LRT implementation and Booth Street reconstruction, though to be fair nothing happened before those constraints were there.
As for Place des Goveneurs (sic), it ain't i a pretty place, but as intensification spreads out of the downtown core more (and when LRT gets underway), it will likely become a more desireable location, notwithstanding the industrial/no amenities nature of the location.

[S-Man]

The transportation aspect that is being spoke of would transform the city, but the cash isn't there. The current phase 1 plan is viewed as going to Mars by many residents, though they are the ones who think the train cars will sit empty because Ottawa residents hate any transit form that reminds them of larger cities.

If the feds and province ponied up the cash, that would be great, but it isn't going to happen. Toronto gets the province's transit dollars and the feds don't like giving transit money to Ottawa.

Barrhaven already has a dedicated transitway with lots of capacity, meanng Kanata and Orleans are more deserving of new transit infrastructure.

[gjhall]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

Could the condo issue also be oversupply considering the demand?

Extending the LRT might work, but where is the money going to come from? It would likely cost about $7 billion to build all the extensions across the Greenbelt in every direction. Also that in the suburbs only works for some areas near the central parts.

My recommended plan is a 40-40-20 plan for new development in the region:

40% in new intensified areas or condos in the core and suburban subcentres

40% in new single family homes and townhomes in the suburbs and other lower-density developments

20% in new larger areas in the outlying communities and rural Ottawa (that may be a bit generous though, depending on current supply and demand)

This isn't very ambitious when you consider that 1) we're already getting more than 40% of new housing units delivered through intensification, and 2) a demographic profile of retirees and young people waiting longer to start families who are naturally inclined to seek smaller, better located homes.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by gjhall

This isn't very ambitious when you consider that 1) we're already getting more than 40% of new housing units delivered through intensification, and 2) a demographic profile of retirees and young people waiting longer to start families who are naturally inclined to seek smaller, better located homes.

Maybe 60 - 25 - 15 then? If a more ambitious target is chosen, I would also send an olive branch to the other side and eliminate density requirements, however, for areas outside of the Greenbelt AND outside of designated town centre areas.

Do retirees really want condos though? It seems they are the ones that want larger (the largest) lots more than younger people these days, at least from my own observations.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by S-Man

The transportation aspect that is being spoke of would transform the city, but the cash isn't there. The current phase 1 plan is viewed as going to Mars by many residents, though they are the ones who think the train cars will sit empty because Ottawa residents hate any transit form that reminds them of larger cities.

If the feds and province ponied up the cash, that would be great, but it isn't going to happen. Toronto gets the province's transit dollars and the feds don't like giving transit money to Ottawa.

Barrhaven already has a dedicated transitway with lots of capacity, meanng Kanata and Orleans are more deserving of new transit infrastructure.

It's all because of votes. Toronto has more than 3x the number of votes as Ottawa, and the GTA has 6x as many.

[reidjr]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

It's all because of votes. Toronto has more than 3x the number of votes as Ottawa, and the GTA has 6x as many.

That's part of it but there are some city's that get more then they should and you have some get less then they should.

[reidjr]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

Maybe 60 - 25 - 15 then? If a more ambitious target is chosen, I would also send an olive branch to the other side and eliminate density requirements, however, for areas outside of the Greenbelt AND outside of designated town centre areas.

Do retirees really want condos though? It seems they are the ones that want larger (the largest) lots more than younger people these days, at least from my own observations.

Yes there are retirees that want condos some its just a investment a way to make a little extra cash for others the can't or don't want to live in a house where there is so much work that has do be done.

[gjhall]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

Maybe 60 - 25 - 15 then? If a more ambitious target is chosen, I would also send an olive branch to the other side and eliminate density requirements, however, for areas outside of the Greenbelt AND outside of designated town centre areas.

Do retirees really want condos though? It seems they are the ones that want larger (the largest) lots more than younger people these days, at least from my own observations.

The average age of buyers in Westboro Station, for example, is 55, and they had a no-flip covenant of a year I believe, so I believe so.

It seems to me that there are two trends for retirees, either they're moving into the city to be closer to services or out to the country to get away from it all. I'm not sure how well the latter will deal with declining health in their later years, but time will tell.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by gjhall

The average age of buyers in Westboro Station, for example, is 55, and they had a no-flip covenant of a year I believe, so I believe so.

It seems to me that there are two trends for retirees, either they're moving into the city to be closer to services or out to the country to get away from it all. I'm not sure how well the latter will deal with declining health in their later years, but time will tell.

If that is the pattern, maybe suburbia is pretty much dead or close to it? Developers should either be looking at one extreme or the other (large acreage lots or condos).

[gjhall]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

If that is the pattern, maybe suburbia is pretty much dead or close to it? Developers should either be looking at one extreme or the other (large acreage lots or condos).

I'm sure there will always be someone who wants no privacy and no easy access to thing on foot (suburbia), but I think that is dwindling.

I'm 25, and I know people who've bought a home in the burbs, but it was because of $, not location preference, and they are all eager to switch to a better location when they can afford it.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by gjhall

I'm sure there will always be someone who wants no privacy and no easy access to thing on foot (suburbia), but I think that is dwindling.

I'm 25, and I know people who've bought a home in the burbs, but it was because of $, not location preference, and they are all eager to switch to a better location when they can afford it.

Wouldn't those people be in heaven in exurbia?

[gjhall]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

Wouldn't those people be in heaven in exurbia?

I knew lots of people in high school who thought suburbia was great and exurbia where I grew up was ick. So not necessarily.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by reidjr

So things such as the canal are pointless?

The canal is very pointful.

It also existed long before the NCC, and will continue long after the NCC is abolished and its useful roles transferred to other agencies or departments.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

If the farm land in the Greenbelt were sold tomorrow, it would just result in suburban sprawl closer to the city, guaranteed. Even if you forced an "urban" form on it, you will not get people who prefer the suburbs to live in it, nor the people who buy condos in intensified older neighbourhoods (case in point LeBreton and Place des Gouverneurs not selling well). The mechanism for creating new traditional main streets and walkable communities from scratch is dead, and you can't blame that on the Greenbelt because it is happening in every North American city. Until this city wraps itself around a truly visionary transit plan it is not going to happen.

The mechanism is easy.

You want to build there?

You build urban.

You don't want to build urban?

Fine. Don't build there.

Should be the same rule for any new greenfield or brownfield development, but the municipality doesn't have all the powers it needs to impose that, nor the will to use those few it does have.

The best thing the city can do is extend electric LRT beyond the Greenbelt and into each of the suburban "town centres". The induce redevelopment and intensification of the big box complexes and the sea of parking lots around them.

Where are these mythical "town centres"? Never seen one. And that kind of a transit plan is only a different way of subsidizing sprawl, just as effective as giving the suburbs lots of 6-lane roads and ample parking.