HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Downtown & City of Ottawa


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2018, 6:17 PM
Arcologist Arcologist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: The Nation's Capital
Posts: 686
Cleary and New Orchard Plan

I was trying to find somewhere to post this, and didn't see anything that fit the bill, so started a new thread.

I receive the Planning and Development e-newsletter from the City of Ottawa, and in their February edition, they had a blurb about the Cleary and New Orchard Planning Study. I thought forum members might like to read up on it, and also provide their feedback on the questionnaire.

Here's a cut and paste of the text from the e-newsletter:


Visit ottawa.ca/clearyneworchard to review the proposed draft policies and take a few minutes to answer our questionnaire before March 11.

The City of Ottawa has developed draft Site Specific Policies, Westboro Secondary Plan Amendments and Zoning Amendments to guide future development around the new Cleary and New Orchard LRT stations. Draft policies and zoning are based on input from two public open houses and a survey.

https://s-ca.chkmkt.com/surveys/mess...FEE10&l=en&f=4
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2018, 7:05 PM
Arcologist Arcologist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: The Nation's Capital
Posts: 686
Oh, and just a note... each question of the questionnaire not only asks you to rate each statement (i.e. strongly agree, agree, strongly disagree, etc.), but also gives you space to provide comments.

I made sure to suggest taller buildings and greater densities in these neighbourhoods!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2018, 8:04 PM
kevinbottawa kevinbottawa is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcologist View Post
I was trying to find somewhere to post this, and didn't see anything that fit the bill, so started a new thread.

I receive the Planning and Development e-newsletter from the City of Ottawa, and in their February edition, they had a blurb about the Cleary and New Orchard Planning Study. I thought forum members might like to read up on it, and also provide their feedback on the questionnaire.

Here's a cut and paste of the text from the e-newsletter:


Visit ottawa.ca/clearyneworchard to review the proposed draft policies and take a few minutes to answer our questionnaire before March 11.

The City of Ottawa has developed draft Site Specific Policies, Westboro Secondary Plan Amendments and Zoning Amendments to guide future development around the new Cleary and New Orchard LRT stations. Draft policies and zoning are based on input from two public open houses and a survey.

https://s-ca.chkmkt.com/surveys/mess...FEE10&l=en&f=4
I had a problem with the survey link. It's telling me I've already taken the survey. This link worked for me: https://s-ca.chkmkt.com/?e=108938&h=...3EB7FEE10&l=en
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2018, 8:29 PM
Multi-modal Multi-modal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcologist View Post
Oh, and just a note... each question of the questionnaire not only asks you to rate each statement (i.e. strongly agree, agree, strongly disagree, etc.), but also gives you space to provide comments.

I made sure to suggest taller buildings and greater densities in these neighbourhoods!
I did this as well, but forgot to put somewhere that they should upgrade the surrounding neighbourhood from R1 / R2 to R3 or R4 zoning. If anyone else wants to do that, I would recommend it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2018, 12:43 AM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is offline
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 12,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcologist View Post
I was trying to find somewhere to post this, and didn't see anything that fit the bill, so started a new thread.
Maybe here?
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=214409
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2018, 1:07 PM
Arcologist Arcologist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: The Nation's Capital
Posts: 686
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketphish View Post
Move it there or leave it here, I'm fine with either. I just wanted to give everyone the opportunity to comment on the plan via the survey.

If the link says you've already done the survey, try visiting the Ottawa.ca website and clinking on the link from there?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2018, 9:42 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 23,837
I did the survey and suggested a little bit more height. I also pointed out that the proposal of retirement residents and long term care facilities at Clearly is sort of an oxymoron because those uses don't generate transit ridership.

In terms of proposed heights, I don't think it's that bad. We have a traditional, quiet, low-density mid-century neighborhood to the south, a traditional main street in the middle and the river up north. Medium density with a few towers of 18-30 floors (a little more than the City's preferred concept) seems appropriate.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2018, 4:34 PM
Arcologist Arcologist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: The Nation's Capital
Posts: 686
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.OT13 View Post
In terms of proposed heights, I don't think it's that bad. We have a traditional, quiet, low-density mid-century neighborhood to the south, a traditional main street in the middle and the river up north. Medium density with a few towers of 18-30 floors (a little more than the City's preferred concept) seems appropriate.
I also suggested up to 30 storeys, especially in areas away from single-storey dwellings.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2018, 5:04 PM
Dr.Z Dr.Z is offline
From the Planning Paradox
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.OT13 View Post
I did the survey and suggested a little bit more height. I also pointed out that the proposal of retirement residents and long term care facilities at Clearly is sort of an oxymoron because those uses don't generate transit ridership.
Good point but it depends on the nature of the retirement resident. Those that are more on the independent living spectrum could still access transit, as well as visitors and staff.
__________________
"What about the children?! Won't somebody please think of the children!?"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2018, 5:12 PM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.OT13 View Post
I did the survey and suggested a little bit more height. I also pointed out that the proposal of retirement residents and long term care facilities at Clearly is sort of an oxymoron because those uses don't generate transit ridership.
That's an awfully definitive statement.
__________________
___
Enjoy my taxes, Orleans (and Kanata?).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Jul 3, 2018, 12:52 AM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 23,837
Survey results, released in April 2018. Prepare for mind numbing NIMBYism.

https://documents.ottawa.ca/sites/do...y_awhir_en.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Jul 3, 2018, 1:21 AM
JHikka's Avatar
JHikka JHikka is offline
ハルウララ
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 12,853
I need to go lie down after reading some of those comments.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Jul 3, 2018, 11:34 AM
Proof Sheet Proof Sheet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHikka View Post
I need to go lie down after reading some of those comments.
This one was a classic comment

'Mid-rise is better than fetishizing low-rise and frozen 1960s Leave it To Beaver development's'.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Jul 3, 2018, 4:15 PM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHikka View Post
I need to go lie down after reading some of those comments.
I love all the people complaining about the loss of "views".

A single-family home with a "view" blocks the "view" from the property behind it. Only the occupants of that single-family home get to enjoy that view.

Knock that 1963 suburban ranch down and replace it with, say, a multi-unit building with 24 units on the river side. Suddenly, 24 households have that view to the river.

If you love the idea that residents should have views, build up!
__________________
___
Enjoy my taxes, Orleans (and Kanata?).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Jul 3, 2018, 4:16 PM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHikka View Post
I need to go lie down after reading some of those comments.
too high

followed shortly thereafter by:

Too low!

And this:

If you want to block the sun and re-create the aberration you created on Richmond near Island Pk. High rises are the way to go.

I hadn't noticed that Richmond Road had been permanently cast into shadow. I am going to have a word with some astronomers later this month about this weird phenomenon where Ottawa, uniquely amongst all points on the surface of the earth, does not rotate about the axis of the earth. Weird, man. Weird.
__________________
___
Enjoy my taxes, Orleans (and Kanata?).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Jul 3, 2018, 9:15 PM
JHikka's Avatar
JHikka JHikka is offline
ハルウララ
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 12,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uhuniau View Post
I love all the people complaining about the loss of "views".
It's essentially "I don't want to lose MY view so that forty other people can have that same view! It's not fair!"

I get the concerns about parkspace, totally get that; But preserving views, whether they actually exist or not, just bothers me to no end.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Jul 3, 2018, 10:04 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 23,837
Something that drives me nuts is that the comments often have nothing to do with the specific question.

There's a question that starts with stating that Ambleside area as mostly a high-rise community and one guy comments they are missleading the people because the area is mostly family homes. He is clearly not talking about Ambleside. So many of these examples of people jumping around the study area with their comments instead of answering the question.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Jul 4, 2018, 1:53 PM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHikka View Post
It's essentially "I don't want to lose MY view so that forty other people can have that same view! It's not fair!"

I get the concerns about parkspace, totally get that; But preserving views, whether they actually exist or not, just bothers me to no end.
Preserving *public* views is often a laudable planning goal.

But preserving private ones? Pfft.
__________________
___
Enjoy my taxes, Orleans (and Kanata?).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Jul 4, 2018, 4:02 PM
Multi-modal Multi-modal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.OT13 View Post
Something that drives me nuts is that the comments often have nothing to do with the specific question.

There's a question that starts with stating that Ambleside area as mostly a high-rise community and one guy comments they are missleading the people because the area is mostly family homes. He is clearly not talking about Ambleside. So many of these examples of people jumping around the study area with their comments instead of answering the question.
There was one comment, maybe the same one, that I thought had a good point how the planners described the community south of Byron as a "stable community", which implies that the area north of Richmond (Ambleside) is not a stable community. It brings in to question why the City's planners always revere detached housing communities as untouchable whereas you can always cram more towers in "towers in a park" communities - screw the "park" aspect.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Jul 4, 2018, 5:55 PM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Multi-modal View Post
There was one comment, maybe the same one, that I thought had a good point how the planners described the community south of Byron as a "stable community", which implies that the area north of Richmond (Ambleside) is not a stable community. It brings in to question why the City's planners always revere detached housing communities as untouchable whereas you can always cram more towers in "towers in a park" communities - screw the "park" aspect.
Please, do screw the "park" aspect. Useless, sterile grass for the most part.

The public also reveres detached housing as immutable and sacred, so there's that.
__________________
___
Enjoy my taxes, Orleans (and Kanata?).
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 > Downtown & City of Ottawa
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:35 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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