Another Andrew Cohen article slamming Ottawa

[J.OT13]

Nothing ever really happened when Ottawa was its own city before, of course having the suburban-centric regional government didn't help the situation. If Ottawa would have been 100% independent as a municipal government between 1969 and 2001, I have no doubt we would be further ahead today than what we currently are.

That being said, political will says that even if we de-amalgamated without the nuisance of a regional government, it still wouldn't make any difference.

[lrt's friend]

As for Montreal, just remember that many of the "pretty" urban and suburban areas you're referring to are actually separate municipalities, with separate councils, budgets, and priorities.

What does this say about the grand amalgamation experiment in Ottawa? There is no opportunity for local community initiatives. There are efficiency merits for amalgamation but there is also the downside, where centralized budgetary control make local beautification projects impossible. This is exactly why piles of money were spent on Bank and Preston Streets but ugly hydro poles and wires were left.

[lrt's friend]

I think the Prime Minister has a lot to say in building Ottawa or not building Ottawa especially when you consider the great institutions. The most influential were Sir Wilfrid Laurier and MacKenzie-King who adopted Ottawa as their home and sincerely wanted to improve it and actually followed through. Others have commented what initiatives that other Prime Ministers have implemented. I will add the National Arts Centre, which was a Pearson initiative. The current government and Prime Minister have shown no interest and this is reinforced by local MPs and ministers who have not dared to make a significant commitment other than trivially renaming the Ottawa River Parkway and Museum of Civilization.

[lrt's friend]

Nothing ever really happened when Ottawa was its own city before, of course having the suburban-centric regional government didn't help the situation. If Ottawa would have been 100% independent as a municipal government between 1969 and 2001, I have no doubt we would be further ahead today than what we currently are.

As a resident in one of the former municipalities, I disagree. Laurier Avenue has never been so distant from local communities. We have now seen repeated examples where councillors from other parts of the city will overrule local councillors on local initiatives. As it stands, it is almost impossible to get the smallest things done as they get lost in a sea of priorities of the greater city. And there is now so little local representation compared to before. As a result, community associations have tried to fill the void but this is hit and miss depending on whether your association is effective or not or whether there is a community association at all.

As a volunteer in a community organization, I am frustrated by bureaucratic meetings that we are required to attend, the latest one at City Hall during business hours simply because the staff member responsible has changed.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

A kick in the pants is what we need.

As far as crumbling planters, it is whole lot better than making no effort at all to beautify the city or those half-a**ed measures such as putting in decorative lighting while leaving ugly overhead hydro wires remain.

Seriously, Ottawa, what is your fixation with (A) "green space", and (B) overhead wires?

On the list of aesthetic abortions in Ottawa, overhead wires isn't even in the top 50 on my list. Maybe not even the top 100.

What is it people hate about wires?

You do realize, overhead wires are pretty well standard-issue in Canada, right? Is there something special about Ottawa that makes overhead wires especially ugly?

What am I missing?

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Probably the two most significant (maybe the only two) contributions to Ottawa the capital in the last 30 years (Museum of Civilization, National Gallery) were under Mulroney.

War Museum: Chrétien.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Nothing ever really happened when Ottawa was its own city before, of course having the suburban-centric regional government didn't help the situation.

It's been replaced by the suburban-centric Ottawa Suburb Council.

[S-Man]

If Ottawa de-amalgamated, would it be for better or worse in the end?

That's a can of worms!

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

If Ottawa de-amalgamated, would it be for better or worse in the end?

Worse. Without a doubt. In the pre-amalgamation era, Nepean, Kanata, Gloucester, etc. were all focused on building their own little kingdoms to rival Ottawa instead of planning their city to suit its place (both geographic & economic) in the broader region. Kanata was the worst at this IMO. They also were so desperate to attract tax base to pay for themselves that they largely ignored proper oversight & planning. Look at Bridlewood and its disastrous street layout, the sinking houses in Orleans, etc.

Also de-amalgamation would open up the countryside to rampant ex-urbanism. In Gatineau, Les Collines is becoming filled with ex-urban sprawl. In Ottawa, the city is able to control growth pretty far out thus keeping the rural areas rural.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Nothing ever really happened when Ottawa was its own city before, of course having the suburban-centric regional government didn't help the situation. If Ottawa would have been 100% independent as a municipal government between 1969 and 2001, I have no doubt we would be further ahead today than what we currently are.

That being said, political will says that even if we de-amalgamated without the nuisance of a regional government, it still wouldn't make any difference.

It's hard to figure out what pre-amalgamation Ottawa would have been like without the region. A rough idea can be drawn from Kingston, though. Prior to the Harris-era amalgamations, Kingston's western & eastern suburbs formed Kingston Township & Pittsburgh Township respectively, while the central area formed the old City of Kingston. The two townships were part of Frontenac County, while old City of Kingston was administratively independent--the same arrangement that Ottawa had prior to 1969. I believe that Kingston was too small for the province to consider making it a regional municipality like it did with the other agglomerations.

Kingston was able to resist anti-urban plans better than many other Ontario cities of the period. Examples:
-Efforts to demolish large blocks of urban neighbourhood in the core to build a suburban-style shopping mall were stopped dead in their tracks.
-Road widening projects that would have benefited the suburbs never went forward.
-The old city was hostile to power centre-type development, refusing to allow the Kingston Centre mall to turn itself into a power centre despite its repeated attempts to do so (this did happen after amalgamation, though).

One of the main end results of this is that Kingston's old pre-war working class neighbourhoods were retained almost intact, as opposed to most other places where they were demolished and redeveloped. This has allowed Kingston to flourish in the 21st century as a tourism destination ("come see our old brick houses & shops!").

[trhgr]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Worse. Without a doubt. In the pre-amalgamation era, Nepean, Kanata, Gloucester, etc. were all focused on building their own little kingdoms to rival Ottawa instead of planning their city to suit its place (both geographic & economic) in the broader region.

Well, I wouldn't mind that Nepean and Gloucester would have their own small downtown areas (wherever that would be). That would be a great alternative to giant street malls such as those on Merivale or Blair Rd, and maybe we would see people in the streets instead of only cars.

In Ottawa, the city is able to control growth pretty far out thus keeping the rural areas rural.

Well, there simply shouldn't be any rural areas in a city such as Ottawa. To me, if you can find fields inside of a Capital city, it means city limits are too wide.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Also de-amalgamation would open up the countryside to rampant ex-urbanism. In Gatineau, Les Collines is becoming filled with ex-urban sprawl. In Ottawa, the city is able to control growth pretty far out thus keeping the rural areas rural.

Yes indeed. Before the creation of the merged mega-Gatineau, all five cities plus the exurban municipalities now part of the MRC des Collines were part of an umbrealla that had power over regional planning.

But they did away with this when they created the mega-Gatineau, and so while the new Gatineau is tighter on exurban development and favours (somewhat) higher densities, the MRC des Collines municipalities like Chelsea and Cantley are exurban in nature and it's a bit of a free-for-all up there.

There is no one-way flight from Gatineau as the city continues to grow at a healthy pace, but I still now a ton of people (friends and colleagues) who have moved from Gatineau to new houses on big lots in Chelsea, Cantley, Pontiac, Val-des-Monts, L'Ange-Gardien...

It's like Greely with scenery up there.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by trhgr

Well, I wouldn't mind that Nepean and Gloucester would have their own small downtown areas (wherever that would be). That would be a great alternative to giant street malls such as those on Merivale or Blair Rd, and maybe we would see people in the streets instead of only cars.

They did try to some degree: Gloucester tried at Blair and Ogilvie, Nepean at Centrepointe, Cumberland at the Orleans Centrum.

None of which were really successful though.

I wonder - has there been a commitment on the part of the new City of Ottawa to pursue the development of these suburban mini-downtowns?

In Gatineau, the old city of Gatineau had similar plans in the La Gappe/La Cité area (near the sports centre and Library and Archives Canada), and following amalgamation the new city (whose downtown is obviously Vieux-Hull) nonetheless remained committed to the area and basically identified it as a secondary downtown to be developed. They located the new sports centre there, and the most pivotal Rapibus station for the entire eastern part of Gatineau, among other things.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

It's been replaced by the suburban-centric Ottawa Suburb Council.

Instead of de-amalgamation, would a borough (arrondissement) system like they have in Montreal, with some powers devolved to a local council, be beneficial to Ottawa?

(Note that Gatineau never got arrondissements, but Montreal and Quebec City did.)

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by trhgr

Well, I wouldn't mind that Nepean and Gloucester would have their own small downtown areas (wherever that would be).

Except they weren't actually trying to build any.

And still aren't.

[S-Man]

Trudeau built the Rideau Centre? Really? The federal government completely funded the construction of a shopping mall?

Could this be a first? What aren't we recognizing this achievement officially? A Mall for All Canadians!

[S-Man]

Could it possibly be that the building was built 'at the time of Trudeau'?

Because if we're going on this rationale, Trudeau built my parent's house.

[J.OT13]

I knew I was forgetting a Person legacy. How could I forget the NAC?

Anyway, new Ottawa like the regional government are in fact both suburban centric entities. Looking at the other big, totally independent cities (Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, and to an extent Calgary and Edmonton) thriving in the second half of the 20th century, building rapid transit systems to serve the central city, competing and winning international events, building new landmarks, I think a totally independent Ottawa last century would have resulted in a grand vision. Today, North American governments seem to shy away from big projects with a few exceptions such as Vancouver.

[Schattenjager]

The chairman of our favourite Crown Corporation wrote the following Op-Ed in the Ottawa Citizen:

Ottawa is a work in progress
By Russell Mills, Ottawa Citizen August 28, 2013 12:16 PM

Carleton University professor Andrew Cohen says Canada’s National Capital Region is an ersatz capital city, that is, an artificial and inferior substitute, like flour made from potatoes.

This attitude has roots in Canadian history. When a location for a permanent capital was being debated in the 1850s, Ottawa was the smallest and least developed of the five cities on the short list of possible capitals. The others were Kingston, Montreal, Quebec and Toronto. Ottawa was a lumber town of fewer than 8,000 people with unpaved streets.

When Queen Victoria decided that Ottawa was to be the new capital in 1857, no doubt the word “ersatz!” flashed through the minds of many people in the other four cities, or would have, if the word had existed in English then. As it was, they just grumbled and wrote letters to the editors of their newspapers complaining about the poor choice of the Queen and her advisers.

Ottawa had the strengths of being on the boundary between Upper and Lower Canada, a safe distance from the U.S. border and accessible by rail and canal. It was also the second choice of many in the larger cities who would have even been unhappier if one of their major rivals had won.

Cohen sets the bar high and compares our National Capital Region unfavourably with London, Paris and Washington. Our capital has never had the advantage of being the business and cultural focus of its country like London or Paris, so this may be a bit unfair. It was also not a purpose-built capital like Washington with broad avenues carved out of a swamp and large, new buildings to house the government of a fast-growing nation.

Ottawa just had its muddy streets, saw mills, a few churches and countless drinking establishments for the lumbermen. There was no room for broad avenues, just a set of Parliament Buildings. It was a modest start for the capital of the country that was to become the second-largest on earth.

If Ottawa was “ersatz” in those days, it was not unlike Canada, which developed as a chain of former colonies linked by a railroad in defiance of natural north-south trade routes. Many Americans thought Canada was not a real country. They were confident that the U.S. would eventually take over the land to the north as part of its manifest destiny. During the War of 1812 former president Thomas Jefferson famously predicted that the conquest of Canada would be “a mere matter of marching.”

Fortunately for us, our artificial country with its ersatz capital had some staying power.

Since the 19th century, the National Capital Commission and its predecessors have worked with municipal governments, the private sector and volunteers to build a National Capital that is worthy of Canada. Most agree that our old lumber town has become a very desirable place to live. We also want to build a national capital on both sides of the Ottawa River that all Canadians will want to visit. That is a work in progress.

Most Canadians are impressed by visits to the capital. If you want to hear their reactions, walk along the streets with visitors and listen to their comments after they have seen the “Mosaika” sound and light show on Parliament Hill. Most of them don’t even seem to notice that they are walking on durable pink concrete paving rather than more fragile and costly pink granite.

Cohen finds the extensive renovation of the Museum of Nature with its spectacular, light-filled “Queens’ Lantern” front to be “underwhelming.” I doubt that many would agree. And I would be surprised if many patrons of the National Arts Centre think they are in a “Stalinist detention centre” when attending a concert or theatre production.

Cohen makes some useful points, however, and we hope his critique will inspire us to do better. Some new museums, exciting architecture and improved infrastructure would encourage even more Canadians to visit their capital and renew their pride in being citizens of our great country.

Russell Mills is the chairman of the National Capital Commission.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion...977/story.html

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Worse. Without a doubt. In the pre-amalgamation era, Nepean, Kanata, Gloucester, etc. were all focused on building their own little kingdoms to rival Ottawa instead of planning their city to suit its place (both geographic & economic) in the broader region. Kanata was the worst at this IMO. They also were so desperate to attract tax base to pay for themselves that they largely ignored proper oversight & planning. Look at Bridlewood and its disastrous street layout, the sinking houses in Orleans, etc.

Also de-amalgamation would open up the countryside to rampant ex-urbanism. In Gatineau, Les Collines is becoming filled with ex-urban sprawl. In Ottawa, the city is able to control growth pretty far out thus keeping the rural areas rural.

There are definitely pros and cons depending on how it is seen. Les Collines is the nearest area from downtown Ottawa - Chelsea and Cantley are less than 20 km away (closer than Kanata!) - that is not in an urban municipality so that makes sense in a way (right or wrong). The closest point easily accessible that is not in the City of Ottawa in Ontario is Russell and Rockland, both about 40 km from downtown. Next closest would be Carleton Place, about 45 km from downtown.