HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Feb 6, 2010, 6:48 PM
Dado's Avatar
Dado Dado is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,521
Looking on Google Earth, a lot of the Greenbelt isn't farmland at all. The greatest extent of farmland in the Greenbelt is in Nepean between the Rideau River and Hwy 416. There are smaller concentrations north of Bells Corners and east of Kanata. In the east there's also some between Mer Bleue and Hwy 417 and a peculiar pocket on the Ottawa River between the Rockcliffe Parkway and Orleans.

I'm not quite willing to say we should turn all this farmland into development (and the largest section in Nepean certainly appears fertile enough) but the way it's being used leaves much to be desired. If this is good farmland, really it should be growing intensive high-value crops, perhaps even under greenhouses; instead it's mainly extensive crops (with a few notable exceptions in the form of berry and vegetable farms around Bells Corners - look in particular at the farm between Holly Acres, Richmond and Hwy 416 on Google Streetview for an example of what we should be seeing a lot more of). The farmland of the Greenbelt has the advantage of being close to a large labour market - incredibly, it would actually be possible for farm workers to arrive by municipal transit. Yet the NCC seems to manage it like some kind of satiated feudal landlord who's happy to receive a standard rent and not seek to improve returns or invest in the land.


As far as development of the Greenbelt generally is concerned, I'd start by looking for the bits and pieces of outright wasted land first, like opposite the Nortel lab on Moodie or the irregular parcels of land around the Queensway Carleton Hospital. This would be a far less controversial place to start. After that, I'd suggest examining the forested bits of the Greenbelt rather than the farmed portions. Provincially, we've got a lot more forest than farmland so we can much more easily afford to lose forest for development than farmland, although forest seems to give people more of a warm and fuzzy feeling than does farmland. In Nepean around the Sportsplex for example it would be possible to develop well over 100 ha of land in close proximity to the SW Transitway. Another spot is south of Blackburn Hamlet overlooking the creek valley, which will be served by the Cumberland Transitway, also encompassing well over 100 ha. All tolled, that's something like a combined 250 ha, which compares to the ~220 ha that were added in Kanata West in the last Official Plan update. These are the kind of opportunities we should looking at first rather than going straight for the jugular of building over farmland.
__________________
Ottawa's quasi-official motto: "It can't be done"
Ottawa's quasi-official ethos: "We have a process to follow"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Feb 6, 2010, 7:06 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,243
you can see a map of the soil capability for agriculture here. Class 1-3 is considered Prime Agriculture and has increased protection under the Provincial Policy Statement.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted May 16, 2010, 5:05 AM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,243
Consultants tell city: tighten your Greenbelt
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/busines...986/story.html
Ottawans sure to balk at logical solution to lack of land needed to attract new employers

BY RANDALL DENLEY, THE OTTAWA CITIZEN MAY 16, 2010 12:02 AM


A new study done for the City of Ottawa invites councillors to choose between logic and worshipping a sacred cow. Anyone want to guess which way they will go?

The report by consultants Metropolitan Knowledge International says the city is short of employment land that has good access to transportation and can be developed at an economically feasible cost. This is a critical problem as the city prepares its new economic-development strategy. Part of the solution, the consultants say, is to make available Greenbelt lands adjacent to Highway 417 and around the Ottawa International Airport. The city needs to make this point now, the consultants say, as the National Capital Commission is developing its new Greenbelt master plan.

This, of course, is heresy. Every square inch of the Greenbelt is sacred to most people in Ottawa. Sure, the Greenbelt does include such slightly non-natural uses as the airport and the entire community of Blackburn Hamlet, but it’s critical that the rest be preserved. For Ottawans, driving on a four-lane highway through government-owned fields is an important aesthetic experience, one of the top ways to commune with nature without leaving your vehicle.

It’s easy to tell these consultants are from Toronto. No one in Ottawa would make such a logical suggestion. They don’t know that Ottawans think that farming is a good use for land in the centre of their city. That’s also an idea endorsed by NCC chief executive officer Marie Lemay, who is interested in some kind of more relevant or interesting farming taking place on these valuable lands. What other city sees farming as an inner-city development option? Yes, people like it, but it’s simply not a realistic way to plan a city.

The city is beginning to wake up to the challenge of broadening the economy, but there is no use talking about attracting new employers if there is no place for them to locate. The total acreage nominally available for light industrial development has lulled people into thinking there is land to accommodate new employers, but too much of it consists of expensive and tough-to-develop parcels inside the Greenbelt or unserviced land farther out, the consultants say.

The problem has become acute because short-sighted councillors keep redesignating employment land for residential and commercial

uses.

Ottawa has lost approximately 35 per cent of its vacant employment land since amalgamation due to conversion to other uses. That has contributed to a land shortage that makes much of what’s left too expensive to develop.

The solution, the consultants say, is exactly what logic and a map would suggest. Vast tracts of land along the 417 in the east and west ends of the city are perfectly suited for development.

“Ottawa’s future economic growth is dependent upon access to lands along the 417 corridor to serve as a natural extension of the Ottawa and Hawthorne business parks, which are at or near capacity and landlocked by the Greenbelt,” the report states.

The consultants challenge yet another favourite Ottawa viewpoint when they say that the industrial parks necessary for employment expansion require good roads, not light-rail transit lines. Some councillors want to stop building roads altogether, but businesses rely on good road connections. By suggesting development along highways 417 and 416, the consultants are saying we need to do far more with the roads we already have.

The land around the airport is another prime opportunity. There are 860 hectares of federally owned land under the jurisdiction of the airport authority, but there is no plan to maximize their industrial and commercial potential. The lands aren’t even properly serviced.

“We have no idea what the economic potential of the airport lands are,” says Councillor Peter Hume, chairman of the planning committee.

To really get anything done in Ottawa, one requires intelligent involvement by either the federal government or its agencies. That’s a problem. The consultants highlight the disconnect between federal actions and good land use policies. For example, the federal government has done nothing to intensify development in its outmoded office campuses at Tunney’s Pasture and Confederation Heights. These are prime revenue-generating and intensification targets, but the government has no particular motivation to act.

The least we should expect from our councillors is that they mount effective pressure to get the feds to assist with economic development in Ottawa, not block it. If councillors follow staff’s advice, they will duck all these issues entirely when the consultants’ work comes to the next meeting of the planning committee. Staff want the report simply to be received and forwarded as another piece of information for the economic strategy.

That’s not good enough, Hume says. “This should be a major point of discussion for us.” If this city is serious about economic development, “Ottawa has to lead.”

Councillors need to address this issue, even if it means challenging some popular local perceptions. If they don’t, they will be limiting the city’s economic future.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted May 17, 2010, 1:57 PM
adam-machiavelli adam-machiavelli is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,244
Denley co-opts this so-called consultant's report as if it's his new bible. When they said Ottawa should replace the Greenbelt with business parks, I threw this report in the psychlogical trash bin of my mind. While it is true that many cities lack comprehensive goods movement plans, they should not take precedent over the movement of people and equitable human access to the city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted May 17, 2010, 6:54 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,243
From what I know of the consultant, they are more of a traditional firm, not really the type to propose a rethink of the employment lands model... it's great that the province and city are protecting land for employment, but this should only really be for industrial development and things that rely on trucking for example. Office-type development should really be more integrated into the community, most business parks are isolated and hard to get to in any other mode but the car. If we give up part of the greenbelt just to create more office parks, that would be a waste IMO.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted May 17, 2010, 9:35 PM
Dado's Avatar
Dado Dado is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,521


I agree.

Whatever faults the Greenbelt has, it seems a bit of a cop-out to use it to address bad planning elsewhere in the city. I find it hard to believe that between Kanata Centrum, Barrhaven Town Centre and the area around Place d'Orléans as well as existing underused federal sites within the Greenbelt that we can't find enough employment land. What we really need is a three-level strategy to actually start doing something with them. It also seems a bit much to blame Council in the way Denley has here:

"The problem has become acute because short-sighted councillors keep redesignating employment land for residential and commercial uses."

And out of curiosity who recommended this? Did councillors just go out on a whim and do this?

As for the contention that the Greenbelt is "in the centre of the city" I would point out that the distance from downtown Ottawa to Stittsville is roughly the same as that between The Hague and Rotterdam in the Netherlands. Between them is a swathe of farmland similar in size to the western Greenbelt and another city, Delft. Different contexts to be sure, but it does put things in perspective, too.


Fwiw, one of the firm's directors is the Chairman and CEO of McCormick Rankin International...
__________________
Ottawa's quasi-official motto: "It can't be done"
Ottawa's quasi-official ethos: "We have a process to follow"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted May 17, 2010, 10:26 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,243
You can see some of the background and phase 1 of the study here (I am assuming Mr. Denley is referring to Phase 2)
http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa...0003%20IPD.htm

I like that example you gave. Makes you think about extending LRT to the suburbs versus regional rail and gives you perspective on how big our region is. When in Holland I took a regional train from Amsterdam to Haarlem, took about 15 minutes and was really only about as far as downtown to Barrhaven.

One of the planners at the firm taught a course at Waterloo, which was one of my favourite courses.... journal articles and planning theory are an important foundation, but his course was about what most planners actually do in practice, which was a bit of a reality check compared to a few of my courses
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted May 17, 2010, 11:01 PM
eternallyme eternallyme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,243
The airport lands should be considered in a new category that I would create called the Airport Special Development Area. It would include all the Greenbelt land north and east of the airport, with Hunt Club Road as the northern boundary, Albion Road as the eastern boundary and the private access road about 750m south of Lester Road as the southern boundary.

The area should be designed as follows:

1) A transit station should be located just north of Lester Road along the old rail corridor. TOD policies - including an internationally-themed mainstreet corridor (as a G8 capital, such a gateway should be a cornerstone) - should be built in that immediate area with hotels replacing houses for the mixed-use buildings (taking advantage of being 1 LRT stop away from the airport), along with restaurants, small shops and convention facilities. Strict zoning policies would be applied to ensure only such businesses are permitted.

2) A business park (expansion of the existing/divided aerospace park with the former CFB Uplands lands) should be considered for the area west of the Airport Parkway and east of Uplands Drive. It should be connected to the main international area by a pedestrian overpass.

3) The southeast section south of Lester Road should be kept as federal industrial lands, with the idea that the NRC could consolidate operations there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted May 18, 2010, 12:58 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 waterloowarrior View Post
I like that example you gave. Makes you think about extending LRT to the suburbs versus regional rail and gives you perspective on how big our region is. When in Holland I took a regional train from Amsterdam to Haarlem, took about 15 minutes and was really only about as far as downtown to Barrhaven.
Thanks.

Just so everyone knows what we're talking about, here are a few Google Earth screens of the region west of Amsterdam, the western Ottawa region and the Rotterdam-The Hague region at approximately the same scale.







Btw, the land uses near Westland and Lansingerland are greenhouses. If we've got all this prime agricultural land in the "centre" of our city, perhaps we should start farming it seriously rather than growing crops of corn and hay. What other city in North America (other than Detroit...) has such an opportunity to grow high value crops within its borders with enough labour nearby to make intensive agriculture viable?
__________________
Ottawa's quasi-official motto: "It can't be done"
Ottawa's quasi-official ethos: "We have a process to follow"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted May 19, 2010, 12:14 AM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,243
Great images, it really does give you a different perspective. That Schiphol runway in the middle of nowhere is kind of weird!

Here's a link to the staff report Mr. Denley is talking about
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/cit...%20revised.htm

and the MKI strategy on employment lands
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/cit...20Document.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2010, 3:21 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,243
Proposed vision statement: "The greenbelt of the future will forever sustain dynamtic natural systems of living and interconnected lands and waters that enrich life in Canada's Capital Region and reflect Canadians' timeless appreciation of our natural environment."

Approved in principle, will be revised based on board input and come back to the board in the fall

Public consultation was strongly opposed to any new development in the Greenbelt

Last edited by waterloowarrior; Jun 29, 2010 at 3:52 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Jul 3, 2010, 4:38 AM
RTWAP's Avatar
RTWAP RTWAP is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterloowarrior View Post
Proposed vision statement: "The greenbelt of the future will forever sustain dynamtic natural systems of living and interconnected lands and waters that enrich life in Canada's Capital Region and reflect Canadians' timeless appreciation of our natural environment."

Approved in principle, will be revised based on board input and come back to the board in the fall

Public consultation was strongly opposed to any new development in the Greenbelt
The whole thing pisses me off. If you ask people whether they want the Greenbelt developed, they imagine cutting down trees, eliminating natural parklands and things like that.

I wish they'd ask people whether they think we should build new development on farmland in the Greenbelt, or on farmland beyond the far suburbs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2010, 3:46 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 d_jeffrey View Post
I don't agree with your Greenbelt comment, since it is mostly responsible for Ottawa's sprawl.
Where is this idea that the Greenbelt is responsible or is the cause of Ottawa's sprawl coming from? It's not like that without the Greenbelt we wouldn't have had any sprawl - it just would have been in the lands of the Greenbelt instead of beyond them, and that development would probably have started sooner than it did with the Greenbelt in place.

The Greenbelt might be the cause of extra costs associated with the sprawl beyond the Greenbelt compared to what would have been sprawl within it, but it is not the cause of the sprawl itself.

The cause of the sprawl was low density development inside the Greenbelt and piercing the Greenbelt with freeways and high capacity roadways, along with the usual generalities of consumer demand, fear of cities getting nuked and going to pot, etc. Other specific causes are fragmented planning and governance, and the blame for that lies with the Province for not altering municipal boundaries to reflect the reality of the Greenbelt. It's possible that a lot of the early unserviced low density growth in 'inner' Nepean would have been avoided had the old City of Ottawa been in charge of everything inside the Greenbelt.

Maybe the Greenbelt should have been made even bigger - say all the way to the ridge around Stittsville to the west, the Jock River valley to the south (roughly Richmond - Brophy Drive - Bankfield Rd - Manotick - Mitch Owens Road - Vars) and Beckett Creek to the east. That would have really pushed up the cost of sprawling beyond it and would have increased the pressure to properly use the land within the Greenbelt. It would also have effectively extinguished Nepean, March/Kanata, Goulbourn and Gloucester as entities, all of which did their bit to promote unsustainable development.

The Greenbelt does not explain why the Township of March became just another suburb without any discernible centre, all the ballyhooing of Bill Teron aside. If anything, it should have been a factor militating against what eventually happened because the forced separation from Ottawa should have led them to think a bit bigger. They had a pretty good opportunity to take advantage of the lack of development and plan themselves out as a whole new satellite city with an identifiable downtown. March/Kanata could have been Ottawa's version of Paris's La Défense, with a downtown perched on top of the Carp Ridge. Instead, they just let development sprawl out along the Greenbelt boundary without any overall plan. Goulbourn did the same thing, eventually turning their sprawl over to March as part of the newly-formed Kanata.


We often use the Greenbelt as a shorthand for the city vs the suburbs, but the reality is that inside the Greenbelt is a whole lot of suburbia, and some of it is far worse in many ways than suburbia outside the Greenbelt. Basically anything that was developed in the former Township of Nepean inside the Greenbelt is a planning mess, and even a lot done in the old City of Ottawa postwar is not a lot better.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DubberDom View Post
If the city had it's way, do you think the Greenbelt would have existed?
Now what do you mean by "city" since at the time of the Greenbelt's formation there was no overall city government. There was the old City of Ottawa and there were the surrounding townships in Carleton County. The RMOC did not yet exist at the time. The Greenbelt was taken almost entirely from lands in Carleton County (just a little of old Ottawa at Uplands airbase - so it was already in federal hands - nominally qualifies as Greenbelt) so the old City of Ottawa really wouldn't have had anything to say about it. They might actually have favoured it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
We have to be very careful about this. We don't want to destroy the green character of the city, which so many people from elsewhere admire about Ottawa. Filling in the Greenbelt, but refusing to build on the Alta Vista Parkway corridor or Airport Parkway corridor is hypocritical. They all have their origins from the Greber Plan. There is also limited advantage by filling in the Greenbelt with tract housing and big box stores, which is almost certainly the outcome.

Several members of my family lost their land as a result of the implementation of the Greber Plan and the Greenbelt and consequently they lost their opportunities to sell that land when its value increased as development moved out towards their land. There is a well known case of the Woodburn family who lived on Innes Road for generations, who lost their land to the Greenbelt and then were kicked off that land in order for the NCC to sell that land for big box development. A perfect example of injustice plus the likely outcome of 'paving' over the Greenbelt.
In Britain they deal with this issue by the state expropriating all undeveloped land for development from its original owners at its value as farmland or whatever it is. That way no one wins a locational lottery. Any land value uplift goes to the state, which is used to fund improvements for the development itself. After all, why should a family in Nepean luck out compared to a family in West Carleton somewhere simply because of where their ancestors were given land grants? Another advantage is that this way of planning puts an end to land speculation beyond the urban boundary because it doesn't matter what a speculator pays for it; the state will simply expropriate it at its economic value.
__________________
Ottawa's quasi-official motto: "It can't be done"
Ottawa's quasi-official ethos: "We have a process to follow"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2010, 3:56 PM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
Where is this idea that the Greenbelt is responsible or is the cause of Ottawa's sprawl coming from? It's not like that without the Greenbelt we wouldn't have had any sprawl - it just would have been in the lands of the Greenbelt instead of beyond them, and that development would probably have started sooner than it did with the Greenbelt in place.

The Greenbelt might be the cause of extra costs associated with the sprawl beyond the Greenbelt compared to what would have been sprawl within it, but it is not the cause of the sprawl itself.
The Brownbelt ensured that the new suburban crap built beyond it would be exceptionally auto-dependent and auto-oriented externally — you really needed, and mostly do need, a car to travel between the outside-Brownbelt developments and the older city — and thereby ensured that they would be auto-dependent and auto-oriented internally, too.

I agree that there would be the same amount of sprawl, more or less, on what is now Brownbelt land, but at least by being built immediately contiguous to existing city, the existing infrastructure could have been logically extended, and the 1950s-style sprawl, which we are still building in the 20th century, could have had some hope of being remediated in the future. With the Brownbelt, and the way we have built those crap suburbs, there is absolutely no chance that they will ever be anything but crapurbs. And the Brownbelt adds major costs to the operation and capital cost of existing and future infrastructure work that is needed for those crapurbs to function, let alone do anything to them that might make them less crapurban.

Once a Farrhaven, always a Farrhaven.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2010, 5:03 PM
Ottawan Ottawan is offline
Citizen-at-large
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Expat (in Toronto)
Posts: 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
Where is this idea that the Greenbelt is responsible or is the cause of Ottawa's sprawl coming from? It's not like that without the Greenbelt we wouldn't have had any sprawl - it just would have been in the lands of the Greenbelt instead of beyond them, and that development would probably have started sooner than it did with the Greenbelt in place.

The Greenbelt might be the cause of extra costs associated with the sprawl beyond the Greenbelt compared to what would have been sprawl within it, but it is not the cause of the sprawl itself.
Hear hear!

I think Dado has it completely right. He also highlights in his post something that is a big problem and often neglected: the extremely poorly designed interior suburbs (those within the Greenbelt). While we on this forum, and bureaucrats at the city, tend to focus on issues relating to intensification in the core (and select desirable central neighbourhoods) and on development of new suburban communities, now essentially all located outside the Greenbelt, finding ways to encourage intensification and find solutions to the ailments of the inner suburbs (old Nepean, old Gloucester, south parts of old Ottawa) is very important.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2010, 5:37 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is online now
Unapologetic Occidental
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Province 2, Canadian Empire
Posts: 67,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ottawan View Post
Hear hear!

I think Dado has it completely right. He also highlights in his post something that is a big problem and often neglected: the extremely poorly designed interior suburbs (those within the Greenbelt). While we on this forum, and bureaucrats at the city, tend to focus on issues relating to intensification in the core (and select desirable central neighbourhoods) and on development of new suburban communities, now essentially all located outside the Greenbelt, finding ways to encourage intensification and find solutions to the ailments of the inner suburbs (old Nepean, old Gloucester, south parts of old Ottawa) is very important.
Excellent points by Dado and Ottawan. Downtown will be fine. It is well on its way. This is a mirror of the situation in many North American cities these days due to two factors: 1) municipalities have finally realized that downtown is their "public face" and 2) a certain affluent demographic is now smitten by urban living.

As for the Barrhavens and Kanatas of the world, well all know what is going there. In spite of the doom and gloom from James Kunstler et al., they will likely continue on as before.

However, as has been accurately pointed out, it's the places that are caught in between that might be in for rough times. They have neither the shiny newness of the new burbs NOR the bright lights and amenities of downtown going for them. Their urban design is every bit as banal as the suburbs and they have none of the city centre's pizzazz. Everything just looks worn out and passé in these areas. The land of rusty strip mall parking lot posts...

Elmvale Acres, Herongate, Overbrook, Bayshore, etc. come to mind.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2010, 7:07 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,823
I think we have to accept the past and live with it. It is a reflection of the times in which these neighbourhoods were built. We should not make blanket statements that these older neighbourhoods are bad places because they are not. Sure, they may be older and some of the housing stock could use renovation and by today's standards, the density is too low. These neighbourhoods will be fixed up just as has happened in the Glebes and Westboros and other parts of pre-war Ottawa. There time will come as well. The concept of intensifying Emvale Acres and Alta Vista and others is not the answer either as it will destroy the character of those communities and those who live there will fight tooth and nail against it. The retail areas from that era were horrible as they were developed in a haphazard way and with few, if any design controls. Is what we are doing today that much better? Look at all those Big Box developments.

We have to understand that those neighbourhoods from the post-war era had to be built, and built fast. There was a severe housing shortage at the end of the war. People were desparate. There were families living in tents, and thousands in old barracks and there were protest marches demanding housing. Housing had to be erected quickly and that meant that neighbourhoods were built lacking many services that are expected today. There were no sidewalks, and in many cases, the streets weren't paved. Many areas were beyond the reach of water and sewer services and therefore had to built with extra large lots to accomodate wells and septic beds.

Of course, it was also a reflection of the returning war veterans who wanted a quieter life away from the grime of the city, and there was indeed a lot of grime. Downtown Ottawa was a filthy place back then. Lots of dilapidated buildings, and everybody was still burning coal. Then add in all the steam trains that choked downtown Ottawa blowing up soot everywhere. Just remember the poisonous smog incidents in London around 1950 and this gives you an idea of how bad the grime was getting. If you look at downtown Ottawa today, and complain about those horrid office blocks built in the 1950s and 1960s, just remember what they replaced was even worse. In most cases, a jumble of ramshackle old buildings of little merit.

I guess we should not be so critical of what was done in the past as they were considered an improvement over what had been done before that. Although the Glebe is now considered a highly desireable neighbourhood today, it probably looked rather tattered in 1960 before the gentrification took place.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2010, 7:16 PM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
The concept of intensifying Emvale Acres and Alta Vista and others is not the answer either as it will destroy the character of those communities
And? How is that a bad thing?

Pre-war communities have had to accept change. Why should post-war built-up areas be immune from change, in the name of preserving their precious, precious, "character"?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2010, 7:20 PM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
Elmvale Acres, Herongate, Overbrook, Bayshore, etc. come to mind.
Overbrook has pretty good "bones", and like Vanier is probably bound for a lot of redevelopment and gentrification in the next couple of decades, until the NIMBY reaction kicks in.

As for the others, though, yeah. Some areas could do well, though: Carling, from Lincoln Fields to the hospitals, has humungous potential, especially if (big if) a proper transit project were built along that axis. The Lincoln Fields wasteland itself, Carlingwood, and Westgate, are all major redevelopment opportunities that could keep those older inner-burbs from turning into the dreary grey belt that Elmvale and Herongate are rapidly becoming.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2010, 7:30 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uhuniau View Post
And? How is that a bad thing?

Pre-war communities have had to accept change. Why should post-war built-up areas be immune from change, in the name of preserving their precious, precious, "character"?

There are lots of resistance in those older neighbourhoods. Also, intensification is mostly restricted to small pockets of land, usually on major roadways. The same will apply to Elmvale Acres and Herongate. You will not see brick homes on backstreets in Elmvale Acres being torn down to be replaced by high rises or even stacked town houses.
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 2:12 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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