HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Mar 14, 2012, 7:00 PM
rakerman rakerman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 748
Mar 21, 2012 - Urban Forum: A historical tour of planning in the National Capital

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: A historical tour of planning in the National Capital

Wednesday, March 21, 2012 | 7pm
Geneva Hall, Knox Presbyterian Church (120 Lisgar Street)

Dr. David Gordon, Director and Professor, SURP, Queen’s University

A subway under downtown in 1915? A major freeway under Laurier Avenue? A hexagonal city grid? A hockey arena beyond the suburban fringe? Join renowned capital planning historian and former Ottawa resident David Gordon as he takes us for an illustrated tour through the past of planning and design in Canada’s Capital. Hear about which planning and urban design decisions went right and which ones were failures, as well as the missed opportunities and projects that thankfully were never built.

http://urbanforum.ca/blog/announceme...ional-capital/

David Gordon has the Planning Canada's Capital site at Queens that includes an online copy of the Greber Plan.

https://qshare.queensu.ca/Users01/go...anadascapital/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2012, 2:06 AM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by rakerman View Post
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: A historical tour of planning in the National Capitalhttps://qshare.queensu.ca/Users01/go...anadascapital/
Guess you'll soon be able to add Nicholas Hoare to that *history*:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/busines...818/story.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Mar 22, 2012, 2:16 AM
Dado's Avatar
Dado Dado is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,521
The room was packed, so some of you must have been there...

Thoughts, impressions?
__________________
Ottawa's quasi-official motto: "It can't be done"
Ottawa's quasi-official ethos: "We have a process to follow"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Mar 22, 2012, 3:57 AM
Admiral Nelson Admiral Nelson is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 491
I was near the front. David Gordon's a very good speaker. I agreed with him on most points, but not all, like calling Place de Ville a mistake.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Mar 22, 2012, 4:21 AM
KHOOLE KHOOLE is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
The room was packed, so some of you must have been there...

Thoughts, impressions?
I was there and David Gordon gave an excellent presentation. Too bad the place was too small and hot and the acoustics were awful. (maybe someday we will have an adequate municipal gathering place?).
David Gordon gave an excellent presentation and he well explained how Nicholas Sparks, Col By and Philemon Wright were all greatly responsible for the narrow streets and present deplorable public transit downtown.
I asked David Gordon if the NCC was presently irrelevant and he said no, provided that the NCC get away from the old concept of being overlords on all planning and devote itself to intergrating Ottawa and Gatineau into a more "national district" kind of concept.
As far as the tunnel LRT is concerned, David Gordon said that three factors are involved: money, organisation and time, and he considers the implementation procedures more important than the actual design.
Personally, I think that the present DOTT should be scraped and that rapid overland LRT should be provided to Orleans, Barrhaven, Kanata and Gatineau. Who cares about an expensive tunnel that gets nobody nowhere except for a few hours in the work-day mornings and afternoons. Might as well bring the streetcars back for downtown Ottawa. At least. people will not have to walk as far to get to their office as with the presently planned fiasco.

I wish that David Gordon would be in charge of Ottawa's planning department. At least, the voice of reason would prevail.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Mar 22, 2012, 5:23 AM
Richard Eade Richard Eade is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Nepean
Posts: 1,946
For those who were not at the presentation, or those who did not take notes, or those who did not get the hand-out:

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly:
Planning and Urban Design in Canada’s Capital, 1800-2000
Urban Forum, March 21, 2012

David L. A. Gordon
School of Urban and Regional Planning, Queen’s University

Bad Ideas That Were Implemented Anyway
• Colonel By’s townsite plan, 1827
• Long-term leases in Wright’s Town and ByTown, 1827-57
• Sparks and Besserer’s subdivisions, 1842
• Lumber piles along the Ottawa River, 1874
• E.B. Eddy sulphite pulp plant, 1890
• Lemieux Island water treatment plant, 1912
• Green Island City Hall, 1956
• Place de Ville, 1965
• Hull megastructures – Portage / Centre / Monteferrand, 1970-77
• Barrhaven too close to the airport, 1974-
• The Palladium / Corel Centre / Scotiabank Place, 1990-96

It Seemed Like a Good Idea at the Time…
• Stegmann’s township surveys, 1794
• The Bytown and Prescott Railway, 1855
• Damming the Chaudière Falls, 1856
• Central Experimental Farm, 1886
• Replacing the streetcar lines with buses, 1945-59
• Population forecast for the National Capital Plan, 1948
• National Capital Plan road network, 1950
• Relocating the railway stations, 1950-66
• Federal suburban office parks, 1955-85
• Low-density Kanata, 1959-68
• LeBreton Flats urban renewal, 1959
• Rideau Street Bus Mall

Bad Ideas That Were (Thankfully) Not Implemented
• Barrack Hill citadel, ca. 1830
• Noulan Cauchon’s Hexagonopolis, 1928
• Underground Confederation Square, 1962
• King Edward Expressway, 1965
• It’s The Downtown Distributor! 1965
• LeBreton Flats Redevelopment Plan, 1967
• Chaudière megastructure, 1969
• Lowertown East Urban Renewal Plan, 1970
• Metcalfe Street axis, 1915 / 1926 / 1948 / 1998

Missed Opportunities:
• LeBreton Flats passed over for the Rideau Canal Terminus, 1820
• Poor Wright’s Town / ByTown townsite plans, 1826
• Parliament Buildings not connected to the City, 1858
• No Capital City district at Confederation, 1864-7
• Frederick Todd not hired as OIC Landscape Architect, 1904
• Rideau River waterfront not acquired, 1911-14
• Not implementing Holt Commission, 1914-21
• Not connecting Gatineau Park to the Ottawa River, 1936
• Ottawa River bridges – 1974-
• Missing Ottawa River pathway / parkway extensions, 1980-

Sins of Omission – Good Ideas That Were Never Built:
• Wright’s Town plan, 1826
• Bennett’s Capital skyline silhouette, 1915
• Bank Street river terminus, 1915
• Gréber’s downtown plan, 1939
• Satellite towns instead of bedroom communities, 1950-74
• Vanier Parkway connection to Macdonald-Cartier Bridge, 1964
• Macklin Hancock’s ecosystem plan, 1967
• Tomorrow’s Capital rail transit plan, 1974

It Worked Out Fine in the End – Good Decisions for the Wrong Reasons:
• Lord Dalhousie’s purchase, 1823 (Parliament Hill, not a citadel)
• OIC Driveways, 1900-14 (bicycles, not horses)
• Preserving the Rideau Canal, 1900-40 (touring and skating, not a military canal)
• Uplands airport, 1942-60 (convenient airport, not air force base)
• Gréber plan road corridors, 1950-70 (Transitways and bike paths)
• Greenbelt purchase, 1959 (ecological feature, not sprawl girdle)

Great Planning Decisions:
• Parliament Buildings competition, 1858
• Todd’s parks system report, 1903
• Creating Gatineau Park, 1935
• Freight railway relocation, 1950-65
• Gréber’s parkway system, 1950-70
• Preserving the Mile of History, 1960
• Doing nothing to the ByWard Market, 1969
• Express buses from the suburbs, 1972-
• Ottawa Transitway, 1974-
• National Gallery and Museum of Civilization, 1982-89
• Confederation Boulevard, 1983 – 2005
• RMOC / City Hall at Cartier Square, 1990 & 2001

Extracts from Town and Gown: An Illustrated History of Canada’s Capital, (forthcoming 2013).

Further information at www.PlanningCanadasCapital.ca or david.gordon@queensu.ca
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Mar 22, 2012, 10:22 AM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,243
Thanks for posting that Richard, sounds like it was a great talk.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Mar 22, 2012, 11:55 AM
eemy's Avatar
eemy eemy is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,456
I don't necessarily agree with everything he say here, but I don't know if there are some subtleties to his points which I missed. Mostly re: Central Experimental Farm and the moving of the Train Station out of downtown (I think it was the correct decision).

I also think that the express bus network is sort of bitter-sweet. On the one hand, it did enable Ottawa to maintain high transit usage despite being largely suburban. The express bus network arguably had a greater influence on transit ridership than the construction of the Transitway. On the other hand, the express bus network was effectively the public transportation version of building an expressway to the suburbs - not only could you take the car from your doorstep to work, you could also take the bus. The primary disadvantage of far flung suburbs (distance) was effectively ameliorated. On the whole, I think that it was the best solution, but, there are negative consequences to it as well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Mar 22, 2012, 1:46 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,823
I really don't think the express bus system has had a negative effect on the design of our city. After World War II, continent wide, there was a desire to move to the suburbs and away from the noise and grime of the city. The express buses did not cause this. Ottawa's great growth during this time period and the desire for more peaceful neighbourhoods would have created the current arrangement of suburbs regardless, not withstanding the decision to create the Greenbelt, which I consider an asset for our city. The express bus network did allow us to maintain ridership and even grow ridership in a period of transit abandonment in most cities. It also enabled us to build a more dense downtown with fewer parking lots and to build a few less roads to the suburbs. It also had some influence on creating at least a somewhat more sensible road pattern in the suburbs than achieved in cities with less successful transit systems and permitted a little higher housing density. Just look at the sprawl in many American cities and the very low density in their suburbs. I think the system (although now at capacity) has only had positive consequences for our city. It is also putting pressure on our politicians to deliver a better replacement transit system as we move to a rail network. I do not think that is a bad thing that expectations are higher in Ottawa and that a rail system should not make for longer travel times than the current express system. Comments about suburnites being spoiled by having direct service are not helpful. We should look at it as a challenge to maintain good quality service as we move forward. It is pointless to argue over who deserves direct service and who does not. Our transit challenge is to compete with the car and the faster the service that we can provide, the more successful our transit system will be.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Mar 22, 2012, 1:47 PM
McC's Avatar
McC McC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,057
Surprised that the 417 wasn't an "It Seemed Like a Good Idea at the Time…"
and that there were several I'd never heard of (and google couldn't find details on) any of you know where I can find more about the:
- Bennett’s Capital skyline silhouette, 1915; UPDATE: didn't recognize it under that title (it's aka "Holt Plan"), must be this guy: https://qshare.queensu.ca/Users01/go.../drawing17.htm and this guy https://qshare.queensu.ca/Users01/go.../drawing18.htm
- Chaudiere megastructure (which must be different from the Terrasses de la Chaudiere megastructure?); and
- Tomorrow’s Capital rail transit plan?

Last edited by McC; Mar 22, 2012 at 2:07 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Mar 22, 2012, 2:06 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,823
Regarding the train station, I am old enough to remember the station in operation. I am of two minds about this. It was certainly a major blow to this city as far as delivering rail service to the greater city and the surrounding area. If we still had the downtown station, expanding the O-Train network would be relatively cheap and simple to accomplish. It is quite likely that a surface system feeding into Union Station may even be enough to avoid the expense of a downtown tunnel for decades.

On the other hand, the conglomeration of rail lines and sheds between Union Station and Hurdman Bridge was an eyesore and a major dividing line in our downtown. The Rideau Centre and Conference Centre would not have been built, at least not at that location and one has to wonder whether we would have ever created Winterlude with the downtown sector bounded by railway tracks that would be strictly off limits. The removal of the downtown rail lines has certainly beautified the city and we all know some of those iconic pictures of the skaters on the canal with the Parliament Buildings in the background. Those pictures would not exist if railway tracks, trains and sheds had been on the right side.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Mar 22, 2012, 2:10 PM
McC's Avatar
McC McC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,057
which lead to gazing wistfully at:
https://qshare.queensu.ca/Users01/go...t%20report.jpg
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Mar 22, 2012, 2:17 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 McC View Post
Surprised that the 417 wasn't an "It Seemed Like a Good Idea at the Time…"
Arguably that's in the National Capital road network of 1950. Also, as he pointed out following a question, the Queensway-as-freeway was not actually part of the plan: it was supposed to be a grand Parisian boulevard but the MTO insisted upon freeway standards as part of their funding contribution.

Quote:
and that there were several I'd never heard of (and google couldn't find details on) any of you know where I can find more about the:
- Bennett’s Capital skyline silhouette, 1915;
- Chaudiere megastructure (which must be different from the Terrasses de la Chaudiere megastructure?); and
- Tomorrow’s Capital rail transit plan?
I had heard of the last one before. In 1976, some public transit advocates who were not keen on the BRT plans being developed came up with their own plan instead and produced a document with the title Light Rail Transit for the National Capital Region. The authors were Greg Ross and Charles Shrubsole and they were helped by Harry Gow. It's available in the Ottawa Room of the Library. Anyway, in that document they made reference to the above NCC study and an RMOC study on the proposed Transitway corridors and they basically combined the two together. You can find the "Tomorrow's Capital" study in the Ottawa Room as well. It's probably the last time any government authority actually put forward a genuine attempt at a region-wide structural plan but from the 1970s on the NCC essentially gave way to the municipalities.

Frankly, I'd put the Light Rail Transit for the National Capital Region as one of those ideas in the 'Sins of Omission – Good Ideas That Were Never Built' category. The effort that went into that document is quite impressive; they even went so far as to do a photo montage of a European light rail vehicle sitting on the tracks that then existed at Tunney's Pasture.
__________________
Ottawa's quasi-official motto: "It can't be done"
Ottawa's quasi-official ethos: "We have a process to follow"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Mar 22, 2012, 2:26 PM
McC's Avatar
McC McC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
Arguably that's in the National Capital road network of 1950. Also, as he pointed out following a question, the Queensway-as-freeway was not actually part of the plan: it was supposed to be a grand Parisian boulevard but the MTO insisted upon freeway standards as part of their funding contribution.
so he limited himself only to federal and municipal plans and actions in the Capital and left out provincial interventions like turning https://qshare.queensu.ca/Users01/go...0boulevard.jpg into this: http://traffic.ottawa.ca/map/intersections#?

My comment was a little too short, should have said something like "transforming Gréber's crosstown boulevard into the Queensway/417 as an "It Seemed Like a Good Idea at the Time…""

Last edited by McC; Mar 22, 2012 at 2:36 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Mar 22, 2012, 8:27 PM
Richard Eade Richard Eade is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Nepean
Posts: 1,946
Mr. Gordon split the rail system into Passenger and Freight components. He believes that the moving of the Freight rail out of the core was a feat of ‘Great Planning’, while the moving of the Passengers was in the category of ‘It Seemed Like a Good Idea at the Time…’.

Basically, he was pointing out that Gréber originally only wanted the Freight lines removed from the core. This would have greatly simplified the entire rail system in the city and removed most of the more than 100 at-grade crossings. With only Passenger service running into the downtown (along the canal for the downtown portion), there would be very little interference between trains and cars. Alas, according to Mr. Gordon, Gréber was pushed to move all of the city’s rail over to the new station.

If the passenger station had remained downtown, with a single (or twin) rail line following the canal, it could have been grade separated, just as the canal is; i.e., any bridge passing over the canal would also overpass the tracks. Being in the same ‘transportation corridor’ as the canal, the rail would also not be running through the middle of downtown neighbourhoods. There would be no need for huge storage sheds, multiple-track yards, or goods-handling facilities in the core either, so the station area would look a LOT less industrial. I’m guessing that Gréber did too good a job of describing the benefits of removing the Freight lines and the Politicians got caught-up and wanted more; i.e., if that’s so good, then more should be even better.

That said, Gréber did an admirable job of finding a place where the rails provide very little interference with the rest of the city, yet is relatively easy to get to for the majority of people. And, it is a wonderful building.

I expect that if Gréber had gotten his way, the Freight Depot would have been a bit further out from the core.

Apparently, there was a plan for the Federal Government to build an office megastructure (like the Place du Protage) in the LeBreton Flats area. I’m not sure how serious that plan was, but Mr. Gordon had a drawing of a potential implementation. I think of this as being only a little more possible than the Downtown Distributor; it was someone’s idea that made it onto paper and into a report – but it was not likely to get built. Having said that though, the Federal Government built the Place du Portage, the Terrasses de la Chaudière, and now continues to build the CSIS complex on Ogilvie Road.

As for the Central Experimental Farm (CEF) being a problem now, I don’t see that. When it was first created, it was an agricultural research station on the out-skirts of the city, where it had enough land but it was easy for the Scientists to get to and from work. Since then, the city has grown up around the farm, and the farm has branched out into the Greenbelt. Some crop research still happens at the CEF and it offers an ideal testing ground for how cities influence crops. This might actually become even more important as cities begin to produce more of their own food.

My biggest complaint about the CEF is that it stopped being a working farm as far as animals go. I spent many hours at the farm when I was a child learning about the differences between Simmental and Holsteins. Now the dairy barn is the only large group of working animals on the farm; they can’t even keep bees there any more (too many complaints from people who think they’ll be swarmed). The few animals the museum keeps are just for showing kids what the various animals look like outside of a story book. That is a good thing to do, but a little different from having 20 Angus which will be sold for meat after they fatten them up with experimental feedstock.

I think the only real negative that the Express bus system has given us (perhaps apart from its price) is that it has likely spoiled the people who use it. How is any new LRT system which requires people to transfer between bus and rail in the morning and from rail to bus in the afternoon going to be faster and more convenient?

Actually, I think the 417 has helped the city. I know that when I need to cover a lot of west – east distance I generally use the Queensway; and I expect most of you do too. It is a relatively direct and fast route. If the 417 were not there, I expect that our road network would be crippled by the displaced traffic. Is it pretty? Of course not. Does it provide a much needed connector for the city? Absolutely.

I also think that it has saved untold amounts of gas from being burnt. Imagine how much more pollution would be generated if everyone who previously traveled on the 417 was forced into the stop and go traffic along Carling or Baseline.

And, similar to what lrt’s friend said about Express buses; I’m not convinced that the Queensway CAUSED sprawl as much as it handled the product of the sprawl which was happening regardless.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Mar 22, 2012, 9:09 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,243
for any newer SSP members, be sure to check out this thread "What could have been—old visions and plans for Ottawa"
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=140494


http://www.nccwatch.org/blunders/lebreton.htm
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Mar 22, 2012, 9:30 PM
Richard Eade Richard Eade is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Nepean
Posts: 1,946
In hind-sight, maybe a LeBreton DND-HQ megastructure would have been a good thing. We probably wouldn't have the huge DND-HQ where it is now (although something else would likely be there by now); it would have been on the Transitway (someday LRT) line; it would have gotten taller buildings built in Ottawa where they are not interferring with the sight-lines to the Parliament Buildings; it would have put the DND-HQ beside the War Museum; and LeBreton Flats would have been redeveloped decades ago. And the Feds wouldn't have just bought the suburban ex-Nortel campus where there is currently no rapid transit.

If only we could go back and re-do selected things.

Of course, it probably would have also lead to construction of the Champange Corridor being from the 417 to a new bridge connecting to the A50 in Gatineau.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Mar 22, 2012, 10:23 PM
eternallyme eternallyme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,243
As for the 417 through Ottawa, I find the section from about the Rideau River to Maitland to be well-designed for the urban setting. Unlike the 401 in Toronto, it doesn't seem to be a huge barrier to communities due to the large number of streets that pass directly underneath. The relatively narrow ROW also allows pedestrians to fairly easily clear it.

In the ends of the urban area, it could have been designed better I agree. Perhaps if the elevated banks were kept all the way to the split and to Bayshore, it would not be as big of a problem.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2012, 2:05 AM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,823
Quote:
And, similar to what lrt’s friend said about Express buses; I’m not convinced that the Queensway CAUSED sprawl as much as it handled the product of the sprawl which was happening regardless.
I agree with this statement but only to the extent that sprawl would not have been avoided. What the Queensway did do was direct sprawl to the east and west. If you look at what was happening before its initial opening in 1960, during the post war boom, the city was raising southward through Alta Vista and far into Gloucester, much of the latter thwarted by the Greenbelt expropriations. Similarly subdivisions were also raising southward along Prince of Wales Drive. As soon as the Queensway opened, developers quickly saw that they could market new subdivisions in the east and west as being only x minutes from downtown via the Queensway and the growth pattern abruptly changed. A generation earlier during the pre World War I real estate boom, it was the Britannia streetcar line that drove development westward. So, the routing of transportation corridors does have a great affect on the direction in which the city grows.

Quote:
As for the 417 through Ottawa, I find the section from about the Rideau River to Maitland to be well-designed for the urban setting. Unlike the 401 in Toronto, it doesn't seem to be a huge barrier to communities due to the large number of streets that pass directly underneath. The relatively narrow ROW also allows pedestrians to fairly easily clear it.

In the ends of the urban area, it could have been designed better I agree. Perhaps if the elevated banks were kept all the way to the split and to Bayshore, it would not be as big of a problem.
There was a difference between the 401 and the 417. The 401 was designed to run north of the old city of Toronto, originally as a bypass route while the 417 used an old railway corridor to cut across established neighbourhoods in Ottawa. This is why it is less of a barrier and the right of way much narrower, but on the other hand, at the time of its building, it was also much more destructive as many streets were severed and many homes were demolished and countless others became much less desireable.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2012, 1:21 PM
McC's Avatar
McC McC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Eade View Post
In hind-sight, maybe a LeBreton DND-HQ megastructure would have been a good thing. We probably wouldn't have the huge DND-HQ where it is now (although something else would likely be there by now).
I think that the MajGen Pearkes building (aka NDHQ) would have been built anyway, because it was planned and designed to be Transport Canada's headquarters. This alternate present would have given us the ongoing advantage that the "mall" level of the building would still be open to the public today, allowing people to freely travel between the Rideau Centre and Laurier Ave (and giving OC Transpo and STO 3 cross-town route options to distribute their traffic onto, since anyone could make a relatively quick, comfortable transfer between Rideau and Laurier as easily as they do from MacKenzie-King, and Laurier connects to the Transitway and Rideau Street just as well as Albert-Slater do). It also might have meant that Place De Ville Tower C (the worst of the three from an urban design perspective) wouldn't have been built in its current form, either... but this is a lot of hypotheticals!
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
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 10:15 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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