Ken Gray: NIMBY watch

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by S-Man

These people with the rapidly appreciating homes and rapidly degrading quality of life in Ken's neighbourhood basically want to live in Barrhaven, but still be close to things.

Whose quality of life is degrading there, I'd like to know...

Nothing like miserly neighbourhood battles to welcome people to the great, bitchy city of Ottawa, where your neighbour demands their privacy while demanding to know everything you're doing on your own property.

Why can't you think of the children?

[lrt's friend]

As someone who lives in a neighbourhood that has seen tremendous amounts of infill housing, I am very sympathetic to Dado's point of view. In so many cases, infill housing is just a means to make money while it actually degrades the neighbourhood. The actual point of paved over front yards, oversized housing dominated by garages is that it may be allowed by zoning but it gradually destroys the character of the neighbourhood. It is a reflection of the disposible society that now extends right up to housing. Nimbyism is just going to grow as the destructive side of intensification becomes more evident. A perfect example of horrid infill can be found on Main Street where the whole first floor is garages. How do you expect people to react to such poor design?

I am all for replacing derelict buildings and building on parking lots and other empty lots, but we better show better respect to community character when we think about infill housing.

Similarly, why are we so sympathetic with developers who continually exceed zoning limits, often substantially? Why bother having zoning at all if we are not going to follow it?

[S-Man]

I agree with the beef about paved frpnt yards and walls of garages - these design elements were front and centre at the city's infill open houses earlier this year,
As for zoning itself, the 'why can't developers accept existing zoning' argument has to wrangle with the fact that things have changed. Much of the zoning that's being contested was put in place in the 1970s, when a bus transitway was a future transit dream and there wasn't (hardly) anything outside the greenbelt.
Since then sprawl has occured on such a scale that in order to make up for it, you can't (or shouldn't) build 4 stories on a lot that could handle more. The need to surpass existing zoning for height is a reaction to decades of poor planning and 'sign here, here's 500 hectres' land giveaways in the suburbs.

Circumstances change, is what I;m saying, and zoning (and people) have to adapt with it. The degree of change needed, of course, will fuel debates for years to come.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

Small-scale infill and "extremification" are separate issues I think. Monster homes and large semis don't really go through the planning process, unless they go for a variance. But you can usually build a large, ugly out of scale building with or without a variance. Things like trees, garages, entrances, driveways, etc are a by-law issue or are permitted by existing rules.

There is an upcoming city meeting on this issue actually on Sept 14th, with proposed solutions to address some of these issues
http://ottawa.ca/residents/public_co.../index_en.html
http://ottawa.ca/residents/public_co...utions_en.html

That documentation, depressingly, makes numerous references to infill houses being — are you sitting down? — taller than their neighbours.

THE HORROR!

Ottawa needs a good team of proctologists.

[Mille Sabords]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

That documentation, depressingly, makes numerous references to infill houses being — are you sitting down? — taller than their neighbours.

THE HORROR!

Ottawa needs a good team of proctologists.

Did you read the proposed solutions?

[S-Man]

As I've stated so many times before, if you walk down a street anywhere in North America that was built in the 1890 to 1920 era, and Ottawa has many of those streets, you will see many examples of three storey homes (or triplexes) mingling nicely with two-storey homes (or duplexes). It all looks very organic.
This, compared to the 'cloned' look of everything being the same, lest someone be offended.
At the single infill meeting I went to (which didn't seem to have anyone under the age of 50-55 at it, just like with any community outrage meeting I've been to), one aging and visibly upset woman ranted about how her neighbour's house was ....drumroll please.....18 INCHES higher than her house, and WHAT IS THE CITY GOING TO DO TO PREVENT THIS FROM HAPPENING AGAIN?!!"

I wonder how she would have fared during the Great Depression or a world war when there were slightly more important things to worry about.

Anyway, this is what the city is up against. Frankly, I could have told her where she might find 18 inches of wooden pole to measure with, but I stifled myself.
Proctology, indeed.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Mille Sabords

Did you read the proposed solutions?

Yip. Routine Infant Circumcision planning for the most part; cures flailing about trying to find a disease.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by S-Man

just like with any community outrage meeting I've been to)

Yeah, I be stealin' that phrase. Hell, the city should formally adopt it, and schedule "Community Outrage Meetings" instead of public hearings or consultation sessions or charettes.

Anyway, this is what the city is up against. Frankly, I could have told her where she might find 18 inches of wooden pole to measure with, but I stifled myself.

I am not entirely sure that I would have!

Jeeze Louise.

[davidreevely]

Originally Posted by Ottawan

I like it! Now we know that David Reevely reads this forum on occasion, because he's posted here a half dozen times. I get the feeling that he's more pro-intensification (or at least sensible planning); maybe he'll pick up "Sprawlmageddon" and we can have a War of the Words in the Citizen blogosphere.

I think "sprawl" does the job nicely.

[waterloowarrior]

Ken Gray responds to some of the comments here http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2011/...ts-your-hurry/

[eemy]

I don't read the Citizen or follow Ken Gray, so I don't really hold an opinion of him; however, you'd think he'd try to stay above internet flaming. While I think his criticism of some users on this site is spot on re: the fetish for all things tall, it is certainly a grossly inaccurate characterization of the general posters on the Ottawa sub-forum.

BTW,did I just get trolled by Ken Gray?

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

Ken Gray responds to some of the comments here http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2011/...ts-your-hurry/

And there is more

http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2011/...tremification/

This article is proof for me why I would never get a facebook account...

[S-Man]

Hmm...Gray has never been above internet flaming. And no, he never gave an alternative, besides the usual mantra of 'respect the character of the community'. When you're talking planning, I don't think it's pretentious to offer alternatives, unless you're afraid of those ideas being shot down.

Oh well, given the way he rails against people like Hobbs, I'm not surprised he would make sweeping generalizations about a group of people. He's petty when it comes to people not agreeing with him - and that's a growing number of people.

[adam-machiavelli]

I think that interaction with the street is the most important and challenging design aspect of intensification. I would support a 12 floor height limit for the entire region, with a 3 floor limit in low density areas, and 6 floors in medium density areas, under the following circumstances:
- no new suburban development would be permitted outside the Greenbelt (and a program and related policies would be implemented to bring residents of Kanata, Stittsville, Orleans, Barrhaven, Leitrim, and Riverside South back inside the Greenbelt)
- public transit frequency, travel times, and comfort were vastly improved inside the Greenbelt
- more public resources were put to protecting and enhancing recreation and conservation areas
- many more pedestrian and cycling routes (sidewalks, paths, lanes, etc.) were added
- and most important: the City developed a system of quickly and easily expediting approvals to tear down any detached residential dwelling and replace it with 2 more more semi-detached units, row houses, or low rise apartments.

Those are my conditions. Ken Grey, your move.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by adam-machiavelli

I think that interaction with the street is the most important and challenging design aspect of intensification. I would support a 12 floor height limit for the entire region, with a 3 floor limit in low density areas, and 6 floors in medium density areas, under the following circumstances:
- no new suburban development would be permitted outside the Greenbelt (and a program and related policies would be implemented to bring residents of Kanata, Stittsville, Orleans, Barrhaven, Leitrim, and Riverside South back inside the Greenbelt)
- public transit frequency, travel times, and comfort were vastly improved inside the Greenbelt
- more public resources were put to protecting and enhancing recreation and conservation areas
- many more pedestrian and cycling routes (sidewalks, paths, lanes, etc.) were added
- and most important: the City developed a system of quickly and easily expediting approvals to tear down any detached residential dwelling and replace it with 2 more more semi-detached units, row houses, or low rise apartments.

Those are my conditions. Ken Grey, your move.

You're an Extrimifier! That's what you are! EXTREMIFIER!

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by adam-machiavelli

- no new suburban development would be permitted outside the Greenbelt (and a program and related policies would be implemented to bring residents of Kanata, Stittsville, Orleans, Barrhaven, Leitrim, and Riverside South back inside the Greenbelt)

Interesting points, but would you care to expand on this point..are you proposing to forcibly move people to within the greenbelt and give up these areas similar to what is being talked about for Detroit.

[S-Man]

I think Machiavelli means to say there would be incentives for suburban-dwellers to move back into the urban core, thus freeing up a suburban house for others to move into and preventing any NEW suburban development.

It would be quite the balancing act, as new urban units would have to be approved and built at a pace that matches the number of people who move into Ottawa's suburbs ever day. Quite a lot.

That said, street interaction, better transit and the like make for a much more liveable city than stagnancy, empty lots and reduced transit service due to suburban infrastructure costs. It's hard to argue against that, but many will - look at the outcry over low-rises throughout the city, as well as the notion that light rail or expanded bus service is an unneccesary vanity project by the 'I don't use transit, don't raise my taxes' crowd.

[adam-machiavelli]

People move to the suburbs when urban housing becomes unaffordable. Housing can be made more affordable in urban areas by using off-the-shelf designs, cheaper interior finishes, and building on smaller lots. Don't forget a comprehensive transit network to reduce commuting costs.

[gjhall]

Originally Posted by Proof Sheet

Interesting points, but would you care to expand on this point..are you proposing to forcibly move people to within the greenbelt and give up these areas similar to what is being talked about for Detroit.

You could just tax the hell out of the suburbs.

[Cre47]

What's your rush? Well, Ken, of course we're rushing to catch up on years and years and years of stagnation and bad planning of this city - or a lot of it should I say from the former cities too.