HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #241  
Old Posted Jun 7, 2012, 5:03 PM
McC's Avatar
McC McC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proof Sheet View Post
I have relatives who live here:

http://goo.gl/maps/LFnS

This building was typical of many in the area.
Yeah, that looks like a very typical (well-heeled) Paris suburb, and immediately on the other side of that building are houses behind walls with locked gates (which, in my experience, are ubiquitous, regardless of the socio-economic status of the neighbourhood). You don't have to go 10 km beyond the Périph to find similar hoods: I have family in three neighbouring suburbs about 4 km south of Paris. Pricey, of course, but they live near the RER tracks, and got a noise discount on the value of their properties. (speaking of which, having slept metres from the RER, I have no idea why the City is opting to use the term "commuter rail" to describe the western LRT extension, just seems like a lightning rod for criticism that doesn't even accurately describe what they have in mind. sigh. "Your City of Ottawa, making sure no one's happy happy while doing nothing")
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #242  
Old Posted Jun 7, 2012, 10:24 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by eternallyme View Post
The best solution is to hand the ball over to the developers, show what they have, and then take it on a case-by-case basis. Let the developers freely plan whatever they want (show us what they would do with the 3,000 hectares or more), and force it to City Council and public hearings.
Laissez-faire growth management works great for a rural area where almost any development is good development and development is driven by consents and one-off subdivisions...but a bigger city like Ottawa has much more complex factors at work, a lot bigger players, and a lot more (public and private) money is involved.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Proof Sheet View Post
3000 hectares developed completely by the big boy developers in Ottawa would look something like this assuming that there are no hinderances due to servicing, terrain etc

http://goo.gl/maps/zuKy
Nice find... makes Greely look like a paragon of new urbanism. Actually looking at these houses up close is interesting, there's a lot of variety in terms of design and the types of accessory structures/uses in the backyards.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #243  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2012, 2:12 AM
eternallyme eternallyme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterloowarrior View Post
Laissez-faire growth management works great for a rural area where almost any development is good development and development is driven by consents and one-off subdivisions...but a bigger city like Ottawa has much more complex factors at work, a lot bigger players, and a lot more (public and private) money is involved.



Nice find... makes Greely look like a paragon of new urbanism. Actually looking at these houses up close is interesting, there's a lot of variety in terms of design and the types of accessory structures/uses in the backyards.
The density in that area in the developed parts is actually as high as in new Ottawa suburbs. It is just that the US Southwest was devastated by the housing bubble, and the area is unfinished and will likely take decades to do so.

The thing about my idea is that any plans that developers come up with need both Council approval and public scrutiny. Any plans that are nothing but multi-acre lots in the general urban area, for example, would likely be voted down, unless the composition of Council changes significantly.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #244  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2012, 2:18 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 Proof Sheet View Post
Thanks for your post.I've been to Paris twice (May 1989 and July 2006). The 1st time totally within the Peripheque and the 2nd time both in and out of the Peripheque. I have relatives who live here:

http://goo.gl/maps/LFnS

This building was typical of many in the area. The top floor was previously rented out for caretakers of the building, servents etc. I believe the top floor or two were set back a bit as they had more of an area to walk around outside the unit.
I went "exploring" in Google Earth and Streetview from the above link. Eventually I got to this intersection:

http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&sourc...,65.87,,0,8.01

What rather concerns me about this is how few pedestrians are about. They certainly exist, but not in anything like substantial numbers. Since the intersection is six-pointed, Streetview went through thrice and the results are about the same every time.

If you look at where this intersection is, it's in the midst of fairly high density development, while at least four of the streets are locally significant. There's an RER station just a quarter kilometre away and a fair amount of the buildings have ground floor retail.

If there's a place that should be showing signs of pedestrian activity, this ought to be it... yet it is relatively quiet. It's the same everywhere else nearby. The biggest pedestrian activity I could find in the area was a group of schoolchildren walking down the street. There's even a market square further west on Foch opposite the church which, if you get on the right view, is setting up and still not much pedestrian activity nearby. It's busier than the average suburb here, but it's not significantly busier given the significantly higher density and apparent walkability.

Perhaps suburbs are always doomed to be suburbs?

The activity we see in central Paris is obviously due to a combination of workers and tourists as well as people who live there.

Quote:
Parking was all on street through permits. Nearby were some single family homes, but they were generally joined to others. One thing I find about the suburban areas of continental cites in europe is the predominance of high walls in front of homes and gates. Suburban areas in the UK and Ireland tend to have more open front yards with grass and a lack of high walls offering privacy. Just an observation, but the areas in question in Paris are quite sealed off from the street.
The Netherlands isn't like that... it tends to be more open but without the grass. I have the impression the same is true in much of Northern Europe too.
__________________
Ottawa's quasi-official motto: "It can't be done"
Ottawa's quasi-official ethos: "We have a process to follow"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #245  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2012, 1:55 PM
Dr.Z Dr.Z is offline
From the Planning Paradox
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
The Netherlands isn't like that... it tends to be more open but without the grass. I have the impression the same is true in much of Northern Europe too.
I suspect it depends more on culture. Not only are there a lack of barriers to the front, but the front living room windows are dressed, drapes are pulled and nick-nacks are decoratively placed even at night. The living rooms are show-pieces to the street. The in-laws do the same thing without even realising it, and they live on a farm heavily setback from a culverted 80km/h road with no pedestrians!
__________________
"What about the children?! Won't somebody please think of the children!?"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #246  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2012, 2:12 PM
Dr.Z Dr.Z is offline
From the Planning Paradox
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by eternallyme View Post
The best solution is to hand the ball over to the developers, show what they have, and then take it on a case-by-case basis. Let the developers freely plan whatever they want (show us what they would do with the 3,000 hectares or more), and force it to City Council and public hearings.
This is as opposite as you can get from the best solution. Developers have only their own interests at heart. This is evident foremost in how they calculated 3,000 ha is needed: based on a demand for singles that no municipalty has seen since the hey-day of the 90s. How can that be a reasonable assumption? The proportion of singles from total housing has been decreasing in the past decade, yet the developers insist that demand for singles remains as strong as the 90s. First I don't see this as the best solution, and second the developers don't exactly endear trust with crazy show-pieces like this.
__________________
"What about the children?! Won't somebody please think of the children!?"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #247  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2012, 4:05 PM
eternallyme eternallyme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Z View Post
This is as opposite as you can get from the best solution. Developers have only their own interests at heart. This is evident foremost in how they calculated 3,000 ha is needed: based on a demand for singles that no municipalty has seen since the hey-day of the 90s. How can that be a reasonable assumption? The proportion of singles from total housing has been decreasing in the past decade, yet the developers insist that demand for singles remains as strong as the 90s. First I don't see this as the best solution, and second the developers don't exactly endear trust with crazy show-pieces like this.
Would City Council approve their plans though if they go too far?

Is the DEMAND for singles decreasing, or is it just a product of legislation?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #248  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2012, 7:27 PM
Dr.Z Dr.Z is offline
From the Planning Paradox
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by eternallyme View Post
Would City Council approve their plans though if they go too far?

Is the DEMAND for singles decreasing, or is it just a product of legislation?
Q1: I think that depends on the Council and what would be too far. Don't forget though the first step to creating a plan in Ontario is being in a Urban Area and I think we have seen that Council is reluctant to have large urban expansion.

Q2: The demand for singles as a proportion of housing has been decreasing across the country for the past decade or more depending on the metropolitan area. In Ottawa singles peaked at 63% in 1999 and has been declining ever since; 2010 saw under 34%. Legislation cannot directly influence demand but it can influence supply. If you are refering to the Growth Plan for example, that is a control of supply but has yet to be implemented at the building permit level. So any demand decreases for singles that we have seen is a product of the market.
__________________
"What about the children?! Won't somebody please think of the children!?"

Last edited by Dr.Z; Jun 8, 2012 at 7:34 PM. Reason: Include thoughts on legislation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #249  
Old Posted Jun 12, 2012, 3:08 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is online now
Unapologetic Occidental
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Province 2, Canadian Empire
Posts: 67,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
What rather concerns me about this is how few pedestrians are about. They certainly exist, but not in anything like substantial numbers. Since the intersection is six-pointed, Streetview went through thrice and the results are about the same every time.

If you look at where this intersection is, it's in the midst of fairly high density development, while at least four of the streets are locally significant. There's an RER station just a quarter kilometre away and a fair amount of the buildings have ground floor retail.

If there's a place that should be showing signs of pedestrian activity, this ought to be it... yet it is relatively quiet. It's the same everywhere else nearby. The biggest pedestrian activity I could find in the area was a group of schoolchildren walking down the street. There's even a market square further west on Foch opposite the church which, if you get on the right view, is setting up and still not much pedestrian activity nearby. It's busier than the average suburb here, but it's not significantly busier given the significantly higher density and apparent walkability.

Perhaps suburbs are always doomed to be suburbs?

The activity we see in central Paris is obviously due to a combination of workers and tourists as well as people who live there.

.
Good points. I wonder if this isn't the case in most cities (at least in the western world.) Tourists are a huge part of what makes a downtown street or district feel alive. Even in Europe.

Office workers from throughout the metro region play a big part too.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #250  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2012, 5:02 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,243
STATEMENT OF WORK TO REVIEW AND UPDATE THE 2013 OFFICIAL PLAN AND INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLAN
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/cit...0of%20Work.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #251  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2012, 5:04 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,243
a couple reports on the OMB appeal

recommended position for phase 2b
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/cit...20Boundary.pdf

phase 2b witness statements
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/cit...Statements.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #252  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2012, 1:59 PM
Dr.Z Dr.Z is offline
From the Planning Paradox
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterloowarrior View Post
STATEMENT OF WORK TO REVIEW AND UPDATE THE 2013 OFFICIAL PLAN AND INFRASTRUCTURE MASTER PLAN
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/cit...0of%20Work.pdf
Shouldn't this be technically in a new thread as it's a different review?

I guess this is what happens when the previous update overlaps into the new update.
__________________
"What about the children?! Won't somebody please think of the children!?"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #253  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2012, 8:41 PM
umbria27's Avatar
umbria27 umbria27 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by gjhall View Post
Good piece on Hume's blog today that Joanne Chianello tweeted - nice to see him smack down the Paris myth: http://peterhumeottawa.blogspot.ca/2...aris-myth.html
Hume makes good points. A six story height limit means that you have less room for single family homes and other one and two story buildings. As someone who has made the Paris allusion before, I'd like to point out that that's often a good thing.
Nobody (with any sense) would advocate a blanket six story limit for all of Ottawa. We need an intelligent mix of heights appropriate to the neighborhood.
The corollary to the Paris myth is the Skyscraper myth, that taller is always better and that a reduction in height is always a failure in the campaign to increase density. Sometimes it is better to have three six story buildings rather than an 20 story building flanked by 1 story buildings. I'm thinking primarily of traditional main streets.
That midrise buildings oblige us to remove some single family homes should not be an argument against them. Yes it's politically difficult, but that's not a good reason. Ottawa wastes too much land with single family neighborhoods.

Ottawa should be enforcing height minimums too. That this was ever permitted boggles my mind (and not because it's a shoppers. Everybody needs to live within 500 m of a shoppers, but because it's actually lower than the residential behind it!)

Last edited by umbria27; Jun 20, 2012 at 8:59 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #254  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2012, 9:11 PM
gjhall's Avatar
gjhall gjhall is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by umbria27 View Post
Hume makes good points. A six story height limit means that you have less room for single family homes and other one and two story buildings. As someone who has made the Paris allusion before, I'd like to point out that that's often a good thing.
Nobody (with any sense) would advocate a blanket six story limit for all of Ottawa. We need an intelligent mix of heights appropriate to the neighborhood.
The corollary to the Paris myth is the Skyscraper myth, that taller is always better and that a reduction in height is always a failure in the campaign to increase density. Sometimes it is better to have three six story buildings rather than an 20 story building flanked by 1 story buildings. I'm thinking primarily of traditional main streets.
That midrise buildings oblige us to remove some single family homes should not be an argument against them. Yes it's politically difficult, but that's not a good reason. Ottawa wastes too much land with single family neighborhoods.

Ottawa should be enforcing height minimums too. That this was ever permitted boggles my mind (and not because it's a shoppers. Everybody needs to live within 500 m of a shoppers, but because it's actually lower than the residential behind it!)
No argument here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #255  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2012, 3:59 PM
Dr.Z Dr.Z is offline
From the Planning Paradox
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 129
Planning Committee and Council passed a motion to further increase the urban boundary so that collectively the added new urban area will be 1,065 ha. Subtracting Fernbank and referring to the OMB order of 850ha, Council is adding 902ha being 52ha more than the OMB order. Basically Council is saying to the OMB: "you sort it out".
__________________
"What about the children?! Won't somebody please think of the children!?"

Last edited by Dr.Z; Jun 27, 2012 at 4:00 PM. Reason: typo
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #256  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2012, 9:37 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,243
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #257  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2012, 9:50 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,243
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #258  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2012, 7:01 PM
Dr.Z Dr.Z is offline
From the Planning Paradox
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterloowarrior View Post
I guess the writing was on the wall when Committee, Council and 9/10 appellants didn't want to break the tie: to break the tie the OMB would've been the dark cloud at the end of a very long journey. The decision notes that keeping the tie is in the public interest but fails to, even in one sentence, say how. How exactly is adding more land than is needed in the public's interest?

In any event with the extra land added there is less of a case to expand the boundary next time around, especially in a climate of declining housing starts.
__________________
"What about the children?! Won't somebody please think of the children!?"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #259  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2012, 4:52 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,243
Building a Liveable Ottawa 2031

and so it begins

http://ottawa.ca/en/city_hall/planni.../op_mp_review/

should be interesting as Dr. Z noted whether there will be any more land added after all the extra parcels added through the OMB process

PPS update is looming... here is the Sept 2012 draft version
http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page9990.aspx

OBJ article on retail vs employment lands
http://www.obj.ca/Real-Estate/Non-re...sts-for-land/1

Notice of Special Meeting under Section 26 of the Planning Act

City of Ottawa Official Plan Review
Provision of Urban Residential Land
November 27, 2012
9:30 a.m. Champlain Room
Ottawa City Hall, 110 Laurier Avenue West

As required by Section 26 of the Planning Act, a special meeting will be held to discuss the sufficiency of the urban residential land supply to accommodate the housing projections to the year 2031.

At the meeting:

• Staff will provide information on current land supply, projected growth needs and the necessity for changes to the Official Plan.
• The public will have an opportunity to make submissions to Planning Committee on this issue.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #260  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2012, 10:51 PM
eternallyme eternallyme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,243
First question - how many new starts are projected to be necessary through 2031?

I believe an artificial cap on new developments is counter-productive though, as that would encourage additional growth in outlying areas, which results in lost tax revenue for the City of Ottawa (and longer commutes).
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 1:13 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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