HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum

Since 1999, the SkyscraperPage Forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web. The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics. Welcome!

You are currently browsing as a guest. Register with the SkyscraperPage Forum and join this growing community of skyscraper enthusiasts. Registering has benefits such as fewer ads, the ability to post messages, private messaging and more.

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > SSP: Local Ottawa-Gatineau > Suburbs

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2010, 8:18 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,295
Quote:
Such a transition may not be possible in Cumberland Estates or Greely where everyone lives on one-acre lots, but certainly most of the city and suburban areas where lots are typically 50 or 60 feet wide are not really that far away from an acceptable density that makes viable a café or pub that you can actually walk to from your detached house.
My neighbourhood has been a case study of infill housing. From an original population of 2,500 in the 1950s and 1960s to around 15,000 today, you would be surprised how difficult it is to establish a cafe or pub in the community. The challenge is that everybody is so used to driving everywhere, they wouldn't think of walking to such a business within the community. There needs to be a whole lifestyle change and we are long way from that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2010, 8:35 PM
citizen j's Avatar
citizen j citizen j is offline
East End expat
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Toronto/Ottawa
Posts: 1,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend View Post
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.
Maybe not this year or in this decade, even. But add enough people to a city and as the price of land increases, so does the motivation to re-create inner neighbourhoods. This is currently happening in typical 1960s tract-house neighbourhoods in North York, where whole blocks of single-family dwellings are being razed and refilled with three- and four-storey townhouses marketed to a demographic consistent with the existing demographics of the neighbourhood. That is to say, one 2000 square foot house is torn down and replaced by six 2000 sq. ft townhouses. Done right, this intensification improves the "character" of the neighourhood in many ways.
__________________
The world is so full of a number of things
-- Robert Louis Stevenson
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2010, 8:50 PM
jeremy_haak's Avatar
jeremy_haak jeremy_haak is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Waterloo
Posts: 3,183
I actually lived in in the Elmvale Acres area, albeit 10 years ago. As a community, it functioned remarkably well - the mall itself, though nothing remarkable, was central to the community and was always relatively busy. It had remarkably good transit access, and most kids I went to school with walked or took transit to school. (Commuting pattern in 2006 - 51% car, 26% transit - likely due to economic conditions as much as planning) Its street network is also surprisingly grid-like for a post-war suburb and it was never a challenge moving through the neighbourhood on foot.

I expect that most of its problems are more social then planning problems - associated with higher rates of poverty due to the availability of affordable housing. There was a definite split between the single-family housing, which was generally quite WASPish, and the higher-density apartment dwellings which were overwhelmingly composed of recent immigrants. Redeveloping the area wouldn't solve any problems - it would likely push out the lower-income families b/c physically improving an area invariably makes it unaffordable to them - whether intended or not by the planners.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2011, 9:07 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 7,110
Interesting upcoming study

http://www.merx.com/English/SUPPLIER...SyAra9PQ%3d%3d

Study -Assess cumulative effects of transportation infrastructures on the Greenbelt

Joint Study to Assess Cumulative Effects of Transportation Infrastructures on the National Capital Greenbelt

The National Capital Commission and the City of Ottawa are collaboratively seeking consultative services for the Joint Comprehensive Study to Assess Cumulative Effects of Transportation Infrastructure on Greenbelt Lands. The study will be initiated in early 2011 with completion in autumn 2011, with a duration estimated between four (4) and six (6) months. The proponent is expected to begin work immediately upon award of contract.

One of the major impacts of transportation infrastructure is landscape fragmentation. The challenge for the NCC and the City is to adapt existing and future land use management and transportation planning strategies to produce an ecologically adapted, safe and sustainable transportation system within the Greenbelt. Therefore a strategy must be put in place for accommodating future transportation infrastructure that seeks, where possible, to maintain and, to promote Greenbelt landscape connectivity.

This collaborative study will create an evaluation framework that supports NCC and City management objectives by establishing criteria to assess the sensitivity of the Greenbelt in relation to the City’s 2008 TMP, for inclusion in the present Greenbelt Master Plan review process.

The NCC will be responsible for the procurement process of this request for proposals, and will be the administrator of the contract on behalf of the City of Ottawa and the National Capital Commission.

All questions and requests for clarifications during the tendering period must be submitted in writing to the National Capital Commission, to the attention of Nicole Galipeau, Senior Contract Officer at fax no. 613-239-5007 or by e-mail nicole.galipeau@ncc-ccn.ca. Deadline for questions is March 31, 2011 at 11:00 a.m. Ottawa time. Questions received after the date and time indicated will not receive a response. Answers to any question that may impact on the project scope, fee, or any other contractual issue will be forwarded, by addendum to all proponents. In this regard, proponents are advised that the only information related to this project that will be contractually binding is the information issued by the National Capital Commission in the form of an Addendum.

To be considered, your proposal must be received no later than 3 p.m. Ottawa time on April 12, 2011 at the National Capital Commission, 3rd Floor Service Centre, 40 Elgin Street in Ottawa, Canada, K1P 1C7, with a reference to tender file #NG073. Faxed, email or late submissions will not be accepted. Proposals may be submitted in French or in English.

Note that amounts quoted in this RFP are in Canadian dollars. Payment is net is 30 days.

There will be no public opening for this Request for Proposal.

This procurement process is subject to Chapter Five of the Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT).

Request for Proposal documents can be obtained from MERX.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Apr 22, 2011, 6:46 PM
Ottawan Ottawan is offline
Citizen-at-large
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Expat (in Toronto)
Posts: 737
Quote:
NCC opens door to selling Greenbelt Parcels
Public consultations to precede any divestment
[OBJ - April 20, 2011]

The National Capital Commission is raising the prospect of selling or leasing out four plots of land that provide “limited contribution to (the) current Greenbelt.”

That possibility was one of three land-use scenarios presented to the Crown corporation’s board of directors earlier this month as part of the NCC’s review of its primary planning document for the Greenbelt.

A spokesperson refused to specify the size of the parcels, which are presently off-limit for development, or to name their exact location, but did provide a map that plots the four land areas, all of which are near the northern edges of the Greenbelt. They are located:

1. Immediately west of the southbound Highway 416 on-ramp, at Richmond Road;

2. South of West Hunt Club Road and west of Woodroffe Avenue;

3. South of Hunt Club Road, east of Conroy Road;

4. North of Walkley Road, west of Highway 417.

The potential sale of these lands is likely to grab the attention of the city’s developers.

With a well-documented shortage of industrial land suitable for development, some industry representatives say the NCC should release some of its land in the vicinity of established business parks.

A 2009 report by Metropolitan Knowledge International, commissioned by the city, recommended the municipality make the NCC aware of the “strong market appeal of certain lands” for employment-related development.

If any land is sold or leased, the NCC says the proceeds would go towards acquiring additional land for the Greenbelt. Several areas, predominantly to the south of the existing Greenbelt boundaries, are identified as future growth areas.

The NCC expects to launch a round of consultations in May or June. The concept plans will then be presented to the NCC advisory committee on planning, design and realty, as well as the NCC board, in the fall.

An updated master plan for the Greenbelt is expected to be adopted by fall 2012
Looks like some development might happen... I'd rather it be high density office/residential built around transit nodes (especially feasible for both Hunt Club portions) than for it to be industrial. Sure Ottawa needs industrial parks, but let's have them in less prime locations please.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Apr 24, 2011, 2:53 AM
eternallyme eternallyme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,563
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ottawan View Post
Looks like some development might happen... I'd rather it be high density office/residential built around transit nodes (especially feasible for both Hunt Club portions) than for it to be industrial. Sure Ottawa needs industrial parks, but let's have them in less prime locations please.
The Bayshore area parcel would be prime for high-density apartments since it is already a fairly high-density area.

The Hunt Club portion in the east I would widen the Hunt Club ROW, build a freeway/LRT corridor and span it with planned communities with the greatest densities at the new stations. Such could also apply at the southwest Hunt Club area.

One other area I would sell off is the airport area, but make it conditional on a well-structured plan. Make it an international gateway area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2011, 2:14 AM
S-Man S-Man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,588
There's definitely a lot of greenbelt land that could be developed. It's too bad the NCC didn't snap up the non-developed portions of the South March Highlands in lieu of selling off some flat, featureless parcel next to a four-lane arterial. Of course, the SMH was nice to look at, but in the bureaucratic mind of the NCC, the greenbelt is nice to think about, as it is almost holy.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2011, 3:07 AM
Harley613's Avatar
Harley613 Harley613 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,108
it's a shame really that they (ncc) are still so caught up in the greber plan. it would be so wonderful if they had acquired the south march highlands and also look at other beautiful outlands worth preservation instead of clawing and grasping at the existing greenbelt, half of which is farmland and really truly 100% pointless as greenspace. they need to stop drinking jacques greber's vintage 1950 koolaid. keep the beautiful parts of the greenbelt, sell off the farmland (density close to the core is win-win for everyone!) and acquire new and beautiful lands outside the existing plan.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2011, 3:11 PM
Ottawan Ottawan is offline
Citizen-at-large
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Expat (in Toronto)
Posts: 737
Remember the purpose of the NCC. They exist for the sole purpose of looking after/improving the capital of Canada, not the City of Ottawa. It would be perverse for them to have bought the SMH - what value does this land out in Kanata have to Canadians as a whole??? If arguably it does (biodiversity, unique nature of the ecosystem, endangered species, whatever), this is certainly no different an importance than similar plots elsewhere in the country, and should be covered by Parks Canada rather than the NCC.

The Greenbelt, whether you agree with it or not, is justified on federal grounds. The reasons may seem lame, but they are coherant: a belt of farmland and wilderness that must be passed through to enter the capital, representing the agrarian and rural life of Canadians. It is to be used for national priorities (this is how research labs & agricultural research land has been built there) and for transportation purposes (the airport, in future perhaps HSR) that connect the capital to the rest of the country.

The Greenbelt could continue to serve these purposes even with chunks sold off, but I think it's appropriate to use the money raised from that to serve other Federal priorities in Ottawa, whether that be improving the Greenbelt through purchase of more important lands, or potentially otherwise. What it should not do is use these proceeds to bail out/scapegoat what are City problems. If the SMH land in Kanata was to be saved, the only appropriate body to do so would have been the City.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2011, 9:16 PM
Mrs. Jellybean Mrs. Jellybean is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1
When they say, west of the 416 southbound on ramp at Richmond Road, are they talking about the land now occupied by the Silver Spring farm? Or the small vacant parcel on the southeast side of that corner? Both are bounded by the freight tracks.
They will have to edit the paper though to say, west of "Lloyd Francis Boulevard"
If anyone knows or could send a link that would be great
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2011, 9:53 PM
Harley613's Avatar
Harley613 Harley613 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ottawan View Post
Remember the purpose of the NCC. They exist for the sole purpose of looking after/improving the capital of Canada, not the City of Ottawa. It would be perverse for them to have bought the SMH - what value does this land out in Kanata have to Canadians as a whole??? If arguably it does (biodiversity, unique nature of the ecosystem, endangered species, whatever), this is certainly no different an importance than similar plots elsewhere in the country, and should be covered by Parks Canada rather than the NCC.
I disagree. The SMH was very much an asset to the capital, and is actually closer than 90% of gatineau park. Ottawa is over twice the size they predicted for this time back then. You aren't thinking BIG enough. My whole point is they should start thinking bigger as well. Why limit the distance of NCC administered lands so much? I think they should push out and acquire more diverse lands and promote and protect them as assets of the capital, and dump some of agricultural land that could improve density in the core, saving the city hundreds of millions in infrastructure extension as it grows. The central experimental farm is lovely and should be preserved, but the farrmland around bells corners and between hunt club and barrhaven (for example) is really a big huge waste, and a mistake...in my opinion it has to go. In the 2006 census there were 1,451,000 people in the CMA. When the greber plan was made there were only 200,000 and change.....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2011, 2:36 PM
reidjr reidjr is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harley613 View Post
I disagree. The SMH was very much an asset to the capital, and is actually closer than 90% of gatineau park. Ottawa is over twice the size they predicted for this time back then. You aren't thinking BIG enough. My whole point is they should start thinking bigger as well. Why limit the distance of NCC administered lands so much? I think they should push out and acquire more diverse lands and promote and protect them as assets of the capital, and dump some of agricultural land that could improve density in the core, saving the city hundreds of millions in infrastructure extension as it grows. The central experimental farm is lovely and should be preserved, but the farrmland around bells corners and between hunt club and barrhaven (for example) is really a big huge waste, and a mistake...in my opinion it has to go. In the 2006 census there were 1,451,000 people in the CMA. When the greber plan was made there were only 200,000 and change.....
I live in bells corners and as it is now our systems be it roads etc face very heavy use now if you add another 100.000 people that is going to make thing worse on the current system be it roads etc.I am not aginst the devlopement but before we do that we need to update our current system roads/water etc then we can work on the green belt.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2011, 4:37 AM
S-Man S-Man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,588
I agree with Harley that this NCC needs to adapt its thinking to the 21st century, where there are 300,000 people living outside the Greenbelt, but still within the City of Ottawa. I'm sure in the 50s and 60s, the idea that the first twinklings of orleans, kanata and barrhaven were as much a part of Ottawa as Nepean and Alta Vista, etc was ludicris (rap spelling in lieu of).
40-50 years later the city is what it is. It has satellites within its boundaries, and in those satellites are some stuff worth saving. The NCC needs to get its head out of the past - embrace the outskirts while relinquishing its grip on the core a little bit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted May 4, 2011, 7:31 PM
RTWAP's Avatar
RTWAP RTWAP is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 496
Quote:
Originally Posted by reidjr View Post
I live in bells corners and as it is now our systems be it roads etc face very heavy use now if you add another 100.000 people that is going to make thing worse on the current system be it roads etc.I am not aginst the devlopement but before we do that we need to update our current system roads/water etc then we can work on the green belt.
If they developed the area around the 417 east of Moodie then the additional peak traffic wouldn't be going through BC, it would be even closer to the highway (where there's less congestion).

EDIT: But it would mean more off-peak traffic, which is a good thing. More people means more retail variety, better restaurants, more services, and less chance of schools being closed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted May 4, 2011, 8:09 PM
reidjr reidjr is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTWAP View Post
If they developed the area around the 417 east of Moodie then the additional peak traffic wouldn't be going through BC, it would be even closer to the highway (where there's less congestion).

EDIT: But it would mean more off-peak traffic, which is a good thing. More people means more retail variety, better restaurants, more services, and less chance of schools being closed.
But thats part of the probleam i live in bc traffic right now as it is is not great of course rush hour is the worst but even non peak times traffic over the past 6 months has got worse.Unless major improvements are made i really don't think bc can handle much more traffic and with dnd moving into north campus that will even add to the traffic.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted May 5, 2011, 11:03 AM
McC's Avatar
McC McC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by reidjr View Post
But thats part of the probleam i live in bc traffic right now as it is is not great of course rush hour is the worst but even non peak times traffic over the past 6 months has got worse.Unless major improvements are made i really don't think bc can handle much more traffic and with dnd moving into north campus that will even add to the traffic.
this from a guy who thinks it should be okay to build 20+ storey buildings in people's backyards anywhere else in the city, no matter what the streets/infrastructure are like? nice reidjr, real nice.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted May 5, 2011, 11:26 AM
reidjr reidjr is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by McC View Post
this from a guy who thinks it should be okay to build 20+ storey buildings in people's backyards anywhere else in the city, no matter what the streets/infrastructure are like? nice reidjr, real nice.
I never said that streets etc should alwas be able to handle the increased traffic no matter where it is.As for building condos in people's back yards lets not get carried away no condo or office building is beeing built in anyones back yard you don't own every single of space meaning if there is land for sale acrosse the street you don't own that land. there.Back to my area if a developer came along and said we want to build 4 condos at 30 floors each as long as there are good enough roads i will have no issues with that even if it was right behind my house.If we have this mind set we should have no tall building what will happen is urban sprawl would be far far worse aslo in the core sure you would not have 30 floor buildings but you would have 6-10 buildings in areas now how is that better then one building.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2012, 8:56 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 7,110
Recommended land use concept to be presented to the NCC Board on 25 Jan (Wednesday) http://www.canadascapital.gc.ca/site...web_agenda.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2012, 9:30 PM
kevinbottawa kevinbottawa is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,109
NCC proposes massive Greenbelt expansion

Great news for people who love greenspace.

Quote:
NCC proposes massive Greenbelt expansion
By Mohammed Adam, The Ottawa Citizen January 25, 2012 1:08 PM


OTTAWA — The National Capital Commission is proposing a massive expansion of the Greenbelt in a report presented Wednesday to the agency’s board.

The NCC wants to add 2,400 hectares to the existing Greenbelt.

In a news release the commission said that it believes the “Greenbelt is still relevant and continues to definitely pay dividends by safeguarding forests, fields, streams and wetlands and species, and by filtering our air, cleansing our water, and moving towards sustainable agriculture.”

The proposal offers a 50-year vision for the Greenbelt. Among the proposals, the NCC wants to:

• Enhance Natural Environment as the primary Greenbelt role in order to contribute to the sustainability and quality of life in Canada’s Capital Region.

• Expand natural areas within the Greenbelt by adding 2,400 hectares of lands adjacent to the Greenbelt.

• Promote Sustainable Agriculture practices and opportunities to provide economic returns now and for future generations.

• Dedicate 23 per cent or 770 hectares of former rural lands within the Greenbelt to Sustainable Agriculture for at total of about 5,800 hectares characterized by small-scale operations of varied crops and livestock. The agency says these would be community gardens, market gardens, pick-your-own operations, more and mixed livestock).

• Connect the Greenbelt to significant Ottawa natural features such as Carp Hills, South March Highlands and the Cumberland Forest and across the Ottawa River to protected lands within the City of Gatineau such as agricultural reserve lands, Gatineau Park and McLaurin Bay.

• Connect the Greenbelt Pathway and trails to the Capital Pathway Network to provide varied recreation destinations to experience landscapes, natural areas and farms.

• No new non-federal facilities will be permitted in the Greenbelt.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen
Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/life/pr...#ixzz1kVYJQ5oz
__________________
Ottawa needs a vibrant waterfront.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2012, 5:57 AM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinbottawa View Post
Great news for people who love greenspace.
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/life/proposes+massive+Greenbelt+expansion/6050145/story.html#ixzz1kVYJQ5oz[/url]
Shitty news for people who even remotely like cities.

Sigh.

Will the goddamn green space fetish ever die?
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 > SSP: Local Ottawa-Gatineau > Suburbs
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:31 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.