99 Parkdale Ave | ??m | 28 fl | Approved

[McC]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

Thanks for the report!

Here is the Section of the Official Plan dealing with the City's minimum density targets
http://www.ottawa.ca/city_hall/ottaw...dex_en-02.html

Thanks WW, I guess I can correct the note above, according to that document, there was over 200 residents and jobs per hectare in someplace called "Tunney's-Quad', and the intensification target is 250 by 2031. I still stand by my assessment that it seems like the city has no idea what the effect of each planned development in the area would be on progressing towards this target, or what scale of development would be most appropriate to meet the target. IIRC there was nothing about this target in the Bayview CDP presentation, e.g. I don't think that the impact of all of those large buildings proposed for east of Laroche Park on the area's density was ever calculated, and what this means for the amount of intensification that the rest of Mechanicsville can and should support, or the impact on services and infrastructure (how many dogs can the park hold? how many kids can enjoy the splash pad? how many cars can the little streets accommodate in Winter? etc.).

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by McC

(how many dogs can the park hold? how many kids can enjoy the splash pad?).

I hope you are mentioning those metrics ironically.

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by McC

Thanks WW, I guess I can correct the note above, according to that document, there was over 200 residents and jobs per hectare in someplace called "Tunney's-Quad', and the intensification target is 250 by 2031. I still stand by my assessment that it seems like the city has no idea what the effect of each planned development in the area would be on progressing towards this target, or what scale of development would be most appropriate to meet the target. IIRC there was nothing about this target in the Bayview CDP presentation, e.g. I don't think that the impact of all of those large buildings proposed for east of Laroche Park on the area's density was ever calculated, and what this means for the amount of intensification that the rest of Mechanicsville can and should support, or the impact on services and infrastructure (how many dogs can the park hold? how many kids can enjoy the splash pad? how many cars can the little streets accommodate in Winter? etc.).

It sounds like all new development must meet at least this 250 persons plus jobs per hectare density target, but there is a potential exception for development that reflects transition to low density communities

for reference here is the Ont Govt visualization for 200 persons and jobs per hectare
https://www.placestogrow.ca/index.ph...9&limitstart=2

Based on the 2.2.2.10 policy it looks like the City will monitor the targets annually and review every time they do a five year OP review.

[McC]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

I hope you are mentioning those metrics ironically.

maybe, but there are upper limits to these things, a dozen kids can play on the splash pad at once, but trebling that might ruin it for everyone; ditto with the number of people who can play fetch with Fido at the same time. The Bayview CDP would add several thousand new residents east of Laroche Park, and 3 developments of this scale could add nearly a thousand residents west of Laroche Park, but the park can't get any larger, and the residents' enjoyment of the park's amenities will decline dramatically after the area population reaches some point (I don't know what that point is, and it's obviously a ways off, but there is a real threshold). If you find these flip examples silly, we can be more 'serious': Devonshire is a small school, on a cramped property that the School Board would like 'to Bronson' by converting the playground to teacher parking, so there is little room to expand; is future school space demand accounted for in the development targets and community plan? Wellington West's primary school on Iona has 6 portables in the yard right now to accommodate all of the new families enjoying the West Side Action (TM), but there's no room to do this at Devonshire and no obvous place (or fiscal plan, I bet) to build a new school, those are for the exurbs.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by McC

maybe, but there are upper limits to these things, a dozen kids can play on the splash pad at once, but trebling that might ruin it for everyone; ditto with the number of people who can play fetch with Fido at the same time.

OK, so we're seriously worried about overcrowded splash pads and wall-to-wall dogs now?

[McC]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

OK, so we're seriously worried about overcrowded splash pads and wall-to-wall dogs now?

thank you for your thoughtful and well-reasoned response.

[gjhall]

Originally Posted by McC

thank you for your thoughtful and well-reasoned response.

McC, all these developments pay development charges, just like in the suburbs. So there's potential money for all these expanded facilities. Maybe your concerns would be best addressed by asking your councillor to spend the section 37 money from projects like this on expanding those facilities you are worried about?

[McC]

Originally Posted by gjhall

McC, all these developments pay development charges, just like in the suburbs. So there's potential money for all these expanded facilities. Maybe your concerns would be best addressed by asking your councillor to spend the section 37 money from projects like this on expanding those facilities you are worried about?

I was under the impression that the tax holiday on development charges for new projects in the central area was still in effect for the remainder of this year (?). In any event, yes, I agree that improving amenities such as recreational infrastructure is exactly what these charges and Section 37 ought to be used for, but these should be done as part of a long term plan where supply and demand forecasts are linked to the intensification targets and the approval of additional projects, but I get the impression that the funds are instead being administered on a rather ad-hoc basis...

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by McC

thank you for your thoughtful and well-reasoned response.

I just find those things to be really bizarre things to be worried about.

How many days in the year would there even be a remote possibility of the child-density on a splash-pad reaching critical mass? Isn't this a self-correcting "problem" anyway?

[S-Man]

I hesitate to point out the river is also nearby, but there are current and sewage issues...

[McC]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Isn't this a self-correcting "problem" anyway?

of course it's a self-correcting problem, if the City does not plan for how to make/keep the future, denser core of the city attractive to families, too many families will continue to view the suburbs as the only viable place for their kind to live. That means forecasting the demand and planning for the supply of all sorts of infrastructure, amenities and services. I've read many of your comments on the bus routes where you think that the city has failed to do this adequately. I feel like a broken record here: Laroche Park is well used now and still has capacity to accommodate new users as the neighbourhood grows, but the planned scale of growth is literally thousands of new residents over the next twenty years, this is a significant increase, and requires significant planning. Unfortunately, I get the impression that there are a few too many big-P Planners in the City with attitudes like yours, and who also view the supply and demand of vital amenities like recreational infrastructure as "bizarre" needs instead of self-evident for a lively and liveable city.

[gjhall]

Originally Posted by McC

I was under the impression that the tax holiday on development charges for new projects in the central area was still in effect for the remainder of this year (?). In any event, yes, I agree that improving amenities such as recreational infrastructure is exactly what these charges and Section 37 ought to be used for, but these should be done as part of a long term plan where supply and demand forecasts are linked to the intensification targets and the approval of additional projects, but I get the impression that the funds are instead being administered on a rather ad-hoc basis...

The tax holiday never extended this far west, I'm pretty sure.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by McC

of course it's a self-correcting problem, if the City does not plan for how to make/keep the future, denser core of the city attractive to families, too many families will continue to view the suburbs as the only viable place for their kind to live. That means forecasting the demand and planning for the supply of all sorts of infrastructure, amenities and services. I've read many of your comments on the bus routes where you think that the city has failed to do this adequately. I feel like a broken record here: Laroche Park is well used now and still has capacity to accommodate new users as the neighbourhood grows, but the planned scale of growth is literally thousands of new residents over the next twenty years, this is a significant increase, and requires significant planning. Unfortunately, I get the impression that there are a few too many big-P Planners in the City with attitudes like yours, and who also view the supply and demand of vital amenities like recreational infrastructure as "bizarre" needs instead of self-evident for a lively and liveable city.

Yes, but... OVERCROWDED SPLASHPADS?

Seriously?

[S-Man]

I learned what a splashpad was earlier this year...

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Any renders for this project yet?

[McC]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Yes, but... OVERCROWDED SPLASHPADS?

Seriously?

Why not? a splashpad is a certain size, children occupy a volume in space, therefore there is a capacity. This is hearsay, I haven't seen it myself, but I hear parents complaining of crowding at the splashpad at Plant. Again, I think this is great, but the Bayview CDP would also add thousands of new residents within four blocks of this park as well, and if the park is already this well-used by existing residents, then... blah blah, I'm boring myself here.

[Ottawan]

Originally Posted by McC

Why not? a splashpad is a certain size, children occupy a volume in space, therefore there is a capacity. This is hearsay, I haven't seen it myself, but I hear parents complaining of crowding at the splashpad at Plant. Again, I think this is great, but the Bayview CDP would also add thousands of new residents within four blocks of this park as well, and if the park is already this well-used by existing residents, then... blah blah, I'm boring myself here.

According to Eric Darwin, Primrose Park will soon be getting a new splashpad for the very reason you have mentioned from hearsay (the overcrowding at Plant):

http://westsideaction.wordpress.com/...rk-planning-i/

While I do agree with your premise generally - that new residents will strain resources and that better metrics need be taken to better plan - regarding the specific metric of splashpads (and similar types of infrastructure), I think this example shows a better way. This is a very tough sort of thing to predict, and very transient (how many families with children will move in, and will this be constantly renewing itself, or one generation that quickly outgrows splashpads).

Rather than planning for splashpads years in advance, when there is hard data that they are becoming overcrowded, that is when new ones can be built. I highly doubt that we will ever run out of space for that sort of amenity in this part of the city (there is underutilized greenspace at Tom Brown & other parks, and in the far future where all these resources are completely used up, a deal could be struck with the NCC to reclaim a portion of the Ottawa River parklands for a community park).

However, your complaint about lack of metrics generally is one I agree with.

[Ottawan]

A pressing concern re intensification seems to be the capacity of central area schools:

http://spacingottawa.ca/2011/11/28/s...r-city-growth/

For some reason, the OCDSB hasn't seemed to be willing to believe that families with children would actually choose to live in urban areas, and in greater numbers. Hopefully they get a handle on this radical concept quickly.

--------------------------------------

Aside: this is my 500th post! Woohoo!

I still feel like a newbie around here... time sure flies...

[gjhall]

Originally Posted by McC

Why not? a splashpad is a certain size, children occupy a volume in space, therefore there is a capacity. This is hearsay, I haven't seen it myself, but I hear parents complaining of crowding at the splashpad at Plant. Again, I think this is great, but the Bayview CDP would also add thousands of new residents within four blocks of this park as well, and if the park is already this well-used by existing residents, then... blah blah, I'm boring myself here.

I think you're underestimating how much kids like being with other kids. I used to live next to a busy kids playground in London, and it really seemed to work as a very busy place. It was a big part of what made it special, and why parents and kids came from very far away sometimes to play there.

[McC]

Originally Posted by gjhall

I think you're underestimating how much kids like being with other kids. I used to live next to a busy kids playground in London, and it really seemed to work as a very busy place. It was a big part of what made it special, and why parents and kids came from very far away sometimes to play there.

I'm not trying to, it's great with ten kids and it's wonderful with twenty, I would love to see thirty, even forty kids playing there at once; but 100? 150? there are limits, especially when the park is also an off-leash dog park* (and I would expect the population of dog-runners to grow faster than that of kids in the neighbourhood). No one wants to see a child get mauled and a dog have to be put down!

*with no physical separation at this time; but this was identified as a priority at last week's meeting on 99Parkdale and yesterday's community meeting with the Councillor and her advisors.