What is the problem with intensification? I don't think it is that we don't want to live near each other. I don't think that it is that we will suffer from the traditional outcomes of overcrowding -- cholera or other infectious diseases.
I think the problem with intensification is that it is the excuse for anything someone else wants to do at my expense.
I've lived in very densely populated places. When I had an apartment in Copacabana in Rio de Janeiro in the early seventies, this was the second most densely populated place in the world (even greater than anywhere in Hong Kong). Density is not the problem in itself.
In Copacabana there were virtually no buildings of less than 10 storeys (and in my day, only one in the whole area of more than 14 storeys). Now there is a subway line through the neighbourhood and development has gone higher.
But in Ottawa we have a different situation. Here dense development is a prize awarded to a specific property owner who takes advantage of any available infrastructure. That first applicant is granted the privilege to use what infrastructure exists (pipe capacity under the street or space for transportation). Can that single applicant be accommodated? Yes, but any further development will require infrastructure to be reinforced.
So the prize goes to the first applicant. He/she cleans up and the costs are left for those who follow.
Is it over-development or over-intensification? No but it forestalls further development because the infrastructure has to catch up, not at the expense of the initial applicant but of those that follow and of the citizens at large.
For an Ottawa example, what proportion of the development potential of that corner of Westboro was consumed in the development of the Metropole complex? What proportion of the development potential of the area along the north shore of Dows Lake is being consumed by the many tall buildings proposed for there? Who will pay for the Dows Lake subway station needed to cope? Who will pay to rebuild the water and sewage lines to serve that level of development.
Just because I might not want to live on the 45th floor of a building is not a reason to object. But what is the effect of such construction on the surrounding area or on taxpayers across the city?
.Bob
Thursday, April 4, 2013
Not just wording, how are decisions made?
As we consider the revision of the Official Plan for Ottawa, our attention is drawn to the specific wording of the plan. But just as important is the procedures by which the wording is put into practice.
I have argued for some time that the interpretation of land-use planning issues in Ottawa is dominated by the development approvals staff of the Planning Department.
The aspect that particularly appalls me is that they produce for the members of Council (those who have the responsibility with making decisions) only one recommendation.
The fact is that there is almost always a range of possible choices from which the final decision-maker is to choose. This is the rule for federal public servants in drafting Memorandum to Cabinet. The public servant (and indeed the Minister carrying forth the topic) must present a range of possible decisions. There may be an obvious decision to take (do X) but the alternatives (do Y or do nothing) must also be considered.
So while we have a brief break while staff works on the details of the wording to produce for revision of the Official Plan, this could be an opportunity for us to step back and consider the procedure by which decisions are made.
Bob
I have argued for some time that the interpretation of land-use planning issues in Ottawa is dominated by the development approvals staff of the Planning Department.
The aspect that particularly appalls me is that they produce for the members of Council (those who have the responsibility with making decisions) only one recommendation.
The fact is that there is almost always a range of possible choices from which the final decision-maker is to choose. This is the rule for federal public servants in drafting Memorandum to Cabinet. The public servant (and indeed the Minister carrying forth the topic) must present a range of possible decisions. There may be an obvious decision to take (do X) but the alternatives (do Y or do nothing) must also be considered.
So while we have a brief break while staff works on the details of the wording to produce for revision of the Official Plan, this could be an opportunity for us to step back and consider the procedure by which decisions are made.
Bob
Is it a matter of fighting City Hall?
Cynicism is like a disease. It spreads from person to person. The more the citizen is ignored or snubbed, the nastier the comments become.
In spite of the problems in making your views known, this is no time to stop speaking out.
For the first time in a while, the media is interested in the chasm that has opened up between citizens and their city government. This means that media outlets are potential allies in turning around our city and making it responsive to citizens.
Is there a great conspiracy afoot? I don't think so.
I think that elected officials and city staff do not understand how their actions have alienated part of the citizenry.
I think that what our Mayor and Councillors believe is that there was too much discussion, too much dissention in the 2006-2010 period. They honestly believe that most residents want to relax and let someone else take care of things. Keep discussion short. Don't ask disturbing questions.
Is the expression still -- "chill out"?
With the master planning documents under review, with the question of public engagement under study, with a new report on inter-provincial transit hot off the press, this is the time, more than ever, for citizens to speak up.
The fact is that, having a wide range of opinions expressed, will lead to better decisions being taken. This will lead to better outcomes for everyone.
Bob
In spite of the problems in making your views known, this is no time to stop speaking out.
For the first time in a while, the media is interested in the chasm that has opened up between citizens and their city government. This means that media outlets are potential allies in turning around our city and making it responsive to citizens.
Is there a great conspiracy afoot? I don't think so.
I think that elected officials and city staff do not understand how their actions have alienated part of the citizenry.
I think that what our Mayor and Councillors believe is that there was too much discussion, too much dissention in the 2006-2010 period. They honestly believe that most residents want to relax and let someone else take care of things. Keep discussion short. Don't ask disturbing questions.
Is the expression still -- "chill out"?
With the master planning documents under review, with the question of public engagement under study, with a new report on inter-provincial transit hot off the press, this is the time, more than ever, for citizens to speak up.
The fact is that, having a wide range of opinions expressed, will lead to better decisions being taken. This will lead to better outcomes for everyone.
Bob
Monday, January 2, 2012
Zoning frozen in time
It seems that there are only two routes to have zoning changed in Ottawa.
The first method is spot rezoning. In this case the property owner applies to the City to have the zoning for their property changed. Invariably, the change would result in the value of the property going up. In other words the City is asked to exercise its "Midas Touch" adding to the value of the property.
The second method is to have a Community Design Plan conducted which results in amendment of the zoning by-law. Developing a CDP takes significant resources both from City Planning staff and from the community. Because of the resource demands, only a limited numer of CDP's can be undertaken at any time.
What we need is some procedure that is greater than spot rezoning, but less than a full-blown CDP. How we develop such an approach should be a topic of discussion at the "Planning Summit" which is supposed to be held in the next few months.
I could imagine this new procedure developing initially by Council engaging in a meaningful consideration of the implications of spot rezoning applications. If the application is for 123 Elm Street, the staff report should explain why current zoning should not be re-examined for 121 and 125 Elm Street, or for other adjacent properties.
I am seized with this idea right now because there is an application to rezone a property at 174 Glebe Ave. from R3 to R4. (If you're not familiar with zoning, R3 allows singles, semis, duplexes, triplexes, & row houses whereas R4 allows low-rise apartment buildings.) The Glebe case is interesting because next to 174 (at 172, I believe) is one lot sandwiched between the property at 174 and a church (institutional zoning). If spot rezoning is approved for 174, this would leave a single lot, 172, remaining under the constraints of R3 zoning. But as far as I know, the property owner at 172 has not applied for rezoning. Nor would 172 be rezoned other than through a further spot rezoning application.
In this case I am not arguing that any of the properties in question should be rezoned. Actually I think we should be severely limiting the spot rezoning going on in Ottawa. But if we are going to rezone at all, we should not be just thinking of the single property in the application. I would submit that we should be looking at the neighbouring properties as well. Maybe they also should be rezoned. And if the adjacent properties should not be rezoned, does this argue that the application for rezoning should be refused?
So somehow we need to develop a middle procedure for rezoning -- more than spot, but less than CDP.
The first method is spot rezoning. In this case the property owner applies to the City to have the zoning for their property changed. Invariably, the change would result in the value of the property going up. In other words the City is asked to exercise its "Midas Touch" adding to the value of the property.
The second method is to have a Community Design Plan conducted which results in amendment of the zoning by-law. Developing a CDP takes significant resources both from City Planning staff and from the community. Because of the resource demands, only a limited numer of CDP's can be undertaken at any time.
What we need is some procedure that is greater than spot rezoning, but less than a full-blown CDP. How we develop such an approach should be a topic of discussion at the "Planning Summit" which is supposed to be held in the next few months.
I could imagine this new procedure developing initially by Council engaging in a meaningful consideration of the implications of spot rezoning applications. If the application is for 123 Elm Street, the staff report should explain why current zoning should not be re-examined for 121 and 125 Elm Street, or for other adjacent properties.
I am seized with this idea right now because there is an application to rezone a property at 174 Glebe Ave. from R3 to R4. (If you're not familiar with zoning, R3 allows singles, semis, duplexes, triplexes, & row houses whereas R4 allows low-rise apartment buildings.) The Glebe case is interesting because next to 174 (at 172, I believe) is one lot sandwiched between the property at 174 and a church (institutional zoning). If spot rezoning is approved for 174, this would leave a single lot, 172, remaining under the constraints of R3 zoning. But as far as I know, the property owner at 172 has not applied for rezoning. Nor would 172 be rezoned other than through a further spot rezoning application.
In this case I am not arguing that any of the properties in question should be rezoned. Actually I think we should be severely limiting the spot rezoning going on in Ottawa. But if we are going to rezone at all, we should not be just thinking of the single property in the application. I would submit that we should be looking at the neighbouring properties as well. Maybe they also should be rezoned. And if the adjacent properties should not be rezoned, does this argue that the application for rezoning should be refused?
So somehow we need to develop a middle procedure for rezoning -- more than spot, but less than CDP.
Reviving discussion
This blog has been dormant for some time but it seems appropriate to relaunch it. The concept behind this blog is to encourage discussion by folk interested in civic issues in the City of Ottawa. Our first target is to encourage exchanges among people (or among community groups) associated with the FCA - the umbrella group for community associations in Ottawa. But beyond the formal community associations there are others who share a deep interest in civic matters, either as a general interest or with respect to a very specific city action or policy that affect them.
So to get some sort of discussion going, I propose to post some personal views. Note that these views are personal -- they are not the established position of the FCA nor of the Glebe Community Association. The hope is that some of the opinions will result in others posting comments to support or to refute my statements.
So to get some sort of discussion going, I propose to post some personal views. Note that these views are personal -- they are not the established position of the FCA nor of the Glebe Community Association. The hope is that some of the opinions will result in others posting comments to support or to refute my statements.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Possible ideas
To get the creative juices flowing, here are some ideas on possible initiatives for members to consider. Others are invited to pitch in, adding their own ideas, dismissing ideas presented by others or simply giving a sense of priority to ideas which have been floated.
a) Press Mayor Watson on his borough council idea: We could invite the Mayor to speak about his concept; we could write a paper ourselves to present to members of Council; we could take initiative to ensure that the idea does not disappear into the "too hard basket" never to appear again.
b) Open discussion on the zoning by-law: In the election campaign Councillor Hume floated an idea of "pre-zoning"; we could invite him to explain his concept. We could work with Council to look at the zoning by-law more generally -- we have gone on record as questioning spot rezoning -- can we see how Community Design Plan exercises or zoning studies might address some of the city's zoning disagreements.
c) Establish a community challenge fund: It has been suggested that a fund be established for challenges before the Ontario Municipal Board. When appropriate, money from such a fund could be provided to support associations' appearance before the OMB.
d) Tightening language in the Official Plan: Examine the OP as updated to identify the language which seems to render CDPs, secondary plans and zoning meaningless. Press for amendment.
e) Explore ties with Gatineau: Examine possibilities of opening dialogue with like community groups in Gatineau, particularly on questions of interprovincial transportation, either bridges or transit.
f) Examine community associations' relationship with the City: Each association seems to have a different relationship with the city, whether it is availability of meeting rooms or insurance coverage. We could draw up an inventory of the various relationships and, if appropriate, launch discussion with the city to clarify matters.
g) Pool experience about running a community association: Members are structured differently and have differing scope of activity. Perhaps an event (a weekend workshop) or an inventory of by-laws etc. would be useful.
h) Focus on transportation issues: We held a weekend workshop on transportation but much of the time FCA has relied on City Centre Coalition on transportation questions. The CCC emphasis is on transit in the core whereas some members have other issues and are outside the geographic area of interest to CCC. Rural transportation or a new interprovincial bridge are examples. Is a more active FCA presence needed on these issues?
i) Intensification: Do we need to have further discussion about what the push for intensification really means for our communities? Should we be tracking intensification targets and measures? How is to be co-ordinated?
j) City Budget: It seems that the new Mayor and Council intend to give much attention to budgets. Should the FCA promote community involvement in budget questions and, if so, how is this best done? Is there sufficient common thinking among community groups for FCA to make an intervention in the budget discussions?
That makes ten ideas.....no doubt there are more....and some of the above may not be worth pursuing.
a) Press Mayor Watson on his borough council idea: We could invite the Mayor to speak about his concept; we could write a paper ourselves to present to members of Council; we could take initiative to ensure that the idea does not disappear into the "too hard basket" never to appear again.
b) Open discussion on the zoning by-law: In the election campaign Councillor Hume floated an idea of "pre-zoning"; we could invite him to explain his concept. We could work with Council to look at the zoning by-law more generally -- we have gone on record as questioning spot rezoning -- can we see how Community Design Plan exercises or zoning studies might address some of the city's zoning disagreements.
c) Establish a community challenge fund: It has been suggested that a fund be established for challenges before the Ontario Municipal Board. When appropriate, money from such a fund could be provided to support associations' appearance before the OMB.
d) Tightening language in the Official Plan: Examine the OP as updated to identify the language which seems to render CDPs, secondary plans and zoning meaningless. Press for amendment.
e) Explore ties with Gatineau: Examine possibilities of opening dialogue with like community groups in Gatineau, particularly on questions of interprovincial transportation, either bridges or transit.
f) Examine community associations' relationship with the City: Each association seems to have a different relationship with the city, whether it is availability of meeting rooms or insurance coverage. We could draw up an inventory of the various relationships and, if appropriate, launch discussion with the city to clarify matters.
g) Pool experience about running a community association: Members are structured differently and have differing scope of activity. Perhaps an event (a weekend workshop) or an inventory of by-laws etc. would be useful.
h) Focus on transportation issues: We held a weekend workshop on transportation but much of the time FCA has relied on City Centre Coalition on transportation questions. The CCC emphasis is on transit in the core whereas some members have other issues and are outside the geographic area of interest to CCC. Rural transportation or a new interprovincial bridge are examples. Is a more active FCA presence needed on these issues?
i) Intensification: Do we need to have further discussion about what the push for intensification really means for our communities? Should we be tracking intensification targets and measures? How is to be co-ordinated?
j) City Budget: It seems that the new Mayor and Council intend to give much attention to budgets. Should the FCA promote community involvement in budget questions and, if so, how is this best done? Is there sufficient common thinking among community groups for FCA to make an intervention in the budget discussions?
That makes ten ideas.....no doubt there are more....and some of the above may not be worth pursuing.
Becoming proactive in 2011
This new blog is to stimulate discussion about the activities and objectives of the FCA [Federation of Citizens' Associations of Ottawa-Carleton]. According to the FCA by-laws, the objectives of the Federation are:
(1) To encourage citizen participation in the planning and development of the community and the conduct of community affairs in Ottawa and the national capital region;
(2) To encourage collective action and effort on matters of more than personal interest and when so empowered by Members, to act on their collective behalf:
(3) To serve as a clearing house for information between member organizations, levels of government and their agencies and news media;
(4) To serve as a conduit of information between and among member organizations.
At the Nov. 29 meeting held in Old Ottawa East, it was agreed that there would be a discussion at the January meeting (now confirmed for Jan. 13) to plan FCA activity for 2011. Please use this blog to stimulate discussion leading up to the January meeting.
(1) To encourage citizen participation in the planning and development of the community and the conduct of community affairs in Ottawa and the national capital region;
(2) To encourage collective action and effort on matters of more than personal interest and when so empowered by Members, to act on their collective behalf:
(3) To serve as a clearing house for information between member organizations, levels of government and their agencies and news media;
(4) To serve as a conduit of information between and among member organizations.
At the Nov. 29 meeting held in Old Ottawa East, it was agreed that there would be a discussion at the January meeting (now confirmed for Jan. 13) to plan FCA activity for 2011. Please use this blog to stimulate discussion leading up to the January meeting.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)