Ottawa's Byward Market

[kwoldtimer]

Convert the existing building into a food hall and build a new central market. Without an actual market, they are probably just spinning their wheels.

[movebyleap]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Convert the existing building into a food hall and build a new central market. Without an actual market, they are probably just spinning their wheels.

Absolutely! Bring back the fruits and vegetables! (And more!!) We don't even need to look far for inspiration - Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver!

[J.OT13]

So many things wrong with this. Let's start with Jim Watson giving Sutcliffe a complete ByWard Market plan on a silver platter in 2022. That plan could have been mostly done by now IN TIME FOR the 200th. Instead Sutcliffe shelved the plan for 3 years and now reintroduces a far less ambitious version, and quite literally slaps his name on it, and it won't evens tart until AFTER the 200th.

The proposed 3 hour limit will be problematic for anyone in the Market for a dinner and a show (you know, with the new History venue).

The proposed terrace on the Market Building impacts the heritage look of the building. You want a elevated terrace, do it at the top of the parking garage.

Replacing the parking garage with underground parking continues chocking the area with cars. Watson wanted to work with local developers to build parking at the edges of the Market. Claridgeland ByWard Edition would have been a great opportunity, but of course Sutcliffe never even thought of that.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by movebyleap

Absolutely! Bring back the fruits and vegetables! (And more!!) We don't even need to look far for inspiration - Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver!

I don't think fruits and vegetables are going to give us a Granville market which has a lot of other advantages. Jean Talon and St Lawrence are tourist attractions but really local shopping oriented and the latter has also struggled. We have several other markets already canibilizing the market for over priced local produce and baked goods.

Making it more pedestrianzed would help for sure but there also needs to be some more thought into how to attract people. There are a lot more residents now so that seems like an untapped market but sure let people circle for free parking to go to restaurants

[rocketphish]

Mayor touts ByWard Market 'action plan' — but what's new?
Plan borrows most ideas from previous council's $129M plan approved in 2021

Cameron Mahler · CBC News
Posted: Feb 20, 2026 4:00 AM EST | Last Updated: 6 hours ago



Ottawa’s mayor has presented what he’s calling an "action plan" for the ByWard Market, but it largely builds off ideas city council already approved five years ago.

At an Ottawa Board of Trade event Thursday, Mark Sutcliffe delivered a speech saying the strategy outlines "clear and specific steps" to "restore the market to its vital place as the heart of our city."

A six-page handout with Sutcliffe’s branding was given out at the event.

It came one day before a report from city staff is expected to provide full details and recommendations for a finance and corporate services committee meeting on March 3.

The timing of the announcement is in part to prepare for the coming of ByWard Market’s 200th anniversary next year.

"As we celebrate the first 200 years of the Byward Market, we have to imagine the next 50, the next 100, the next 200 years,” said Sutcliffe.

But many of the key points Sutcliffe highlighted in his handout and speech — livening streets, safety improvements and redevelopment of the historic market building and Clarence Street parking garage — were included in the $129-million plan to rejuvenate the ByWard Market that the former city council approved in January 2021 after months of discussion.

<more>

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ma...ket-action-plan-but-what-s-new-9.7098283

[J.OT13]

The more I look at the outside renderings, the more I realize there's really no difference from the current state. Other than the plaza in front of EQ3, and the terrace on the second floor of the heritage building, there's nothing.

The glass roof shown on the interior rendering is nowhere to be seen on exterior renderings.

[Kitchissippi]

If they turned the old market building into a food court, they really should replace the parking garage with a new wider market hall building similar to St Lawrence Market in Toronto. The old market building is too narrow and low to have proper market stalls.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

If they turned the old market building into a food court, they really should replace the parking garage with a new wider market hall building similar to St Lawrence Market in Toronto. The old market building is too narrow and low to have proper market stalls.

That's kind of what they did in Toronto. The St. Lawrence Market building is more retail spots than a true farmer's market, and the annex building has always housed the actual market stalls. I really think that the same thing could work here - there are tonnes of condo-dwellers in the vicinity who provide a built-in local clientele. It really is just a question of money, to build a proper farmer's market building and to keep rents low.

New and renovated markets are thriving all over North America. There is no reason it can't work in Ottawa if the city gets out of the way.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by phil235

That's kind of what they did in Toronto. The St. Lawrence Market building is more retail spots than a true farmer's market, and the annex building has always housed the actual market stalls. I really think that the same thing could work here - there are tonnes of condo-dwellers in the vicinity who provide a built-in local clientele. It really is just a question of money, to build a proper farmer's market building and to keep rents low.

New and renovated markets are thriving all over North America. There is no reason it can't work in Ottawa if the city gets out of the way.

If it's to be open 7 (or 6) days of the week, it would need to be an urban market rather than a true farmers market, and that's OK.

[Richard Eade]

From Josh Pringle’s article on CTVNEWS: https://www.ctvnews.ca/ottawa/article/7-...he-plan-to-revitalize-the-byward-market/

Here are the proposed timeframes for the work:

• 70 Clarence Street: 2028 - demolition repair. 2029 and beyond: construction
• York Street Plaza: 2028 – coordination with the demolition at the Clarence Street parking garage and underground infrastructure work on York Street. 2029 and beyond – construction of plaza and streetscape
• 55 ByWard Market Square and streetscaping: 2026 – advance design work. 2028 – shovel-ready (no construction). 2029 and beyond – sequenced after major works at 70 Clarence and the York Street plaza.

Let’s see if I have this right. Staff’s timing is:
Tear down the existing 290-space parking garage in 2028;
Tear up the 51 parking spots in the ‘York Plaza’ in 2028;
Begin building the 70 Clarence Community Hub – MAYBE with 190 underground parking slots – in 2029; and
Begin landscaping ‘York Plaza’ sometime after 2029.

So there will be a reduction of 341 prominent parking spaces, and there MIGHT be 190 returned sometime in the future.

I keep saying that there MIGHT be 190 spaces because, based on this Pringle article (https://www.ctvnews.ca/ottawa/article/ot...3-hour-pay-and-display-ticketing-system/)

Sutcliffe said he would be “pushing for underground parking” to replace the parking garage at 70 Clarence Street.

So, he will be ‘pushing’ for a PARTIAL replacement of the 290 spaces lost. And the cost for those spaces will add $44.2M (or almost a quarter-million per space).

But maybe removing 341 parking spots for years isn’t an issue. From that same article:

“There are over 3,000 parking spaces in and around the ByWard Market,” Coun. Stephanie Plante told CTV Your Morning Ottawa on Thursday.

I’ll admit, I would have trouble finding over 3,000 spots. Whenever I have tried to drive to ‘The Market’, I’ve found that the 70 Clarence structure was the only place to find parking.

Question? Why is the City adding the cost of demolishing 70 Clarence into the underground parking cost? Are they not planning to demolish (and only rehabilitate) if there is no underground parking? I don’t think the existing configuration would be suitable, and they seem to be talking about a new building. Why isn’t the cost of demolition added onto the $71.2M cost for building the new 70 Clarence building? To me, this is SPIN. It makes the building cost look lower, and the parking cost higher – which gives the City a better excuse to cancel the underground parking component.

From my point of view, this plan is a sure way to kill the ByWard Market. Seriously; a “world-class food hall”; a ‘craft’ building; some trees between roads on York Street; and less obvious parking. Does this really “Promote the ByWard Market as an Arts, Culture, and Entertainment District”?

[BGO]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

From Josh Pringle’s article on CTVNEWS: https://www.ctvnews.ca/ottawa/article/7-...he-plan-to-revitalize-the-byward-market/



Let’s see if I have this right. Staff’s timing is:
Tear down the existing 290-space parking garage in 2028;
Tear up the 51 parking spots in the ‘York Plaza’ in 2028;
Begin building the 70 Clarence Community Hub – MAYBE with 190 underground parking slots – in 2029; and
Begin landscaping ‘York Plaza’ sometime after 2029.

So there will be a reduction of 341 prominent parking spaces, and there MIGHT be 190 returned sometime in the future.

I keep saying that there MIGHT be 190 spaces because, based on this Pringle article (https://www.ctvnews.ca/ottawa/article/ot...3-hour-pay-and-display-ticketing-system/)

So, he will be ‘pushing’ for a PARTIAL replacement of the 290 spaces lost. And the cost for those spaces will add $44.2M (or almost a quarter-million per space).

But maybe removing 341 parking spots for years isn’t an issue. From that same article:

I’ll admit, I would have trouble finding over 3,000 spots. Whenever I have tried to drive to ‘The Market’, I’ve found that the 70 Clarence structure was the only place to find parking.

Question? Why is the City adding the cost of demolishing 70 Clarence into the underground parking cost? Are they not planning to demolish (and only rehabilitate) if there is no underground parking? I don’t think the existing configuration would be suitable, and they seem to be talking about a new building. Why isn’t the cost of demolition added onto the $71.2M cost for building the new 70 Clarence building? To me, this is SPIN. It makes the building cost look lower, and the parking cost higher – which gives the City a better excuse to cancel the underground parking component.

From my point of view, this plan is a sure way to kill the ByWard Market. Seriously; a “world-class food hall”; a ‘craft’ building; some trees between roads on York Street; and less obvious parking. Does this really “Promote the ByWard Market as an Arts, Culture, and Entertainment District”?

I would say it helps and not the opposite.

[Richard Eade]

How so? Please elaborate.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

If they turned the old market building into a food court, they really should replace the parking garage with a new wider market hall building similar to St Lawrence Market in Toronto. The old market building is too narrow and low to have proper market stalls.

Agreed. Why do we need another art space when we have the OAG, Arts Court and National Gallery a few blocks away. Keep the "Market" in the BuWard Market. I assume it's because Sutcliffe sees it as a hang out spot for suburbanites, and suburbanites are happy with their own grocery stores, and not a place where urbanites live and might want fresh ingredients.

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Question? Why is the City adding the cost of demolishing 70 Clarence into the underground parking cost? Are they not planning to demolish (and only rehabilitate) if there is no underground parking? I don’t think the existing configuration would be suitable, and they seem to be talking about a new building. Why isn’t the cost of demolition added onto the $71.2M cost for building the new 70 Clarence building? To me, this is SPIN. It makes the building cost look lower, and the parking cost higher – which gives the City a better excuse to cancel the underground parking component.

They did weird stuff like that with Lansdowne to make it seem cheaper than it was. The plan is to rehabilitate it for $1.9 million so we can get two more years out of it. Which is funny because O-Train service was cut in half (and in 4 on weekends) to save less than that per year.

[J.OT13]

I sent an email to Sutcliffe, Plante, Leiper and my Councillor this weekend with the following points;

1. In 2021, the City unanimously approved the ByWard Market Public Realm plan that would improve the pedestrian realm significantly;
2. That plan was supposed to be largely done for the 200th, but none of it was completed;
3. Sutcliffe's new plan is more expensive for fewer improvements, virtually no improvements when looking at the outdoor renderings;
4. Sutcliffe's plan is very car centric;
5. Old plan had new parking a the edges through partnerships with developers, and the Claridge block would have been a great opportunity the City squandered;
6. As previously mentioned, we have enough art spaces, the parking garage replacement should be a Market building;
7. The proposed terrace on the Market building doesn't respect the heritage;
8. What happened to the $20 million Doug Ford provided us in 2024 to pedestrianize William Street (amongst other things) in time for 2027. Sutcliffe's constantly complains that the upper levels don't give Ottawa funding, but he doesn't use it when they do (unless its police related).

[J.OT13]

Plante's statement on the Mayor's plan: https://stephanieplante.ca/statement-on-the-byward-market-revitalization-report/

[Richard Eade]

I have stated this before, but here I go again:

The ByWard Market NEEDS adequate, easily accessible, parking, that is accessed from the periphery of the market area.

The ByWard Market IS NOT a local facility. Sure, there are more people living in the peripheral areas, but the ByWard Market relies on having a much larger catchment area for customers. It is a regional facility, and must provide vehicle storage for people arriving by car.

As such, I, again, post this image. The green highlights where UNDERGROUND parking should be. This allows ALL of that surface area to be dedicated to pedestrian activities within that portion of the ByWard Market.



The underground parking under York and George should be the priority, and started this year. This includes the reconfigured accesses to Sussex Drive. Underground infrastructure would be replaced at the same time.

Notice that I have included a modification to Sussex at York. Access to, and egress from, the underground parking is via ramps that are in the Sussex Right of Way. This reduces the vehicular traffic between the York Plaza and the stairs to Colonel’s Hill to only north-bound vehicles on Sussex. I have also added a chicane to Sussex to slow traffic in that area.

This shows almost 17,000 m2 of space for parking. That’s probable 550-600 spaces for cars, if there was one underground level. And, when the parkade at 70 Clarence is redeveloped, that will add another 150 spaces as that underground level connects to the rest – and provides access from the north, via Parent.

Will it be cheap? Of course not. Google AI tells me that it could cost $80M. But it would remove virtually all roads in the area, providing a large pedestrian attraction.

(I’m not sure how the City estimates $44.2M for a single level of 190 spots., but I suspect that there might be some ‘estimate padding’ because there will be a building sitting atop of the garage. The, assumed 3-storey, ‘Community Hub’ building is estimated at about $70M, and three storeys would be about the same area as the parking area pictured above in green.)

The scores of millions of dollars spent on deflecting the LRT to provide better access to the ByWard Market was a great step. However, reality says that there will still be a lot of people trying to visit the area by car. They need to be welcomed, as well. Not greeted with a maze of one-way streets and the frustration of trying to find a parking spot; but by a simple, hassle-free, route to ample paid parking. This is what will encourage them to visit more often; not to swear-off ever going to the ByWard Market again.

[J.OT13]

I'd prefer that over rebuilding parking on Clarence. I don't oppose parking, but I would want the core of the Market to be car-lite or car free.

I think the idea of allowing people to park at your front door is vastly over stated. What are the chances that someone going to LaBottega for example finds a parking spot at the front door? So why is it so important to have parking at the front door?

I doubt people regularly come to the Market, park in front of the shop they want to visit, buy something and leave. If you're going to the Market, you'll have to walk a bit. It's the same at Costco, but there you're walking in a windswept parking lot dodging cars and carts, but no one seems to complain about that.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I'd prefer that over rebuilding parking on Clarence. I don't oppose parking, but I would want the core of the Market to be car-lite or car free.

I think the idea of allowing people to park at your front door is vastly over stated. What are the chances that someone going to LaBottega for example finds a parking spot at the front door? So why is it so important to have parking at the front door?

I doubt people regularly come to the Market, park in front of the shop they want to visit, buy something and leave. If you're going to the Market, you'll have to walk a bit. It's the same at Costco, but there you're walking in a windswept parking lot dodging cars and carts, but no one seems to complain about that.

Exactly! The people who complain about having to park a couple of blocks over and walk to their destination on relatively pleasant streets have no issue making the 500m trek from the far reaches of the Costco parking lot with no sidewalk, no shelter and multiple lanes of distracted drivers to dart across. It isn't logical.

I agree on the car-lite approach. We should provide (or get the private sector to provide at actual cost) parking on the periphery of the Market, but the middle needs to be car free, at least in the warm months and on weekends. People come to the Market to walk around, sit on patios and generally enjoy the street life, and right now the number of cars in the market takes away from those activities. Make the Market a better place to hang out, and more people will come.

I'd also note that while the Market is a regional destination as pointed out, its day to day success is not based on suburbanites driving in. They will do that on weekends and in the evenings, but to have a vibrant retail community you need the people living nearby, or close enough to hop on the train to be visiting regularly. I'm not sure where to find stats, but I suspect that transit users and walkers outnumber drivers at most times of the week.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I'd prefer that over rebuilding parking on Clarence. I don't oppose parking, but I would want the core of the Market to be car-lite or car free.

I think the idea of allowing people to park at your front door is vastly over stated. What are the chances that someone going to LaBottega for example finds a parking spot at the front door? So why is it so important to have parking at the front door?

I doubt people regularly come to the Market, park in front of the shop they want to visit, buy something and leave. If you're going to the Market, you'll have to walk a bit. It's the same at Costco, but there you're walking in a windswept parking lot dodging cars and carts, but no one seems to complain about that.

In fact this happens a lot. I live in the market and have done the same at the Fish shop on the way home and watched other customers do the same. I wouldn't have stopped if there was no parking. Businesses in fact do know there customers.

That said it's not a second rate main street if it's going to be an attraction it needs to be pedestrianized and animated. Say let the fish shop set up a patio for free and sell fish and chips etc. The patios do well but let's encourage more and not always need cost recovery for lost parking when it creates an atmosphere worth visiting.

[Richard Eade]

I couldn’t agree more, on both points, YOWetal.

The reason that I have included ALL of the current roadways as underground parking is to allow people to have easier travel to a parking spot very near where they want to go. If they are going to the fish shop, then that’s where they drive to, underground. Going to Nicastro’s? Drive underground and park under the George Plaza. Signage throughout the underground parking would identify shops. There would be many opportunities for vertical transportation (stairs/elevators) within the pedestrian areas.

Also, there should be a 29-minute FREE in-out privilege. This allows a person (or pick-up service) to quickly stop at a shop, maybe the fish monger, and leave without incurring extra cost – just like they could at a suburban mall. They take a ticket when entering, and, if they leave before a half hour, there is no charge. This will encourage more folks leaving the office parking downtown to stop in at the market to pick up, maybe a stone-oven pizza, to take home for dinner. Having the 29-minute limit will definitely encourage parking spot turnover (which the City seems to be stuck on).

As more people see how easy it is to ‘whip into’ the ‘Market’, it will encourage more frequent visits. People will see more of what is available and plan longer stays. If it is easy to go to the ByWard Market, and there are lots of options there, more people will go. But it needs to be easy.

The way the ‘Market’ is right now, it is very frustrating to try to drive and park there – compared to malls in the suburbs. This keeps suburbanites away. Sure, they could take transit downtown – but we all know that that is not going to happen. Phil235 suggests that transit users and walkers out-number people driving to the area. And in other news, more people use a bridge to cross the canal compared to people swimming across. It is no wonder that there are fewer people trying to drive there. It is not pleasant. This limits the patrons to a small portion of people who take transit, and locals. Ottawa’s transit modal share is, what, about 20%, and most of that is commuters – not people going to the ‘Market’. Is it any wonder why the ByWard Market is NOT thriving?

YOWetal’s second point is also important. ANIMATION IS CRITICAL. But it doesn’t have to be City organized. (I think that it is better if it is not the City which is in charge of animating the area – because the City, in my opinion, is really lousy at it.) The City needs to provide the large open pedestrian areas and then get out of the way. The ByWard Market should have specialty shops, restaurants, bars, patios, buskers, games, kid’s facilities, maybe a rink in winter, art installations, and etc.. And, of course market-stall sellers. These stalls will have ‘regulars’, weekly events (Lisbon, for example, has an avenue of book-sellers that appear every Saturday), seasonal (Maple Syrup, anyone?), and pop-up surprises. If it is a truly ‘Happening Place, Man’ you won’t be able to keep people away. Those 800 parking spots will be sold-out. The ByWard Market will be a destination.

Kicking out the jewelry artisans and Shawarma shops from the Market Mall Building to create a “world-class Food Hall” has got to be one of the most ridiculous ideas that the City has come up with. First, can we please stop using the term “world-class”? It is a completely meaningless term that implies that Ottawa is currently unworthy. Second, a food hall, AKA a food court – just like in every suburban mall? Seriously. The City thinks that that is what people in Ottawa are waiting for? Once there is a food court in the Market Mall Building suburbanites will flock onto their local bus (and transfer a couple of times) to spend time in a downtown food court.

The City needs to THINK BIG when it comes to the ByWard Market area. It needs to do everything that it can to encourage people to go to the area, by whichever means they choose. Then the City just needs to get out of the way. This will not be a direct cost-recovery project. It is unlikely that building a huge underground parking lot, and then allowing a 29-minute grace period, will recoup the construction costs. BUT, a thriving ByWard Market will benefit the City, and its coffers, in many other ways. Adding particulate filters to diesel buses was not a cost-recovery exercise either, but, it provides a social good that is beneficial in many other ways.

The City provides free parking along roadsides all across the city without any expectation of cost recovery. Frankly, I think that spending the money to provide ample underground parking in a pedestrianized ByWard Market is also worthwhile.