HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Business, Politics & the Economy


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2019, 9:48 PM
Urbanarchit Urbanarchit is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,925
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00 View Post
@urbanarchit

We aren't going to turn into Europe or Japan overnight. So we need to give up that dream. We need to simply focus on building neighbourhoods and cities that are more livable and not as massively car dependent. The city is actually doing better on transit oriented development. It's at least turned the corner here. So the issue really isn't around these spots. It's about the ever expanding suburban boundary. And suburbs that still aren't dense enough to really be walkable and transit friendly. Not to mention taxpayer friendly.
So because something won't happen overnight we need to give it up entirely? I disagree. But I also wasn't suggesting we become either of the two, but rather that I like Japan's method, which due to it being a federal standard implemented country wide means you don't really have much NIMBYism. Urban kchoze has a good blog about Japanese urban planning, which has inclusive zoning (as opposed to ours which is exclusive). there are certainly a lot of things we can and should be doing in the meantime.

By all means, we do need to improve the current downtown and urban neighbourhoods, and figure out ways to retrofit the suburbs to make them more sustainable and less car dependent, but I think a lot of that is wishful thinking. A lot of land is already occupied such that building rapid transit to various neighbourhoods would be expensive and quite difficult due to little land in these areas being available to build such transit infrastructure. We also have a problem where a lot of current residents don't want development near them in their neighbourhoods, and so can stop or slow down any of these necessary changes. Look at Westboro and the issues with building LRT through that area! Another issue is that these neighbourhoods are already expensive and will only continue to get more expensive, largely due to less land, overly-restrictive zoning, opposition to new developments/ change, and also due to our current method of home-ownership and housing where it's used as an investment. I do believe we need to be doing something, but I no longer believe it's realistic or possible given all these challenges. We will need to do something in order to improve make the city/ neighbourhoods work for all.

That being said, as difficult as it may be, we should still be changing our urban planning and housing development strategies and laws (country-wide) to ensure that we new neighbourhoods (which may also be more affordable) are sustainable, not car-dependent/ designed for easier development, and be based around public transit (which was what streetcar suburbs were sort of about), much like I stated in my previous post. Retrofitting old/ existing neighbourhoods is one, and changing standards so new neighbourhoods don't make the same past mistakes is another thing we need to work towards.

I disagree with the City's effort on TOD. I think we're doing a terrible job, and it looks more like car-dependent planning with highrises. There's no community built around these stations (no retail or real social spaces), the streets are still designed for cars (see plans for South Keys and Blair), and we're still permitting too much car parking in new buildings right beside transit stations (see all, especially those at Westboro Station). Not only that, you have people like Jeff Leiper opposed to development at Westboro Station for being "too tall" because he thinks they should be shorter to transition for current residents living the the detached houses nearby. Not only that, he has opposed 3-storey apartment buildings in the neighbourhood to preserve the character of the street for nearby residents who "bought a house 20 years ago expected only houses on their street" right around the corner from Richmond Road. And of the developments in Westboro that he called the "Wild West" are all within 500m of Westboro and Dominion Station. These are all examples of TOD that are being opposed by councillors and residents over the well-being of the city. Honestly, we're not really doing much for TOD, and should be doing a lot better.

I know I used Japan already, but Japanese cities really are the standard for transit-oriented development and building good, safe urban neighbourhoods with good transit and density with lowrise houses. Look at this suburb of Tokyo, Kichijoji, which has a large park, lots of houses, yet TOD right at the train station.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00 View Post
Montreal. Has decent density. You don't see too many skyscrapers or 50 storey condos. Lots of low rise apartments and duplexes.
I generally agree with most of what you said in the rest of the comment, but I do take issue with this as a former resident of Montreal. While a lot of Montreal does consist of 2-3 storey apartments in most of the city, with detached houses in other neighbourhoods, it does have quite a few skyscrapers and 50-storey condos, especially within the last decade. Montreal has been seeing a building boom in the last while, such that there are numerous highrise residential buildings recently built or currently under construction downtown.

There are height limits in the city, such as that buildings are limited to 50 floors to not block the view of Mont Royal, and areas like Le Plateau have bylaws prevent new development from being taller than 3 floors to preserve the character of that area (as well as bylaws for requiring buildings' doors and facades to be painted different colours). Otherwise, you see the Tour des Canadiens 1-3, L'Avenue, L'Icone, etc. around downtown/ Ville Marie burough. You also see highrises constructed around Nun's Island. Despite that, there are still a lot of other highrise buildings throughout the city, downtown and elsewhere.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2019, 11:41 PM
Truenorth00 Truenorth00 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 28,730
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanarchit View Post
So because something won't happen overnight we need to give it up entirely? I disagree. But I also wasn't suggesting we become either of the two, but rather that I like Japan's method, which due to it being a federal standard implemented country wide means you don't really have much NIMBYism. Urban kchoze has a good blog about Japanese urban planning, which has inclusive zoning (as opposed to ours which is exclusive). there are certainly a lot of things we can and should be doing in the meantime.
Familiar with that blog. Love it.

My point here is that holding out for us to become Europe or Japan is a failing strategy. Japan has virtually nationwide permissive zoning laws. We have a mess here where the city has some zoning authority, the province mandates growth strategy, and the feds don't give a damn about urban development beyond cutting cheques for some transit development. Transforming that to something like what Japan has would take a generation (or several). We just don't have the same understanding of zoning, property ownership, development patterns, etc. And I'd rather not wait a generation to effect changes.

We should talk about what can be done immediately and push for that. I am pragmatic that way. Never let perfect be the enemy of good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanarchit View Post
I generally agree with most of what you said in the rest of the comment, but I do take issue with this as a former resident of Montreal. While a lot of Montreal does consist of 2-3 storey apartments in most of the city, with detached houses in other neighbourhoods, it does have quite a few skyscrapers and 50-storey condos, especially within the last decade. Montreal has been seeing a building boom in the last while, such that there are numerous highrise residential buildings recently built or currently under construction downtown.
Sure. There's been some change in development. My point here is that Montreal has achieved relatively higher density (compared to most North American cities) with all those duplexes. And we can learn from that, even if we don't like what they might be building now.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted May 1, 2019, 1:50 AM
Gat-Train Gat-Train is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanarchit View Post
Not that I'm defending sprawl, but there could be ways to mitigate the negative effects it has on cities by rectifying the problems created by it. My understanding is sprawl is bad for several reasons:
  • it's usually low-density development that forces people to travel by car for everyday tasks like work, school, groceries, and increases people's travel distance daily to accomplish these tasks while making public transportation less efficient;
  • it takes away arable land that could be reserved for food production (agriculture) or left natural as forests and fields to the benefit of various animals and other important environmental phenomena that we take for granted (rainwater absorption, combatting Urban Heat Island Effect, CO2 absorption, among others);
  • increases distance, and therefore amount, of services (hydro, sewage, roads, etc) needed for the sprawling communities; and
  • contributes to social isolation due to its form that prevents spontaneous or common encounters with others.
I'm sure there are other problems we could add to this list or subdivide the first point, but those seem like the most significant. By understanding these issues we can work to address their negative impacts on the city, which of course would require changes to our laws/ by-laws, building codes, etc. to ensure that when we do build new communities they meet proper standards that would exacerbate these problems.

One way would be to set up standards for how neighbourhoods are designed by making the current curlicue streets and parking lots favoured in present suburban designs illegal. New neighbourhood designs would include traditional main streets and civic facilities (schools, community centres, etc.) nearby such that residents could walk there. As well, street and block designs made such that there is a general grid design making travel (walking) distances shorter and block designs easier to accommodate an eventual intensification and redevelopment in the future. Similar to urban and streetcar-type neighbourhood designs. There should be more emphasis on building mixed-use and multi-unit residential buildings, in addition to building homes closer together.

A second measure is to create a comprehensive transit plan for the city and region along which these communities will be built. We can reserve land intended for a transitway (LRT, BRT, etc.) where a transit station is to be built every so often. They need not be as frequently spaced as within the city limits, but there could be space along the lines at which new stations could be constructed should the demand arise. Each community will develop around the transit stations to enable people to get around and into the city easily without cars.

Thirdly, these communities would be designed as towns around these transit stations. The areas beside the stations would be reserved for higher density developments with shops, offices, apartments/ condos and other things you'd expect in a town centre at least within a 500m radius distance (though less can be zoned provided that the neighbourhood is open for intensification eventually). Higher density doesn't mean highrise, but a base of 3-4 stories in areas immediately beside the station would suffice with detached homes elsewhere, with upzoning permitted if the need arises in the future. This way you can build the low-rise, detached house neighbourhood many people want with a traditional town centre around a transit station that's easy to access and local. This way people may not need to travel to other places as they may have amenities, jobs, and apartments (to live in or downsize into) they like locally, and transit access to other communities and the urban areas of Ottawa.

With this, you could control sprawl, centre it around transit, create new communities that have suburban and urban qualities that people like and look for in housing (which contributes to why urban neighbourhoods are sought after and becoming so expensive). This would also reduce the need for people to use cars to get around, while creating an actual community to spend time and socialize in. Services wouldn't need to travel too far to be provided to residents, and the growth pattern couldbe controlled so that it radiates from "denser" transit stations instead of spreading out as they currently do and taking over the country side. I kind of imagine this similar to how Japan does urban and suburban development (which is all based on national standards, if I might add). Obviously, there should be emphasis on intensification downtown and in the urban and near-urban neighbourhoods first and foremost, and then retrofitting and redesigning our current suburbs to be more "urban" or at least eliminate some of the problems they create.

Also, I just really love trains and wish we had more of them. I'm envious of how Japan has built train infrastructure and how a train transit culture developed. I watch videos like this POV train ride and find it so enjoyable. The neighbourhoods are suburban yet dense, and are served by decent transit, even in smaller towns.

I just mean to say, we could be doing sprawl better to mitigate against its negative effects, and help with being more sustainable and resilient in face of climate change.
You sir, have my vote for mayor.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted May 1, 2019, 6:37 AM
Urbanarchit Urbanarchit is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,925
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gat-Train View Post
You sir, have my vote for mayor.
Thank you! If ever I run for office, I may count on your support.

Last edited by Urbanarchit; May 1, 2019 at 7:21 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted May 1, 2019, 6:40 AM
Urbanarchit Urbanarchit is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,925
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00 View Post
Familiar with that blog. Love it.

My point here is that holding out for us to become Europe or Japan is a failing strategy. Japan has virtually nationwide permissive zoning laws. We have a mess here where the city has some zoning authority, the province mandates growth strategy, and the feds don't give a damn about urban development beyond cutting cheques for some transit development. Transforming that to something like what Japan has would take a generation (or several). We just don't have the same understanding of zoning, property ownership, development patterns, etc. And I'd rather not wait a generation to effect changes.

We should talk about what can be done immediately and push for that. I am pragmatic that way. Never let perfect be the enemy of good.
We should be pragmatic, but I think we also need to decide on and work towards/ advocate for what we want from urban planning and home ownership patterns/ laws. I think advocating and working at making change is important to improve and avoid making past mistakes as we keep making.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted May 1, 2019, 6:48 PM
YOWetal YOWetal is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by acottawa View Post
There is a huge gap between the rhetoric and the action. People that claim that climate change is the biggest threat to the world are only willing to support measures that affect somebody else. When people believed Hitler was the biggest threat to the world they were willing to enlist, buy bonds, plant Victory Gardens, accept rationing etc. My hypothesis is that they don’t really believe their own rhetoric.
Excellent point. Our government is, cynicism aside, a government of the people, if most people want to live in suburbs and do token things like recycle and buy carbon offsets the government can't get much ahead of that. Even this token carbon tax looks to be maybe not a step too far but something that could tip the election given all the other factors and the ultimate importance of suburban Toronto to close results.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted May 6, 2019, 6:49 PM
daud's Avatar
daud daud is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 762
well worth a read from today's CBC and coming out of the Paris UN Biodiversity Conference. This article underscores how climate is just one piece of a much larger problem. The conversation in media has been so fixated on climate, but scientists are piloting the broader conversation of humanities impact on our planet.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/un-global-biodiversity-report-1.5124089

Nature is in its worst shape in human history, UN report says
The Associated Press · Posted: May 06, 2019 6:30 AM ET | Last Updated: an hour ago

Nature is in more trouble now than at any other time in human history, with extinction looming over one million species of plants and animals, scientists said Monday in the UN's first comprehensive report on biodiversity.

It's all because of humans, but it's not too late to fix the problem, the report by the United Nations says.

Species loss is accelerating to a rate tens or hundreds of times faster than in the past, the report said. More than half a million species on land "have insufficient habitat for long-term survival" and are likely to go extinct, many within decades, unless their habitats are restored. The oceans are not any better off.

"Humanity unwittingly is attempting to throttle the living planet and humanity's own future," said George Mason University biologist Thomas Lovejoy, who has been called the godfather of biodiversity for his research. He was not part of the report.

"The biological diversity of this planet has been really hammered, and this is really our last chance to address all of that," Lovejoy said.

Conservation scientists from around the world convened in Paris to issue the report, which exceeded 1,000 pages. The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) included more than 450 researchers who used 15,000 scientific and government reports. The report's summary had to be approved by representatives of all 109 nations.

Some nations hit harder by the losses, like small island countries, wanted more in the report. Others, such as the United States, were cautious in the language they sought, but agreed "we're in trouble," said Rebecca Shaw, chief scientist for the World Wildlife Fund, who observed the final negotiations.

"This is the strongest call we've seen for reversing the trends on the loss of nature."

The findings are not just about saving plants and animals, but about preserving a world that's becoming harder for humans to live in, said Robert Watson, a former top NASA and British scientist who headed the report.

"We are indeed threatening the potential food security, water security, human health and social fabric" of humanity, Watson told The Associated Press. He said the poor in less developed countries bear the greatest burden.

'Business as usual is a disaster'
The report's 39-page summary highlighted five ways people are reducing biodiversity:
  • Turning forests, grasslands and other areas into farms, cities and other developments. The habitat loss leaves plants and animals homeless. About three-quarters of Earth's land, two-thirds of its oceans and 85 per cent of crucial wetlands have been severely altered or lost, making it harder for species to survive, the report said.
  • Overfishing the world's oceans. A third of the world's fish stocks are overfished.
  • Permitting climate change from the burning of fossil fuels to make it too hot, wet or dry for some species to survive. Almost half of the world's land mammals — not including bats — and nearly a quarter of the birds have already had their habitats hit hard by global warming.
  • Polluting land and water. Every year, 300 to 400 million tons of heavy metals, solvents and toxic sludge are dumped into the world's waters.
  • Allowing invasive species to crowd out native plants and animals. The number of invasive alien species per country has risen 70 per cent since 1970, with one species of bacteria threatening nearly 400 amphibian species.

Fighting climate change and saving species are equally important, the report said, and working on both environmental problems should go hand in hand. Both problems exacerbate each other because a warmer world means fewer species, and a less biodiverse world means fewer trees and plants to remove heat-trapping carbon dioxide from the air, Lovejoy said.

The world's coral reefs are a perfect example of where climate change and species loss intersect. If the world warms another 0.5 degrees Celsius, which other reports say is likely, coral reefs will probably dwindle by 70 to 90 per cent, the report said. At 1 degree Celsius, the report said, 99 per cent of the world's coral will be in trouble.

"Business as usual is a disaster," Watson said.


Coral reefs, pictured surrounding a small island on the Great Barrier Reef, are a perfect example of where climate change and species loss intersect according to the report. (David Gray, File/Reuters)
At least 680 species with backbones have already gone extinct since 1600. The report said 559 domesticated breeds of mammals used for food have disappeared. More than 40 per cent of the world's amphibian species, more than one-third of the marine mammals and nearly one-third of sharks and fish are threatened with extinction.

The report relies heavily on research by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), which is composed of biologists who maintain a list of threatened species.

The IUCN calculated in March that 27,159 species are threatened, endangered or extinct in the wild out of nearly 100,000 species biologists examined in depth. That includes 1,223 mammal species, 1,492 bird species and 2,341 fish species. Nearly half the threatened species are plants.

Scientists have only examined a small fraction of the estimated eight million species on Earth.

The report comes up with one million species in trouble by extrapolating the IUCN's 25 per cent threatened rate to the rest of the world's species and using a lower rate for the estimated 5.5 million species of insects, Watson said.

Outside scientists, such as Lovejoy and others, said that's a reasonable assessment.

Habitat loss among biggest threats
The report gives only a generic "within decades" timeframe for species loss because it is dependent on many variables, including taking the problem seriously, which can reduce the severity of the projections, Watson said.

"We're in the middle of the sixth great extinction crisis, but it's happening in slow motion," said Conservation International and University of California Santa Barbara ecologist Lee Hannah, who was not part of the report.

Five times in the past, Earth has undergone mass extinctions where much of life on Earth blinked out, like the one that killed the dinosaurs. Watson said the report was careful not to call what's going on now as a sixth big die-off because current levels don't come close to the 75 per cent level in past mass extinctions.


The report said one of the five major ways people are reducing biodiversity includes turning forests, like the Amazon rain forest in Brazil, into developments like soybean farms. (Paulo Whitaker, File/Reuters)
The report goes beyond species. Of the 18 measured ways nature helps humans, it said 14 are declining, with food and energy production noticeable exceptions. The report found downward trends in nature's ability to provide clean air and water, good soil and other essentials.

Habitat loss is one of the biggest threats, and it's happening worldwide, Watson said. The report projects 25 million kilometres of new roads will be paved over nature between now and 2050, most in the developing world.

'Deadliest disease in all time' wipes out 90 species of frogs and toads
Many of the worst effects can be prevented by changing the way we grow food, produce energy, deal with climate change and dispose of waste, the report said. That involves concerted action by governments, companies and people.

Individuals can help with simple changes to the way they eat and use energy, said the co-chairman of the report, ecological scientist Josef Settele of the Helmholtz Center for Environmental Research in Germany. That doesn't mean becoming a vegetarian or vegan, but balancing meat, vegetables and fruit, and walking and biking more, Watson said.

"We can actually feed all the coming billions of people without destroying another inch of nature," Lovejoy said. Much of that can be done by eliminating food waste and being more efficient, he said.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Business, Politics & the Economy
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:44 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.