Barrhaven LRT | Proposed

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

There is no reason on earth that we need to keep building those houses on loops and lollipops in "communities" that have housing coarsely-grain segregated from all other land uses.

I think you are being a bit unfair to current suburb design practices... look at River Mist in Barrhaven, or Lakeridge Drive in Orleans. These are not loops and lollipops. They could still use some work integrating commercial uses more tightly with the residential, but overall urban form is an improvement over the 90s and early 2000s.

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

There is absolutely no reason for us to freeze land-uses in time in newly-built areas as we've been doing since the 1950s.

Freezing land use is still an issue... but some 1950s neighbourhoods have been seeing redevelopment in recent years... honestly it is usually the low income neighbourhoods (Carlington comes to mind) less likely to resist change.

[SkeggsEggs]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Sprawl With Transit is pretty much a distinction without a difference, especially in cities like Ottawa which have a lousy track record when it comes to truly transit-oriented development, and a building industry that is completely married to a 1950s-1970s mentality of street layouts, housing types, and land-use segregation.

You always say this but it does not seem to be entirely in true. In Kanata and Stittsville most of the new developments are on grid-like layouts. Yes they aren't perfect grids but I think you'll just have to accept that alot of people don't want to live on perfect grid layouts for a variety of reasons.

Open google maps and look at the new developments along Hope Side Road and Old Richmond. It is a pretty stark difference from the stuff along Grassy Plains. The backyards are small, the front yards are small, there is little space between houses, or they are town houses. This is a pretty big difference from Glen Carin, Katimavik, and Beaverbrook.

Arcadia, the developments by Huntmar and Maple Grove and the new developments between Stittsville and Kanata are very different from the layouts of the past and a big improvement.

[1overcosc]

Solutions to the city's housing woes:
-Mandate minimum density quotas in the suburbs; what we're achieving now in the newer areas of Kanata and Barrhaven are more or less sufficient
-Better design standards in the suburbs, including better residential-commercial integration
-Mechanisms to ensure transit service can keep pace with suburban growth, right now, when new areas are built it sometimes takes years just to get peak-period transit service in and even longer for all day service
-Following achievement of the above 3 points, open up far more areas to suburban growth including portions of the Greenbelt (along the highway corridors primarily)

Essentially, improve our standards for suburbs, then build-baby-build. The standards improvement is essential to allowing growth adequate enough to keep home prices low while preventing the downsides of urban sprawl.

I also think we need to have a conversation in this country about lowering the levels of immigration so as to reduce population growth so as to ease the growth pressure off our cities, but good luck with that.

[lrt's friend]

I think we can accomplish what the home buyer wants (quiet residential streets) while creating a better urban form, that is, less segregation of land use.

We need to make sure that pedestrian and bicycle access is improved and that schools, shopping and offices are more accessible without the need to use a car for everything. Heavy and light industry will necessarily have to be segregated because of the noise and the amount of truck traffic, but even then, I know a courier company integrated right in the middle of my own neighbourhood and somehow there appears to be reasonable co-existence with neighbouring residential properties.

We are presently at risk of increasing segregation because of our transit plans. The push to place most shopping and offices next to transit means that we are not likely to have a neighbourhood grocery store. Of course, why should all grocery stores need to be next to rapid transit? That is all because of the 'super store' trend, which personally I hate. I do almost all my grocery shopping a smaller community grocery stores, like Farm Boy and Metro.

But my thoughts are that individual neighbourhoods should be designed around a node of schools, a grocery store, a drug store, a dry cleaner, a hair salon, maybe a dentist and doctor's office and a few others and a few community restaurants and pubs. The bigger stores such as the big box stores, the community library, community centre, arena, bigger offices should be at the transit hub since all need to serve a bigger community. Connect local neighbourhoods to the transit hub with efficient transit , bicycle and pedestrian pathways.

We are failing at providing those connections and focusing only on car connections which means we need these big boulevards with traffic tending to travel at 80 km/hr or faster. It is a self-fulfilling prophesy.

On the subject of affordability of housing, the more we restrict the urban boundary, the more of property shortage, the more prices will rise. In other words, the more restrictions we place on developers the prices will spiral upward. Restrictions encourage land speculation.

[acottawa]

I think the trend towards larger format stores is driven by consumers. I had a neighbourhood grocery store about a 10 minute walk from my house. I went there sometimes, usually if the weather was nice and I only had a few things to pick up, but I did the bulk of my shopping at larger stores in driving distance. The selection and prices were better. I think my neighbours made similar choices and eventually the store closed.

[danishh]

Originally Posted by c_speed3108

I think we are seeing a bit of political smarts popping up here.

Lisa McLoad who represents the Barrhaven and much of the area this route would likely travel through is also very likely to be very close to the centre of the axis of the new provincial government.

If it was possible to move more projects forward beyond the currently promised ones, I would think one heading to the heart of that riding would be a good one to push at this time.

This was my first thought. Harder is close to McLeod as well (McLeod used to work for her).

With Fraser taking over as interim Liberal leader, and Ford obsessed with grade-separated trains, I think there's a decent chance the province ponies up for this.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I think the trend towards larger format stores is driven by consumers. I had a neighbourhood grocery store about a 10 minute walk from my house. I went there sometimes, usually if the weather was nice and I only had a few things to pick up, but I did the bulk of my shopping at larger stores in driving distance. The selection and prices were better. I think my neighbours made similar choices and eventually the store closed.

Yep. The reality is that market forces don't really allow for small neighbourhood stores in the suburbs. The format can thrive in condo neighbourhoods where many people get around on foot (like the new Sobeys in Centretown--it does very well despite being small and having poor selection & higher prices than a big box store would) but not in the suburbs.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

Well "Ultimate network" is something from the 22nd century. It's not in the 2031 network concept. Neither is Kanata though...
Meanwhile Carling LRT is in it but who cares... Sprawl won't sprawl by itself...

I was thinking about this and wondering if a Carling LRT from Lincoln Fields to Carling station is all that good an idea anyway. It would take the already shortened route 85 and split it into three routes. I suspect the only reason they proposed this route in the TMP is because it would be cheap to do as this section of Carling is an overbuilt, wide boulevard.

If the plan was to extend it downtown, then maybe, but that isn't even in the ultimate plan. Even if it were, I don't see a second east/west tunnel 1.7km from the first one as being the priority for downtown. Instead a north/south route downtown would make more sense when ready to dig a second tunnel.

Transit priority measures would be a better option for Carling, and that is what is being planned now.

https://ottawa.ca/en/city-hall/publi...ority-measures

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I was thinking about this and wondering if a Carling LRT from Lincoln Fields to Carling station is all that good an idea anyway. It would take the already shortened route 85 and split it into three routes. I suspect the only reason they proposed this route in the TMP is because it would be cheap to do as this section of Carling is an overbuilt, wide boulevard.

If the plan was to extend it downtown, then maybe, but that isn't even in the ultimate plan. Even if it were, I don't see a second east/west tunnel 1.7km from the first one as being the priority for downtown. Instead a north/south route downtown would make more sense when ready to dig a second tunnel.

Transit priority measures would be a better option for Carling, and that is what is being planned now.

https://ottawa.ca/en/city-hall/publi...ority-measures

I always wondered how a Carling LRT would be beneficial if it only ran from Lincoln Fields to Preston. Just two transfers to get downtown from there.

Just shows us how faulty our plans tend to be. Transfers are a necessity but must be contained.

However, we need to move Carling Avenue beyond 1960s motor and strip-mall heaven. How is this accomplished with the status quo even with some modest transit priority?

In the long run, we need more rail routes running into downtown. The Confederation Line is not enough no matter what capacity we design it for. We need more no transfer connections into downtown like our peer cities are now designing. Ottawa is now decades behind because of how we have back tracked on so many plans.

Toronto's transit system is very flawed because they designed only one rapid transit route through downtown. It is not a plan to emulate. The Yonge subway has been overcapacity for years and they have waited so long that they can't afford to build a second line.

[silvergate]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

I also think we need to have a conversation in this country about lowering the levels of immigration so as to reduce population growth so as to ease the growth pressure off our cities, but good luck with that.

Our birth rate is almost below replacement level. We have an aging population. The gov is talking about bringing 300-350k immigrants per year. It's not that many, if they are distributed more evenly across Canada's cities.
A lot of pressure on cities also comes from people in rural/small town settings moving for work or school, which is just a natural part of our country turning into a more service economy, and wealth becoming concentrated in the populated areas.

[lrt's friend]

I think both Farm Boy, Metro, and Giant Tiger can be very successful in the suburbs and none of these stores typically operate in super store sizes. We even have some modest sized Shoppers Drug Marts. Drug stores are so much in need that they can quite close together and therefore they can be situated in the centre of a neighbourhood.


We cannot say that the public only wants super stores when I know that modest sized stores are very successful near where I live.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by silvergate

Our birth rate is almost below replacement level. We have an aging population. The gov is talking about bringing 300-350k immigrants per year. It's not that many, if they are distributed more evenly across Canada's cities.
A lot of pressure on cities also comes from people in rural/small town settings moving for work or school, which is just a natural part of our country turning into a more service economy, and wealth becoming concentrated in the populated areas.

It is definitely below replacement level. This is why we need immigration.

[Buggys]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

It is definitely below replacement level. This is why we need immigration.

We need to encourage & incentivize having children domestically.

As for immigration, we can allow some, but NOT overwhelmingly more than we fund incentivization of having kids domestically. We have to be choosy about who we let in, and focus on those who would being our country net benefits, not just mooch off of existing taxpayers, who are struggling to pay for our own kids

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

I think you are being a bit unfair to current suburb design practices... look at River Mist

With a cheesy developeritis name like that, I'd rather not.

in Barrhaven, or Lakeridge Drive in Orleans. These are not loops and lollipops.

They are topologically not much better: still too many dead ends and wormholes. The fact that the streets were laid out on grid paper doesn't make them a grid that can adapt to future social and economic changes.

They could still use some work integrating commercial uses more tightly with the residential, but overall urban form is an improvement over the 90s and early 2000s.

Topologically they are the same as 1960s suburbs.

Freezing land use is still an issue... but some 1950s neighbourhoods have been seeing redevelopment in recent years... honestly it is usually the low income neighbourhoods (Carlington comes to mind) less likely to resist change.

There's been some occasional change in housing form on a given lot, but that's a conversion of housing to housing. Where are new commercial mainstreets developing organically, or being encouraged or allowed to? Nowhere. Where are we helping convert post-war main drags into something resembling pre-war main streets? Nowhere.

The superficial form changes from decade to decade but the underlying topology of new suburbs is the same: dead ends, lollipops, swirls. They may be rectilinear lollipops and swirls, but lollipops and swirls all the same.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by SkeggsEggs

You always say this but it does not seem to be entirely in true. In Kanata and Stittsville most of the new developments are on grid-like layouts. Yes they aren't perfect grids but I think you'll just have to accept that alot of people don't want to live on perfect grid layouts for a variety of reasons.

*whispers*

They shouldn't have the choice.

It should not be up to developers to lay out streets that will be cast in asphalt and concrete essentially forever.

It should not be up to current market fads to lay out streets that will bind generations to come, for centuries, to a particular social and economic arrangement.

We need to future-proof our urban areas by making them physically amenable to adapting over time. The only parts of our cities that can do that now, without significant upheaval, are the pre-war portions. Almost anything build since 1945 is frozen, and will continue to be frozen, and that's not a good thing. There can be a bit of marginal tinkering with form, but not very much with function.

Open google maps and look at the new developments along Hope Side Road and Old Richmond. It is a pretty stark difference from the stuff along Grassy Plains.

Not when viewed topologically, it isn't, no, and not when navigated on foot.

The backyards are small, the front yards are small, there is little space between houses, or they are town houses. This is a pretty big difference from Glen Carin, Katimavik, and Beaverbrook.

Yard sizes and orientations are not the thing that concerns me about how we are building new suburbs.

Arcadia, the developments by Huntmar and Maple Grove and the new developments between Stittsville and Kanata are very different from the layouts of the past and a big improvement.

Again, measured topologically, no: our builders are building rectilinear loops and swirls, but loops and swirls they still are, even with right angles. Parts of Alta Vista were laid out much the same way in the 1960s.

And Sweet Flying Spaghetti Monster, can we take away the power of developers to name streets like shampoos or body washes? "Autumfield", "Meadowbreeze", "Willowdusk", "Summergaze". That's some serious Geography of Nowhere garbage going on right there.

These rectilinear loopy suburbs are going to be no better at supporting higher-order transit in Farrhaven, or adapting over time, than the curliest parts of former Nepean or Gloucester. Topologically, they are the same.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

But my thoughts are that individual neighbourhoods should be designed around a node of schools, a grocery store, a drug store, a dry cleaner, a hair salon, maybe a dentist and doctor's office and a few others and a few community restaurants and pubs. The bigger stores such as the big box stores, the community library, community centre, arena, bigger offices should be at the transit hub since all need to serve a bigger community. Connect local neighbourhoods to the transit hub with efficient transit , bicycle and pedestrian pathways.

Or build that transit hub right where the line crosses a principal street. Build the public functions and the big box stores there at that hub, sure, but with a street-facing architecture, not a big-box-in-a-parking-lot one. And further along that principle street, other commercial and institutional uses could be located, again, with an urban, street-facing typology, not the suburban crap that is all Ottawa builders can ever think to build. (The "Parkwood Hills Mall" is a particularly egregious example: https://goo.gl/maps/mymR7T826Lt )

Whatever would we call these streets with so many of the community's main functions located and tightly bound together along them? Meh, it'll come to me.

On the subject of affordability of housing, the more we restrict the urban boundary, the more of property shortage, the more prices will rise. In other words, the more restrictions we place on developers the prices will spiral upward. Restrictions encourage land speculation.

The urban boundary is probably the least of the things that will tend, over time, to push housing prices up. The real problem is micro-scale restrictions and NIMBYism/BANANAism. The recently-ended debate over secondary suites in Calgary, the attention now being paid (and inaction towards) the Yellow Belt in Toronto are examples of that, but Ottawa's not much better, as is demonstrated every time anyone tries to take a single-family detached home and replace it with a duplex or "worse".

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I think the trend towards larger format stores is driven by consumers. I had a neighbourhood grocery store about a 10 minute walk from my house. I went there sometimes, usually if the weather was nice and I only had a few things to pick up, but I did the bulk of my shopping at larger stores in driving distance. The selection and prices were better. I think my neighbours made similar choices and eventually the store closed.

And by all means, if the market is trending towards big stores, build all the big stores the market can bear.

But there is no need for those big stores to be of the big-box typology: set back fare from the street, surrounded by acres of single-purpose parking.

If even Walmart can adapt its model to create "urban" Walmarts, any retailer can. We don't need to keep rubber-stamping 90s-style big box developments and "power centres" forever. We can insist on better, and on a form that doesn't freeze our land use economics in the current day. But we don't.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Buggys

We need to encourage & incentivize having children domestically.

Many, many, many western industrialized jurisdictions have tried to implement pro-natality policies.

Almost without exception, they have failed. (France, mysteriously, seems to be that exception.)

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Many, many, many western industrialized jurisdictions have tried to implement pro-natality policies.

Almost without exception, they have failed. (France, mysteriously, seems to be that exception.)

France's birth rate is still sub-replacement (although just barely) and most of the high birth rate actually stems from people of recent immigrant heritage having more kids for cultural reasons. Israel has above-replacement fertility but it's also driven by cultural reasons.

You can't use money to get people to have babies.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

France's birth rate is still sub-replacement (although just barely) and most of the high birth rate actually stems from people of recent immigrant heritage having more kids for cultural reasons. Israel has above-replacement fertility but it's also driven by cultural reasons.

You can't use money to get people to have babies.

Correct.