Busting The Paris Myth:

BUSTING THE PARIS MYTH 

Paris streetscape. Source.

There has been an on-going debate about how high buildings should be in Ottawa, and there’s no end in sight to this discussion. Lately, some have been advocating for a Paris-style height limit at six stories. The argument is that Paris is a dense urban city that has been able to grow without having buildings above six stories; it’s working great there, and everyone loves it...therefore, we should be able to achieve the same thing here in Ottawa by imposing a six-storey height limit and preventing high-rise development.

Sounds great, doesn’t it? No high-rise condos, trendy six-storey buildings with ground floor retail, and all this in a very attractive human scale with great architecture. Why, this is absolutely wonderful!

THE DIFFERENCE WITH OTTAWA.

Paris at night. Source.

Why is there a difference? I’ve only been to Paris twice—both times I stayed within 5 km of the heart of the downtown—and I can’t think of any neighbourhood that was dominated by single-family homes on single lots with abundant parking. That is the key difference.

We strive to protect the core of our residential neighbourhoods, which in many cases are comprised of single-family homes; so just imagine the outrage if the City proposed allowing six-storey buildings along, say, Monkland Avenue in the Glebe.

Single-family homes. Source.

But as an example, take the proximity of Monkland Avenue or Alta Vista Drive to the centre of the City, and then look at the same relative proximity in Paris: you won’t find one single-family home there. There are lots of six-storey buildings, most certainly, but no single-family homes on large lots.

So until we are prepared to allow our low-density neighbourhood to transition to six-storey developments, comparing Ottawa to Paris is akin to comparing apples to oranges.

As long as we continue to protect our single-family homes on single lots, we are going to have to find other locations that allow higher heights and higher density.

Being like Paris is appealing, but in reality it is not achievable. We need to focus our efforts on determining the most appropriate places in our City for higher heights and higher density. This is exactly what the City is going to do in the upcoming Official Plan.

-Peter

Certainty: how sanity can return to planning in Ottawa

source

WHAT CERTAINTY REALLY MEANS

At our recent Ottawa Planning Summit, my speech focused on a new commitment to certainty in the planning process for our city. But certainty has different connotations for the various parties involved in development; to most residents in a community, certainty means that the zoning and development patterns in their neighbourhood would never ever change. To the development industry, certainty has meant the stifling of design creativity and a truck load of government red tape. One member of the planning community has called certainty, ‘A job-killing drag on the economic vitality of Ottawa’. 

I know you won’t be surprised when I tell you that both the residents and the developers are incorrect about certainty.

CITIES CHANGE.

Murphy Gamble Dept store, Sparks St, circa 1954

Cities are organic; they grow and change all the time.  Neighbourhoods change, development changes, what we want and need changes—indeed, change may be the only constant. So how do we provide certainty in an ever-changing City? It’s simple: our Official Plan—if implemented correctly—provides certainty over the life of the plan. And during the review process, we look around us and plan the next evolutionary steps for our city.

CERTAINTY MANAGES CHANGE.

For the 10 years that the plan is in place, it is my belief that residents and developers alike should expect certainty. During that time, residents should be able to trust that the zoning will be consistent for the life of the plan. Similarly, the development community should be able to make sound business decisions that conform to the zoning and the official plan from which it flows, and the standards these outline in terms of city growth. The developer should be able to obtain a building permit and a site plan without hassle—no long and costly approvals process, because the zoning is clear and consistent.

For the lifespan of our Official Plan, everyone should be privy to the rules of the game, and both community groups and developers alike should expect to play by them. However, we all must realize that an Official Plan, despite all efforts, doesn’t cover every eventuality; there may be times when a property has to have the zoning changed. Under certainty planning, however, these exceptions shall not become the rule.

What certainty will mean is that community and business energy is focused, not on fighting each other and City Hall, but on defining the policies and directions that will comprise our Official Plan and the direction that development will take over its 10 year existence.

The Ottawa Planning Summit: Developing Our City

THE OTTAWA PLANNING SUMMIT: THE FIRST STEP



source



This week, the City of Ottawa is holding a major planning summit. This isn’t news to most of you, as the media and citizens alike have taken a serious interest in this event. It’s great to see so many people taking an interest in planning matters and their communities’ development, and I see this summit as a great first step.

It’s important to view the summit as just that: a starting point. Rome wasn’t built in a day, and likewise, Ottawa can’t be planned in a day. Our goal with this summit is to launch a new era of planning for our city. By looking 10-15 years ahead, we can start to envision our city as we truly wish to see it. And of course, by looking back we can identify, retrospectively, where we have stumbled in the past. This summit is the first step in lighting the path so that the future steps in development will proceed more smoothly.

A CHALLENGING HISTORY: OTTAWA'S PAST DECADE

Over the past decade, we have been focused on the issue of the urban boundary, often to the exclusion of all else. Amalgamation brought together such a wide variety of people and communities that it was an achievement just to ‘hold the line’. The impacts of amalgamation were still fresh in people's minds, and Council was still finding its way. Issues beyond the urban boundary, such as tall building policies, farming support, and even suburban tree planting regulations were left by the wayside. There was no policy in place that encouraged innovation like mixed-use development or other ‘outside the box’ ideas. Right now—this summit, this moment in time—is the first real opportunity to set the stage for new development concepts in Ottawa.



History aplenty: the Centre Block on Parliament Hill under
construction in 1863. source



READY FOR CHANGE: A MATURE CITY

From the shaky aftermath of the amalgamation, though, emerges a City that is mature enough now to embark on these discussions in a cohesive and unified fashion. The gathering of minds that will occur in Ottawa this week should be the start of discussions on all these types of issues; and over the following 18 months leading up to the Official Plan Review, we shall then press these discussions towards action.

A GROWING CITY AND A GROWING LIST OF QUESTIONS

I have many questions that I hope to have addressed during the next 18 months of review. Why are we still so focused on intensification as a concept only for the city core, for example? Why have we allowed utility companies to monopolize suburban front yards, limiting the availability of viable tree planting space? Are CDP’s actually valuable and tenable? How are we planning to support our local farmlands, and where are we going to grow in rural areas? How can we get infrastructure out to the suburbs in a timely fashion? What strategies do we envision for the development of low, medium, and tall buildings? How can we incentivize mixed-use development?

How do we encourage balanced growth and stop reaching just for the low-hanging fruit?



source



ONE STEP AT A TIME

This summit is not a day that will somehow provide a solution at the end of eight hours. It is but the first step in many to frame policies within the Official Plan. It is time for a series of discussions and strategy meetings on growth, development, and policy. We begin with a single step this week, and begin to work towards a big-picture solution. The City of Ottawa is poised for a new approach to growth. It is time to examine previous errors, learn from our scars, and get back on our feet.

I look forward to the summit as the first step we take together.

-Peter

FOR MORE ON THE SUMMIT:

You can follow the summit live as it is webcast. Head to ottawa.ca/planningsummit starting at 9am.

Follow the Hume Twitter feed for live tweeting.

You can also follow the hashtags #ottplan to see live tweeting from the Hume twitter feed (and others).

Also, updates are regularly posted on the Hume Facebook Page.

source

Public Facilities: Location, Location, Location.

Recent developments with the Ontario Lottery and Gaming (OLG) corporation have Ottawans discussing the potential construction of a casino here in town. Theories are flying about where such a large structure could be built; while I have no ready opinion on the matter myself, I am more than willing to discuss what questions should be asked when choosing a location for a large public facility, and reviewing what we’ve learned from previous builds that could save us headaches this time ‘round.

PROXIMITY: DOES IT EXIST OR MUST IT BE BUILT?

Heading to an event is usually only a portion of a planned evening out—and make no mistake, a casino can be the home to countless concerts, performances, and soirees just as our existing Scotiabank is now.. A couple may have tickets to see a magician at 8:30, and the rest of their evening plans may include dinner, a post-show coffee, and even a hotel stay. Thus, we can see that the revenue generated strictly by the ticketed event is only a fraction of the dollars spent on a special evening out.

Example of cab fare from a central location vs. our current largest venue.

Naturally, to facilitate this patronage of local businesses, we should aim to build our hotspots close to relevant amenities, the most crucial being:

• Accommodations

• Transit

• Other activities/shopping/dining

If the facility is not built where these amenities are already in existence, there are really only two options: find ways to spur on development of these amenities around the facility...or build these amenities into the facility itself.

IF YOU BUILD IT, WILL THEY COME?

Earlier this month, I used Scotiabank Place as an example of a facility that has gone with the former route: waiting for amenities to develop around it. As an Ottawa native, I remember when the Scotiabank Place—the Palladium, back then—was built. There was nothing around it for kilometers. Over the past 15 years, Kanata has become a thriving area, with many businesses, shopping, and dining, and many of these businesses rely on Scotiabank ticketholders for their revenue. However, few of these are at close proximity to the arena. Looking at the crucial amenities I’ve listed above, here’s an example of the reality of the arena’s location:

Lack of transit means more people in cars...this can mean more impaired driving,
serious traffic jams, and a greater carbon footprint.

 As you can see, the travel time from Kanata to a coffee shop for a post-event nightcap is generally a great deal longer than even from the outskirts of downtown (the example here is the Canadian War Museum). While a 35 minute walk may be pleasant some nights, remember this walk is along the side of a road and that Ottawa is reknown for its incredible range of weather patterns.  

Kanata from above. Arena is located in the loop in the middle.
Note all the undeveloped space in this sector of Kanata.

While Kanata has developed vastly over time, the reality is that the area in proximity to the arena just hasn’t built up to support the venue yet. With time, the arena will eventually have bus routes, dining, and hotels within a distance so that visitors are not reliant on a car. But for now, this particular facility is relatively isolated and progress in the immediate vicinity has been slow.

BRING THE MOUNTAIN, NOT THE OTHER WAY ‘ROUND.

Lebreton Flats area from above. Note the higher density.

A new facility like a casino would idyllically be placed where there are already existing amenities, but still finding a location with enough space to support its own amenity development, as well. In the instance of a casino, we’re not just looking at finding space to house a couple dozen blackjack tables; if built sensibly such a venue would have dining, theatre space, and banquet halls, to say the least.

For fastest turn on investment, whether we’re discussing a casino, hotel, arena, or any other facility, bringing the venue in towards amenities is best. In situations where this cannot be done, or other benefits are weighed out and the build is set for a more remote area, a development plan for that area may be called for.

THE PROS AND CONS OF BUILDING CENTRAL

The reality is that building centrally comes with its own set of struggles. Space is at a premium, the Official Plan may not accommodate new large-scale developments, and there may be other factors. However, generally the best practice would suggest that it is vital for the planning process of a public facility to include a contextual consideration of the proposed area. Where a solid plan can be made for the swift development of the surrounding area to support the facility, a more isolated location may be worth considering; however, in areas where swift development is not indicated, it may be worth jumping through the extra ‘hoops’ to secure a space in a central location.

-Peter

Understanding CDP's: Community Design Plans

COMMUNITY DESIGN PLANS: WHOSE DESIGN IS IT, ANYWAY?

credit: ddpavumba

Community Design Plans, also called CDP’s, are a hot-button topic these days. It’s important that we educate ourselves on how these plans work, what they cover, and how they’ve come to be.

CDP’s are intended to recognize that the next 20 years will not be the same as the last 20 years; consequently, to manage change effectively, the CDP process was born. CDP’s are conducted in areas that are expected to have major growth and intensification, so naturally they are not meant as a tool for maintaining the status quo. They are produced, most specifically, to manage changing needs and visions; and as such, they wouldn’t be of 

much use in an area not geared for new development.

THE EVOLUTION OF THE CDP

CDP’s have evolved over the years. These policies used to be written in broad language, and they used to allow for developers (and community groups) to flex their interpretation of the language quite a lot. For instance, an older CDP may simply state that “higher buildings will be built around transit stations, and lower developments will be built in the rest of the area”. The developer was then able to propose a building of any height...and on the flipside, a community group would be able to oppose a building of any height.

As the learning curve of CDP’s continued, we learned to tighten up the policy so that wild interpretations weren’t as easy to get away with. New CDP’s will state clearly that, say, “buildings up to twelve storeys will be built around transit stations, and lower developments under six storeys will be built in other areas.”

CDP’s have also evolved to become known as secondary plans, and consequently they are a part of the Official Plan for the entire city; this means that the policy frameworks are approved by City Council, and are implemented by the zoning by-law.

THE BENEFITS OF THE MODERN CDP

As the CDP evolution has continued, these policies now provide several benefits:

-They provide certainty for the community experiencing growth and make it easier to manage community expectations. With more clarity built right into the CDP, community groups don’t need to take such extreme interpretations of CDP policies in their attempt to have development proposals rejected or amended.

-They also provide certainty for the developers, should be happy that the approval process has been made faster and easier by only requiring a building permit and site plan—unless, of course, they are attempting to amend the plan and zoning to add height and density; and the new CDP policy framework makes it very difficult-to-impossible to get this type of approval, given the newer, more stringent policy wording.

-Developers are learning, and quickly, that the old ways of proposing height changes anywhere they like is not going to work.

THE CREATION OF A CDP: COOPERATION

credit: AMBRO

The process of developing a CDP has also evolved over the years. In the past, CDP’s have been solely community-driven, without any input from the landowner. The new CDP’s take a much more balanced approach, involving both the community and the landowner in discussions, and consequently fostering a more realistic view of development. With this new inclusive process, our most recent CDP—the Bank Street CDP—may not generate even one appeal from either side. And that’s an amazing result.

LEANING AT WINDMILLS: COMMUNITY NEEDS FAITH

When CDP’s are adhered to, despite some very determined and audacious developers, is it because there are vocal community groups making a loud fuss from the start? Not necessarily. The concept of the ‘squeaky wheel getting the grease’ doesn’t really apply here. With the newer, clearer, more stringent CDP’s, the reality is that the ‘grease’ is already there, and often the ‘wheel’ has been squeaking for nothing. Yet time and again, we end up with a pitched battle between the panicked community group, and the panicked developer, both who just want to ensure their vision is upheld. With the new CDP’s, the goal is to have the vision made so clear that no one need worry about what the outcome will be; both sides will know from Day One what will and won’t be allowed in their area.

-Peter

City Planning: A Transparent Process PART II

Part II of II: This post concludes a review of the development application process, and common myths and misconceptions surrounding the process. Part I can be found here.


CITY PLANNING: EXAMPLES OF THE APPLICATION PROCESS

credit: AMBRO

There tends to be an air of wariness amongst those who have been misinformed or only partially informed of the approval procedures for local development. Indeed, if you yourself are not a landowner who has gone through the application process, there may not be much cause for you to have previously learned a lot of detailed information about the procedures. As you can see from the stages outlined in Part I, a lot of work and professional review go into the city planning process, along with care, attention, and respect for the existing development policies.

I’d like to debunk this myth that we’re dealing with the ‘wild west’ of planning. Where do these misconceptions spring from? Well, ironically it may be due to the fact that our staff perform so efficiently. Many poorly-prepared or unrealistic proposals are dropped early in the process, thanks to the diligent review process implemented by staff, so the public (and the committee itself) only see a small percentage of the total proposals submitted.

Specific cases can be cited as great examples from which to learn. A recent proposal to build a 9-storey building in Wellington West was dropped in the pre-consult stage when the developers were informed that they could, by law, go ahead with the application--provided they applied for an Official Plan and zoning amendment, as the Wellington West CDP has limited the height of new builds to 6 storeys. This particular developer dropped the proposal and walked away from the project entirely, uninterested in pursuing a height increase within a neighbourhood that has doggedly defended the limits of its plan. Consequently, this plan never even reached the stage of formal application, which means it was done and over with before the public would ever have  been introduced to it.

credit: ddpavumba

Another case occurred in Kanata, at #2 The Parkway: a landowner sought approval for a 16-storey build on the location of a small postal station with institutional zoning. Citizens of the Kanata area rose up in opposition to the proposal, objecting to the possibility of ‘spot re-zoning’—in fact, the group even began a website and campaign. What the group failed to recognize is that every property owner in Ontario has the right to make an application to rezone their property, so the City couldn’t halt the application...but this doesn’t mean that every application is approved by any means. Indeed, the Planning Committee does not promote spot re-zoning. The developer’s formal application was recommended for rejection by the urban planner, and consequently, the developer has returned to the drawing board, preparing a new proposal that meets the existing policies more effectively. While we are always welcoming of public feedback, a lot of panic and effort was put into the anti-development campaign that, in the end, was not necessary.

DEVELOPING OUR TRUST IN CITY STAFF

A lot of furor could have been avoided in the Kanata case with better awareness of planning procedure, and a touch more faith in our city staff's adherence to policy. Well-intentioned individuals will sometimes cry foul play on the planning procedure, frightened that some sort of secret deal is happening at the pre-consultation level. I assure you, that is not the case, nor the point of the pre-consultation stage. Much like when applying for a passport, an individual is provided with a checklist of forms to fill and documents to bring; in the same factual manner, the developer is simply notified at pre-consult of what he will need to prepare in order to be considered. 

credit: Stuart Miles

And the goal of city staff, as well as the Planning Committee, is to provide an objective process for all involved. This means that we do not jettison our policies and professionalism in the face of community opposition, nor in the face of demands by developers. The Planning Act and the Official Plan, as well as relevant City of Ottawa policies, are the pillars of the decision making process. Staff work diligently at their jobs, despite some unjustified skepticism by certain members of the community and community associations, to maintain an objective and policy-based perspective on the applications being received.

Anyone can apply to rezone their property; and anyone can forge ahead with an application, despite recommended rejection, if they feel that they can justify why their divergence from a collective’s vision is more important, valid, or appropriate than what has been established. But this doesn’t mean that city staff and committee members will bend to the whim and whine of each developer or community group. To do so would be chaos. In order to see Ottawa blossom to its full potential, I would advise builders to stop attempting to change the rules with every application, and focus on a better product. And Ottawans, I urge you to develop your awareness of city policies and procedures so that the fear mongers cannot rile you with false stories of shady dealings.

I hope that this post has helped to clarify our process, and to shed some light on the hard work of your urban planners. A city with well-informed citizens will always find itself progressing in a way that is more effective and satisfactory for all involved stakeholders.

To return to Part I of CITY PLANNING: A TRANSPARENT PROCESS, click here. 

-Peter

City Planning: A transparent process PART I

Part I of II: This post is the first part of a review of the development application process, and common myths and misconceptions surrounding the process. Part II can be found here. 

credit: Ambro

With the advent of our new blog, I will occasionally be sharing my perspective on various current issues as they relate to city planning—an area in which I am very active as Chair of the Planning Committee. Planning has long been my wheelhouse, and I have a mix of history and personal perspective to share on many matters, after 20 years in office.

THE DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROCESS

Lately, I’ve received a lot of questions about the approval process for new development proposals, and the role that our on-staff urban planners play in these procedures. I fear there is a fair amount of confusion about the process for development plan approvals, and the role of city staff in the process. Let’s take a tour of the process.

1. A property owner has an idea.

The first step: the owner has an idea of how they’d like to develop their property.

2. The property owner seeks pre-consultation.

At this stage, city staff will listen to the landowner’s initial ideas and will share with him a list of the steps he needs to take before filing his formal application. Steps may include traffic studies, sun shade studies, or other neighbourhood info. Some landowners may also consult community associations or other concerned parties.

3. The property owner files a formal application, which is reviewed by the planner.

The formal application becomes publicly available for review. The city’s urban planner begins the process of reviewing the application package, seeking to develop her recommendation of approval or rejection for the proposed development. When she has reviewed all the provided package, studies, and information, she renders her recommendation to either approve or reject the project.

4. The property owner makes a choice.

If the urban planner rejected the landowner’s proposed plan, he can choose to go one of two ways: he may forge ahead, without the approval of the planner, in the hopes of appealing to the Planning Committee...or, he may rethink his plan and decide to either change his proposal. He may also drop the project altogether.

5. Planning Committee reviews and votes.

At this stage, Planning Committee hears from the planner, the property owner, and sometimes other parties like community associations who may have a vested interest in the matter. After hearing the presented information and reviewing the application package, the committee votes on the plan, and the proposal is either approved or rejected.

  

Now, what doesn’t happen at the pre-consultation stage is any sort of approval or rejection by the city staff. At this point, the staff’s role is simply to provide the landowner with a checklist of all the studies, appeals, and procedures he will need to provide to be sure his formal application will be considered ready for review. It seems there is an urban myth circulating that city staff are able to give approval at this early stage of the process; this is simply untrue. Staff’s job at this level is to provide the landowner with the information he needs for application, but not to offer a favourable or unfavourable recommendation.

credit: Salvatore Vuono

It is at stage 3, or earlier at stage 2, that many applications are dropped. Few property owners choose to forge ahead to the Planning Committee with a negative recommendation letter attached to their application. Most would rather rework their plan to fit the appropriate CDP’s, Official Plan, and other policies. Thus, very few rejected applications end up at the Planning Committee table. The Planning Committee values the expertise and knowledge of our urban planners, and developers are aware of this; thus, they are unlikely to attempt to bypass the planners’ recommendation. This is a good thing for the committee, as it means that many poorly-planned applications are filtered out before they end up monopolizing the resources of the Planning Committee; the downside, however, is that another myth is begun: that the Planning Committee approves virtually every proposal the city receives. In reality, the proposals that reach the committee’s table have usually been more sound, more in keeping with the existing Official Plans, and have been recommended by the city staff--thus, they naturally have a higher rate of approval.

The stages of application are in place to ensure that all potential developers have their 'ducks in a row', and are prepared with solid research to back their proposals. It's is a step-by-step process, with each stage dependent on the results of the last.


So what happens with the many proposals that are declined at an earlier stage? Why is the public not directly informed of all of these discarded plans? And why is there sometimes a wary attitude towards the procedures and the staff who follow them? Read Part II to learn more.

-Peter

Positive Developments for Riverview: better access to our hospital

Peter took the Hume Team to view
the tobogganing area this March.

Keen interest continues to build towards the development of a new two-lane vehicle and transit access from Riverside Drive and the Transitway, to the hospital ring road. I am diligently supervising many facets of this complex project, working with city staff to ensure this essential roadway is developed by considering the best interests of our residents, The Ottawa Hospital, and the developing NDMC lands. With first steps towards breaking ground still a year away, I encourage citizens to familiarize themselves with the facts and information about this project as they become available.

I am committed to ensuring this access route respects the priorities of our neighbours. To this end, we have reworked the preliminary design to allow for the hospital woods to remain undisturbed, continuing to serve as a respite for local wildlife; as well, we plan to move the existing sledding hill to an area within the corridor that will be more accessible to the community and will better meet safety standards. Provisions will also be made for noise reduction features, such as berms, to be incorporated into the plans.

This particular area has been a designated future transportation corridor for many decades, but I am pleased that we continue to work creatively in finding solutions that will allow us to support transportation needs in our city while still conserving the neighbourhood’s sledding hill and canopy growth. Rest assured, I will be closely supervising this project over the next year as it takes shape and as the final draft designs are eventually completed, then readied for release. Our goal is to provide balanced road and transit access, while supporting the area’s development and maintaining the unique features that make this part of our neighbourhood so special.

-Peter