|
I was going to post this message on a thread about a specific development now closed to action. However, it may be read in conjunction with other "intensification" projects being parachuted into our neighborhood. No longer being active in the planning world, these are my recollections and observations about neighborhood development, infill and intensification.
I believe there was a neighborhood development plan (or name variation) done in the 1970s in conjunction with community members which established certain "characteristics" of the neighborhood. It may have been a NIP project done when the Federal Government had a department of Urban Affairs. This plan seems to submerged in the morass of City Hall.
As well, it is interesting to note that Old Ottawa South is somewhat unique in neighborhood identification in that it has approximate geophysical boundaries which are not just main roads as many "neighborhoods" across Canada are. To achieve an "identity", something usually vanished is chosen to "represent" that vaguely defined community - Pine Hills, Oak Woods, River Crossing, Mountain View, Lake District, etc, etc. Of course, there is no longer any of these things in the community.
But OOS can strongly identify with the Rideau River, Careleton University, the Canal and less strongly with Main Street. No significant impediments prevent "using" these boundaries; things like expressways, hospital properties, commercial strips, etc. Secondly, unlike many "new" subdivisions which occurred at the turn of the last century, at least half of the neighborhood was developed with architecturally significant buildings on scattered lots, in the "Ottawa Style" as referred to by various terms in other postings - brick facing, stone lintels and sills over windows and doors, house-wide front porches, large windows on fronts, in bay windows in some cases, cut-stone exteriors to foundations, etc.
Elsewhere, in Ottawa and in most inner urban subdivisions, the first houses were small "workers" cottages on small lots. Although this style resembles those of areas in other cities in Eastern/Central Canada (Toronto, Montreal, et al) much of our neighborhood resembles other "fancier" neighborhoods, not rundown or tired but now re-gentrified areas. It has always been an area with artists, professionals, experts, writers and business people. It was actually the subject of a article in a journal of urban affairs put out by the federal government in the 1960s and promoted as an ideal but non-urban planned community.
Luckily too, the tragic and community-wrecking 1960s Brutalist planning and architectural movement passed us by with the result that large apartment-style buildings both old and new have not punctured the existing fabric. This is mainly because of the lack of recognition of the neighborhood as a desirable place to live such as Rockcliffe, Manor Park, The Glebe, etc much to our good fortune. However, this also has an undesirable impact in that OOS is not seen as an important place by the City and there are not great numbers of "influential" people living here. Thus, it is seen as a place where urban design conventions can be ignored. Unless things change in the near future, OOS, though will become like many of the rapid, quick money townhouse developments, now dying or mostly abandoned in many parts of US cities.
If the City continues to ignore or cast off decent and humane requirements which it used to espouse in the Urban Infill Guidelines, it will be killing a Golden Goose. By "killing" or degrading the neighborhoodliness of our area, our area will become less desirable to live in and more problematic with the tensions that arise from "squashed" living. Current infill developments are ignoring many of the Green or Smart City ideals our municipal leaders widely proclaim. The car is still king in current developments and garages are trumping trees.
Finally I would like to raise what I call "Tax Density". Apparently, our neighborhood has approximately 11-12 housing units per acre while the idealized post-war utopian dream promulgated by many prominent American and British planners was 3-4 units per acre. This is the density of places like Alta Vista. With property taxes based on some kind of imaginary market value, OOS produces enormously more tax dollars than Alta Vista. Our houses sell for more (at least at the moment) and there are more of them per land area. One can conclude that no matter how "stupid" the City seems from an urban development point of view, the fiscal reality is, our neighborhood is a golden goose. Each new unit produces significantly more revenue with less municipal cost than most other areas.
I am not against infill per se and think we should welcome the replacement of physically outdated housing. I would welcome even more residents but not in monster homes or monster treeless townhomes which cut off light and eyes on the street, ie, blank garage doors, main living on second floors and decorative but unusable or hidden balconies. This is just like the suburbs where people go directly into the garage and into their car without having to interact with the street and neighbors. I've lived there and one year was enough.
I realize this is a bit of a rant but I'll claim Mercer rights to do so. I am an ex-planner, ex member CIP (Canadian Institute of Planners) & OPPI (Ontario Professional Planning Institute) because I disagree with current planning and development policies and the damage done by promoting current urban development in our cities and countryside.
Peter Hecht
|
Forums
