This is very good, Neil. You've finally convinced me to join the "1000" because you clearly have a well thought out plan with the right priorities and attitudes -- i.e., I share them.
Now progressives/reformers have to convince Jeff Leiper to withdraw -- apart from having sat on Council for two terms (but doesn't that mean that he is part of the reason problems have remained unsolved?) -- he is clearly no match for the propositions Neil is putting forward. (Neil's transit piece was equally smart.)
One point re <a new bridge ... is essential to federal plans to remove trucks from downtown streets>, to the best of my understanding, a new bridge will not remove the majority of trucks from Rideau/Waller.
Erwin, it is my understanding that the city's truck study focused on truck traffic entering downtown from the 417. Trucks that are delivering products to the retail sector in the city centre. A new bridge would do nothing to reduce this type of truck traffic.
However, the city study largely ignored the truck traffic entering the downtown area from Quebec, on its way to the 417. A new bridge, in combination with a "do not enter" regulation on the northern ends of the existing downtown bridges would significantly reduce south bound truck traffic. That would require coordination with multiple governments:
> Gatineau and communities to the east of Gatineau;
> federal;
> Quebec; and
> Ontario.
Gatineau and communities to the east have made it clear they prefer the status quo. No one wants increased truck traffic passing through or near their neighbourhoods - for good reason.
Erwin, far too often studies are designed to generate a preferred conclusion. Not just government studies. You may recall some 60 or so years ago that there were a plethora of studies that stated that there was no clear link between smoking and lung cancer. Brought to you by the tobacco industry.
When Jim Watson was mayor, he made it clear that he would never support an east end bridge that used the Aviation Parkway to connect to the 417.
During Watson's tenure as mayor, the city prepared its study, and ... perhaps the answer to your question involves connecting those two dots. Or not.
Ron, you're implying that the study I vaguely remember was rigged by Watson to conclude that a new bridge would not solve the downtown truck problem because Watson did not want a new bridge.
To repeat, why is there no definitive study of this decades-old matter? The NCC has been put in charge of the new bridge issue, I believe.
Is this, like so much else in Ottawa, a governance issue?
There is a dearth of objective analyses in Ottawa. Across the full spectrum of political biases. Across a wide spectrum of governing and/or regulatory bodies. The city, the NCC, Parks Canada, whomever is responsible for the Parliamentary Precinct, the province, ....
We suffer from governing bodies that have a built in preference to only look for the evidence that supports their preferred outcome, and a willingness (dare I say instruction?) to ignore or explain away the evidence that does not support that preference. Rather than look for a 'best solution', time and money are wasted on developing reports to support foregone conclusions.
So yes, Erwin, I agree with you. We suffer from a deficit in the quality of governance. Cynical? Yes. But like most cynics, I prefer to be called a realist. ;)
This is where all municipalities in Canada have been getting the smallest piece if the income tax pie while having more and more responsibilities dumped from upper levels of government to them. This is why I agree with Neil’s idea of engaging the mayors across the country to revise the tax division. Surely anyone with the discretionary income to take holidays away from Canada, spending their money in other countries (while cost of flying within Canada is so high), and to have the money for lots of luxuries, can afford to share more so shelters and social service agencies and food banks don’t have to pick up the slack of things our social safety net should supply.
1. Adding density to existing neighbourhoods should only occur AFTER the existing infrastructure has been upgraded or replaced, in order to handle the future increase in load. To add the density before the capacity to handle the load is installed is irresponsible. Not only is it is far more disruptive to far more people, it also creates the situation where, due to often foreseeable reasons (e.g. lack of funding), the incremental capacity is deferred indefinitely.
2. The form of increased housing in the existing neighbourhoods must meet the needs of the residents. The city's fixation on high density = small footprint homes (most <<<1,000 sq ft) fails to meet the needs of many residents. Residents who have growing families. Residents who are downsizing, but still need space to host family from out of town. Both ends of that spectrum are looking for similar solutions. Solutions that take the form of the larger footprint homes (1,500+ sq ft) that have primarily been built in the outer suburbs. Instead of demanding that residents change their needs to meet what is an ideologically driven, social engineering agenda, the city needs to focus on meeting the wide range of needs of all of the people.
In short, the city needs to be far smarter at what it does, and when it does it. Too often the city is focused on demanding that people change their priorities, rather than on delivering what the people need. There are far too many people who work for the city who think that they know what is best for everyone. That everyone who doesn't agree with them is short sighted, or too focused on their own wants and needs. This is attitude is nothing short of the height of arrogance.
1. You get the tax base to pay for the upgraded infrastructure after you increase the density. Saying you can't density here because we haven't upgraded the infrastructure yet is just another form of nimbyism, which is what got us into the housing price problem in the first place.
2. We should have some carrots and sticks to promote 3+ bedroom units. But part of it was that all housing was so short in supply that anything built would get tenants. A large part of that is helping to make those midsize buildings with larger units pencil out to a profit for developers. Otherwise they won't get built.
We also have immigrant families for whom it is normal to have several generations living together, to provide child care and elder care. Therefore 3-5 bedrooms in some complexes would make sense, whether rental apartments or single family houses as re-builds in suburbs where they are close to essentials like transit, schools and groceries within walking distance so multiple vehicles are not needed on site (or on residential streets).
1. Density creates load. Loads in excess of capacity increase the strain on the existing infrastructure, which can lead to even shorter expected remaining life. The behaviour pattern of the city during the last two plus decades, notably to defer indefinitely upgrading infrastructure that staff KNOWS is operating at over capacity is obvious.
All those incremental tax dollars have been going somewhere other than where other than to improve the local infrastructure. The first decade of more of that money circled the drain a long time ago. That is the culture that has led to the $11B shortfall in infrastructure funding. An estimate that is based on growth of 400,000 which is 25% below the 500,000 that is now projected to occur over the next couple of decades.
Nimbyism is, at best, somewhere between the 20th and 50th reason (sarcasm alert) for higher housing prices. The reality is that the city has been overriding local resistance to higher density for a couple of decades now. The primary causes of higher new build prices are:
> demands of the buyer re interior finishes (designer kitchens and bathrooms, finished basements, attached garage);
> increases in construction material costs that are well above the generic inflation rate;
> demand for skilled labour exceeding the available talent has led to higher labour costs;
> development fees that are padded by Official Plan elements that don't get built in tandem with the neighbourhood growth;
> limited supply of land inside the Greenbelt.
The common theme being that demand exceeding supply has a much higher impact on housing prices.
2. Strategies involving sticks and carrots may work in academia's ivy covered towers and down at city hall, but they are doomed to failure outside those hallowed halls.
Developers build what they can sell, at a profit, within the constraints set by the city. City regulations, notably the density factors that effectively dictate the number of units per hectare, preclude 3+ bedroom (1,200-1,500 sq ft) apartments. One 1,500 sq ft apartment 'consumes' the same amount of space as two 750 sq ft apartments. Put another way, to achieve the city's minimum density, for every 1,500 sq ft apartment, the developer needs to build three 500 sq ft (20' x 25') apartment (equates to four 750 sq ft apartments in 3,000 sq ft). The problem is 500 sq ft is too small for a one bedroom (typically 600-750 sq ft) and too big for a studio (350 - 400 sq ft). Circling back to developers decide what they are prepared to build, they are not prepared to include a meaningful mix of over-sized and under-sized apartments. Complaining about the motivations of developers is akin to complaining about the weather. Neither will change the inevitable.
I don't expect you to agree with me OttawaGuy. What I do hope to do is create a dialogue that leads to a winning strategy. Not just at the ballot box, but within city hall after the votes have been counted.
Need is different from want. If I hear data properly, young people are not having children because of world instability and climate changes. While some might want a home to own and raise a family, many singles and couples are now finding other venues than their housing to do socializing. And as for us old folks, when family come to visit we can help them find alternate accommodation so we elders can move into smaller accommodations and sell the larger houses for those young ones who can afford a big house. Or, alternately, if we elders have plans to give the big house to our kids, maybe if the lot is big enough, a grandparent suite could be added, or a coach house so multiple generations can live together but have privacy. And we really old people are able to tell young families that you can raise a couple of kids in a 2 or 3 bedroom, one bathroom house with an eat-in kitchen, an unfinished basement and a carport and really thrive, whether rented in a duplex or apartment building, quality of life does not require all the bells and whistles to be happy. We should be building simpler housing so young people can afford them. Modular (manufactured housing) on free federal land as has been proposed for the area near the RA centre sounds like what could be duplicated around the LRT stations.
Carolyn, I accept that the proposed 'solutions' to each of the disconnects between what those bent on ideologically driven societal change and what people prefer can work. The challenge is in the word 'prefer'.
When our daughter and her family come visit around Christmas, we prefer that they stay with us to maximize the limited time we have together, rather than at a not so adjacent AirBNB. Selfish? Probably, but that is a common human trait.
The alternative, and I propose this knowing it to be an exaggeration, is that the government dictates a very narrow menu of what is acceptable. Do we really want to point society down a path where governments decide what is best for individuals?
For younger couples who choose to have one or fewer children, a two bedroom (~800 sq ft) apartment may meet their needs. Unless one or more of the adults works from home. The kitchen table is not an optimal work space when other members of the household are regularly entering and exiting the work space. If a couple chooses to have two children, and it turns out that there is a mixture of sexes, a shared second bedroom can work for a decade or so. Then what?
A family, in search of a three bedroom, or four for an optimal work-from-home space, in a central neighbourhood near a major transit hub faces a real challenge. A challenge exacerbated by a city policy that effectively precludes that form of housing. My point being that city policy should be less restrictive in de facto permitted housing forms everywhere, not just in the 'burbs.
Therein lies the disconnect between the push towards ideologically driven societal change and the current reality of many people not distinguishing between 'need' and 'want'. Change comes in the form of evolution, which takes time - often measured over the course of several generations, or revolution. The problem with revolution is that it tends to have very rough edges, edges that can cause major rifts within society. Rifts that take generations to heal. Generations being a common theme in the alternatives.
Over the course of the next several decades, perhaps Canadian society will evolve to a position somewhere in between the two ends of the current spectrum of stronger government controls and personal freedom of choice. Perhaps.
This is very good, Neil. You've finally convinced me to join the "1000" because you clearly have a well thought out plan with the right priorities and attitudes -- i.e., I share them.
Now progressives/reformers have to convince Jeff Leiper to withdraw -- apart from having sat on Council for two terms (but doesn't that mean that he is part of the reason problems have remained unsolved?) -- he is clearly no match for the propositions Neil is putting forward. (Neil's transit piece was equally smart.)
One point re <a new bridge ... is essential to federal plans to remove trucks from downtown streets>, to the best of my understanding, a new bridge will not remove the majority of trucks from Rideau/Waller.
Erwin, it is my understanding that the city's truck study focused on truck traffic entering downtown from the 417. Trucks that are delivering products to the retail sector in the city centre. A new bridge would do nothing to reduce this type of truck traffic.
However, the city study largely ignored the truck traffic entering the downtown area from Quebec, on its way to the 417. A new bridge, in combination with a "do not enter" regulation on the northern ends of the existing downtown bridges would significantly reduce south bound truck traffic. That would require coordination with multiple governments:
> Gatineau and communities to the east of Gatineau;
> federal;
> Quebec; and
> Ontario.
Gatineau and communities to the east have made it clear they prefer the status quo. No one wants increased truck traffic passing through or near their neighbourhoods - for good reason.
Why is there no definitive study of this decades-old issue? I seem to recall that only 30% of truck traffic would be diverted.
Erwin, far too often studies are designed to generate a preferred conclusion. Not just government studies. You may recall some 60 or so years ago that there were a plethora of studies that stated that there was no clear link between smoking and lung cancer. Brought to you by the tobacco industry.
When Jim Watson was mayor, he made it clear that he would never support an east end bridge that used the Aviation Parkway to connect to the 417.
During Watson's tenure as mayor, the city prepared its study, and ... perhaps the answer to your question involves connecting those two dots. Or not.
Ron, you're implying that the study I vaguely remember was rigged by Watson to conclude that a new bridge would not solve the downtown truck problem because Watson did not want a new bridge.
To repeat, why is there no definitive study of this decades-old matter? The NCC has been put in charge of the new bridge issue, I believe.
Is this, like so much else in Ottawa, a governance issue?
There is a dearth of objective analyses in Ottawa. Across the full spectrum of political biases. Across a wide spectrum of governing and/or regulatory bodies. The city, the NCC, Parks Canada, whomever is responsible for the Parliamentary Precinct, the province, ....
We suffer from governing bodies that have a built in preference to only look for the evidence that supports their preferred outcome, and a willingness (dare I say instruction?) to ignore or explain away the evidence that does not support that preference. Rather than look for a 'best solution', time and money are wasted on developing reports to support foregone conclusions.
So yes, Erwin, I agree with you. We suffer from a deficit in the quality of governance. Cynical? Yes. But like most cynics, I prefer to be called a realist. ;)
A point of clarification Erwin.
My observations on the lack of objectivity in studies is not specific to the truck study. It is based on decades of experience.
Jim Watson's statements regarding a refusal to allow the use of the Aviation Parkway for truck traffic are a matter of public record.
Perhaps there is a line connecting those two dots, perhaps the two dots are unconnected. People see what they wish to see.
Oh, and rigged is a loaded term that I am loathe to imply.
This is dead on! Well Done 👍🏼
Watson's longevity was the 2% annual tax increase and Sutcliffe played the same card.
Ottawa municipal election turnout is dominated by seniors who have retired-in-place and are opposed to tax increase beyond Watson's 2 %.
Our community association has been running local candidates debates at fed/prov/mun levels for 15 years, where questions from voters reflect this.
It's wrong and selfish, particularly from those with the money to winter elsewhere, but it's reality.
This is where all municipalities in Canada have been getting the smallest piece if the income tax pie while having more and more responsibilities dumped from upper levels of government to them. This is why I agree with Neil’s idea of engaging the mayors across the country to revise the tax division. Surely anyone with the discretionary income to take holidays away from Canada, spending their money in other countries (while cost of flying within Canada is so high), and to have the money for lots of luxuries, can afford to share more so shelters and social service agencies and food banks don’t have to pick up the slack of things our social safety net should supply.
1. Adding density to existing neighbourhoods should only occur AFTER the existing infrastructure has been upgraded or replaced, in order to handle the future increase in load. To add the density before the capacity to handle the load is installed is irresponsible. Not only is it is far more disruptive to far more people, it also creates the situation where, due to often foreseeable reasons (e.g. lack of funding), the incremental capacity is deferred indefinitely.
2. The form of increased housing in the existing neighbourhoods must meet the needs of the residents. The city's fixation on high density = small footprint homes (most <<<1,000 sq ft) fails to meet the needs of many residents. Residents who have growing families. Residents who are downsizing, but still need space to host family from out of town. Both ends of that spectrum are looking for similar solutions. Solutions that take the form of the larger footprint homes (1,500+ sq ft) that have primarily been built in the outer suburbs. Instead of demanding that residents change their needs to meet what is an ideologically driven, social engineering agenda, the city needs to focus on meeting the wide range of needs of all of the people.
In short, the city needs to be far smarter at what it does, and when it does it. Too often the city is focused on demanding that people change their priorities, rather than on delivering what the people need. There are far too many people who work for the city who think that they know what is best for everyone. That everyone who doesn't agree with them is short sighted, or too focused on their own wants and needs. This is attitude is nothing short of the height of arrogance.
1. You get the tax base to pay for the upgraded infrastructure after you increase the density. Saying you can't density here because we haven't upgraded the infrastructure yet is just another form of nimbyism, which is what got us into the housing price problem in the first place.
2. We should have some carrots and sticks to promote 3+ bedroom units. But part of it was that all housing was so short in supply that anything built would get tenants. A large part of that is helping to make those midsize buildings with larger units pencil out to a profit for developers. Otherwise they won't get built.
We also have immigrant families for whom it is normal to have several generations living together, to provide child care and elder care. Therefore 3-5 bedrooms in some complexes would make sense, whether rental apartments or single family houses as re-builds in suburbs where they are close to essentials like transit, schools and groceries within walking distance so multiple vehicles are not needed on site (or on residential streets).
1. Density creates load. Loads in excess of capacity increase the strain on the existing infrastructure, which can lead to even shorter expected remaining life. The behaviour pattern of the city during the last two plus decades, notably to defer indefinitely upgrading infrastructure that staff KNOWS is operating at over capacity is obvious.
All those incremental tax dollars have been going somewhere other than where other than to improve the local infrastructure. The first decade of more of that money circled the drain a long time ago. That is the culture that has led to the $11B shortfall in infrastructure funding. An estimate that is based on growth of 400,000 which is 25% below the 500,000 that is now projected to occur over the next couple of decades.
Nimbyism is, at best, somewhere between the 20th and 50th reason (sarcasm alert) for higher housing prices. The reality is that the city has been overriding local resistance to higher density for a couple of decades now. The primary causes of higher new build prices are:
> demands of the buyer re interior finishes (designer kitchens and bathrooms, finished basements, attached garage);
> increases in construction material costs that are well above the generic inflation rate;
> demand for skilled labour exceeding the available talent has led to higher labour costs;
> development fees that are padded by Official Plan elements that don't get built in tandem with the neighbourhood growth;
> limited supply of land inside the Greenbelt.
The common theme being that demand exceeding supply has a much higher impact on housing prices.
2. Strategies involving sticks and carrots may work in academia's ivy covered towers and down at city hall, but they are doomed to failure outside those hallowed halls.
Developers build what they can sell, at a profit, within the constraints set by the city. City regulations, notably the density factors that effectively dictate the number of units per hectare, preclude 3+ bedroom (1,200-1,500 sq ft) apartments. One 1,500 sq ft apartment 'consumes' the same amount of space as two 750 sq ft apartments. Put another way, to achieve the city's minimum density, for every 1,500 sq ft apartment, the developer needs to build three 500 sq ft (20' x 25') apartment (equates to four 750 sq ft apartments in 3,000 sq ft). The problem is 500 sq ft is too small for a one bedroom (typically 600-750 sq ft) and too big for a studio (350 - 400 sq ft). Circling back to developers decide what they are prepared to build, they are not prepared to include a meaningful mix of over-sized and under-sized apartments. Complaining about the motivations of developers is akin to complaining about the weather. Neither will change the inevitable.
I don't expect you to agree with me OttawaGuy. What I do hope to do is create a dialogue that leads to a winning strategy. Not just at the ballot box, but within city hall after the votes have been counted.
Need is different from want. If I hear data properly, young people are not having children because of world instability and climate changes. While some might want a home to own and raise a family, many singles and couples are now finding other venues than their housing to do socializing. And as for us old folks, when family come to visit we can help them find alternate accommodation so we elders can move into smaller accommodations and sell the larger houses for those young ones who can afford a big house. Or, alternately, if we elders have plans to give the big house to our kids, maybe if the lot is big enough, a grandparent suite could be added, or a coach house so multiple generations can live together but have privacy. And we really old people are able to tell young families that you can raise a couple of kids in a 2 or 3 bedroom, one bathroom house with an eat-in kitchen, an unfinished basement and a carport and really thrive, whether rented in a duplex or apartment building, quality of life does not require all the bells and whistles to be happy. We should be building simpler housing so young people can afford them. Modular (manufactured housing) on free federal land as has been proposed for the area near the RA centre sounds like what could be duplicated around the LRT stations.
Carolyn, I accept that the proposed 'solutions' to each of the disconnects between what those bent on ideologically driven societal change and what people prefer can work. The challenge is in the word 'prefer'.
When our daughter and her family come visit around Christmas, we prefer that they stay with us to maximize the limited time we have together, rather than at a not so adjacent AirBNB. Selfish? Probably, but that is a common human trait.
The alternative, and I propose this knowing it to be an exaggeration, is that the government dictates a very narrow menu of what is acceptable. Do we really want to point society down a path where governments decide what is best for individuals?
For younger couples who choose to have one or fewer children, a two bedroom (~800 sq ft) apartment may meet their needs. Unless one or more of the adults works from home. The kitchen table is not an optimal work space when other members of the household are regularly entering and exiting the work space. If a couple chooses to have two children, and it turns out that there is a mixture of sexes, a shared second bedroom can work for a decade or so. Then what?
A family, in search of a three bedroom, or four for an optimal work-from-home space, in a central neighbourhood near a major transit hub faces a real challenge. A challenge exacerbated by a city policy that effectively precludes that form of housing. My point being that city policy should be less restrictive in de facto permitted housing forms everywhere, not just in the 'burbs.
Therein lies the disconnect between the push towards ideologically driven societal change and the current reality of many people not distinguishing between 'need' and 'want'. Change comes in the form of evolution, which takes time - often measured over the course of several generations, or revolution. The problem with revolution is that it tends to have very rough edges, edges that can cause major rifts within society. Rifts that take generations to heal. Generations being a common theme in the alternatives.
Over the course of the next several decades, perhaps Canadian society will evolve to a position somewhere in between the two ends of the current spectrum of stronger government controls and personal freedom of choice. Perhaps.