Informational
Officer, Public Consultations | Agent, Consultations publiques
National Capital Commission | Commission de la capitale nationale
Tel./Tél. 613-239-5683 | Fax /Télécopieur 613-239-5274
Email /Courriel rene.coignaud@ncc-ccn.ca
Messages from various levels of government.
Monday evening Sept 17 saw the underwhelming revelation of two options for the future of Tunney’s Pasture. This so-called public consultation consisted of display panels with one or two consultants available to explain them. A Show but no tell, with no presentation with an opportunity for comments and questions in an audience situation (where one question or comment can spark another). In addition the public was presumably supposed to choose between the marginally different two options. The web site gives the following as the goals, objectives and principles:
Guiding Principles:
These seem not to include the goal of creating a mixed use community and to emphasize the role of Tunney’s Pasture as an employment site.
Both options are discussed below with their minor differences pointed out. Firstly we will give the broad picture of both options. Both option show any housing in the near future placed along the Parkdale face of the Pasture. (Both options have some segments for future development designated as either housing or office). Both options have a hub of service retail placed opposite the transit station. Both options have the same amount and placement of Labs and designation of some existing buildings as heritage (Brooke Claxton; Health Protection, and Statistics Canada Main buildings plus the Central Heating and Cooling Plant). Other than some minor retail the rest of the Pasture would be assigned as Office or Lab, with slightly different amounts and placements of these and greenspace. A path through to our Champlain Park is shown and both options include a thick green buffer on the western border of the site.
This interpretation of mixed use with blocks of office /labs taking up most of the space in the area west of Parkdale frontage and north of the immediate vicinity of the transit area, i.e. with retail and housing mainly on the periphery seems somewhat out of kilter, Why not have made one of the interior streets a residential one mixed with office and retail? Or placed more of the retail along the western half of Tunney’s Pasture Parkway (the boulevard area)? Perhaps even planning a few high rises to take advantage of the river and hills views at the northern end of the Pasture?
To go into the differences between the two options I will cite some numbers first as follows:
| Item | Option 1 | Option 2 |
|---|---|---|
| Housing: | 800 | 1000 |
| Office total: | 726,000 m2 GFA | 641,000 m2 GFA (gross floor area) |
| Labs total | 42,000 m2 GFA | 42,000 m2 GFA |
| Office new: | 453,000 m2 GFA | 368,000 m2 GFA |
| Retail total | 52,000 m2 GFA | 49,000 m2 GFA |
| Retail Hub | 49,000 m2 GFA | 38,000 m2 GFA |
| Future dev. | 110,000 m2 GFA | 100,000 m2 GFA |
| Total: | 930,000 m2 GFA 800 units |
832,000 m2 GFA 1000 units |
As the Option with the most housing and I believe greenspace Option 2 seems preferable. However as suggested earlier neither option seems to be truly mixed use and the concept plan lacks imagination and more detailed principles related to ensuring sunshine on the street, avoidance of wind tunnels and other design factor related to encouragement of pedestrian use. A hint of a possible water feature in the boulevard area of Option 2 is one of the few suggestions of a plus factor.
Residents are encouraged to make comments before Oct. 9.
By Post: Tunney’s Pasture Master Plan Project, Real Property Branch, Public Works and Government Services Canada, 191 Promenade du Portage Gatineau, QC, K1A 0S5 Canada or
However given the prospect of someone persuading the National Capital Commission (NCC) to let the City of Ottawa put Light Rail Transit (LRT) on the Western Parkway I thought it time to say something. This is my take on that follows.
Contributor: Amy Kempster: An Amy’s Corner article – September-2012.
The Western Parkway and the LRT: The question is should the desire for fast transit for Kanata trump the idea of using the Transit stations for nodes of intensification. Any route except Carling is aimed to some extent at fast transit for Kanata. There are very valid reasons why the emphasis should be on intensification. While communities are often not fond of intensification it is necessary if we want to avoid more urban sprawl. One can argue if the needed intensification can be achieved without skyscrapers or other tall buildings but it is clear that intensification is the best way to accommodate much of the inevitable growth. This is because the costs of providing services to far-flung suburbs often exceed the increase in taxes stemming from their construction. The Western Parkway being to a large extend bounded on its non-river side by low-rise successful communities is obviously not a place where one would wish to intensify (nor is the Byron strip). The lower cost of the Western Parkway route might be negated in the long run by the costs of the urban sprawl which would result from the lesser intensification possible on that route. Note that the supply of urban land has been significantly increased by the recent Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) and Council decisions. We do not need in further increase.
The Region when it set up the satellite communities beyond the Greenbelt (Kanata, Orleans/Stittsville, Barrhaven and Leitrim) intended them to be complete, i.e. to include employment for much of their labour force. Kanata is the one which has come closest to this intention and there is considerable employment in the Kanata area. Thus my suggestion: forget LRT as a really fast system for the west end and use it instead to ensure good transit for west-end residents inside the Greenbelt to downtown and for intensification along Carling. LRT will work well for Orleans and using the O-train for Leitrim and Barrhaven. So what about Kanata commuters? For the next several years the plan was to have them change at Tunney’s Pasture from the buses into the LRT. I see no reason why this service could not continue and the route for the LRT use Carling but on a schedule which builds a portion at a time so that the costs can be managed.
Many people have talked about the current lack of access to the river and the lack of animation along our waterways. For the canal downtown and the Ottawa from Chaudiere Falls this is probably merited. In the western portion of the Ottawa I think this is somewhat exaggerated by people who have not walked or biked along the river. Access is available at Remic Rapids, from Champlain Park, at Island Park Drive, at Westboro Beach and Woodroffe either with lights or under highway passes. Parking lots exist at Remic Rapids, Champlain Bridge, Westboro Beach and Woodroffe. It is also possible to cross the parkway by foot at other spots outside the rush hours. Adding the LRT would make this last type of access almost impossible especially if the LRT was fenced off. If one lane of the Parkway was used for it this might as well have an effect on the bicycle use of the road.
In connection with animation a seasonal café exists at Westboro Beach. Possibly a drink stand might be viable at Woodroffe and/or Island Park Drive. Memories of the restaurant on Bate Island just off Champlain Bridge suggest that it may not be easy to succeed in such locations. Great changes to the bordering communities might be required to have the population for such animation as I think is daydream. Such changes would not be welcomed by the communities involved so I doubt that much animation can be added.
The Western Parkway can provide a soothing drive and I suspect it helps many people de-stress as they wend their way home or to work. The aesthetic and natural values it provides would be sullied by the LRT, and for no benefit for most inside the Greenbelt residents of western Ottawa. It also provides a lovely entrance to Ottawa for tourists who come from the south and west, if they find its entrance near Pinecrest. Visitors I have asked about the addition of rail to it are always surprised that anyone would suggest such a thing. Therefor I fully support the opposition of the NCC to its use for LRT.
From: CoChair1
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 9:35 PM
Light Rail was a big topic of discussion. If anyone wants to track this issue, let me know. My hands are full with development right now.
thanks.
CoChair1
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 06:35:42 -0700
From: dorsay@rogers.com
Subject: Re: Debrief on tonight’s meeting of Kitchissippi community associations
Further to last night’s meeting, attached is City staff’s Interim Report on the WLRT.
For what it’s worth, my thoughts on it:
Roland
ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0132 Western LRT Corridor EA Interim Report.pdf