Latest Comments
- Liveable development?
- Books for the Holidays
- Ch-Ch-Ch-Changes
- Hintonburg Handmade Hallowe'en - Volunteers needed
- Comings and Goings - the overdue edition UPDATED x2
- pedal pusher - a photo essay
- What the heck's a CDP? Forum Thursday.
- Breezehill Development?
- Question Period: The Musical
- Shinny in the 'burg
Site Design by:Atomic Noggin
Enterprises
Liveable development?
Thu Feb 21, 2013 Miss Vicky
Two things.
The city is reviewing its key policies on land use, transportation and infrastructure - the Official Plan, Transportation Master Plan, Infrastructure Master Plan, Cycling Plan and the Pedestrian Plan. Their goal, they say, is to make "Ottawa a more vibrant, healthy and sustainable city".
It's a big process, with not a lot of opportunities for public input. There was an info session in January and a consultation a couple of weeks ago (which, sadly, Miss Vicky was unable to attend). But there is some good info online and there's a
Second thing.
You might recall the debate about Tega's proposal to build 36 stories beside the Carleton Tavern, on Parkdale. Well, they don't want 36 stories anymore. They want 18.
Sigh.
Miss Vicky's inbox today contained an invite from Councillor Hobbs to an open house on the proposed development on Thursday, February 28th, from 7-9 PM at Orange Gallery, 233 Armstrong Street.
All of the details about their proposal are available here.
The HCA is looking for folks to attend and share their views on this development. Zoning on the site calls for a maximum of 8 stories, and this limit was developed as part of the recently-approved Community Design Plan. If the CDP is going to have any meaning whatsoever, the proposal needs to be rejected. But if that's going to happen, we need to make our voices heard.
Some people were moved to reply
Vicky, thanks for helping get the word out on Tega!
But, a quick quibble with asking people to fill out the survey. Can I suggest that the City looks like it's set to use the survey to "inform" recommendations on the new OP.
But the survey is worse than useless. Knowing the City, it will present the results with no indication that it is meaningless statistically. While I've got no doubt that the answers that come back will reflect a progressive view of city sustainability - greater intensification where appropriate, more encouragement of public transit and active transportation, I'm still very uncomfortable with the city not doing its research properly.
Filling out the survey legitimizes a pattern of pro forma consultation that is ultimately bad for residents.
The city needs to do this survey through a third party, using a random sample of sufficient size. Because of its highly political nature, I would be inclined to see a group of experts convened - lord knows there's enough pollsters in town! - to vet the questions for bias.
It'll cost a bit more, but it'll be better for residents in the long run when the city puts appropriate resources into consultation.
I do agree with you, Jeff. It's a tough decision whether to participate in a flawed process or withdraw in protest - I guess I tend toward participating in the process despite the flaws. But I wonder - is the FCA coordinating any kind of advocacy around an alternative?
They are - and fairly effectively! They've got a number of workshops planned to solicit feedback for inclusion in the process. Some things related to development they've been holding off on as we work bilaterally with the development community to seek clarification from Chair Hume on some of his comments with respect to CDPs and a comprehensive zoning by-law. But that clarification has been slow in coming. I think the FCA workshops are either being advertised now or will be shortly...