- 注册
- 2002-10-07
- 消息
- 402,192
- 荣誉分数
- 76
- 声望点数
- 0
Ottawa is changing. Our perfect little neighbourhoods are growing. Developments are going up and people are moving in. And it’s okay. We can accommodate growth without gutting our communities.
The city promotes intensification, and rightfully so. With growth comes development, but continued sprawl isn’t the answer. Sprawl is killing the city and the little communities we love. It’s expensive, unhealthy and places unreasonable demands on established neighbourhoods. So there’s nothing to do but fit more people inside the city.
At times, this will demand radical intensification. We’ll see towers going up by Dow’s Lake, at Lansdowne and throughout Centretown. But there are other times when drastic changes will do too much damage to our municipal fabric. In these situations, we must embark on a course of gentle density.
Gentle density is a philosophy that recognizes the need for growth and intensification, while acknowledging the desires of residents to preserve their neighbourhoods. It means smaller intensification projects throughout the city. It’s simple and elegant and we should be able to get it right. Unfortunately, it’s easy to get not quite right, and we’ve got a not-quite-right development proposal at Fourth Avenue and the Queen Elizabeth Driveway.
At first blush, the proposal seems like a perfect example of gentle density. There is much to like about it. Six homes will be replaced with buildings containing 18 units. The building height will increase from three storeys to four storeys, but with a fourth floor setback, the effect of the increase will be minimal. The architecture will be different, but we’re living in an infill world, and as infill goes, it’s not a bad match.
Unfortunately, that’s it for positives.
The proposed building is too imposing for the location. It is, perhaps, suitable for the Queen Elizabeth side of the property, but it encroaches too far on the north and south, towering over those residential streets. A further setback is required.
Residents have raised traffic concerns. Twelve more residences can mean an increase in traffic and parking. This is a valid concern. The point of intensification is not to have more people driving in our inner neighbourhoods; it is to design a city where fewer people need to drive. According to city regulations, a development of this size requires ten parking spots. A reduction would be prudent. Don’t facilitate car ownership if you don’t want more cars. Unfortunately, the proposal calls for an increase in parking. The community is worried about traffic, so we’ll entice more cars to the neighbourhood.
And not only will the plan for an extensive underground parking garage lead to traffic increases, it will also result in fewer trees. This is far more important than one might think. Whether it’s the ash borer, development demands or poorly irrigated trees at Lansdowne, our city’s canopy has been under siege for quite a while. It is important that as we ramp up density, we don’t clear cut our urban forest. Trees make us happier and healthier. They’re pretty, provide shade, improve air quality and help with drainage issues. Trading cars for trees is a massive mistake.
Planning documents suggest that two city trees and six trees on private property will be sacrificed. One of the mature city trees will be replaced by two new trees. This should be our standard. For every mature tree a development is going to destroy, the developer owes the community two new trees. If you’re bringing in more people, you owe us more trees.
We must be smart about intensification and embrace gentle density. We’ll do less damage to our existing communities, and have a happier, healthier city.
Jonathan McLeod is an Ottawa writer.
查看原文...
The city promotes intensification, and rightfully so. With growth comes development, but continued sprawl isn’t the answer. Sprawl is killing the city and the little communities we love. It’s expensive, unhealthy and places unreasonable demands on established neighbourhoods. So there’s nothing to do but fit more people inside the city.
At times, this will demand radical intensification. We’ll see towers going up by Dow’s Lake, at Lansdowne and throughout Centretown. But there are other times when drastic changes will do too much damage to our municipal fabric. In these situations, we must embark on a course of gentle density.
Gentle density is a philosophy that recognizes the need for growth and intensification, while acknowledging the desires of residents to preserve their neighbourhoods. It means smaller intensification projects throughout the city. It’s simple and elegant and we should be able to get it right. Unfortunately, it’s easy to get not quite right, and we’ve got a not-quite-right development proposal at Fourth Avenue and the Queen Elizabeth Driveway.
At first blush, the proposal seems like a perfect example of gentle density. There is much to like about it. Six homes will be replaced with buildings containing 18 units. The building height will increase from three storeys to four storeys, but with a fourth floor setback, the effect of the increase will be minimal. The architecture will be different, but we’re living in an infill world, and as infill goes, it’s not a bad match.
Unfortunately, that’s it for positives.
The proposed building is too imposing for the location. It is, perhaps, suitable for the Queen Elizabeth side of the property, but it encroaches too far on the north and south, towering over those residential streets. A further setback is required.
Residents have raised traffic concerns. Twelve more residences can mean an increase in traffic and parking. This is a valid concern. The point of intensification is not to have more people driving in our inner neighbourhoods; it is to design a city where fewer people need to drive. According to city regulations, a development of this size requires ten parking spots. A reduction would be prudent. Don’t facilitate car ownership if you don’t want more cars. Unfortunately, the proposal calls for an increase in parking. The community is worried about traffic, so we’ll entice more cars to the neighbourhood.
And not only will the plan for an extensive underground parking garage lead to traffic increases, it will also result in fewer trees. This is far more important than one might think. Whether it’s the ash borer, development demands or poorly irrigated trees at Lansdowne, our city’s canopy has been under siege for quite a while. It is important that as we ramp up density, we don’t clear cut our urban forest. Trees make us happier and healthier. They’re pretty, provide shade, improve air quality and help with drainage issues. Trading cars for trees is a massive mistake.
Planning documents suggest that two city trees and six trees on private property will be sacrificed. One of the mature city trees will be replaced by two new trees. This should be our standard. For every mature tree a development is going to destroy, the developer owes the community two new trees. If you’re bringing in more people, you owe us more trees.
We must be smart about intensification and embrace gentle density. We’ll do less damage to our existing communities, and have a happier, healthier city.
Jonathan McLeod is an Ottawa writer.
查看原文...
