Ottawa East Revitalization By: Kevin Ballantyne
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
By Email January 15, 2021 Mayor
By Email January 15, 2021 Mayor Jim Watson 110 Laurier Avenue West Ottawa, ON K1P 1J1 Dear Mayor Watson: Poorly Conceived Ward Boundary Change (uOttawa - Lees Campus) Affecting Capital Ward The Old Ottawa East Community Association respectfully requests that a change made during the course of the Ward Boundary Review be reversed before the by-law is proclaimed January 27, 2021. The change does not meet the City’s criteria required for a ward boundary change. Specifically, on December 9, 2020 City Council approved ward boundary changes that included the transfer of the University of Ottawa’s Lees Avenue campus from Capital Ward to Rideau-Vanier. This transfer was introduced by an unknown party near the end of the lengthy ward boundary consultation process but the Old Ottawa East Community Association and the Old Ottawa East community were not made aware of the change until after FEDCO had blessed it. Specifically, the “Recommendations Report” for Council recommended: “Move the Gee-Gees sports field from W6-19 (Capital) to W6-17 (Rideau-Vanier). The reasons given refer to a better boundary (the River rather than Highway 417) and the area’s association with sports facilities directly to the north in Rideau-Vanier. In the recommended ward boundary configuration, the Gee-Gees sports field is moved from W6-19 to W6-17. There are no residents in this area.” (p23) The report later says: “At Robinson Park and Gee Gees Field, #417 is not a big boundary; use the River instead.” (p34) …/2 - 2 - The fundamental criterion for making ward boundary changes is to “achieve voter parity." The transfer of the Lees campus will be detrimental to voter parity because Rideau-Vanier is forecast to grow faster than Capital. -
Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor Retail Action Plan
ROSSLYN-BALLSTON CORRIDOR RETAIL ACTION PLAN Strategies and Recommendations for Retail Attraction and Retention Arlington County, Virginia Adopted by the Arlington County Board on May 19, 2001. Retail Action Plan Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor RETAIL ACTION PLAN Arlington County, Virginia i Retail Action Plan Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor Table of Contents Preface......................................................................... v Executive Summary ....................................................... vii Action Plan ............................................................. vii Introduction.................................................................. 1 Definitions......................................................................... 3 Retail Categories................................................................ 5 County Overview........................................................ 7 Guiding Principles for Retail Strategy Development ........................................... 12 Rosslyn ..................................................................... 19 Courthouse................................................................ 27 Clarendon.................................................................. 33 Virginia Square........................................................... 41 Ballston ..................................................................... 47 Urban Design Principles and Guidelines ........................ 57 General Principles ............................................................. -
Meeting of the Old Ottawa East Community Association Board Tuesday, 11 December 2018, 7P.M
Meeting of the Old Ottawa East Community Association Board Tuesday, 11 December 2018, 7p.m. Old Town Hall, 61 Main Street MINUTES Attendance Board Members Others Tom Deadman Rainari Castro-Mejia Alexandra Gruca-Macauley Taylor Marquis Don Fugler Doug Macauley Phyllis Odenbach-Sutton Wendy McRae Jocelyn Kearney Sarah Viehbeck Bob Gordon Bill Baldwin Heather Jarrett Christian Pupp Richard Cundall John Jarrett John Dance Lorna Kingston Ron Rose Monica Helm Jamie Girard Bonnie Weppler Mark Seebaran Tina Raymond Tom Scott Peter Tobin Suzanne Johnston Cynthia Dwyer Joan Batucan Kenn Rankine Bob Parkins Adriana Beaman Peter Beaman Sam Hersh Shawn Menard Rebecca Aird 1. Call to Order – Phyllis Odenbach-Sutton 2. Approval of Agenda (as amended) Moved: Don Fugler; Second: Jamie Girard; Carried 3. Presentation by students from Saint Paul University Students will be holding a public consultation on December 13th about a neighbourhood pub with social engagement focus that they are hoping to open in OOE Student-driven initiative All OOE residents encouraged to attend the consultation session 4. Approval of October 2018 Minutes Moved: John Dance; Second: Heather Jarrett; Carried 1 5. Chair's Report – Phyllis Odenbach-Sutton Report attached as Appendix A Highlights: o AGM: Great turnout at AGM this year, it was a good opportunity to meet new neighbours . At AGM, made mention of gaps in current OOECA board (Lees Ave and Spenceville reps, SLOE rep) – following the AGM, Tom Deadman agreed to hold the Lees position, Alexandra Gruca-Macauley will fill -
The Urban Village: a Real Or Imagined Contribution to Sustainable Development?
The Urban Village: A Real or Imagined Contribution to Sustainable Development? Mike Biddulph, Bridget Franklin and Malcolm Tait Department of City and Regional Planning, Cardiff University July 2002 The research upon which this report is based was kindly funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). 1 Background A number of development concepts have emerged which claim that, if achieved, they would deliver more sustainable urban environments. Specifically these concepts seek to transcend typical patterns of development, and instead capture and promote a different vision. Such concepts include the compact city (Jenks et al, 1996), the polycentric city (Frey, 1999), the urban quarter (Krier, 1998), the sustainable urban neighbourhood (Rudlin and Falk, 1999), the urban village (Aldous, 1997), the eco-village (Barton, 1999), and the millennium village (DETR, 2000). Gaining acceptance for these concepts and translating them into practice has, however, proved more difficult, and the only one which has resulted in any significant number of built examples is the urban village. Despite the proliferation of developments under the urban village rubric, little academic research has been conducted into the phenomenon. The main exception is the work of Thompson-Fawcett (1996, 1998a, 1998b, 2000), who has investigated the background and philosophy of both the urban village and of the similar New Urbanism or Traditional Neighbourhood Development (TND) movement in the US. Her empirical work in the UK is limited to two case studies, the location of one of which is also the subject of a less critical paper by McArthur (2000). Both Thompson-Fawcett and commentators on the TND argue that the thinking behind the respective concepts is utopian, nostalgic, and deterministic, as well as based on a flawed premise about contemporary constructions of community (Audirac and Shermyen, 1994, Thompson-Fawcett, 1996, Southworth, 1997). -
Transit-Oriented Development and Joint Development in the United States: a Literature Review
Transit Cooperative Research Program Sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration RESEARCH RESULTS DIGEST October 2002—Number 52 Subject Area: VI Public Transit Responsible Senior Program Officer: Gwen Chisholm Transit-Oriented Development and Joint Development in the United States: A Literature Review This digest summarizes the literature review of TCRP Project H-27, “Transit-Oriented Development: State of the Practice and Future Benefits.” This digest provides definitions of transit-oriented development (TOD) and transit joint development (TJD), describes the institutional issues related to TOD and TJD, and provides examples of the impacts and benefits of TOD and TJD. References and an annotated bibliography are included. This digest was written by Robert Cervero, Christopher Ferrell, and Steven Murphy, from the Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California, Berkeley. CONTENTS IV.2 Supportive Public Policies: Finance and Tax Policies, 46 I INTRODUCTION, 2 IV.3 Supportive Public Policies: Land-Based I.1 Defining Transit-Oriented Development, 5 Initiatives, 54 I.2 Defining Transit Joint Development, 7 IV.4 Supportive Public Policies: Zoning and I.3 Literature Review, 9 Regulations, 57 IV.5 Supportive Public Policies: Complementary II INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES, 10 Infrastructure, 61 II.1 The Need for Collaboration, 10 IV.6 Supportive Public Policies: Procedural and II.2 Collaboration and Partnerships, 12 Programmatic Approaches, 61 II.3 Community Outreach, 12 IV.7 Use of Value Capture, 66 II.4 Government Roles, 14 -
Built Heritage Sub-Committee / Sous-Comité Du Patrimoine Bâti July 13, 2017 / 13 Juillet 2017 and / Et
1 Report to Rapport au: Built Heritage Sub-Committee / Sous-comité du patrimoine bâti July 13, 2017 / 13 juillet 2017 and / et Planning Committee / Comité de l'urbanisme August 22, 2017 / 22 aout 2017 and Council / et au Conseil September 13, 2017 / 13 septembre 2017 Submitted on July 6, 2017 Soumis le 6 juillet 2017 Submitted by Soumis par: Court Curry, Manager / Gestionnaire, Right of Way, Heritage and Urban Design Services / Services des emprises, du patrimoine et du design urbain Planning, Infrastructure and Economic Development Department / Direction de la planification, de l'Infrastructure et du développement économique Contact Person Personne ressource: Ashley Kotarba/David Maloney, Planner I / Urbaniste, Heritage and Urban Design / Services des emprises, du patrimoine et du design urbain, Heritage Services Section / Section des Services du Patrimoine (613) 580-2424, 23582, [email protected] (613) 580-2424, 14057, [email protected] Ward: CAPITAL (17) / CAPITALE (17) File Number: ACS2017-PIE-RHU-0016 SUBJECT: Heritage Inventory Project: Additions to Heritage Register – Old Ottawa East and Old Ottawa South 2 OBJET: Projet d’inventaire patrimonial : Ajouts au Registre de patrimoine – Vieil Ottawa-Est et Vieil Ottawa-Sud REPORT RECOMMENDATION That Built Heritage Sub-Committee recommend Planning Committee recommend Council approve the addition of the properties listed in Document 1 to the City of Ottawa’s Heritage Register, in accordance with Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act. RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT Que le Sous-comité du patrimoine bâti recommande au Comité de l’urbanisme de recommander à son tour au Conseil d’approuver l’ajout des propriétés énumérées dans le document 1 au Registre du patrimoine de la Ville d’Ottawa, conformément à l’article 27 de la Loi sur le patrimoine de l’Ontario. -
[email protected]; [email protected]
April 20, 2016 VIA Email: [email protected]; [email protected] Dear Minister McKenna and Minister Joly, We write to you today to advocate for increased access to the Rideau Canal for canoers and kayakers in central Ottawa. Parks Canada currently provides docks at the downtown Ottawa locks, at the Hartwell Locks (near Carleton University), and at Dow’s Lake. We feel that the addition of docks between downtown and Dow’s Lake would greatly increase the accessibility of the canal in the summer. It would provide more opportunities for Ottawa residents and tourists to enjoy paddling through an urban centre and to make use of this UNESCO heritage site. In addition, by facilitating the use of non-motorized watercraft, environmentally-sustainable and healthy leisure activities would be promoted. We are interested in collaborating with Parks Canada and the National Capital Commission on a pilot project that would see two additional launching points for a summer - one on each side of the canal in the Glebe and Old Ottawa East. On the west (Glebe) side, we would recommend Patterson Creek or at Fifth Avenue (just south of the Canal Ritz restaurant). (This second location could also be useful for those wanting to visit the revitalized Lansdowne Park.) On the east (Old Ottawa East) side, we would recommend a dock at Clegg, Herridge or Hazel. There would be a floating dock in each location to facilitate safe boat launches. After the summer, we would recommend an evaluation of the project and consideration as to whether it would be possible to establish more launching points in future years. -
Case Study: Advancing Social Equity in Arlington, Virginia
Local Governments, Social Equity, and Sustainable Communities ADVANCING SOCIAL EQUITY GOALS TO ACHIEVE SUSTAINABILITY CASE STUDY SERIES ADVANCING SOCIAL EQUITY in Arlington, Virginia ABOUT THIS PROJECT: ADVANCING SOCIAL EQUITY GOALS TO ACHIEVE SUSTAINABILITY This research was conducted by ICMA and Arizona State University to identify and describe current activities, lead- ing practices, and achievements of sustainable communities created through a comprehensive, integrated approach supported by inclusive engagement. Based on results of the ICMA Sustainability Survey in 2010, a follow-up survey was sent to 300 local governments whose original responses showed high levels of sustainability activity. Using results from the follow-up survey and primary and secondary research on leading social sustainability practices around the United States, nine communities whose responses indicated high levels of social equity-related activity were selected for case studies. Case study communities include the following:* • Washtenaw County, MI (Pop. 344,791) • Lewiston, ME (Pop. 36,592) and Ann Arbor, MI (Pop. 113,934) • Durham, NC (Pop. 228,330) • Dubuque, IA (Pop. 57,637) • Arlington, VA (Pop. 207,627) • Hayward, CA (Pop. 144,186) • Clark County, WA (425,363) • Manatee County, FL (Pop. 322,833) • Fort Collins, CO (Pop. 143,986) Each case study details findings from individual communities that provide insight into how they have been able to promote social equity and achieve greater social sustainability through their policies, programs, and other activities. -
The Uptown Urban Village Technical Assistance Panel for the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Developing Long-Term Strategies for Resiliency in the Face of Climate Change: The Uptown Urban Village Technical Assistance Panel for the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida August 12 and 13, 2014 Fort Lauderdale, Florida Table of Contents Urban Land Institute Southeast Florida/Caribbean District Council ........................................................................................1 Technical Assistance Panels ....................................................................................................................................................1 What Are Technical Assistance Panels (TAPs)? ................................................................................................................1 How Do TAPs Work? ........................................................................................................................................................1 Who Is ULI?......................................................................................................................................................................1 Sponsors and Panel Members ................................................................................................................................................2 Panel Process and Agenda ......................................................................................................................................................4 Panel Process...................................................................................................................................................................4 -
200 Lees Avenue Planning Rationale
200 Lees Avenue Planning Rationale Site Plan Control Application June 2021 200 Lees Avenue Planning Rationale Site Plan Control Application June 2021 Prepared for: David Wroblewski, P.Eng., GSC, LEED GA, Senior Project Manager PCL Constructors Canada Inc. 49 Auriga Drive Nepean, Ontario K2E 8A1 T: 613-229-7104 E: [email protected] Prepared by: Nadia De Santi, RPP, MCIP, Practice Lead Planning, Landscape Architecture, and Urban Design WSP 2611 Queensview Drive, Suite 300 Ottawa, Ontario, K2B 8K2 T: 613-690-1114 E: [email protected] WSP 200 Lees Avenue Site Plan Control Application June 2021 Planning Rationale Page i PCL and University of Ottawa S i g n a t u r e s PREPARED BY Nadia De Santi, MCIP, RPP Kasper Koblauch, MCIP, RPP Practice Lead Project Planner This Planning Rationale was prepared by WSP Canada Inc. (“WSP”) for PCL on behalf of the University of Ottawa, in accordance with the agreement between WSP and the client. This Planning Rationale is based on information provided to WSP which has not been independently verified. The disclosure of any information contained in this Report is the sole responsibility of the client. The material in this Report, accompanying documents and all information relating to this activity reflect WSP’s judgment in light of the information available to us at the time of preparation of this Report. Any use which a third party makes of this Report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties. WSP accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by a third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this Report. -
Fairlington-Shirlington Neighborhood Conservation Plan Table of Contents
Fairlington-Shirlington Neighborhood Conservation Plan Table of Contents Section Page # Acknowledgements 2 Executive Summary 3 1. INTRODUCTION 4 Plan Update 4 Where we live 4 Our history 5 Who we are 8 o Neighborhood character 9 o Neighborhood participation 9 o Civic association 11 Historic preservation 13 o The past is present in Fairlington 13 o Role of the Fairlington Historical Society 14 2. NEIGHBORHOOD GOALS 15 Protecting the community from the impacts of traffic 15 Supporting cooperation and coordination between 16 Arlington County and the City of Alexandria on issues affecting the quality of life in the FSNC area, such as traffic, transportation, and development Fostering and maintaining our sense of a cohesive, 16 sustainable community Maintaining the community’s reputation as a pedestrian 17 friendly and bike-able neighborhood Maintaining street trees and open spaces and adding to 5 them where possible Maintaining public infrastructure 6 3. SUBJECT AREAS 18 Land use and zoning 18 i o Existing land use 18 o Future land development principles 18 o Existing zoning 19 o Inconsistent uses 19 o Developmental potential 20 o Fairlington residents of Alexandria 21 Street conditions 21 o Summary 21 o Sidewalks, curbs, gutters 22 o Sanitary Sewer 23 o Street lighting 23 Transportation and traffic management 24 o Traffic-always on the minds of FSNC area residents 24 o Close-in convenience 24 o Use of Metro Resources 26 o Streets, intersections, and traffic issues involving 26 cooperation with Alexandria • 4a. Proposed improvements for the intersection of Braddock 26 Road, King Street, and Quakelane (BKQ); access to Bradlee shopping center; and confusion at King and S.Wakefield/ Dearing • 4b. -
1 Report to Rapport Au: Built Heritage Sub-Committee / Sous-Comité Du
1 Report to Rapport au: Built Heritage Sub-Committee / Sous-comité du patrimoine bâti July 13, 2017 / 13 juillet 2017 and / et Planning Committee / Comité de l'urbanisme August 22, 2017 / 22 aout 2017 and Council / et au Conseil September 13, 2017 / 13 septembre 2017 Submitted on July 6, 2017 Soumis le 6 juillet 2017 Submitted by Soumis par: Court Curry, Manager / Gestionnaire, Right of Way, Heritage and Urban Design Services / Services des emprises, du patrimoine et du design urbain Planning, Infrastructure and Economic Development Department / Direction de la planification, de l'Infrastructure et du développement économique Contact Person Personne ressource: Ashley Kotarba/David Maloney, Planner I / Urbaniste, Heritage and Urban Design / Services des emprises, du patrimoine et du design urbain, Heritage Services Section / Section des Services du Patrimoine (613) 580-2424, 23582, [email protected] (613) 580-2424, 14057, [email protected] Ward: CAPITAL (17) / CAPITALE (17) File Number: ACS2017-PIE-RHU-0016 SUBJECT: Heritage Inventory Project: Additions to Heritage Register – Old Ottawa East and Old Ottawa South 2 OBJET: Projet d’inventaire patrimonial : Ajouts au Registre de patrimoine – Vieil Ottawa-Est et Vieil Ottawa-Sud REPORT RECOMMENDATION That Built Heritage Sub-Committee recommend Planning Committee recommend Council approve the addition of the properties listed in Document 1 to the City of Ottawa’s Heritage Register, in accordance with Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act. RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT Que le Sous-comité du patrimoine bâti recommande au Comité de l’urbanisme de recommander à son tour au Conseil d’approuver l’ajout des propriétés énumérées dans le document 1 au Registre du patrimoine de la Ville d’Ottawa, conformément à l’article 27 de la Loi sur le patrimoine de l’Ontario.