I am curious about the potential for creating "mini-downtown" areas of denser, walkable, transit-connected neighbourhoods in sub-urban centres. This would allow people in the outer burbs have more walkable / bikeable neighbourhoods to access stores, services, entertainment, recreation, etc. I think that with post-pandemic patterns like working from home, we may need to bring the city out to the people, vs. expecting them to come downtown every day.
Absolutely. Satellite cities. Kanata, Ontario was designed as a self contained satellite city in 1965, just outside Ottawa, including following what is now called a "15-minute" community.
The problem is it got sucked into a Provincial gov amalgamation of into what is now greater Ottawa, which has degraded that concept.
We need to adopt a "more hands on deck" approach to city-making. In other words, we need greater civic participation in projects that benefit communities so that citizens develop a sense of agency in achieving positive outcomes. The "fix it" narrative should instead adopt a new mantra: "let's try stuff" - together.
Ottawa, Ontario municipal councillors, mayor Mark Sutcliffe and Ottawa Health are failing to alert citizens regarding the vast health dangers of car pollution. (#LungCancer #HeartDisease #MentalHealth #BrainCancer) The science is conclusive. Dr. Maria Neira of the World Health Organization is working tirelessly to educate government leadership at all levels on this critical situation. Car pollution hurts populations on a far greater scale than a cyclist death from a car impact. Where is the daily duty of care from our local government to swiftly end car pollution for everyone's safety? Recent events with #ClimateWildFire smoke in Ottawa demonstrates the necessity of having clean air for all to breathe. Considering the starkness of our climate crisis ridding ourselves of lethal car pollution is the smart course of action for any hope of a safe and liveable society.
Doug Ford wants to build 1.5 million homes in the next decade but no one has any practical ideas on how to do this. There's a huge affordability problem already; prospective first time buyers would normally include young people and new immigrants but the majority in these two groups simply can't afford it. So where are all the buyers of these new homes going to come from? Even assuming a large portion of these "homes" are some sort of rental units, who's going to finance all of this construction? This is unlikely to happen without a radical rethink. Building new subdivisions and country estates in Toronto's greenbelt isn't the answer. Neither is building a massive new "entertainment complex" in downtown Ottawa where the city would benefit much more from well planned high density housing. We need politicians who can see past the next election.
The biggest problem is the sole focus on intensified residential housing, and zero on also upgrading all forms of infrastructure. It's as bad as adding 6 more bedrooms to a house and adding 2 additional people per bedroom, and no other changes. Stealing a phrase from Brent Toderian, former Vancouver Planner, who coined the phrase "urban cramming"
Absolutely, infrastructure must be upgraded to to match the requirements of intensified urban development. But are infrastructure costs not lower per capita in dense neighbourhoods compared to costs in sprawled out developments? Densification will reduce the need for new roads and will make public transportation more practical.
If we want to revitalize city cores then more people have to live there. This needs to be done with the best in urban planning and architecture not with rows and rows of drab Soviet style tower blocks or low-rise row housing indistinguishable from military barracks.
I am curious about the potential for creating "mini-downtown" areas of denser, walkable, transit-connected neighbourhoods in sub-urban centres. This would allow people in the outer burbs have more walkable / bikeable neighbourhoods to access stores, services, entertainment, recreation, etc. I think that with post-pandemic patterns like working from home, we may need to bring the city out to the people, vs. expecting them to come downtown every day.
Absolutely. Satellite cities. Kanata, Ontario was designed as a self contained satellite city in 1965, just outside Ottawa, including following what is now called a "15-minute" community.
The problem is it got sucked into a Provincial gov amalgamation of into what is now greater Ottawa, which has degraded that concept.
We need to adopt a "more hands on deck" approach to city-making. In other words, we need greater civic participation in projects that benefit communities so that citizens develop a sense of agency in achieving positive outcomes. The "fix it" narrative should instead adopt a new mantra: "let's try stuff" - together.
Ottawa, Ontario municipal councillors, mayor Mark Sutcliffe and Ottawa Health are failing to alert citizens regarding the vast health dangers of car pollution. (#LungCancer #HeartDisease #MentalHealth #BrainCancer) The science is conclusive. Dr. Maria Neira of the World Health Organization is working tirelessly to educate government leadership at all levels on this critical situation. Car pollution hurts populations on a far greater scale than a cyclist death from a car impact. Where is the daily duty of care from our local government to swiftly end car pollution for everyone's safety? Recent events with #ClimateWildFire smoke in Ottawa demonstrates the necessity of having clean air for all to breathe. Considering the starkness of our climate crisis ridding ourselves of lethal car pollution is the smart course of action for any hope of a safe and liveable society.
Doug Ford wants to build 1.5 million homes in the next decade but no one has any practical ideas on how to do this. There's a huge affordability problem already; prospective first time buyers would normally include young people and new immigrants but the majority in these two groups simply can't afford it. So where are all the buyers of these new homes going to come from? Even assuming a large portion of these "homes" are some sort of rental units, who's going to finance all of this construction? This is unlikely to happen without a radical rethink. Building new subdivisions and country estates in Toronto's greenbelt isn't the answer. Neither is building a massive new "entertainment complex" in downtown Ottawa where the city would benefit much more from well planned high density housing. We need politicians who can see past the next election.
The biggest problem is the sole focus on intensified residential housing, and zero on also upgrading all forms of infrastructure. It's as bad as adding 6 more bedrooms to a house and adding 2 additional people per bedroom, and no other changes. Stealing a phrase from Brent Toderian, former Vancouver Planner, who coined the phrase "urban cramming"
Absolutely, infrastructure must be upgraded to to match the requirements of intensified urban development. But are infrastructure costs not lower per capita in dense neighbourhoods compared to costs in sprawled out developments? Densification will reduce the need for new roads and will make public transportation more practical.
If we want to revitalize city cores then more people have to live there. This needs to be done with the best in urban planning and architecture not with rows and rows of drab Soviet style tower blocks or low-rise row housing indistinguishable from military barracks.