383 Albert, transit oriented parking requirements

The pictures above show the Claridge proposal for three residential (condo) towers in downtown Ottawa. As noted in a post a few days ago, they are to be built on the lot between the Crowne Plaza Hotel and 151 Bay condos. The current parking lot location abuts Barabarella's dancing establishment, which will remain after this project is built.

The two 28 storey and one 22 storey towers will have approx 481 apartments. They are located directly above the proposed west downtown LRT station which is under Albert Street. Perhaps those delighted looking ladies in the photomontage just exited the LRT and are headed towards Minto Place ...

The city rationalizes a big part of its LRT expenditure on intensified infill development around the stations. As part of this intense Transit-Oriented-Development (TOD) the plans call for high density and reduced parking.

Claridge is proposing to provide 365 residential parking spaces (365spaces/481units=75% parking). This is less than what developers usually provide for condos, for eg along Richmond Road, West Wellie, or Champagne Avenue they provide 113% (1.13spaces per unit). Better developers provide reserved prime spots for VirtuCar since each VirtuCar satisfies approximately 17 households, ie eliminates 17 parking stalls which cost developers approx $30k each to build (several developers I talked to said the 30k cost/price is cost recovery).  Claridge is also providing 241 bike parking spaces (50%) which I suspect is way too low.

So what does the City of Ottawa require as the MAXIMUM number of spaces the developer can provide for this Transit Oriented Development, so as to encourage people to walk and use transit?? Why ... the maximum number of spaces within 600m of a transit station is ... wait for it ... 722 spaces, or 150% parking. Think about that: the city's maximum number of spaces to encourage transit usage is HIGHER than developers want to provide or normally provide either in the downtown core or inner suburbs. Is our TOD policy as farcical as it looks? Makes me wonder what other marvellous things are in that policy.

The Bell tolls for Peyton Place (ii)

the new facade shows evidence of good planning. The brick facade and new storefront treatment gives the building weight at the bottom. From the sidewalk, the emphasis will be on a three storey height, with the glass tower slightly less visible above it.

the current store fronts at street level

proposed: steel arches, new glass facades

existing west facade seen from Gladstone

proposed: west facade

The Bell tolls for Peyton Place

One of the earliest apartment complexes built in Ottawa are the three towers on Bell Street. Back in the 50's, adult children usually lived at home until married. Those who moved out ... lived single ... without mom's supervision ... must have been immoral. There was a popular TV show at the time called Peyton Place, the term became attached to early apartment buildings that catered to singles.

The view below must be familiar to everyone:

Well, the bell tolls for Peyton Place. After years of deterioration, the building has been sold to a redeveloper who will renovate the interiors and put on a new exterior cladding. This will enclose parts of the balconies of many units, to make the inside space bigger.

view from the Qway, after renovation

More tomorrow.

Gentrification

[note: I'm back from some travels, and blog postings will resume on a near daily basis]

The gods of planning wars have unleased their dogs in Little Italy, Chinatown, and West Wellington, key areas in the west side action beat. Lets examine several of the beasts in the pack:

Note how the "common, recognizable" names of the former neighborhoods (Dalhousie, Hintonburg, Mechanicsville) are being replaced by the marketing names of the Business Improvement Associations. These groups -- funded by city taxes levied on commercial properties on their behalf --  plaster their monikers on lampposts and decorative arches. They ensure the benches, lampposts, and even the very bricks paving the sidewalks contribute to their overall image, theme and identity. Even the municipal artwork that is installed is harnessed to reinforce the branding. Neighborhoods are subsumed into marketing campaigns, funded in part by property tax dollars.

Gentrification takes many forms in the residential streets too. Small corner stores, backyard tile cutters & contractors are replaced by expensive infills. The immigrants that lived in the area for decades move to the suburbs, young trendies move in. Houses that were once cheap in part because they had small properties or lacked parking are bought up by people who convert the lanes into patios and front yards into parking pads. City boulevards continue to be transformed into parking pads for homeowners. Too many infills have front facades that are just garage doors or are otherwise dominated by car storage. They very things that attract them to a neighborhood: front windows, living eyes on the street, people coming and going ... are replaced by rear-facing living spaces and garage streetscapes and residents who drive everywhere. To cycle up a street like Roosevelt is enough to make me cry: infill after infill works hard to destroy the fabric that made the street attractive in the first place. Barrhavenification.

Residential apartment towers ("condos") bring mixed blessings. Presumably they are better environmentally than suburban townhouses, at least that is what the smart growth folks insist. Domicile's mid rise condos and townhouses off Sherwood Drive will sort of blend into the neighborhood over time. The twelve storey condo on Hickory at Champagne ... not so much. The Starwood-Mastercraft 22 and 24 storey condos proposed for the other side of the the Hickory-Champagne intersection -- how well will they integrate into a neighborhood? Will many residents really stroll across the hopefully-someday-to-be-built Hickory pedestrian overpass over the Otrain cut so they can use rapid transit and wander the streets of Little Italy? Or will they use their central city location to make shorter drives to the Plant Pool or Elgin Street or longer commutes to Kanata? What is the impact of intensification by $450-700 per sq ft condos on residential neighborhoods that currently sell for $200 per sq ft?

Will the current inhabitants of the areas, especially those of moderate and lower income, be squeezed out? Will they be forced into "projects" like the Gladstone seniors complex or new ones to be built where the city already owns some land (eg Cambridge/Somerset). Neighborhood improvements, such as streetscaping and park reconstruction, bring with them the seeds of major neighborhood changes in who lives where, and what types of shops can be found.

None of these worries are new; they were as true in the past as they will be in the future. The city is a dynamic place, planting seeds of creative destruction. I don't want a city that is over-regulated or under-regulated, or too homogeneous. Variety works. The trick is how to do it.

Jane Jacobs is dead. She did not retain ownership of her Greenwich Village townhouse long enough to be rich: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/21/nyregion/21gentrify.html?pagewanted=1

1946 Scott Street condo and house prices

This boutique-scale condo is proposed for the corner of Scott and West Village Private.  Yesterday's post dealt with the conflicting planning documents, and how each party relies on the document (level) that best suits their arguments.

I was surprised at the hearing how often the proponent was asked extremely detailed questions about the building. Would the side bedroom windows of the condo have a view across park and then obliquely across the street into the second and third floor windows of the houses on WVP?

Did the proponent have a detailed traffic plan from a consultant showing the impact of his 26 parking spaces on the traffic flow of Scott Street and turn volumes onto Lanark?

Was the west wall of the building concrete or steel stud, given its proximity to the Hydro station next door (which was a whole 'nother story of last minute objections made by Hydro, some of which struck me as ludicrous).

Was the exterior brick colour of the building really as bright orange as shown on the magic-marker coloured drawings? Where was the landscape consultant's report on how to construct foundations to avoid root damage to an on-site oak tree that was to be saved?

The proponent, I discovered, had been to the CofA once before. His architect had drawn detailed constructable floor plans for the building. The plans were then redone, with new suite layouts, new structural calculations, new drawings, more negotiations with the City, and brought back to CofA. The new plans made the building thinner, filled it out closer to the lot lines at the request of the City, etc.

I couldn't help but think how much all these steps cost. And opponents of this project or other projects make the most of picking flaws, requiring more expensive studies when common sense indicates some of the objections are on pretty thin ground. Who pays for all this? The developer of course, but these costs get passed on to the home buyers. You know, the young couple looking for their first step onto the housing escalator by buying a small condo right on the transitway that pops them into work. Or the elderly widow selling her bigger hard-to-maintain older home to get a no-maintenance apartment.

I have no idea what the amount is, but it has to be significant wastage of money to constantly redo detailed plans to meet various objections, to hire endless consultants, to hire a planning presenter at the CofA, the city staff time ... all for issues such as height and setbacks that in my view should have been settled well before the proponent starts to plan his project. Of course, the putative builder cannot meet all the rules because there are so many of them, and they conflict with each other!

This isn't the first case I have seen at CofA. Last year I saw a developer who proposed a low rise apartment-style building infill in New Edinburgh. The local community association prevailed that the developer go away and bring back a townhouse development instead. Which was then turned down by neighbours because it was too close to the side lot line. Redrawn, then presented again to fresh objections from a new party who now complained it was too close to the rear lot line. The proponent faced endless objections caused by satisifying the first objectors, when they met the zoning rules with their first proposal. Oh vey! Eventually, a harder-nosed developer will simply cease consulting neighbors and build what can be mostly accomodated within the existing rules, whether the neighbors like it or not. So sad.

And house or condo buyers pay the price for this system. And taxpayers for the City planners and detailed planning studies like a CDP that the same community associations that help draft them ... then go on to object to their implementation.  And taxpayers again, who then get to subsidize the construction and repair of social housing units because the badly-regulated market doesn't deliver them cheap enough housing that the same planning process (like "smart growth") worked hard to squeeze out of the market. It's enough to make one cry.

It seems to me there should be a two-step process: the proponent works out with the city the size and shape of the proposed building on the lot and the conflicts between the zoning, infill guidelines, CDP and Official Plan. Once it is agreed what can be built, then the battle moves on to the specifics of the design.

1946 Scott Street condo

For edutainment, I went to the Committee of Adjustment hearing on this condo a few weeks back. The six storey condo is proposed for the corner of Scott at West Village Private (WVP). Also at the intersection is Lanark Avenue. Directly across the street is the Metropole condo, the tallest in the city.

The proponent wanted several variances. For example, reduced side yards and building the structure closer to the street. It turns out that the builder was being forced to ask for these by the City, because the zoning requires certain setbacks but the Community Design Plan (CDP) for the area calls for buildings along Scott from this site west to Churchill to be built close to the street, with a wide streetscaped sidewalk in front, the buildings are to abut each other tightly with no side yards, etc. to look like a traditional main street (eg West Wellington, Richmond Road in Westboro).

Opponents of the plan, who had a professional planner as one of their presenters, objected to various issues. Parking was a sore spot. Residents of the WVP didn't like that the builder was having less than one parking space per unit and felt there would be spill over parking into their street. Perfectly reasonable ... except the City forbids the proponent to provide the normal 100% parking because his condo is within x metres of a transitway station.

Other objections focussed on the ground floor commercial space, possibly a convenience store. Once again, the proponent was happy to make the building 100% residential but the City demanded commercial space on the ground floor to animate the street and sidewalks per their traditional mainstreet designation.

There were detailed objections to the condo based on close readings of the zoning bylaw and the city's infill guidelines. The condo proponent based their request for adjustments on the City's official plan that demands more intense infill and the CDP which specifies the lots along Scott are to be developed with a continuous row of six storey buildings with commercial at the sidewalk level.

I sympathized with the neighbours who might not want a six storey building overlooking their back yard, and saw traffic issues. Some of their other complaints struck me as trivial. They used the zoning laws as their tool of choice.

I sympathized with the condo proponent who is being told by the City that if he wants to build he has to violate those same zoning bylaws in favour of the CDP requirements for a traditional main street. I subsequently learned that the hierarchy of rules is

•  Provincial planning directives,
•  under that is the City Official Plan,
• under that is the CDP,
•  under that is the individual lot zoning.
• The infill guidelines sort of float inbetween the zoning and CDP levels.

These various levels of plan frequently lead to contradictions when it comes to developing an individual site, eg the CDP demand for a continuous line of building frontages vs the zoning requirement for generous side yard setbacks. These contradictions seem to get resolved by the advice of the planning dept. as ratified by the Committee of Adjustment.

In this case the CofA heard all sides, and decided the contradictions between the zoning bylaw and CDP were so great that the zoning needs to be clarified/changed. The proponent can wait for that to happen (a process that will be subject to much lobbying...), or the proponent can appeal the decision to the OMB which often rules based on the higher level of planning document, eg the CDP.

to be continued in next post

A tale of two houses ...

Both houses are on Primrose Street. The top one had its second floor stucco exterior wrapped in "house wrap", which prevents air infiltration but allows the passage of vapour (usually out of the walls). I am disappointed they did not put any additional insulation between the wooden strapping that has been applied for the new exterior cladding. I am a strong believer in insulation, but probably like for the City Living houses "renovated" along Albert, the person doing the renovation doesn't pay the utility bill, the tennant does, so additional insulation is not installed.

Next door is the green house subject of earlier posts, because of its sagging rear addition and the reveal of old signs on the wooden exterior. This house is also getting wooden strapping and new exterior cladding ... but is also getting some foamboard insulation AND housewrap too
In a few days, I'll post pix of the different exteriors.

Cornerstone Project launched

the Cornerstone women's housing apartment building (42units) will be built at the corner of Booth and Eccles, on the site of the former Desjardins/IGA/Loeb grocery store

Diane Holmes, Royal Galipeau, Jim Watson, Sue Garvey, and Yasir Naqvi

Sue Garvey speaks to the large turnout that came to launch the project

Small Houses

The renovated house in the top picture is on Armstrong Ave in Hintonburg. I love tiny houses, there is something so doll-house-like, so intimate, so cute about them. Maybe it's the little-child in me wanting to curl up in a cupboard.

Hidden behind the renovator's trailer to the right of the blue and white house there is a foundation in the ground for another thin house infill.

I hope the vacant lot, now for sale, gets some more tiny infill houses rather than a McMansion.

I would love to see more tiny houses built in the city. I feel there is a huge market for them amongst singles, retirees, and people who want to spend less of their money on housing. However, so many city expenses are not size related or have minimum charges (eg water bill, electric bill, gas bill), and taxes on small houses can easily be higher than on larger houses, so they are squeezed out of the new-build category and are seen as non-economic by the cold-hearted (like me -- when shopping for my first house, I discovered it is much more economic to have a 1300 sq ft house than a 900 sq ft house, and bought accordingly).

As for my tax comment above, taxes are based on market value. When a small one bedroom house (no driveway, and the house is so small the one bedroom is in the walkout basement) on Primrose was renovated it was reassessed at higher value than three storey 2200 sq ft houses along the same street, because the assessors said the "comparable" was a trendy loft condo!

East Berlin, c1976

There are lots of stories in the papers and MSM these days about the anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall.

After graduating from University I went backpacking in Europe for a few weeks. Airfare was $640 on a 747; it is not much more today for advance purchases.

I crossed into East Berlin at Checkpoint Charlie. It was compulsory to convert some West Marks into East Marks at the (poor) official exchange rate. It was not permitted to reconvert the East Marks upon exiting the "Democratic Republic". I had to wait for several minutes at the crossing while the guards photocopied my passport and visa (chargex?) card. [Is it filed in Stasi archives somewhere?]

After strolling about the main square, visiting the big department store, being chased everywhere by people wanting to buy my Quebec jeans or convert money, seeing the Pope's Revenge, etc, I took the metro to a distant stop with the intention of walking back for a half day just to see the non-downtown parts of the city.

I got off near Treptower Park (?) where there was a huge Soviet War Memorial and cemetary. Many of the neighborhoods were built in "super blocks", the latest socialist urban layout. Each block was huge and would encompass several of our city blocks. Each one consisted of peeling-stucco identical dirty gray apartment blocks around the perimeter, with some more towers in the mid block. A few units had balconies, most did not. In the centre was a park and primary school. A sidewalk ran around the perimeter of the superblock, and then there was a boulevard space between the walk and the road surface. The boulevard was thickly planted with shrubs and had one or two barbed-wire fences in it. Crossing the street was only possible at the corners and one mid-block crossing. Several superblocks were connected at mid-block crossings to feed into a high school. Around this neighborhood of superblocks ran very wide barren boulevarded avenues, often with no crossings and lots of barbed-wire in the shrubs. The system was designed to keep kids "safe" in a sanitized zone. While understandable in a society traumetized by war and oppression, the resulting urban grid was dreadfully depressing.

I stopped in at a small bakery on a street. My friend and I talked in English, looking at the buns. The few other shoppers, all women, all in dowdy coats and kerchiefs, looked alarmed and left, shuffling along the wall behind us to get to the door. The shop keeping lady pulled down the blinds in the window. We selected our "lunch" and she refused our payment of East Marks, putting her hands behind her, her back crazy-glued to the rear wall behind the counter, her face twisted in .. fear? As we left, she locked the door behind us. I hadn't exactly considered myself an intimidating person until that time.

Conversion to Transitional Housing

This elderly blue-clad apartment building on Holland Avenue just north of the Queensway has been purchased by the Ottawa Mission for use as transitional housing. Acording to Ms Vicki's neighborhood blog the Mission intends for its clientele to occupy about half the units. She does not identify who will occupy the other half - presumably it is market rentals.

I support the move to transitional and supportive housing. I strongly feel they need close supervision and much more "tough love" than laissez-faire.

I have three "second hand" experiences with apartment buildings undergoing similar changes. In one, my aunt was a long term tennant, along with mostly elderly people in a very stable market-rental building. A social agency bought the building and moved in a "few" clients graduating from mental health programs. Under the new owners, the building quickly fell into disrepair, the hallways dirty, vomit in the elevators, smelly stiarways, people ("weirdos") hanging about the entrances. The fire alarms went off 5 times a night. A special client was found to be doing it. He was not removed but counselled to take his medicine. The exodus of the middle class tennants accelerated, eventually my aunt moved too.

The second story is from Toronto, the Crombie Town area near St Lawrence Market. It was a mixed income building. My relative found it safe and a great place to live. Then the City started closing out Regent's Park, a notoriously bad housing project, for rebuilding. The mixed income nature of other buildings was "waived" to find room for the displaced Regent's tennants. The balanced mix of incomes, employment status, etc was lost. Security guards appeared. Taxis refused to pick up residents at the door; later they refused to drop off residents near the doors. Pizza deliveries stopped, it was too dangerous. Long term tennants fled. Gangs of menacing males clustered around the doors.

The third incidence is an elderly female aunt who lived in a high rise senior's housing building in downtown Ottawa. She enjoyed it, and the nearby Legion. Then the City (?) moved in a younger crowd. There were noise problems, rowdy parties, spaced out tennants, rumours of drug deals. She died before she could move out.

These three exemplars in my life will outweigh any number of unknown happy cohabitations in buildings. They will influence how I read and interpret "statistics" about the success (or not) of transitional and supportive housing. I note/recall stories I read in the MSM or blogs about crime in similar housing projects whether on Scott Street or in LA. As a result of these influences, I still support these housing measures but that support is dependent on strict on-site supervision. Unfortunately, such supervision will wax and wane with social work trends/fads/philosophies and the leadership (which changes over time) of the agencies involved. The housing never goes away. It does make me nervous.

Naked Intersections, Naked Streets, Woonerf

The net is an amazing place. Following links on the Greater Ottawa blogsite to stories on naked intersections, I end up a dozen sites away, I can't remember how I got there, and sometimes only peripherally related to the original story that started the links. Other times the links are exciting reading, and I find myself wanting to subscribe to this or that RSS feed (astoundingly, so many sites do not make it easy to subscribe or follow them...).



Naked streets, or naked intersections refers to the latest Dutch planning fad of removing all traffic signs, signals, and painted lines, curbs, bollards, or other guidance, from an intersection or street and letting every user figure out how to use the space. The results are supposed to be marvellous cooperation, a veritable wiki, wisdom of the users.



I wonder how many of these spaces originated in pre-auto cities where pedestrians have a fighting chance against autos. Or in legal environments (like Holland) where anyone who hits a cyclist is presumed guilty). Our cities, in contrast, are built for cars and trucks, with only a slight nod to pedestrians as a necessary evil to be coraled away. We North Americans also have a real sense of entitlement, that everyone must yield to what we want, when we want it.



I notice that the Dutch examples all use cobblestones and some obstructions to direct traffic and guide the interaction. This reminds me of the first wave of Dutch traffic calming. In the late 1970's early 1980's, the woonerf was the imported rage. In my west side neighborhood of LeBreton Flats, about 600 housing units were built between Albert Street and Primrose.



The numerous off-street courtyards were sold as wonufs - mixed use spaces where children played on their trikes while moms chatted and the odd car moved slowly amongst them to the front door parking space provided for every unit. These wonufs were always shown with trees scattered through the paved areas, shrubs beds along the side, fancy brick pavings instead of asphalt. What we got, of course, was seas of asphalt because it was cheap and the housing was to be delivered at affordable prices. The trees and shrubs disappeared, ruled out by the fire dept and the needs of snowplowing. Or, in the case of City Living, once the units were occupied lawn areas were paved over to become parking, and guest spaces became reserved for residents.



Subsequently, some woonerfs appeared on much more expensive housing (still without tree islands) as courtyards paved in decorative paver patterns. But they never come close to the artist impressions when the concept was first all the rage.



When cycling in France a few years ago I was impressed by the aggressive traffic calming measures employed in new suburbs, but like Holland, these were in areas with minimal snow fall, no frost, and upscale buyers. For the ordinary joe, traffic circles are giving way to signalized intersections (or that bastard hybrid, signalized traffic circles), roads are wider, straighter, faster, and the pedestrian is being left behind.



Labelling a giant asphalt parking lot or a townhouse laneway as a woonerf did not make it one. Glueing sidewalks to suburban cresents does not a pedestrian environment make.

Is Smart Growth Smart?

Most anyone reading this blog will be aware of "smart growth", intensification, infill, the Portland nirvana example, the glorious Vancouver leadership, and other urban design trends.

A number of posts back, I questioned whether the assumptions of high density redevelopment in the existing inner city areas made sense. Do people moving from suburbs to infills exhibit the behaviour of the inner city population or do they bring with them their suburban lifestyle and consumption patterns? It strikes me that there is an element of geographic determinism going on here: if the inner city population exhibits certain characteristics now, moving people who have very different socio-economic characteristics into the same area will cause those people to behave the same way as the existing urban population. I would like proof of that. And it would not be difficult to determine if its true.

Now, in the blog NewGeography.com, in an article headed "ducks", I see quoted Sir Peter Hall, who before he was a Sir, wrote some of the geography textbooks we used at Carleton back in the 1970's:

The compact city cut carbon emissions by just 1 percent; but there were higher economic costs in outer areas where people still want to live, and where demand was greatest. Also, any social aspects of the compact city were to some extent undermined by crowding, exposure to noise and the crush on facilities.

American style sprawl by contrast raised energy use and CO2 emissions by almost 2 percent, but engendered lower house prices, less crowding and less road congestion. (Hall, Sir Peter ‘Planners may be wasting their time’, Regeneration and Renewal, 6 July, 2009)

(The article in the blog talks about how the leading political classes have larger duck houses - paid for by taxpayers - than citizens have regular houses. Typically, the proponents of more dense cities and smaller housing want it for others, but not themselves. )

I strongly feel inquiring minds must always challenge received wisdom and put it to the test.

What a difference a block makes ... and who your neighbors are

midway between Cumberland and King Edward

east of Cumberland

west of Cumberland

These three pictures are taken on the same street in the Market, a few hundred feet apart. The red brick condo is a full block west of the Shepherds of Good Hope. It is a renovated building, open green lawn, no fence.
-

The gray building is gutted, windowless, abandonned. It is one half block east of the red brick condo in the other picture, on the other side of Cumberland cross street. The street is just as busy ... it's still far enough from King Edward to be quiet living space, but it has been a blot on the streetscape for a long time.

-

The difference is that the unrenovated building is on the same block as the Shepherds. That the shelter has a deleterious effect on its neighbours is obvious to anyone using the street. The houses have tall, functional metal fences in front of them, some with locked gates. Verandahs and porches are modified to be unwelcoming. To walk or cycle on the street is unwelcoming if not scary, in daylight. I would not venture there at night.

-

Yet it seems to be only the street the Shepherds is on that is impacted, ie the block between King Edward and Cumberland. The adjacent blocks north, south, and west appear unaffected. I talked to friends living in the Market, active in community affairs, and they confirm they go out of their way to avoid the blocks around the Shepherds. I gather the Sally Ann shelter has a negative impact on the neighborhood further south.

-

The "homeless" need shelters or housing. Neighborhoods do not need blight. How to reconcile the two? First step might be to measure the impact zone around the shelters, to quantify the effect. We cannot fix what we don't measure.

-

No other neighborhood is going to "volunteer" to take a shelter into its area, not when the impact is so obvious. It looks like the Market is stuck with them, and solutions must be found there. Unless the shelters expand by stealth, buying up a smaller building somewhere, installing a "few" clients, then expanding once its foot is in the door... Or, a new approach can be tried, with closely supervised living accomodation integrated into a neighborhood. That approach works in NYC, but a key there is strict supervision and high expectations from the tennants, which I doubt our ever-so-tolerant social agencies are able to provide.

-

My neighborhood had a shelter for a few years, the "homes for the homeless" project in the Dewar/Hasenack era. A cluster of city-owned properties were set up on Preston Street. The homeless did not like being so far from the "action" and the City ended up providing a daily taxi service to move them from the market to Preston each night. Blue Line loved it. Media coverage of the project was negative, and the project thankfully died when the houses were demolished to build the No 2 Fire station.

Is Infill Working?

Proponents of 'smart growth' and higher density cities usually cite as benefits the smaller ecological footprint and lower cost of servicing higher density mixed use urban areas compared to suburban growth.

I wonder just how true this is. In my neighborhood, on the west side of the urban core, it is possible to walk to multiple employment centres. Shopping is a bit of stretch to the Rideau Centre, and for groceries, well they do call it a 'grocery desert' for a reason. However, Loblaws in Westboro does deliver and with a family of teens that is well worth while (I have never had a car).

But over the last decades, noticeable changes have occured in our inner city neighborhood. Some family housing has disappeared, converted by developers, residents, and public agencies into apartments. The population of children evaporated, schools closed, although there seems to be a bit of a mini-boom of kids right now, I hope they stick around to go to school here rather than in suburban portables (schools in the Glebe get renovated, in lower income neighborhoods like mine they get closed). The population of elderly has shrunk drastically, driven out of their homes by high taxes. When retired on a moderate income, $3 - 4k average property taxes takes a huge hit.

But back to densification and smart growth. My question is, do the new residents of these buildings show the same public transit and economic characteristics of the 'traditional' residents?

Consider a theoretical urban professional who moved into a downtown condo tower. Has a car in the building garage. Maybe works in Kanata. Has friends in the 'burbs. Has a cottage/second home/chalet at a ski resort or recreates frequently at up scale resorts, here and abroad. Has a spouse with independent employment characteristics and demands. Hasn't this household just relocated an energy-intensive suburban lifestyle to the inner city? Are these high income incomers behaving the way traditional inner city residents do? Maybe, location is not the determining factor, but income is. Moving in high income people may just relocate their old lifestyle.

It should be easy to find out. Count the cars leaving the garages of a few buildings that are two to five years old. Count the pedestrians leaving the front door. Survey some residents. If the inhabitants adopt the urban behaviour desired in the smart growth model, good. If they don't, then why are we disrupting and / or changing the urban neighborhoods that residents like, to make them more suburban by transplanting suburbanites? Isn't it worth knowing?

Small Lot Housing is a Big Deal

I read in the Citizen the other day about West end residents complaining about single homes on 35' lots. Heck, my lot is 29' and I've got a great century single home, yard, neat garden, and tons of outdoor space and privacy. Perhaps these people should look a bit further, to find out what is really small.

There is a development proposed for the corner of Gladstone and Cambridge, where there currently is a shocking-yellow house. There will be seven townhouses, each on 12' lots. Judging by the plans and the elevations, should be quite nice neighbors.

There is a cluster of townhouses in a coop accross the street from my house, where all the houses are also on 12' lots. The ground floor consists of the the carport and entry and storage area, the first level up has the kitchen at the back and living room to the front, on the third level there are two bedrooms, one at the front and one at the back of the house. Comfy, efficient, attractive enough. The Cambridge ones might be nicer, given that their parking will be through the back lane rather than dominating the front of the streetscape.

I do believe there are additional 12' lot townhouses on Booth and on historic lower Lorne Street, built by City Living in the early 80's, but of dubious architectural merit. The white stucco Lorne ones in particular are a sore thumb on the Italianate streetscape.

I also am aware of some very narrow houses clustered on courtyards on Nepean near Centennial School, on Lisgar near Percy, and Rochester south of Anderson. But I lack the courage to go out with a tape measure and see just how wide they are, but they are unlikely to be wider than 11'.

I would love to know where in the city is the narrowest lot, and the narrowest house, and the smallest house. I exclude back yard housing/garage conversions, sheds, etc - its gotta be a real house. Not a row house, unless the subject house was built later between two existing houses. Send pictures, please, and I will post them.

US Housing Policy in a Nutshell

Over at the City journal.org website, there is an article on the repeating US housing crisis. I like their site because it often offers a contrarian view of what is conventional wisdom in the urban affairs sphere. It makes an interesting comparison to the Metropolis website.

Here is a summary (first three para) of their most recent article on the US housing policy:

In December, the New York Times published a 5,100-word article charging that the Bush administration’s housing policies had “stoked” the foreclosure crisis—and thus the financial meltdown. By pushing for lax lending standards, encouraging government enterprises to make mortgages more available, and leaning on private lenders to come up with innovative ways to lend to ever more Americans—using “the mighty muscle of the federal government,” as the president himself put it—Bush had lured millions of people into bad mortgages that they ultimately couldn’t afford, the Times said.

Yet almost everything that the Times accused the Bush administration of doing has been pursued many times by earlier administrations, both Democratic and Republican—and often with calamitous results. The Times’s analysis exemplified our collective amnesia about Washington’s repeated attempts to expand homeownership and the disasters they’ve caused. The ideal of homeownership has become so sacrosanct, it seems, that we never learn from these disasters. Instead, we clean them up and then—as if under some strange compulsion—set in motion the mechanisms of the next housing catastrophe.

And that’s exactly what we’re doing once again. As Washington grapples with the current mortgage crisis, advocates from both parties are already warning the feds not to relax their commitment to expanding homeownership—even if that means reviving the very kinds of programs and institutions that got us into trouble. Not even the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression can cure us of our obsessive housing disorder.