Main Street and wires

Despite it’s name, Ottawa’s Main Street hardly looks like one. Originally the main street of a tiny suburban village called Archville, the name was simply held over when the community amalgamated with the City of Ottawa in 1907. Today, Main Street is the central artery of Old Ottawa East, but it somehow feels  incomplete. Despite it’s very urban location, Main Street cannot really be characterized as a pedestrian-friendly area. Large open spaces and parking lots break up the few commercial spaces in the area, and the street’s two educational institutes, Immaculata Secondary School and St. Paul University, both seem to shun the street, preferring to look inwards towards their own campuses.

In spite of all this, it is ostensibly the goal of the City to turn Main Street into—well, a main street. North of Clegg Street, the street is zoned as a “Traditional Main Street”, meaning that the official plan calls for moderate density, mixed use buildings which front directly on the sidewalk to encourage pedestrian traffic, similar to Elgin Street, Bank Street through the Glebe, and so on. However, a recent proposal to build exactly that kind of building at 162 Main Street has been turned down. Why? Well, it would seem that Hydro Ottawa can’t allow a four-storey building at that site because it would interfere with their overhead wires. The developer has come up with a compromise plan, but it would involve reducing the number of apartments in the building, making it three storeys instead of four, and removing an outdoor arcade designed to allow outdoor tables at a street-level cafe. Additionally, the building would have to be five metres back from the sidewalk, instead of fronting it directly—it doesn’t seem like much, but it would definitely make the building less attractive to pedestrians.

The issue here is that this should be something that can be easily fixed, by burying power lines. However, the City makes no budgetary allowances to do so, even when it would seem to be logical. For instance, in Hintonburg right now, Wellington Street has been dug up for some time due to construction work, but it would appear no effort is being made to bury power lines at the same time. This is unfortunate, as it would likely reduce the cost of doing so significantly by combining it with other work. And these missed opportunities will add up—the more that slip past us, the more it will cost us in the long-run to bury wires.

And let’s face it, there’s no good reason for us not to be trying to bury lines. They clutter up the street, making it visually unattractive, and the poles often create obstacles for pedestrians on the sidewalk. And of course, they can block or harm valuable projects like the one at 162 Main. For the sake of our city and its neighborhoods, we need to start thinking about these issues, and being more proactive towards solving them.

A quick aside: I moved to a new apartment this weekend, and currently have no internet access there. Thus if anyone comments and it requires moderation, it may be some time before I can get to it.

Canada Day

Hey folks—I’m not dead, just haven’t been able to find enough time to blog much lately. I’m hoping to change that in the near future, but for now I’d just like to post a link to my set of Canada Day photos on Flickr. I tried to capture as much of the atmosphere as I could. Here are a couple samples if you’re unsure of clicking through to the set itself.

Canoeists on the Canal

The crowds on Wellington

The Alexandra Bridge was crowded with people all day.

Here’s the link to the set again. Hope you enjoy!

The Many Faces of the ByWard Market

About a month ago, I noticed that the fire hydrant just down the street from my apartment was looking considerably happier than it had in the past.

 

Looking a little more gap-toothed, too.

Since then, I’ve noticed at least a dozen similar faces all over the Market, on mailboxes, streetlights, transformers and more. While the faces themselves are varied in expression, they always follow the same basic design; simple colours, generally bright, often subtle or hidden if you’re not looking at the right side of something, and always adding a splash of character to the streetscape.

 

Looking embarassed on Clarence

One interesting thing about this random street art is that it always shows up on public property. I’ve yet to notice anything like this on, say, newspaper boxes or on private businesses. And perhaps even more remarkably, I’ve seen little evidence of effort to remove these faces, which is fantastic because they really make parts of the sidewalk interesting, adding some life to objects that are normally fairly boring and—pardon the pun—pedestrian. It’s also a joy to come across ones you haven’t seen before. Each one is unique, and though I’m no art critic, it appears that a fair amount of effort has gone into making them look interesting.

 

This streetlamp on Dalhousie looks as though it's come unhinged

This kind of thing is why I’ve always been against any kind of blanket laws regarding graffiti. I can understand why it’s something that many people attack—after all, tags from gangs and messages on underpasses informing us that Frankie was there aren’t exactly a desirable part of the urban landscape. But at the same time, there are street artists out there who genuinely make the city a more interesting place to live, but unfortunately they often get lumped into the general category of “graffiti”, and their work is removed from the street. I don’t know who is responsible for these faces scattered around the Market, but whoever is has my thanks for making streetlights and trash cans something I occasionally find myself stopping and smiling at rather than simply ignoring. And that’s something I will always fight for having as an important part of any urban area.

 

Being a mailbox can get you down sometimes.

For the rest of the faces that I’ve found (11 so far) head on over to my Flickr page.

That Which Survives: LeBreton Flats

It’s odd to think that a place can be completely obliberated nearly overnight. But in the case of LeBreton Flats, it’s happened twice—first in 1900 when The Great Fire of 1900 hit Ottawa, which leveled a vast swath of Ottawa from Carling Avenue to the other side of the river into Quebec. While disasterous, the Flats were eventually rebuilt, becoming an important industrial area in the first half of the 20th century for Ottawa, as well as a vibrant working class neighborhood. But in 1962, another disaster hit, one from which it would prove nearly impossible to rebuild from: the National Capital Comission. The NCC had been working for years to purchase all the land in the area, and began evicting residents in 1962. By 1965, the neighborhood was demolished in the name of urban renewal.

Two children in the half-abandoned LeBreton Flats in 1963. Image courtesy Wikipedia.

If you’re interested in reading more about what went on, there is a good—though admittedly very biased—account online here.

The fact of the matter is, the neighborhood was nearly obliterated, and few traces of it remain in the windswept plain that took its place. However, it didn’t entirely disappear, as I discovered thanks to an article in the Ottawa Citizen (which, unfortunately, I can’t find again or I would link to it). So a few days ago, I set out to explore the tiny remnents of one of Ottawa’s lost communities.

What’s left of LeBreton is focused primarily on a tiny street called lower Lorne Avenue, which is a City of Ottawa historic district. Along with a few homes on connecting Primrose Avenue, it’s the most complete remains of the old LeBreton, aside from a few modern townhouses which were built before before the area’s heritage value was recognized.

Looking up lower Lorne Avenue from Primrose Avenue.

Today, Lorne is a pleasantly middle-class street, no doubt bolstered by the heritage designation. Still, when you walk along the sidewalk, it’s easy to get a feel for what the old neighborhood must have been like. The houses are solidly built, if unremarkable, and are evocative of the similarly working-class heritage rowhouses found throughout neighborhoods like Lowertown.

Typical residences on Lorne Avenue.

A couple of Lorne’s neighboring streets also survived the demolition, though they are far less intact. Perkins Street, one block over, is rather unique and almost seems like more of a laneway, as many of the houses on Lorne (as well as those along neighboring Empress Avenue) have direct backyard access to parking areas on Perkins. There are also a few remaining older residences along Perkins.

The laneway-esque Perkins Street.

Finally, there’s Empress Avenue. Though one side consists of a (relatively) modern health centre and its parking lot, the western side contains a few more rements of the old LeBreton Flats.

The west side of Empress Avenue.

Finally, at the very end of Empress, I noticed an impressive bit of infill. Unlike the 1970s-style townhouses which had popped up on Lorne and Primrose, some townhouses had been built which seemed very respectful of the street’s history and character and blended into the streetscape quite well. It’s exactly the sort of development I’d like to see more of in Ottawa’s older neighborhoods.

Newer townhouses on Empress, which appear more sensitive to the neighborhood than some developments.

I hope you’ve enjoyed a quick look at what’s left of the old LeBreton Flats, and I hope it gives you some idea of what must have once filled the area.  It’s borderline tragic that Ottawa lost such a large historic district, but unfortunately what’s done is done. All we can do is try to hold on to what we have left.

Peeking down at lower Lorne Avenue from atop Nanny Goat Hill.

——————————————–

Incidentally, if anyone else has any more nominations for Ottawa’s best park, please let me know over on the original post, here.

Ottawa’s Best Park?

Stephen Brathwaite's hauntingly beautiful play structure in Strathcona Park.

It’s May 1st today, often regarded as being the unofficial start of summer and warm weather, especially for postsecondary students such as myself, for whom today marks the beginning of the period between the winter and fall semesters.

With that in mind, I thought today would be a great time to launch the search for Ottawa’s best park (or parks). I’m going to leave this post open to nominations for a few weeks, and then I’ll go around to as many of them as I can, take pictures and write about them—if I get a lot of nominees, some will have to be dropped, because I only have so much time!

So please, tell me: what are your favourite parks in Ottawa? It can be a well-known one, like Strathcona, Dundonald or Major’s Hill, or it can be something a little more obscure, like Cathcart Square Park, a beautiful little bit of green space tucked on the northern end of Cumberland Street. Suburban or urban, I want to hear about them all.

I’m going to leave nominations open until May 22nd, so please, comment and let me know what you think.

One more link

I have a guest post up over at Apartment 613 on the new transit tunnel. Incidentally, if you’ve never been checked out Apartment 613 before, I’d recommend it. It’s kind of similar to this blog, only approaching Ottawa from an arts and culture perspective rather than my own urbanist perspective.

Interview on CBC Radio

For those who missed it, here’s an mp3 download of my interview on the CBC’s Ottawa Morning, alongside Nick Taylor-Vaisey of Transit Ottawa.

The Ottawa Project on CBC Radio

For any interested readers out there, I’m going to be on the CBC’s Ottawa Morning tomorrow at 7:15 a.m. to discuss the new transit tunnel. I’ll be appearing alongside Nick Taylor-Vaisey, who writes for Transit Ottawa, and was in the past one of my editors at the Fulcrum. So for all of you early-risers, please tune in and give the interview a listen, and feel free to chime in with a comment if you have any further thoughts on the proposed tunnel.

City staff releases route for Downtown Transit Tunnel

Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a route.

The map I threw together if you want to see it.

And the Citizen article I used as a source.

It looks like we’ll have stations at Lebreton (aboveground), between Bay and Lyon, between O’Connor and Metcalfe, around Rideau and Sussex and at Campus. The tunnel will go under Albert until Kent, where it will turn north to Rideau\Sussex and then swing south to go underneath Nicholas to the University of Ottawa. The official release of the plans takes place tomorrow, so we should have a more official-looking map tomorrow, I hope.

A couple of things I wanted to note. First, I find it interesting that there’s no station closer to Bank Street. I was certain they’d try to put one there, given that if the City ever wants to build a north\south rapid transit line through the core someday, Bank is the most logical alignment. I guess the logic was that a station between Bank and O’Connor would be too close to the one between Bay and Lyon. Second, I wonder if the City is hoping they might be able to use the old train station again. Take a look at a detail of where the line should go, if it runs in a straight line between Rideau and Sussex and Albert and Kent:

If the city can get the federal government to sell them Union Station back, then perhaps it can be reopened to trains; albeit a very different kind from what once went through there. That appears to be all that’s out there for now, but I’ll try to find more official-looking documentation tomorrow.

(Full disclosure: I am going to be starting a summer position with OC Transpo on Monday.)

Book review: Who’s your city?

I just finished reading the Canadian edition of Richard Florida’s latest book, Who’s Your City? and I thought that I’d give my thoughts on it, since a lot of the ground he covers relates to many of the things I discuss in this blog.

Florida, for those who don’t know, has recently risen to prominence as one of today’s best known urban theorists, even drawing comparisons to the late, great Jane Jacobs. His first book, The Rise of the Creative Class, published in 2002, garner widespread attention for his theories surrounding jobs in the “creative economy”, which includes basically any occupation that involves creative thinking, from health-care and law to science and the arts. He also believes that these new economies are the key to regenerating the urban economies of cities in post-industrial North America, which is where the urbanist side of his arguments comes into play.

With Who’s Your City?, Florida sets out to examine a simple question: Does place matter? If you’re a geographer like me, the answer to that question is of course yes; we spend a lot of time examining place and what exactly it means. In spite of that, though, I still found Florida’s book to be an engaging read, as he goes over what he feels makes place relevant in today’s society.

He begins by wondering why it is we spend so much time going over two fundamental questions about our lives (What we want to do as a career?, and Who do we want to spend it with (as in our life-partners or lack thereof)?) but so little about what is just as fundamental a question: Where do we want to live?

Florida then moves into the meat of his book, three sections on what makes place so important, and a final section in which he details the result of his research into the best places to live. In the first section, “Why place matters”, Florida essentially works to refute the claim that the world is flat—not in the Christopher Columbus sense, but in that many people believe that thanks to modern telecommunications, where you live and work no longer matters, and that you can be equally active in the world’s economy in Yellowknife as you can in Toronto or New York City. What Florida shows, however, is that the world is “spikey”, as he calls it, with economy activity, education and research concentrating in various regions of the world, or mega-regions. Florida looks beyond metropolitan areas to show that major cities tend to form connections with their neighbors, forming a regional economy where all cities in the area feed off one another, even trascending international borders. For instance, Florida puts Ottawa in a region he calls “Tor-Buff-Loo-Mon-Tawa”, stretching from Quebec City to as far south as Ithaca and Syracuse in New York and west to London. Florida thinks these mega-regions are the key to economic growth in the future.

In the second section of his book (”The wealth of place”), Florida details the importance of place in economic opportunity for individuals. Interestingly, he discusses how people will often say how they’re willing to move to where jobs are, but often make predetermined judgements about where to try to find jobs—most people would rather struggle to find work for a time in a place they love than settle into a steady job right off the bat in a place they detest. Florida also brings up some interesting research about how certain types of jobs tend to cluster in certain places. Some of these seem obvious: Washington DC is home to 78% of the United States’ political scientists, and Toronto has 38% of Canada’s financial and investment analysts. Others, however, seem less likely but occur nevertheless, such as Winnipeg, which, despite it’s population of just 630,000, is home to a whopping 12% of Canada’s musicians and singers! Florida makes a very strong case for there being a connection between our careers and where we choose to settle.

The third section of Florida’s book deals with a much more local scale than the other two, titled “The geography of happiness”. Here, he goes over his research into the connection between our happiness and where we live, finding, perhaps surprisingly to some, that on average place is more important to an indivdual’s happiness than personal finances. The rest of this section deals with how the places we live can affect our lives, and how our personalities can even match where we live, as Florida finds a fascinating geographic correlation between various personality types and where people live.

The final section of Florida’s book (”Where we live now”) deals with his research into what the best places to live for a variety of different groups of people (such as singles, retirerees, parents, etc.) are, and how said groups can further be sorted into various kinds of neighborhoods within cities. As well, the final chapter is what amounts to a guide to how to choose a place to live, essentially a self-help chapter.

Overall, if you’re interested in urban issues and where people chose to live (or, indeed, are unsure of why you should carefully consider where you live) Who’s Your City is an entertaining read. The book includes easy to understand statistics and data, and numerous maps and tables break up the text somewhat. Pulling from a variety of sources, including Florida’s own work and the research of others, it’s a comprehensive overview of what it is that makes place so important. Additionally, the Canadian edition does include a lot of information on Canadian cities (and Ottawa fares quite well), so if you’re worried about any information being America-centric, don’t, as the book has plenty to offer to Canadians as well as Americans.