Not in Canada’s front yard
We just came across the commentary below within Ken Grays’ ongoing dialogue with Ottawa citizens: The Ottawa you want: Your responses
This commentary was posted by concerned citizens on Jan. 28 (within Ken Gray’s published dialogue) and is somewhat dated in that, since this posting, the decision has been made to take forward three options to the next phase of analysis. However, the comments about the unsuitability of Kettle Island are still extremely relevant, well written, and worthy of note for anyone interested in this issue.
Thanks to John Grant for bringing this to our attention and even greater thanks to the authors for their submission to Ken Gray’s dialogue.
———————
From: Ottawa Citizen: The Ottawa you want: Your responses
Please: “Not in Canada’s front yard!”
January 28, 2009
10:42 AM
Although cynics are likely to say “when Hell freezes over”, it’s not totally inconceivable that Canadians-at-large (at the very least the thinking Canadian) may eventually develop an interest in their capital city: What is being done to improve it, what is being wrought to debase it. Hopefully, some day we’ll hear them chanting “Not in Canada’s front yard”, whenever something is afoot which, when considered from important angles, is bound to reduce Ottawa’s urban quality quotient.
And now, fellow Canadians, it so happens that something is afoot that will make a mess of Canada’s front yard, and it is a proposed Ontario-Quebec bridge over Kettle Island.
True, Ottawa is a nice city. But it has a dismal record when it comes to preserving, let alone identifying and enhancing assets that one would expect to see well taken care of in a capital city. A long list can be drawn of landmark buildings that might have been saved from fire or might have been sheltered from demolition. Add to that list the precious land areas, the unique locations which have been wasted, for lack of recognition of their true appeal. The verdict is out: All levels of government, as well as a special body, the National Capital Commission, have been mismanaging Canada’s capital city and, sadly, they are on the verge of making another infrastructure blunder by building this new interprovincial bridge in the wrong place.
Time to sound the alarums! Will we ever learn? Will Canadians across Canada ever realize the importance of their showcase city, not only its psychological, sociological and political importance, but also the potential economic benefits? So, Canadians! If we ask you “For whom the alarm sounds?” It sounds for thee!
Over the years many urbanists, planners, and civic commentators have been highly critical of those who have failed at detailing Ottawa’s architecture and urban qualities so that Ottawa might really be taken seriously as a capital city. They have been criticized, but many of us thank them for at least attempting to stir things up. And for being courageous, because washing dirty linen in public never wins much applause. And, more regrettably since they were criticized by some interest groups for trying to issue a wake-up call, the medicine they dispensed may have been bitter but it was not strong enough to cure the apathy.
Be that as it may! Let’s simply hope that there will be some awakening and that enough Canadians to matter will take an interest in their capital city and apply what pressures and influences they can muster towards its betterment.
Ottawa will not be mentioned in the same breath with some of the great world capitals for quite a while, but in the meantime, along the way, we can surely do better. One way to do better is to look at all developments carefully to see whether they will have a positive or negative impact on Ottawa as a national capital.
One proposed development or project which will certainly be of consequence and on which sharp attention needs to be focused on its suitability for our national capital, is the proposed additional interprovincial bridge across the Ottawa River. This bridge “file” deserves to be thoroughly scrutinized by federal, provincial, and municipal, officials who have a duty in trust to Ottawa, Canada’s capital.
Sadly, there is reason to doubt that they have been doing their jobs, and that no one in charge is “watching the store”. It has become evident that the appointed individuals who are supposed to be recommending the “best bridge and roadway system in the best possible location” have been going about their work without any regard to Ottawa being the nation’s capital. Reference is made here to the private consultants who have been engaged in what is called the “Interprovincial Crossings Environmental Assessment” (ICEA).
In the extensive documentation and literature the ICEA has produced, and quite possibly in their presentations, there is a shocking omission. That is, and hard as this may be to believe, there does not appear to be one, not even one mention or reminder that the city in which the bridge will be located is Canada’s capital. Further, there is no apparent indication that, had they been aware that Ottawa is the nation’s capital it would have occurred to them to pay attention to certain things.
There is simply no avowed realization that, for them, this had to be considered a special case! No mention of any challenge! Not a single expectation, requirement, standard or stricture is mentioned that would stem from Ottawa being a capital city –a city that will have the eyes of the world on it, you’ve guessed it, from time to time.
Well, maybe half of one: When scouring what is currently available on the ICEA website, www.ncrcrossings.ca, one finds this: “Truck traffic through the downtown is not compatible with tourism objectives of Canada’s Capital Region”. However, that could be said of any city which relies heavily on revenue from tourism. As for the sustainable transport bandwagon that is rolling through cities around the world? Well, it must have missed Ottawa, because we are still talking about building a very expensive and obtrusive bridge to move trucks through Canada’s capital.
How can this be? Surely it should constantly be in the minds of those who have some sort of fiduciary responsibility, or who have chosen public service, that a capital city must be a showcase. How can this be? It is general practice in advanced bureaucracies, be they governmental or business, to circulate proposals for projects, programmes, and campaigns to a number of departments asking them to indicate how they think the proposed endeavour might affect a number of things that the bureaucracy has to be concerned with before going ahead with it.
The range is wide: Will it impact on the agency’s public relations, on foreign relations; will it impact on certain customer groups, on certain communities; what about electrical supply, sewage facilities; on school locations and so on. In Ottawa, an additional box is needed: “Will it enhance Ottawa’s stature as the country’s capital?” And some day, perhaps: “Is it consistent with the official concept that has been agreed to for Ottawa’s development as a capital city?”
For some time, the ICEA has been pondering various bridge “configurations” a term that can be used to include “location” and the consequent “number of lanes”. The number of lanes and the resulting ravages that the road system serving the bridge will wreak depends on the crossing location (bigger spans mean bigger bridges with greater visual impact) that is chosen and the kind of vehicular traffic (dedicated, or not, to trucks) that the bridge will be built to handle. These are all intertwined, hence calling the result “configurations”.
The fact that no special requirements for the bridge and road network in terms of the higher quality of aesthetics which people would expect to find in a capital city, such as pricier materials and urban furnishings (lampposts, landscaping), are not at issue here. Recommendations on aesthetics are not expected from the ICEA. What is at issue is the fact that the ICEA has not been identifying the urban assets and attributes which Ottawa now has, nor has it been concerned about recommending a bridge configuration that will protect them, especially if they are precarious.
Blame it perhaps on the terms of reference but how, one might reasonably ask, could they have accepted such terms? Although not recognized for what it is, or for its great potential, Ottawa happens to have a large district which is undoubtedly a considerable topographical and urban asset which, for convenience might be called the STAG (Several thousand acres of greenery). Without insisting on precise boundaries, this huge district along the Ottawa River is seen as extending from New Edinburgh in the West to Rothwell Heights in the East. Considering this district “as of a piece” is justified because of its homogeneity: thousands of acres of parkland and residential areas that are as carefully manicured and treed as Ottawa has ever been able to achieve!
Now for the impending tragedy for Canada’s capital: A Kettle-Island Bridge (ICEA’s favoured option for a bridge) is smack in the middle of the STAG and this, in time, would jeopardize the STAG’s integrity and development. In fact, it would certainly depreciate a major capital asset in Canada’s Capital.
Ottawa: Pay attention! Canada: Pay attention! A big chunk of Ottawa which without doubt has high portents for Ottawa’s beauty, and for the eventual fulfilment of Ottawa’s vocation as a capital city, is at risk. The area, it should be mentioned also includes Canada’s official residences, the RCMP stables, the Aviation Museum, boat clubs, most embassies.
An encouraging thought: The importance of keeping the environs interesting and attractive will not escape the attention of all those who benefit from tourism, or who have a stake in our capital’s reputation across Canada and the world. What basis is there for predicting that the bridge would spell disaster for the STAG? Merely the fact that a bridge is not just a bridge! A bridge needs feeder roads and ramps, and the totality of this (what the ICEA rightfully calls a corridor) can have a tremendous impact, not only as an industrial blob when built and seen, but as the origin of many undesirable things when in operation.
Just what are these negative effects?
First, a “corridor” as can be expected separates one side from the other. STAG being of a piece, as stated earlier, would suffer irreparable harm. It is now a full expanse of greenery and quality residences. It is not only valuable on its own. It has a critical mass which, from an urbanism point-of-view, cannot do otherwise but improve the weaker housing districts within it and on its three sides unless, of course, to put it dramatically, the STAG gets stabbed by the proposed heavy-traffic conduit that will leak innumerable disturbances and interferences.
Secondly, the incompatibility of the Kettle Corridor and STAG becomes evident when one realizes that the ICEA only chose that corridor because it will attract a share of the trucks now going through Ottawa’s core. Trucks that everyone agrees should no longer travel where they are currently travelling and putting people at risk of spills and so on. This is the heavy-truck traffic now going back and forth between Quebec’s Highway 50 and Ontario’s 417 via the Nicholas, Rideau, and King Edward route in downtown Ottawa. If the Kettle corridor is adopted, this non-hybrid heavy-truck traffic will be going past the Montfort Hospital and CHMC’s manor-style head office and will brake and accelerate many a time in its progress from Ontario’s Highway 417 to Quebec’s Highway 50. It will simply never fail to spew foul gases into the STAG, and some of the foul air will need to be filtered by the Montfort Hospital and Chronic Care Centre’s air conditioning system. The bridge will also be used by thousands of passenger vehicles and small commercial vans and pick-ups, some attending to the needs of STAG residents, but most drivers will be using their own shortcuts within the STAG on their way to work in Ottawa’s business districts and business parks. There are ample precedents of this kind of result. Ottawa, nay, Canada cannot possibly put at risk what is indisputably a major urban asset for Ottawa.
As our capital city grows to the great extent predicted by the ICEA, there will be increasing pressure on its core and, as any respectable city planner would have to agree, it would be unconscionable to have this “STAG” asset despoiled for lack of appreciation and due attention back in the early years of the 21st century.
It can be objected that Ottawa has no shortage of exceptionally beautiful housing districts. True enough. One merely has to go look along the Rideau Canal, Dow’s Lake and Island Park Drive to name a few, but this huge district, the STAG, which has high potential to straighten itself out over the years and to raise Ottawa’s average beauty quotient, should complement these valuable residential assets and not ever be impaired by a major bridge, let alone a trucking bridge.
Tragically, the current proposal to have the new bridge cross the Ottawa River via Kettle Island and to use the beautiful Aviation Parkway as its traffic feed would most certainly do that! It is therefore not surprising that all the STAG communities have been protesting against the Kettle-Island bridge proposal. The STAG must not be split by a Kettle-Island Corridor and must not be drowned by traffic, as happened years ago to Ottawa’s then-glorious Metcalfe, O’Connor and King Edward “boulevards” through lack of civic foresight.
Not a single part of the STAG should be made vulnerable; none of the effort that has gone into its constituent communities for generations to make them what they are, and always better, should be wasted. Largely due to its lack of pollution-spewing factories and plants, Ottawa is probably one of few cities that do not have the proverbial “West-End” which looks down on the East-Side. Not in Ottawa, because Ottawa has an excellent “East Side” right now, which has a great future, but only if the present is properly handled.
Ottawa has to realize that it has this “homogeneity” and that it is an important asset to be protected, not solely for its relative uniqueness but for the high marks that Urbanism 101 gives to cities which avoid severe, inappropriate, infrastructure cleavages and their unforgiving legacies. As for the proper handling of this unwanted and unacceptable proposal for the wrong bridge in the wrong place at the wrong time, we say “NO”, to the ICEA.
And, better still, in the usual Canadian fashion, we urge others to say “Please. No thanks! Thank you.”
Hubert Gratton, PhL
Barry Wellar, PhD, MCIP
———————
Loading ...