the message of parking – Museum of Nature

A parking lot is a message.

The possibility that a private car might need to sit empty in a storage space is more important than any other use of land.

That message is that potential car storage outweighs all other uses.  A parking lot in public space says that the possibility of storage of a private car is more important than any other public use.  A car might need to come and sit empty for a while, and so space must stand empty.  An empty space in a park setting awaiting an empty car is more important than a child playing, a senior strolling, a student sunbathing.  Someone, somewhere outside the city core might need to store their car for a few hours in the middle of the day in summer, and that’s more important than any local use 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

There is clear evidence that green space is essential for mental and physical health.  There’s clear evidence that urban intensification must be matched by local green space, so that people packed into small units in towers have some space outdoors in the city.

There’s clear evidence that car use is a factor in obesity, stress, and creates huge amounts of particulate, greenhouse, and noise pollution.

Parking ignores the clear importance of green space for mental and physical health, parking is a message that we’d rather incentivise obesity, road “rage”, and pollution.  Oh, and cars are the single biggest killer of young people in Canada.

Parking lots are an incredibly inefficient use of space.  And parking lots are ugly, both by their inherent blank gritty spaces as well as what are inevitably the cheapest possible standards for design.  Putting parking lots next to heritage, giving privilege to car storage to any other use of public land next to important national sites, is nothing less than contempt for beauty and disdain for history.  (It’s not just the Museum of Nature that does this, the entire strip of key buildings from Library and Archives Canada to Parliament has surface parking all around it.)

To summarize: the car kills you slowly or the car kills you quickly, and the car makes for dirty, ugly, wasteful spaces.  You would be crazy to give it priority in public space.  But we do.

All of which to say it doesn’t matter whether the Museum of Nature’s west parking lot holds 7 cars, or 29, or 48, or zero.  It is a stupid use of public greenspace.  The idea that this can be mitigated by restoring the grass so that you can gaze across a strip of green AT A BIG CENTRAL SURFACE PARKING LOT is ridiculous.

IMG_1419

The idea that a green space just east of condo densification should be allocated to a car lot based on the possibility of maximum use for a few days at the absolute peak of the summer season is insulting.  Even if this lot were full all the time it would be a terrible use of space and a terrible priority.  The fact that it is never anywhere near full just makes it contemptuous and wasteful.  Some theoretical cars for a few days mean months of dead ugly space in the middle of the west park.  Some empty private cars might need to be stored, so no park for you.

It comes down to this:

Storage for cars that might come is more important than cities for actual people.

If this isn’t completely wrong (and incidentally the complete opposite of what green space, transportation and environmental plans say at all levels of government) then I don’t know what is.

Previously

May 21, 2012  parking in downtown Ottawa

Capital Reading Garden: Pop-Up Urbanism in Ottawa

IMG_1674

The Capital Reading Garden is a popup urbanism project enabled by the NCC beside the Rideau Canal.  You can find it one weekend a month in the summer, just south of the Corktown Footbridge (Somerset Street) on the eastern bank of the canal.  It provides chairs, tables, reading material and wifi.

The idea behind popup urbanism is to experiment and see what works.  This can be on a large scale like increasing the pedestrian space in Times Square (Broadway reconfiguration), or on the small scale like turning a single parking space into a temporary park.  The Capital Reading Garden is somewhere in the middle.  The article Street Makeovers Put New Spin on the Block has a good summary of the idea

“The experimental approach is local and low risk, with low expectations,” says Mike Lydon, a planner and principal of the urban-design firm Street Plans Collaborative. “You can try things out at a small scale and see what works.”

The Capital Reading Garden is one of four projects and one event that the NCC chose as a combination that would animate the east side of the canal, from Union Station to the CRG location just south of the footbridge.

The Garden is also an example of the Crowd-Funded Urbanism trend.  The NCC provides permission for use of the land, but no funding.  CRG used funding from the Awesome Ottawa Foundation in order to purchase the tables, chairs, reading material and wifi that the site provides.  That funding and the available volunteers enable the following pop-up dates:

  • July 14-15, 2012
  • August 11-12, 2012
  • September 1-3, 2012

On those dates the Capital Reading Garden will be set up from 10 AM to 4 PM.

Additional funding would go towards:

  1. More chairs and tables
  2. Freestanding sun umbrellas
  3. A book cart
  4. Continued provision of wifi
  5. A long-term storage solution for the site furniture

Additional volunteers would enable us to be open for more days.

Capital Reading Garden logo by Steve St. Pierre

More information is available in both official languages:

English website and email: http://www.capitalreadinggarden.ca/info@capitalreadinggarden.ca

English Twitter: @CapReadingGdn

French website and email: http://www.jardindelecturedelacapitale.ca/info@jardindelecturedelacapitale.ca

French Twitter: @JrdLectureCap

Ottawa transportation mega-review: master plan, cycling, pedestrians

Planning staff are initiating a review of the City of Ottawa Transportation Master Plan (2008), Ottawa Cycling Plan (2008) and Ottawa Pedestrian Plan (2009) for Council approval in 2013. The purpose of this report is to give information on the approach, scope and timing for this work.

 

The Transportation Master Plan (TMP), Ottawa Pedestrian Plan (OPP) and Ottawa Cycling Plan (OCP) all support the City’s Official Plan (OP) which will be reviewed and updated concurrently for Council approval in late 2013.

The planning horizon for the TMP, OPP and OCP will coincide with that of the OP.

From Transportation Committee – June 6, 2012 meeting – Statement of Work to Review and Update the Transportation Master Plan, Ottawa Pedestrian Plan and Ottawa Cycling Plan (PDF) – Ref N°: ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0139.

Ottawa has many layers of plans, but these ones sit at the top layer: The Official Plan, the Transportation Master Plan and then (I guess notionally below the Transportation plan?) the Pedestrian Plan and the Cycling Plan.  This is a mega-review.

Key Milestones (proposed):

  • Fall 2012 – Public Consultations – kickoff
  • Winter 2013 – Public Consultations – preliminary infrastructure needs assessment
  • Later Spring/Summer 2013 – Public Consultations – Final draft of policies & infrastructure needs
  • October 2013 – TMP, OPP, OCP tabled with Transportation Committee
  • November 2013 – TMP, OPP, OCP to Council for approval

The most important thing about these plans, in my opinion, is to make sure citizens hold the city to the implementation of the plans.  The existing plans already say a lot of good things.  The city consistently does not follow its own plans (particularly in any case when it comes to a conflict between cars and other modes of transportation; the car always gets priority even though the plans say it should be otherwise).

Ottawa LRT terminology decoder ring

Here’s how David Reevely parses it, which seems about right

That last scenario is roughly what the city assumes in the interim analysis: There’ll be a primary line (light rail, with bigger vehicles making fewer stops) and a secondary line (streetcars, making many more stops). One will go in the north (the parkway or some version of Richmond-Byron) and one will go in the south (Carling). The thinking so far favours putting that primary line in the north and a secondary line on Carling. But they’ve looked at doing it the opposite way, imagining a secondary line in the north. In which case the Richmond-Byron corridor gets tracks and fairly heavy vehicles and although it gets stops instead of bigger stations, it also presumably gets further intensification.

Maybe streetcars along the former tramway would be less offensive than trains? They’d be more like what was there before, at least. Or maybe the assumption is that if light rail goes on Carling, there won’t be a secondary line in the north?

The language the analysis uses is “primary corridor” (regional) and “supplementary corridor” (local).

The 2008 TMP identified a primary corridor in the north part of the study area to accommodate regional demand and a supplementary corridor along Carling Avenue to accommodate local demand and support urban development and revitalisation.

2008 TMP = Ottawa Transportation Master Plan (2008)

This maps to the language I have been using of commuter rail (“primary regional”) and local rail (“supplementary local”) trams.  (As a sidebar we should really decide whether we’re calling them streetcars, which would be traditional, or trams.  I think trams gives a better sense of what a modern system looks like.  European cities call their systems trams.  Streetcars makes people think of single wooden vehicles open to the air.)

Reevely further discusses this confusion between these two modes in I thought I knew what the LRT was for; he’s concerned that the Western LRT analysis is mixing regional (commuter) with local.

One fatal problem with the city’s Chiarelli-era rail plan was that the system it envisioned wasn’t sure what it wanted to be. Was it basically a commuter rail system, like GO trains? Or was it basically an urban transit system, like the TTC’s subways? It tried to be both

 

 

[quoting from the analysis:]

Combining Regional and Local Transit Facilities into One LRT Line

The study examined if one higher-order corridor would be sufficient to address both the regional and local transit travel needs. Due to varying characteristics of the two types of transit demand, land development expectations, and the fairly wide study area, it is concluded that a combined corridor would not adequately address the local and regional/commuter transit trips.

There are a number of reasons why regional and local needs would be better accommodated by having a separate supplementary corridor in addition to the primary corridor.

Ottawa needs to get really clear about this language very quickly.  For example what we hear from the NCC is that the parkway is unsuitable for local rail, but what council wants to put there is commuter rail (whose riders would be able to enjoy the “scenic parkway” much more than the car commuters who currently zoom what is effectively a highway by the water).  Using LRT to mean two different kinds of rail is going to continue the confusion begun in the North-South plan.

Proposed language:

  • commuter rail / regional rail
  • local rail / tram system

It’s basic comms to decide on the terminology and hammer it home in every discussion and at every opportunity.

Ottawa also needs to be really clear about what we are building, when.  Are we building only commuter rail for decades (East-West core + Western extension + Eastern extension + Southern extension)?  Or are we going to build some local rail in the foreseeable future too?

The Transportation Master Plan is being reviewed, in fact there’s a mega-review including the TMP, the Cycling Plan, the Pedestrian Plan, and the Official Plan (short blog post to follow).

 

Make Dundonald Park better

IMG_0706 - Version 2
Dundonald Park is a wonderful green space in a downtown core that doesn’t have a lot of central park space.

The Centretown Community Health Centre (Centretown CHC) successfully applied for some help from the 8-80 Cities Make a Place for People initiative to work on a Dundonald Park improvement plan.

There are two upcoming meetings:

  • June 7, 2012 at the Legion (330 Kent) at 7pm (see flyer)
  • June 9, 2012 in the park from 10am to 2pm (see flyer)

The Centretown CHC also put out a call for volunteers – you learn how to do placemaking analysis, and observe how the park is used, or help to animate the park:

They also have more volunteer opportunities listed on their site.

You can follow their Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/ParcDundonaldPark for more information, they also tweet about the park and other things @CentretownCHC and you can email them specifically about the park at dundonaldpark@centretownchc.org Also 8-80 Cities’ Gil Penalosa tweets at @Penalosa_G

IMG_1455

If you want to tweet about the park the hashtag is #dparkott

I’ve written a list of ideas for improving Dundonald Park – feel free to add your comments and ideas.  It’s worth mentioning yet again that the single biggest improvement would be to replace the Beer Store and its mostly-empty parking lot with a mixed-use, mixed-income residential complex with ground-level retail (a cafe, butcher, baker and cheesemaker would be all great additions to the area).

Screen Shot 2012-05-21 at 7.57.25 PM

What used to be there was a nice row of traditional Ottawa houses

Somerset houses before Beer Store – from Urbsite Beer Store blog post

You can read more about the 1960 arrival of the Beer Store in a great Urbsite blog post.  Ah the 1960s.  Was there anything urban they couldn’t screw up?

It’s worth mentioning that the Centretown Community Design Plan (CDP) also covers the area of the park.  Section 2.4 Heritage (PDF) has a map that I think shows both the park and the Beer Store are not part of the Heritage overlay (someone please correct my understanding; I’m not an expert).

Screen Shot 2012-06-05 at 9.26.55 AM

This is what the CDP Chapter 5. Greening of Centretown (PDF) has to say about Dundonald.

Dundonald Park

Although similar in scale to McNabb Park, Dundonald Park plays a very different role within the community. First established in 1905 as passive recreation space, this role has been retained over the past century. Dundonald Park is an important heritage park in the neighbourhood. The importance of this park from a heritage perspective is reflected by the Heritage Overlay controls it is subject to. Similar to Centretown’s other heritage park, Minto Park, the role of Dundonald Park is to enrich the wider heritage context and act as a community destination for less active recreation.

As a heritage park, Dundonald Park should be of the highest design quality. To achieve this, the following improvements are recommended:

  • Existing asphalt sidewalks that edge the park should be removed and replaced with concrete.
  • Existing asphalt paths internal to the park should be removed and replaced with brick or textured paving that reflects a heritage sensibility.
  • When furniture is replaced over time, a coordinated palate should be introduced across the entire park (for furniture and paving materials).
  • Planting should be maintained by season (spring, summer and fall).
  • The existing fencing around the children’s play area should be used as the model for all Centretown’s park fencing.
  • The City should continue to support the impressive efforts of the Friends of Dundonald Park to enhance the park. The City should work with them in partnership to implement improvements to the park space.

If you don’t agree with the Design Plan’s view (or if you strongly agree with it), you should provide your feedback to the CDP (e.g. email the planner Robert Spicer at midcentretown@ottawa.ca ) and contact your councillor to make sure that the proposed improvements GET FUNDED.  (In general the city needs to provide more funding and maintenance of Dundonald.)  You can also contact the Centretown Citizen’s Community Association (Centretown CCA; CCCA).

Downtown Moves – Ottawa CBD post-LRT

I will get to what’s going on with the post-LRT planning (Downtown Moves) but first some context.  If you just want to know when the next public meeting is, skip to the end.

I think people are having a hard time understanding the changes Ottawa is making because there isn’t a rich vocabulary of different transportation styles, and people attach a particular style to a vehicle, rather than realising vehicles can be used for many different transportation styles.

Read below for explanation about LRT, or skip to the Downtown Moves section.

The system as it is now – hybrid of local and commuter

Right now in Ottawa we have the bus Transitway. This is often called Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) but I don’t think that conveys a lot of meaning. I prefer the term commuter transit.

Commuter transit has long gaps between stops and is designed to move people to and from work in the roughly one-hour window of travel tolerance that extends around their city core. In well-planned (or fortunately-planned) areas its nodes are major neighbourhoods and villages. North America actually has a long history of commuter rail connecting city cores to surrounding areas (although much of this was lost when we moved from rail to the car).

Local transit runs on the surface and has frequent stops (whether bus or tram).

Right now we have an east-west commuter bus system, that becomes a local bus system when it enters the downtown core.
It switches from infrequent stops to multiple stops on its way across the shared streets of downtown.

It’s also not true BRT – there are long buses with back-door boarding for passholders, but you still pay on the bus (which slows down boarding considerably). In true BRT you pay before boarding (as with a subway), and then just step on the bus (usually through access-controlled doors).

Our boarding is actually going to get slower with the Presto cards – instead of experienced passholders only boarding at the back, without having to show their passes, now everyone can board through all three doors of a long bus, and everyone must tap their card. This means the back two doors will be slowed both by the new requirement of everyone tapping their card as they board, and by the inexperienced system users who will now be able to slow things down at the back two doors.

The new commuter-only system (East-West LRT)

We are replacing the hybrid system, that was commuter outside the core and local inside the core, with an all-commuter system. This is a sensible thing to do. We are building the equivalent of the French RER commuter train system in Paris. Well, one short line of a commuter rail system.

The rapid part comes from completely dedicated right-of-way, with no stops for cars.

This does mean however that the Transitway east-west local bus service that used to run on Albert and Slater will be gone. I haven’t heard an explanation of what east-west local buses will continue to run or be added, in what numbers, with what routes. If there is no replacement, the LRT will result in it actually being harder to move locally east-west across the city core.

Extending the commuter rail

This transformation of the mixed system is causing confusion in people’s thinking about planning for extending the system. Remember commuter rail raises up its infrequently-spaced stops, either through connecting existing village cores or (in the case of Ottawa’s plans) transit-oriented development (“TOD”) at the stops. It does not raise up (in terms of urban development) the whole length of its route because the stops are too far apart. This means if you put commuter rail on the surface through a dense urban fabric, most of the time it will have its back turned on the urban environment.

So if you’re designing a path for commuter transit you want:

  • a dedicated right of way (nothing to stop the transit – in particular no unpredictable car traffic)
  • nothing essential to “cities for people” along the stretches between stops (industrial spaces or empty countryside are good candidates to have packed trains roaring past)
  • dense urban fabric villages clustered around the stops

Remember commuter transit is rapid over a medium distance.

It makes no sense to try to use commuter transit to try to lift up an entire transportation corridor.  If you want lots of people walking around and lots of human interactions you want local transit.  For local transit you:

  • stop often – sometimes only a few blocks apart
  • move people within an urban area, from neighbourhood to neighbourhood, from shop to shop

Local transit is much slower.  And we already have a local transit bus network (basically every bus in the city core that isn’t on the Transitway route).  For better service you replace local transit buses with trams (surface rail).

You can also augment local transit with bikeshare.  People don’t seem to understand the pricing of bike share.  Bike share is priced for many short local trips because it is a local transit addition, it adds local surface transit capacity.

Ottawa language

Ottawa doesn’t seem to have a language to express this distinction between commuter transit and local transit.  The closest appears to be to called commuter transit “rapid” and to call local transit “secondary”.  This is why you will see language about Carleton Carling not being suitable for “rapid” transit (commuter rail) but being a good choice for “secondary” rail (local trams).  This is actually quite a correct analysis, if incredibly unclearly expressed.  Here’s the Mayor doing an ok job of explaining (using “streetcar” instead of tram).

This language is really important because part of what sank North-South rail was the confusion between the mix of modes.  It simply doesn’t make sense to switch between modes of use.  Commuter transit and local transit are different.  Starting as commuter rail outside the city and then turning into whatever it was downtown (I still can’t figure out what their intention was in the core) makes a muddle of it.

Open File Ottawa – Three of four proposed western LRT routes would go along Richmond Road: report

Commuter rail and never local rail

We need a commuter rail network (equivalent of Paris RER) ***AND*** we need a local transit network – a frequent-stopping network that is a combination of bus (for less important routes) and tram (surface rail) in the city core.  Local moves people around their city, from neighbourhood to neighbourhood, as the old Ottawa surface rail system used to do.  A reasonable start on local trams would be to bring back the B (Bank) and S (Somerset) lines.

image from the Gréber Plan

So just keep in mind – if you are asking for our current LRT system to run somewhere, you are asking for a WALL OF TRAINS that will stop infrequently, a commuter rail system.  If you want to improve the neighbourhood, you want to ask for a completely separate, frequently-stopping, surface rail (tram) systemThere are currently zero plans for such a system.

Understand what we are doing: we are doing decades of commuter rail (RER) building.  Commuter rail will stretch west, east and south.  It will be great for getting to work (assuming work is actually located at the nodes, which is another issue).  It could be a good city-building project, IF we build walkable neighbourhoods / mini-villages at the transit nodes, but that would be a minor miracle.  Towers with no street life is a much more likely TOD outcome.  And this is it, this is all of the transit money that will be going out for like the next 55 years, all will go into this commuter rail system.

Downtown Moves

All of this gets us to Downtown Moves.  This is about adjusting the CBD (the city core near Parliament) for underground commuter rail replacing the aboveground Transitway-turns-into-local bus.

Right now the Albert-Slater local Transitway corridor handles thousands of buses.  2000 of them will be gone.  It’s not clear what the remaining local bus system will look like (particularly the needed east-west local replacement for the Transitway buses).  Express bus from the suburbs is to go to the east and west nodes of the new LRT commuter rail, rather than ending downtown (although the city really needs to make this absolutely clear, which they currently haven’t).

In any case this will modify the current 9 & 5 pedestrian pattern that is smeared along Albert and Slater to a more focused one at the two main downtown LRT stops.

(To get an idea of the coming LRT system see the official ottawalightrail.ca website.)

I honestly don’t know if you can turn that pattern of people very quickly walking to and from work into any kind of functioning street life for the downtown core.  But you can at least use it as an excuse to make the downtown core nicer for people who actually live here.

It’s an opportunity to get wider sidewalks, more trees, and better interaction of buildings with the street-level (in particular more street-level retail).  The current situation in the CBD is pretty dire to be honest – it’s basically a suburb / 1960s urban planning vision where buildings turn their back on the sidewalk – everything is inward-facing, narrow sidewalks, nothing but walls of dead glass or concrete with no storefronts along block after block (and no one walking except at 9, noon and 5, weekdays).

We can’t really blame Ottawa for this – it’s how everyone thought the urban core should be built in that era (William H. Whyte documents this in wonderful detail in City: Rediscovering the Center).  We can blame Ottawa for being at least 20 years late to the urban rediscovery party.  And for still having little plan other than commuter rail (I wouldn’t call letting condo towers drop everywhere into the city core a “plan”).

So basically for Downtown Moves you should be pushing for a city for people – for a city friendly to walking, cycling and transit and unfriendly to cars.  Yes, unfriendly to cars.  Cars are not an appropriate technology for a dense urban core.  (See Jan Gehl’s Cities for People for the elements of a livable city.)

There is a very big danger that what the LRT will actually do is remove buses from downtown streets and replace them with more fast-moving commuter cars.  If you can do a single thing in the Downtown Moves plan, make sure that doesn’t happen.

The city is doing its usual attempt at consulting with Downtown Moves – an approach almost every bureaucracy uses.  Presents information panels, asks for input, disappears for months with a small core planning group, returns and presents almost-final plans and asks for feedback.  I’m not faulting the city – it is hard to do a continuous planning engagement and even when they try (e.g. the Mid-Centretown Tomorrow blog) there is very little feedback – it’s hard to get people to pay attention and people are busy.

If you want a preview of what Downtown Moves is working on, see Eric Darwin’s post Major changes coming to downtown streets (April 30, 2012).  Eric is on the city’s citizen advisory board thing for Downtown Moves.

David Reevely also had two articles in the June 3, 2012 Ottawa Citizen about Downtown Moves (without ever actually mentioning the project by name):

What to do

I think in general Ottawa and its citizens have a hard time navigating all the layers of plans and planning, and implementing the (often quite good) plans once they’re produced.  I think there could be a lot of benefit to focusing on a few core goals, rather than getting buried in details of zoning and design.  I propose in all interactions (Downtown Moves, Centretown CDP, new Official Plan, new Transportation Plan) we aim for a few core goals, by 2020, 2030, 2040, 2050 and 2067.  A few I would recommend are:

  • reduce traffic fatalities to zero (Chicago has set this goal).  UPDATE 2012-06-05: Laura Mueller tells me that Ottawa has also set a goal “Towards Zero – One fatality or serious injury is one too many.”  You can find the goal in the Safer Roads Ottawa council report and in the accompanying Ottawa Strategic Road Safety Action Plan: 2012-Beyond slide deck (PDF).  ENDUPDATE
  • reduce car speed in the downtown core to 30km/h or less (many cities have set this as a goal or a requirement).  Have a year-by-year plan for this transition.  Implement it.  This means not just changing the signs, you have to change the street design (as Eric Darwin ably explains).
  • reduce the number of cars on downtown streets by x% per year (and attach clear FUNDING and IMPLEMENTATION to each percentage decrease)
  • reduce the number of parking spots downtown by x% per year (and attach clear FUNDING AND IMPLEMENTATION).  Copenhagen has been reducing parking spots downtown gradually for decades.  See Transport Canada – Reducing or eliminating parking in support of TDM initiatives.
  • increase the price of parking downtown (using dynamic pricing as in e.g. San Francisco)
  • close the Metcalfe cut-through at the Museum of Nature (you can do this IMMEDIATELY with concrete barriers, and then set a SPECIFIC DATE when it will become permanent)
  • 2-way any high-speed streets in particular the Queensway arterials (O’Connor, Kent, Lyon) – you CANNOT HAVE HIGHWAY ARTERIALS in the heart of your city.  It kills your city.  Set SPECIFIC DATES for pilots.  Set SPECIFIC DATES for full conversions.  These conversions have been in plans for years.  Put money and timelines on these conversions, not rhetoric.
  • Have a long term plan to reduce or eliminate the Queensway through the middle of the city.  A specific, funded, implemented plan.

You see these red lines?

DSC07529

(UPDATE 2012-06-05: If you can’t see the above image on Flickr, it’s the sub-panel “Road Network” from the Transportation Networks slide (PDF) of the first Downtown Moves public meeting.  ENDUPDATE)

The purpose of those red lines is to move cars very quickly.  Unfortunately they are trying to move cars very quickly WHERE PEOPLE LIVE.  Where children live.  Where old people live.  The use of our public transportation space (i.e. streets) in the city core for high-speed cars is simply not compatible with a livable city.

You’ll notice I didn’t say anything about zoning, about heights.  There are some side battles to fight about the street level, about unit size (to get more families into the core) and about greenspace (there is not enough greenspace for a dense city core).  But those are all secondary to actually acting (rather than just talking about) disinviting the car from the city core.  We will NEVER HAVE a thriving city core without addressing the speed and number of cars in the city centre.

The meeting

The next Downtown Moves meeting will be June 13, 2012 at 5pm in the Colonel By Room at City Hall.  It’s not on the website or in the mailing list yet, but it will be.

The hashtag is #dottmo

The planner is Nelson Edwards although Reevely’s articles have quotes from deputy city manager Nancy Schepers.

The contact email is downtownmoves@ottawa.ca

Previously

January 19, 2012 Thoughts on Downtown Moves and Ottawa’s urban future