15 April 2007
ROCKCLIFFE REDEVELOPMENT – Community Design Plan Success Indicators for Greenspace Preservation
Following my previous request to the GA members for your ideas on success indicators to measurer the greenspace objective of the Rockcliffe Community Design Plan, I did receive 4 replies and one offer of assistance. Three suggestions are shown below:
1. green space area / population
2. green space dispersion; and
3. vegetated interior conditions.
On 19 Apr 07, I will be attending the Public Advisory Committee (PAC) on behalf of the GACC concerning the Rockcliffe Redevelopment, and at that meeting, I would like to raise the issue of a Greenspace Plan as part of the Community Design Plan. Such a plan should address fundamental questions and meet expectations worthy of Jane Jacobs ideals for a citizen friendly community with parks, open spaces, etc..
After checking various web sites, I found one that outlined a comprehensive set of criteria based on this question:
6. What would you identify as criteria that must be met for a new district plan to be considered successful? It seemed close to the question I wanted to address:
What would you identify as criteria that must be met for the Rockcliffe Conceptual Design Plan to be considered successful?
The site from the City of Portland, Oregon is here: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/ Their objective was a little different: “Coordinate and integrate natural resource conservation approaches with the unique watershed, hydrologic, economic, and transportation characteristics of the Columbia Corridor area ”
If we assume that the objective of Rockcliffe is to preserve and protect the natural features and greenspace within the Rockcliffe Community, it becomes clear that some basic yes/no type questions are needed to determine if the CDP is a success or not. Based on the foregoing, I propose the following questions as a start:
Success Criteria for Greenspace (including Parks, Lawns, Open Space, Escarpments, Sports Fields, Golf Courses, Roof Gardens, Urban Forests, Woodlots, Recreational Space, etc. etc.)
Acceptance – With this Conceptual Design Plan, has Canada Lands Company, Ottawa City Staff and political leaders accepted aggressive greenspace conservation?
– Does the Conceptual Design Plan support and foster habitat protection and restoration of key corridors and habitat blocks, and not compromise adjacent environmental protections?
– Is the Conceptual Design Plan flexible in allowing creative solutions that greatly exceed greenspace policy standards?
Acreage – Is 50% of the land within the Conceptual Design Plan area dedicated to greenspace?
– Is 30% of the land within the Conceptual Design Plan area made up of tree canopy?
– Is there 1000 sq ft of greenspace per resident living within the community?
– Is the Greenspace Plan linked to a Watershed Plan?
– Is there a 30 meter buffer from the boundaries of Montfort Woods, Airbase Woods and NRC(North) Woods?
– Is the natural ridge line that overlooks the Rockcliffe Airport, Gatineau Hills, and the Ottawa River protected as an environmental area for public use as a walkway/ski trail/bikeway/picnic area?
Access – Is the greenspace easy to access by nearby residents and transient workers, and not blocked by roads, buildings, etc. ?
(Note: A fence with controlled public access gates is not considered blocked access. A lot of urban parks in Great Britain and Ireland are enclosed, and park wardens even live adjacent to the parks to provide security and maintenance.)
– Is the greenspace within a 5 minute walk from the populated residential and employment areas of the community (¼ mi)?
– Is there a contiguous 10 metre corridor between greenspace areas that permit ample walkway and bikeway linkages?
Ownership – Does the local community own the greenspace?
– Has the development of any adjacent NCC land been taken into consideration for the Conceptual Design Plan?
Security – Is the community greenspace protected from vandalism and any unlawful residents?
– Can the greenspace area be closed to the general public when necessary?
– Are the urban forest areas of the greenspace accessible by emergency vehicles such as fire trucks and ambulances?
Resources – Can the greenspace be managed and maintained given the municipal resource allocation?
Design – Does the Conceptual Design Plan itself include incentives for developers to place additional greenspace within their projects, or offer incentives to developers to limit the development of forestland, woodland or other greenspace areas?
My hypothesis would be that anyone potentially living in this community should be able to look at the Conceptual Design Plan (CDP) and evaluate it in relation to the questions above. The number of yes answers would give the CDP a higher score. If there are 50% no answers and 50% yes answers, the question is, would that be an acceptable “score” for Canada Lands Company to claim success on the greenspace issue?
I would therefore like to know:
a. do I have sufficient number of questions to evaluate the Conceptual Design Plan, and
b. what should be considered an acceptable “success” grade for such a Report Card? <50%(F) 60%(E) 70%(D) 80%(C) 90%(B) 100%(A)
Please feel free to add more questions, or even another category that relates to the community objective: Preservation of Natural Features and Greenspace.
I know there is a lot of email to sift through, so thanks for reading this, especially those who gave me feedback the last time. I should also add that people seemed very concerned, not only with greenspace protection, but also with enhancement and restoration of greenspace, including lawns and even the green boarders along the streets. I received some suggestions about water heat-exchange recycling, wind/water turbines, rainwater toilets, zero garbage/carbon concepts, etc. The green housing estate (http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2303004.ece) [article no longer online] , complete with wind turbines and rainwater harvesting facilities for the London Docklands was also very interesting; but I was looking for some greenspace preservation criteria for a CDP, rather than the eco-design building factors. Finally – I was made aware of a United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) document called – Environmental Indicators for North America. https://na.unep.net/siouxfalls/publications/NA_Indicators/NA-Indicators-FullVersion.pdf which may be of interest to some.
Thanks again,
Al Crosby (acrosby@ncf.ca)
P.S. For your information and your calendars, a 3rd Public Open House on the Rockcliffe Redevelopment is tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, June 19, 2007.
It will probably be held at the Aviation Museum as were the first two.