Less Car

Choosing Our Future: Why a Comprehensive, City-Wide Approach to Zoning is Essential for a Thriving Ottawa

This post is part of my feedback given to the city of Ottawa in response to the draft Zoning Bylaw and Transportation Master Plan consultations:

Table of Contents (click to expand)

I. Introduction: A Generational Opportunity for Ottawa

The current review of Ottawa’s Zoning By-law is more than a technical update; it is a generational opportunity to choose our city’s future. As we plan for a huge population increase in 2046, we stand at a crossroads. The anxieties facing our residents are real and growing: housing costs that push the dream of ownership further out of reach, rising property taxes that strain household budgets, and a transportation system that demands more of our time and money. These are not isolated issues; they are the direct symptoms of a development model that has reached its limit.

To secure that brighter future, this essay argues for a bold strategy with two specific, transformative actions for the new Zoning By-law. First, we would be well served by eliminating the use of our most restrictive residential zones (N1, and probably N2) and establish a more permissive baseline, such as the N3 zone, as the most restrictive default for all neighbourhoods (particularly in the suburbs). Second, the ability to introduce low-impact, neighbourhood-serving commercial uses—currently using the ‘-c’ suffix—should be integrated directly into the base permissions for all residential zones city-wide. Why this approach? Current restrictions on low-impact commercial use are arbitrary legacies of a failed model. Removing them will not change our city overnight, but it will finally make it possible for our communities to adapt and respond to the overlapping crises of housing, fiscal strain, and climate change over the coming decades. This is our chance to address these root causes. Let’s take it.

group of people near gray and pink concrete building
Photo by Magnus D’Great M on Pexels.com — Imagine, places to go near where people live in the suburbs.

II. The Unseen Crisis: The Financial Unsustainability of Ottawa’s Suburbs

For decades, Ottawa’s growth has been defined by low-density, car-dependent suburban sprawl. While seemingly prosperous on the surface, this model contains a critical flaw, as identified by the urban planning advocacy group Strong Towns. It is a “fiscal time bomb” that is already beginning to detonate.

Why is this a crisis? Because the cost of providing and maintaining services to sprawling communities is extraordinarily high. The reality is that low-density development does not generate enough property tax revenue to cover the enormous long-term cost of the infrastructure that serves it. Every kilometre of road, sewer pipe, and water line represents a liability that will one day come due for repair and replacement. This isn’t a future problem; it is a present-day crisis manifesting in the everyday experiences of residents—in the potholes that go unfilled, the strained budgets for community centres and libraries, and the relentless upward pressure on property taxes needed just to maintain the status quo. Continuing this model is a guarantee of future insolvency, where we will be forced to choose between essential services and crippling tax hikes.

III. The Proven Solution Part 1: Increasing Housing Supply and Affordability through Gentle Density

The most effective response to this dual fiscal and housing crisis is to allow for “gentle density” across our city. This means permitting a greater diversity of housing types—such as duplexes, triplexes, and small-scale apartment buildings—in all neighbourhoods. Why is this the solution? Because at its core, our housing crisis is a problem of supply and a lack of diversity in our housing stock. Forcing nearly all new growth into a handful of high-rise towers or onto the distant suburban fringe has failed to deliver the affordability and choice that residents need.

This isn’t a theoretical experiment; it is a proven solution with a track record of success in cities facing similar challenges. These examples show us a clear path forward:

The lesson is clear: enabling more housing across a wide area is a powerful strategy for improving housing availability and affordability.

IV. The Proven Solution Part 2: Revitalizing Communities with Low-Impact Commercial Uses

Just as important as housing diversity is economic diversity at the neighbourhood scale. Residential-exclusive zoning creates sterile monocultures that force residents into their cars for every minor errand. Why does this matter? Because it diminishes our quality of life, erodes community connection, and drains local economies.

By allowing low-impact, neighbourhood-serving commercial uses (a corner store, a small cafe, a local daycare), we can create vibrant “15-Minute Neighbourhoods.” The goal is to build communities where a pleasant walk or bike ride can replace a stressful car trip. This fosters a virtuous cycle: more residents provide a loyal customer base that allows local businesses to thrive. These businesses, in turn, create local jobs, keep wealth circulating within the community, and animate our streets with activity and “eyes on the street,” making them safer and more welcoming for everyone. This is how we build places where people feel a true sense of belonging.

V. The Critical Debate: City-Wide Mandate vs. A Piecemeal Approach

A common proposal is to limit these changes to a few select areas or only allow them upon request. It is logical to assume that the best places for this gentle evolution are natural neighbourhood nodes like corner lots and properties along collector roads. A targeted approach, focusing on these specific parcels, seems prudent on the surface.

However, the critical flaw in this approach is not one of logic, but of time. A comprehensive, city-wide mandate is superior for the following reasons:

  1. Addressing Our Crises with Urgency: A piecemeal process of identifying, studying, and rezoning individual lots—or waiting for owner applications—would take decades to produce a meaningful city-wide impact. Ottawa does not have decades. The housing crisis is dimming the hopes of a generation of residents today. The city’s fiscal “death spiral,” where infrastructure maintenance bills outstrip tax income, is happening now. A city-wide mandate is the only approach that can unleash organic change at the scale and speed required to address these urgent problems. It allows evolution to happen on a realistic timescale, keeping the city solvent and offering a credible promise of affordability to the next generation.
  2. Preventing Speculation and Unfair Pressure: Upzoning only a few “chosen” areas funnels immense development pressure onto them, creating a speculative frenzy that drives up land costs and benefits only a handful of landowners. A broad, city-wide approach distributes this potential evenly, creating a more stable, predictable, and competitive market that allows for more organic growth.
  3. Ensuring Equity and Fair Access: A piecemeal or request-based system inevitably favours wealthy, well-organized communities with the resources and time to navigate complex planning processes. This deepens existing inequalities. A universal standard, by contrast, provides equitable opportunities for gentle densification and local economic development in every single neighbourhood.
  4. Economic Predictability: A clear, consistent city-wide rulebook gives small-scale builders, homeowners, and local entrepreneurs the certainty they need to invest. It removes years of bureaucratic hurdles and ambiguity, encouraging the very kind of modest, incremental development that our neighbourhoods need.

VI. Proactively Addressing the Legitimate Concerns of a Changing City

Change, even positive change, can be unsettling. It is vital to acknowledge and address the legitimate concerns of residents. The goal is not to disrupt but to enrich. To borrow a phrase: “The goal here is in no way to legalize chaos. Instead, we want to decriminalize evolution.” We can manage this evolution with proven tools that enhance the very qualities residents already cherish.

  • Concern: “This will ruin the character of my neighbourhood.”
    • Response: A neighbourhood’s unique character is precious and worth protecting. That is why this proposal is not about replacing existing homes with out-of-scale buildings, but about diversifying our neighbourhoods with well-designed additions. By implementing form-based codes and design guidelines, we can focus on ensuring new buildings fit in—respecting the scale, setbacks, and materials of their surroundings. This approach allows neighbourhoods to evolve gracefully, adding new neighbours and housing choices without sacrificing good design.
  • Concern: “This will create a traffic nightmare.”
    • Response: This logic is backward. Traffic is a symptom of our current zoning, which forces everyone to drive for everything. The goal of building complete, mixed-use neighbourhoods is to reduce car dependency by making walking, biking, and transit safe and convenient options for daily trips. This change, paired with eliminating costly parking minimums and investing in active and public transportation, is the most effective long-term solution to traffic congestion.
  • Concern: “This will cause gentrification and displacement.”
    • Response: This is a valid risk if upzoning is done in isolation. Protecting community stability, especially for the most vulnerable, is paramount. That is why it is essential that zoning reform be bundled with robust policies like inclusionary zoning (requiring affordable units in new projects), stronger tenant protections, and direct funding for non-profit and co-operative housing. The goal is to add to the community, not replace it.

VII. Conclusion: A Call for a Bold and Confident Vision

A piecemeal zoning strategy is a recipe for deepening inequality, fiscal strain, and public frustration. It is a path of hesitation when the moment calls for conviction and timely action. The evidence from across the world is clear, and the tools to manage the transition are well-established.

We respectfully call on the Zoning By-law review team and City Council to take two specific, courageous actions:

  1. Establish a new, more permissive baseline for all neighbourhoods by eliminating our most restrictive residential zones (such as N1 and N2) and making a zone that allows for greater gentle density, like N3, the default.
  2. Integrate low-impact commercial permissions directly into all residential zones city-wide, making the allowance for neighbourhood-serving businesses a universal right rather than a selective privilege.

These changes will not change Ottawa overnight. Instead, they will make it possible, over decades, for our city to evolve into a more affordable, resilient, and vibrant place. This is our generational opportunity to build a financially sound city and give our children a realistic hope of finding a home. Let’s adopt a comprehensive zoning policy that makes that future possible.