.png)
Greetings Barrhaven,
On Thursday (November 7th) city staff provided council a memo with a definitive answer on locations and next steps for the sprung structure program. It’s a dense document with a lot of key information to digest. In addition to sharing my thoughts on this issue, I’ve done my best to break down the key details of that document, and the city’s decision, below.
In July, when I became aware that the City was moving forward with a Sprung Shelter “Newcomer Reception Centre” and that Greenbank/Highbury Park was a potential location, I raised concerns. Councillor Lo and I worked together to inform the public, and to present a motion to council to ensure councillors, not staff, would have the final decision on whether to install sprung shelters. We lost that vote, but as a result of our intervention at that meeting staff agreed to review whether sprung shelters were the best-built form for a Newcomer Reception Centre.
When I was first introduced to the program, I had two concerns. Yes, I thought the Greenbank/Highbury Park location was a poor fit for the project due to future planned uses for the space, including supporting the future LRT expansion out to Barrhaven. But my greatest concern was about the sprung structures themselves, not their potential locations.
I am uneasy with making communal living in a tent-like structure Ottawa’s first introduction to newcomers. Along with Wilson, I encouraged staff to look into further investing in existing programs that work, like Matthew House, and renovating and repurposing office buildings. We also encouraged the city to look at alternative options, such as modular or mass timber construction, which would allow the City to build permanent dormitory-style buildings on a similar timeline and at a fraction of the required footprint.
I am incredibly appreciative that staff took our concerns about built form seriously and spent the summer and fall reviewing the program. On Thursday, we finally received the staff memo on the site selections and the answers to my questions about alternative built forms.
First, let’s talk about the locations. Based on a meticulous process that involved reviewing 92 sites, staff have chosen to proceed with a sprung structure shelter at 1645 Woodroffe Avenue (beside the Nepean Sportsplex) as the primary location for the City’s Newcomer Reception System. 40 Hearst Way (beside Eagleson Park and Ride) will be a backup location in case demand is higher than expected.
According to the staff memo, the Barrhaven location was included in the designated shortlist right until the final and fifth phase of the selection process. Ultimately, staff chose not to proceed with our location due to the “existing and planned uses” for the parcel of land limiting “the size of the structure that can be installed” which would restrict the feasibility of the site as a reception center with full on-site wrap-around services.
What about the built form of the project? Staff did a rigorous engineering analysis of the alternative forms Wilson and I had brought to their attention. Ultimately, they found that while mass timber is much faster and cheaper than regular construction for a permanent site, it would still cost nearly a million dollars more per location and take six months longer to build.
In addition to the reception center(s), staff have taken steps since we first engaged with this issue in July to purchase and convert old unused commercial/community buildings to create more permanent shelter spaces. The City will also be investing in an additional 20 homes for programs like Matthew House, which provide much more normal living conditions for refugees. An investment in 20 transitional homes may not seem like much, but that translates into support for up to 200 more people.
Ok! That’s a lot of information to digest, and I would know because poor Wilson and I had to try to do so yesterday mere minutes before we went into our virtual town hall on this very subject yesterday. A really big thank you to the approximately 425 residents who attended that information session. The feedback that you shared was thoughtful, and on target and the event will be shared in a subsequent newsletter once it is available.
I still have misgivings about the program, but city staff have really done their due diligence to ensure that all other alternative options were explored. At the end of the day, we have a migration crisis in this country. The city has to do something as our homeless shelter system is being overwhelmed, which pushes people in need out of beds and into the streets. By investing more into retrofits and community housing, I feel that the City has taken the appropriate steps to ensure the sprung shelter at the Nepean Sportsplex is truly temporary. Would I have preferred a mass timber dormitory-style building? Yes. But with the timeline and budget we are operating with, it simply wasn’t feasible.
Thank you to everyone that has been engaged with me on this to date, your advocacy and your support means a great deal to me.