Ball Diamond in the Rough

 

If you’ve driven down Coventry Road lately or walked across the Max Keeping Pedestrian Bridge to Tremblay Station, you know the spot I’m talking about.

 It’s right behind me in the photo I took this week: the big empty asphalt lot beside the Ottawa Titans’ stadium (RCGT Park at 300 Coventry Road), with the concrete bridge ramps and pillars creating classic “dead space” underneath.

This is classic underutilized city infrastructure — a major public asset sitting in the heart of Overbrook, part of that $13.43 billion 10-year capital ask I wrote about last week. Right now it’s mostly empty outside of game or concert days. But it doesn’t have to be.
What if we turned this space into a year-round community hub?

I asked Grok Imagine to create two concept sketches based on the exact photo and site layout. Here they are:

Look at the “AFTER” side. The big parking lot becomes a permeable-paving community plaza with green lawns, picnic tables, shaded pergolas, and string lights. Under the bridge itself — using the natural shelter of those thick concrete pillars and deck — we add 3–4 colourful food trucks and small local kiosks (tacos, coffee, Ottawa vendors). Rain gardens and bioswales handle stormwater. Multi-use courts, a youth skate/BMX zone, and flexible event space round it out.
Labels on the sketches show exactly how it works:

• Food Trucks & Kiosks (Local Vendors)
• Youth Role Hub (It’s A Trap / North-South Development)
• Community Plaza & Markets
• Green Stormwater Gardens
• Under-Bridge Safe Gathering Space
• Flexible Event Zone
• 15-Minute Neighbourhood Node

This isn’t just pretty renderings. It’s practical space-making that directly applies the lessons from Calhoun’s Universe 25 experiment I wrote about yesterday. 
In the mouse utopia, even unlimited resources led to behavioural sink — aggression, withdrawal, family breakdown — because social roles and meaningful space disappeared. 
Here in Rideau-Rockcliffe we can do the opposite: create a “Creative Universe” where youth and families have real purpose, visibility, and belonging.

Overbrook already faces density pressures and the north-south challenges we all know. North-South Development Roots and Culture Canada’s “It’s A Trap” program is already fighting gang recruitment and giving kids alternatives. 
This activated space would be their natural home — youth-led murals on the pillars, event staffing, coaching clinics, market days. The Ottawa Titans already draw families; layering community programming turns passive spectators into active participants.
Why this fits our asset-management and budgeting conversation

• It’s low-cost, high-impact activation of an existing city-owned site (no new land required).
• It uses the agile capital budgeting pilot staff are testing for growth-related infrastructure.
• Every dollar spent here improves the condition rating of this asset in the open capital register I’ve been calling for.
• Revenue from food-truck permits and events could help offset maintenance — a win for taxpayers.

This is exactly the kind of thoughtful, creative urban design Calhoun later advocated after seeing his mice collapse. We don’t have to accept underused space or behavioural sink. We can design better.

How it's done in Japan.(see above)
Next steps I would push as councillor

1. Direct staff to complete a quick “activation feasibility study” for the Coventry Stadium site (using the data fields I outlined in my open-data post).
2. Bring North-South, the Titans, Parks & Rec, and Tremblay Station stakeholders to the table for a partnership plan.
3. Fund the first phase (lighting, murals, food-truck pads, basic seating) through the agile budgeting tools already under discussion.

Rideau-Rockcliffe deserves more than just fixing potholes (though we’ll do that too). We deserve purposeful public space that builds resilience, gives our youth real roles, and makes better use of the assets we already own.

A full self driving shuttle from the train station

If you can accept that you need a different representative for Rideau Rockcliffe, somebody who wants to make a difference and has the skill, ability and know how to do so, vote differently, vote wisely, vote for Peter Karwacki

Universe 25 - implications for Rideau Rockcliffe

What if Ottawa's predictions for population growth are wrong?

In Calhoun's famous mouse experiment, Universe 25, ultimately the mouse society broke down, they forgot how to function as mice they stopped mating started dying. The mouse population peaked at 2,200 mice well over a thousand short of the actual capacity of the habitat.  

The Final Phase ensued after just under five years after the first eight mice were placed inside.  the last mouse died and the universe was lifeless

Specific Implications for Rideau-Rockcliffe Ward (and North-South Development)

comparable sequence of events could also lead the human species to Extinction opportunities

Complex behaviors will become fragmented. Acquisition, creation and utilization of ideas appropriate for life in a post-industrial cultural conceptual technological Society all of them WERE  blocked. Loss of these respective complex behaviors could  mean death to humans   CALHOUN

Rideau-Rockcliffe (Ward 13) is a diverse east-end Ottawa ward (~19.8 km², population ~36,000–41,000, density ~1,820–2,000 people/km²) spanning affluent low-density areas (Rockcliffe Park, New Edinburgh, Manor Park) to more challenged, higher-density pockets (Overbrook, Viscount Alexander Park, areas near St. Laurent/Highway 417).

 It faces Ottawa-wide pressures: population growth toward 1 million city-wide, housing intensification debates, cost-of-living strains, transit gaps, and localized public safety issues (e.g., gangs, guns, youth recruitment in Overbrook).

North-South Development Roots and Culture Canada operates directly in this context — a community-led group focused on youth outreach, crime prevention ("It's A Trap" program against gang recruitment, drugs, exploitation), cultural roots, and resilience-building in Rideau-Rockcliffe. 

Their work anchors efforts at places like the Rideau Community Hub and directly targets the early behavioural-sink symptoms Calhoun observed:

 youth disengagement, 

violence, and social breakdown.

• Applying Universe 25 here:

Risk of behavioural sink in uneven development:

 The ward's north-south socio-economic gradient (more stable/affluent northern riverfront vs. southern/central areas with higher reported crime and economic stress) mirrors how density stresses hit unevenly. 

Without careful planning, intensification (infill, higher-density housing) could amplify overload in vulnerable pockets — exacerbating gang activity, family strain, isolation, or "withdrawal" among youth/adults — even if resources (housing grants, food banks, community centres) increase. 

North-South's anti-gang/youth programs are a direct counter to the "violent male" or neglected-young phases seen in the mice.

Resources alone aren't enough — design the "universe" better: 

Just pumping in services risks creating a partial "utopia" that still fails if social fabric erodes 

(e.g., loss of purposeful roles for youth).

 Implications for the ward: prioritize built-environment choices that prevent sink — e.g., mixed-use spaces with community hubs, green corridors, safe public realms, and economic opportunities that give residents (especially youth) real roles and status. 

Support North-South-style initiatives as part of this, not just bandaids.

Opportunity for proactive resilience: Calhoun later tried redesigning enclosures for "creative" mice that thrived at higher densities through better social/info networks. 

Translate to the ward by leaning into 15-minute neighbourhood principles, heritage-preserving low-density zones where they work, equitable transit/housing, and expanded community resource centres. 

The ward's existing strengths (engaged community associations, CRC services) provide a foundation to avoid the full collapse trajectory.

• Longer-term warning: Ottawa's growth + ward-specific pressures (aging demographics in some areas, development disputes) could accelerate sink-like trends city-wide if ignored. 

North-South's focus on roots, culture, and prevention is a smart early intervention — but it needs pairing with ward-level planning to manage density humanely.

In short, Universe 25 doesn't doom Rideau-Rockcliffe, but it underscores that thoughtful urban design, strong community organizations like North-South Development, and deliberate efforts to preserve social roles/purpose are essential. 

Neglect these, and even well-resourced wards risk the sink. As a ward with real diversity and pressures, Rideau-Rockcliffe has the chance to model the "better universe" Calhoun hoped for — one where density builds community rather than breaks it. This informs priorities around safety, housing, and youth investment

If you can accept that you need a different representative for Rideau Rockcliffe, somebody who wants to make a difference and has the skill, ability and know how to do so, vote differently, vote wisely, vote for Peter Karwacki

Now, Back to our Regular Programming!

 

There is nothing wrong with what King is doing.

He is simply doing what comes naturally  to him.

He is pandering to his constituency.

The problem is that the city now needs a different set of skills and a different outlook, the sort of things that I can bring the ward.

For example, 

Here's a pie chart showing the four major service areas from the 2025 Asset Management Plans (the ones with the largest portfolios as fractions of their combined 10-year capital needs (total: $13.43 billion in 2024 dollars).

These needs include renewal/rehabilitation, growth, enhancements, regulatory, and related items, as detailed in the official plans.
Transportation and Wastewater dominate due to scale and aging assets, while the chart highlights how the requirements break down proportionally.

• Quick breakdown (for reference):Transportation: ~52.8% ($7.09B)Wastewater: ~24.7% ($3.32B)Drinking Water: ~15.7% ($2.11B)Stormwater: ~6.8% ($0.91B)

This time around, vote differently, vote wisely, vote for Peter Karwacki for Rideau Rockcliffe

Key context: These four AMPs cover the city's biggest infrastructure portfolios (roads/bridges, water systems, stormwater, and sewers/treatment).
The full set of 12 plans exists, but the others (e.g., recreation buildings, fleet subsets, libraries) are significantly smaller and don't consolidate into the same scale of "requirements" in the same way.
The city-wide 10-year funding gap across all needs is approximately $10.8B, with risk-based prioritization applied to close the highest-impact gaps first.The chart is generated directly from the exact figures in the official PDFs (approved June 2025).


Here are key details directly from Ottawa's 12 approved 2025 Asset Management Plans (AMPs). These were approved by Council on June 11, 2025, and represent the first comprehensive, standardized view of all municipal assets (over $90 billion total replacement cost).

They comply with Ontario Regulation 588/17 and cover current inventory/condition, levels of service, strategies, financial forecasts, risks, and improvement plans.

The plans confirm that assets are safe, functional, and in good-to-fair overall condition with no imminent risk to day-to-day service delivery—but there is a city-wide $10.8-billion funding gap between projected needs (renewal + growth + enhancements + climate adaptation) and planned funding.

Ottawa's capital asset management register?
There is no direct access to Ottawa's capital asset management register (or any internal municipal fixed-asset / tangible capital asset system).

This is an internal City of Ottawa system used for tracking, accounting, maintenance, and stewardship of the city's assets (roads, bridges, buildings, water infrastructure, vehicles, etc.).

It is not publicly accessible as a live database or searchable register.
The City publishes high-level summaries of its tangible capital assets in its annual financial reports (e.g., the 2024 Annual Report discusses the value and composition of assets).

• Detailed Asset Management Plans (AMPs) and the Strategic Asset Management Plan, updated periodically per Ontario Regulation 588/17. Recent examples include the 2025 Asset Management Plans and service-specific plans (e.g., Wastewater Services).
• pub-ottawa.escribemeetings.com
• The Comprehensive Asset Management Policy and related documents on ottawa.ca.
• ottawa.ca
• The City’s Open Data portal (open.ottawa.ca), which has geospatial/infrastructure datasets (facilities, roads, parks, etc.), but it does not include the full capital asset register or detailed financial inventory.

top ten list of capital assets currently ranked as needing replacement? No, there is no publicly available "top ten list" of specific capital assets ranked as needing replacement from Ottawa's internal capital asset management register.

The City of Ottawa does not publish a ranked list of individual assets (e.g., "Bridge #123" or "specific watermain segment X") from its detailed register. The internal system tracks condition, risk, and replacement timing at a granular level for stewardship and budgeting, but this data remains non-public for operational and privacy reasons.

2025 Asset Management Plans (AMPs)
(12 service-specific plans approved by Council in June 2025)

High-level summaries of asset conditions (using a 5-point scale: Very Good to Very Poor), %/values in poor or very poor condition, and 10-year renewal forecasts (rehabilitation/replacement to maintain service). Assets are prioritized internally by risk (condition + consequence of failure), but no individual ranked top-10 is released.

Best Public Proxy: Asset Categories with Highest Replacement Needs

Here is the closest equivalent based on the 2025 AMPs — the asset categories showing the highest proportions in poor/very poor condition (a strong indicator of near-term replacement priority) and/or the largest renewal needs.

(Transportation ~$33.6B replacement cost; Drinking Water; Stormwater). City-wide infrastructure is described as safe and in "good to fair" overall condition with no imminent risk to services, but there is a ~$10.8B funding gap across needs (renewal + growth + enhancements).

1. Ranked by approximate urgency (primarily % poor/very poor weighted by replacement cost, cross-referenced with 10-year renewal $ and risk notes; data is portfolio-level, not individual assets):

1. Roads and Traffic Services Fleet (Transportation AMP) — ~59% poor/very poor (highest rate); average age 38 years. High replacement volume due to shorter asset lives.
2. Watermains (Drinking Water AMP) — 26% poor/very poor (21% poor + 5% very poor); 3,356 km network, average age 37 years; $450.5M renewal forecast (10 years).
3. Bridges and Bridge Culverts (Transportation AMP) — 26% poor/very poor (20% poor + 6% very poor); 734 structures; $1.09B total renewal forecast (highest structural priority).
4. Water Facilities (e.g., purification plants, pump stations, reservoirs; Drinking Water AMP) — 22% poor/very poor (15% poor + 7% very poor); includes critical treatment assets.
5. Stormwater Collection & Conveyance (pipes, trunks, outfalls, ditches; Stormwater AMP) — 9% poor/very poor (~$1.4B value); 3,154 km pipes; $546M renewal forecast.
6. Paved Roads (Transportation AMP) — 7% poor/very poor but massive scale (12,758 lane-km; $25B replacement cost); $3.06B total renewal forecast — the single largest dollar need.
7. Stormwater Management Facilities (ponds, separators, pumping stations; Stormwater AMP) — ~2% poor (data gaps noted); $70.8M renewal.
8. Active Transportation (sidewalks, pathways, cycling infrastructure; Transportation AMP) — ~5% poor/very poor; $311M renewal.
9. Other Transportation Structures (retaining walls, guiderails, etc.; Transportation AMP) — ~5% poor/very poor; $286.6M renewal.
10. Various Fleet & Equipment (across services, e.g., fire, transit support, parks) — Often 30–40%+ poor/very poor in fleet-specific plans due to shorter lifecycles; 2026 budget highlights fleet/equipment replacement as a priority area.


The 2026 capital budget aligns with this by allocating hundreds of millions to roadway resurfacing/preservation ($135M+), bridges/structures ($41M), drainage culverts ($36.5M), fleet/equipment replacement, and water/wastewater renewals — focusing on highest-risk items first.
June 11, 2025, and represent the first comprehensive, standardized view of all municipal assets (over $90 billion total replacement cost). They comply with Ontario Regulation 588/17 and cover current inventory/condition, levels of service, strategies, financial forecasts, risks, and improvement plans. The plans confirm that assets are safe, functional, and in good-to-fair overall condition with no imminent risk to day-to-day service delivery—but there is a city-wide $10.8-billion funding gap between projected needs (renewal + growth + enhancements + climate adaptation) and planned funding.

The 12 plans are publicly available as PDFs on ottawa.ca (links below if you want to dive deeper). Below is a synthesized extraction of the most relevant high-level details, with emphasis on the largest portfolios (core infrastructure like transportation, water, and stormwater—the areas with the biggest replacement/renewal pressures you asked about earlier). Data is in 2024 dollars unless noted.

• City-Wide Highlights (from Council approval and overview)Total assets: >$90 billion replacement cost supporting roads, water/wastewater, transit, recreation, libraries, emergency services, etc.Overall condition: Safe and functional; no imminent service risks.10-year capital needs (water/wastewater/stormwater programs only): ~$4 billion (primarily renewal) + $234 million growth + $158 million enhancements/regulatory.Funding approach for utilities: >$3 billion from service revenues (via ~5% average annual rate increases, or ~$5/month for average residential property) + >$1.7 billion new debt.Next steps: Plans updated every 5 years (next ~2028–2030); annual progress tracking; integrated into Long-Range Financial Plans with risk-based prioritization of highest-impact assets.

• 1. Transportation Services AMP (largest portfolio: ~$33.6 billion replacement cost)Inventory highlights: 12,758 lane-km roads; 734 bridges/culverts; 2,681 km active transportation (sidewalks/pathways); 61,642 traffic assets; 862 fleet vehicles.Condition profile (weighted by replacement cost): 15% poor/very poor overall ($4.8 billion); roads ~27% poor/very poor; bridges/culverts ~40% poor/very poor.Average ages: Roads 29 years; bridges 27 years; active transportation 45 years; fleet 38 years.10-year needs: $7.1 billion total (~$4.6 billion renewal + $1.4 billion growth + $0.5 billion enhancement). Renewal breakdown: paved roads ~$3.1 billion; bridges ~$1.09 billion.Key priorities/risks: Highest-risk categories are bridges/culverts and paved roads due to condition and user impact. Climate change adds ~$1.1 billion extra needs. Funding gap: ~$3.8 billion (managed via risk prioritization, preventive maintenance, and non-financial strategies like project bundling).

• 2. Drinking Water Services AMP (~$18.6 billion replacement cost)Inventory highlights: 3,356 km watermains; 36 major facilities (plants, pump stations, reservoirs); 153 fleet vehicles.Condition profile (weighted by cost): ~5% poor + 0% very poor for watermains (but facilities higher at ~28% poor/very poor); overall good-to-fair.Average ages: Watermains 37 years; facilities 71 years; fleet 9 years.10-year needs: $2.1 billion total (~$775 million core renewal + $645 million growth + $117 million enhancement). Watermains renewal alone: $450.5 million (plus $545 million "renewal-other").Key priorities/risks: Facilities (treatment plants/pump stations) and aging watermains are focus areas. Funding gap: $615 million. Risks include growth pressures and climate impacts (~$48 million extra). Prioritization is risk-based (condition + consequence of failure).


• 3. Stormwater Services AMP (~$16.1 billion replacement cost)Inventory highlights: 3,154 km pipes/trunks/ditches + 2,303 outfalls; 277 management facilities (ponds, separators, pumping stations); 36 fleet vehicles.Condition profile (weighted by cost): Collection/conveyance ~9% poor/very poor; facilities ~20% poor/very poor; overall good-to-fair (91–93% fair or better).Average ages: Fleet 7 years (linear/facilities not precisely quantified but mid-to-late lifecycle).10-year needs: $912 million total (~$618 million renewal + $10 million growth + $47 million enhancement).Key priorities/risks: Collection/conveyance pipes (largest value) and facilities (data gaps noted). Funding gap: $341 million. Climate adds ~$132 million extra needs. Focus on flooding protection and resiliency.



• 4. Wastewater Services AMP (~$15.8 billion replacement cost)Inventory highlights: 3,132 km sewers; 1 major treatment plant (ROPEC); 75 other facilities; 125 fleet vehicles.Condition profile (weighted by cost): ~14% poor/very poor overall; collection ~5% poor/very poor; ROPEC and facilities higher in some segments.Average ages: Collection 7 years (appears low due to recent investments); ROPEC 38 years; other facilities 37 years; fleet 6 years.10-year needs: $3.3 billion total (~$1.1 billion renewal + $1.8 billion growth + minor enhancements).Key priorities/risks: ROPEC treatment plant and growth-related collection upgrades. Funding gap: $2.0 billion. Strong emphasis on climate resiliency and reducing overflows.

Other plans (smaller portfolios like Recreation & Cultural Services, Community & Social Services, Library, Emergency/Protective Services, Greenspace, Solid Waste, Transit, and Government/IT) follow the same structure but focus on buildings, fleet subsets, and non-linear assets. They generally show good/fair conditions with shorter-lifecycle fleet/equipment driving higher renewal rates.These AMPs emphasize risk-based prioritization (condition + likelihood/consequence of failure) rather than a simple ranked "top 10" list of individual assets. Replacement/rehabilitation is targeted at the highest-risk items first within available funding.


• The full PDFs are here for reference:

Transportation: documents.ottawa.ca/sites/default/files/2025_transportation_amp_en.pdf

Drinking Water: documents.ottawa.ca/sites/default/files/2025_dw_amp_en.pdf

Stormwater: documents.ottawa.ca/sites/default/files/2025_stormwater_amp_en.pdf

Wastewater: documents.ottawa.ca/sites/default/files/2025_wastewater_amp_en.pdf 

(and the rest via ottawa.ca's asset management plans page).

This time around, vote differently, vote wisely, vote for Peter Karwacki for Rideau Rockcliffe.