General Update/Rumour thread

[m0nkyman]

So, how do we get from the south side to the north side of Metcalfe? Make a detour to Elgin and back on McLeod?

That's the gist of it. This would be in conjunction with making Metcalfe a two-way street.

[McC]

That's the gist of it. This would be in conjunction with making Metcalfe a two-way street.
For the Queensway on and off-ramps to make sense (and work), wouldn't O'Connor have to made two-way at the same time?

[blackjagger]

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/entertainment/Christ+Church+Cathedral+gets+promised+land/3915157/story.html

A good write up about the Chist Church Cathedral Project.

Cheers,
Josh

[OttawaSteve]

That's the gist of it. This would be in conjunction with making Metcalfe a two-way street.
For the Queensway on and off-ramps to make sense (and work), wouldn't O'Connor have to made two-way at the same time?

It's a nice idea, but this is a big can of worms.

A great deal of road infrastructure and some major traffic patterns are at stake. The whole downtown is set up so that Metcalfe and O'Connor function more or less as efficient offramp/onramps into/from the CBD. Not just the Queensway interchanges themselves, but also things like the placement of parking garage ramps downtown (think World Exchange, among others). You mess with this and, I would guess, you'd see gridlock in the whole area around Metcalfe/O'Connor/Laurier/Queen.

If O'Connor and Metcalfe both went two-way, I imagine that O'Connor (and Elgin) would have to take the bulk of the load. Having traffic destined for Metcalfe cut out onto Elgin and then back to Metcalfe via Argyle and McLeod would be untenable, and create chaos on Elgin.

[blackjagger]

It's a nice idea, but this is a big can of worms.

A great deal of road infrastructure and some major traffic patterns are at stake. The whole downtown is set up so that Metcalfe and O'Connor function more or less as efficient offramp/onramps into/from the CBD. Not just the Queensway interchange themselves, but also things like the placement of parking garage ramps downtown (think World Exchange, among others). You mess with this and, I would guess, you'd see gridlock in the whole area around Metcalfe/O'Connor/Laurier/Queen.

If O'Connor and Metcalfe both went two-way, I imagine that O'Connor (and Elgin) would have to take the bulk of the load. Having traffic destined for Metcalfe cut out onto Elgin and then back to Metcalfe via Argyle and McLeod would be untenable, and create chaos on Elgin.

I agree, it will not be a simple undertaking. If additional underground parking and green space is the goal I wonder what it would take to tunnel Metcalfe in its current configuration, having the park continue overtop of it?

Cheers,
Josh

[McC]

I agree, it will not be a simple undertaking. If additional underground parking and green space is the goal I wonder what it would take to tunnel Metcalfe in its current configuration, having the park continue overtop of it?

Cheers,
Josh
Sure, lots of real cities do stuff like that, Connecticut Ave under Dupont Circle in DC would be an obvious example.

[Ice Hockey 87]

Don't know if anyone has seen this. A few days ago in the Ottawa Citizen:

OTTAWA — Peter Hume wants to add some clarity to City Hall's urban planning and simultaneously restore a little faith in the city government.

The Alta Vista councillor and chairman of city council's planning committee is set to launch an ambitious process to overhaul some of the more nebulous language in the city's official plan that seems to consistently allow developers to build higher-than-called-for buildings, against the wishes of their neighbours.

Hume is calling for more specific height restrictions with less wiggle room for exceptions: a five-storey maximum for traditional pedestrian-friendly main drags, like Bank Street, and 10 storeys for car-oriented arterials, like Carling Avenue.

"We've experienced a lack of certainty (in planning) that hurts our credibility as a city and as a planning department," says Hume. "People say we're in the development community's pocket, that we only do what they want.

"It doesn't inspire confidence in the community or in the planning process."

No kidding.

During the three-day planning committee meeting that dealt with Ashcroft Homes' controversial rezoning application for the Soeurs de la Visitation site in Westboro, residents didn't pull any punches.

One man referred to the community's "outrage" at the city's planning department. Another mused that "staff have spent too much time drinking developer Kool-Aid." One woman said that Ashcroft didn't need to attend the planning meeting because the city's own staff was doing "a great job of representing them." Yet another turned in her seat, looked directly at the city planners sitting beside her and said, "Who are you guys working for, anyway?"

It's clear where anger comes from. Developers routinely ask for exceptions to heights and density, city staff usually backs them up. And when the elected council disagrees, usually at the urging of the community, the developer virtually always wins on appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board, a provincial tribunal that can overturn city planning decisions.

This conflict presents the planning committee -- and, by extension, council -- with "an incredible dilemma," says Hume.

On one hand, as stewards of the public purse, councillors don't want to decide against developers knowing that they'll likely lose at a subsequent OMB hearing. Indeed, the city has spent hundreds of thousands, if not millions, on legal bills defending decisions that were ultimately overturned. On the other, city politicians don't want to vote against the wishes of the community.

So Hume has come up with a possible solution. But first, a few definitions.

The official plan is a legal document, passed by a post-amalgamation city council in 2003 and given a major update last year. It calls for, among other things, intensification in some areas of the city. While the plan does give height limits for traditional and arterial mainstreets, it also contains vague language allowing developers to build higher if they meet certain conditions.

For example, they can ask for greater height if the development "fosters the creation of a community focus where the proposal is on a corner lot or if a higher building is compatible with the existing neighbourhood."

In addition to the official plan, there are also community design plans and secondary plans. These are sort of mini-versions of the OP (as those in the know call the official plan), that pertain to a specific area in the city. Unlike a community design plan -- which is a set of guidelines, not rules -- a secondary plan is a legal document that is fully part of the OP.

So here's Hume's blueprint for greater clarity.

First of all, he needs to be reelected as planning committee chairman. Membership in city council's standing committees is expected to be decided at the Dec. 15 council meeting. If Hume is not re-elected by his colleagues, it will be considered a major upset.

Once that's confirmed, Hume says the plan needs to be clearer about exactly when and where intensification is meant to be allowed. He also wants to update the existing zoning. Right now, it's a compilation of the zoning bylaws from the pre-amalgamation cities, just written together into one law. In many parts of the city, zoning does not match the official plan. Match zoning to plan, Hume's thinking goes, and developers will know not to even ask for exceptions, except in rare cases.

Hume says he'll be "proposing to strengthen the language in the main plan, but secondary plans and community design plans are very neighbourhood specific and therefore are best reviewed by the local councillor." To that end, he's suggesting that each councillor and their communities be given a chance "to determine if the heights in the local secondary or community design plan meets unique nature of each community."

It's a mammoth job that will take the new council's entire four-year term, maybe longer. But Hume believes it's worth it to repair a process that now "seems mysterious to most taxpayers."

Take the case of 793 Richmond Rd., a 15-storey condominium tower about halfway between Westboro to the east and Woodroffe Avenue to the west.

What is promising to be a hand some building from award-winning Charlesfort Developments was one of the first projects to come along after the OP was passed by council in 2003.

In a conflict that would play itself out a number of times over the next several years, the proposed project pitted the community against the developer, with the city trying to play referee.

The existing zoning for the area allowed for 13.8-metre high structures, or about four storeys. But the official plan called for intensification in the area, so the developer understandably expected a zoning variation for the property. That part of Richmond Road is deemed an "arterial main street," and the official plan at that time called for up to eight storeys on arterials.

So how did 793 Richmond end up being 15 storeys high?

Although the condo building towers over everything else in the vicinity, the developer argued that the building was compatible with the neighbourhood. City planners agreed. Neighbours did not.

If Hume has his way under his new proposal, the official plan would call for 10 storeys on that part of Richmond Road, period. The zoning for that height would have already been in place. The developer would have known that before purchasing the property, tailoring his bid accordingly.

"If the neighbours had known in advance that it was zoned for 10 storeys, would they have been happy?" says Hume. "Maybe not. But they would have known what was going to happen, and there'd be an acceptance of it."

If fact, he points out, he doesn't think that the changes he's proposing are going to please everyone.

"Most people resist change," Hume says, but it's coming. He hopes his proposals will help reduce the friction intensification inevitably brings.

He's facing a number of obstacles.

Because amendments to the official plan naturally get the full municipal-process treatment, there will likely be rounds of intense discussions with stakeholders and public consultations, not to mention legal arguments over any proposed changes.

Michael Polowin, an Ottawa lawyer who often represents local developers, professes skepticism about the plan. He says that a city's intensification plan requires flexibility to deal with things like site-specific issues, and the ever-changing trends in development.

"A city's growth is a fluid, living thing, it isn't written in granite," says Polowin. "People may look down on Merivale Road today, but not so many years ago it was considered the height of modernity."

The city's planning staffers are so far reserving formal comment. They haven't seen a formal submission yet from Hume. Privately, they favour some flexibility in the plan, but agree some of its language could be more prescriptive.

Some community leaders are cautiously optimistic.

Gary Ludington of the Westboro Village Community Association says developers want greater heights, especially in the north end of the city, because upper-level condos offer "tremendous views" of the Ottawa River and the Gatineau Hills. So he's not expecting that to abate any time soon.

"Maybe we can come up with something that's more definitive for everybody and it's not the developers having one view, city planners have something similar, and the community having another view and on and on," he says.

Hume doesn't pretend that exceptions would never happen, but says increases in height will be exactly that, exceptions rather than the rule.

"The goal of my proposals is to limit the amount of developer-driven rezoning and create an environment in which the building only needs a site plan or building permit."

Hume argues that more certainty is also better for developers, who he says get a bad rap when "a lot of it is the city's fault." Developers are simply doing what they usually do: build as much as is allowable. The city needs to make the rules clearer for everyone. Then if someone doesn't agree with it, they can work to try to change the policy.

Hume is quick to point out that he's not trying to pick on a certain developer by using 793 Richmond as an example of how intensification policies -- and projects -- have led to conflict in the community in last few years.

In fact, he says growth depends on more developments from respected companies like Charlesfort, "just with less controversy."
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen


Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/with+plan/3932578/story.html#ixzz17YTlzIna

[kwoldtimer]

I might feel better about where he intends to go with this if the example chosen to illustrate the problem were not such a good building. :sly:

[Cre47]

http://www.cyberpresse.ca/le-droit/actualites/gatineau-outaouais/201012/10/01-4351378-une-nouvelle-tour-de-10-etages-derriere-ledifice-vincent-massey.php?utm_categorieinterne=trafficdrivers&utm_contenuinterne=cyberpresse_B9_actualites_98069_section_POS3

The new building on St-Joseph behind Place Vincent Massey will be 10 floors and will be occupied by Environment Canada.

[Cre47]

They are excavating the lot formerly occupied by an Ultramar gas station on Montcalm street just beside an existing appartment building. The lot is small so I don't think there is anything big planned there unless I'm wrong. Probably just some decontamination work right now.

[blackjagger]

http://www.obj.ca/Local/Tourism/2010-12-17/article-2051911/Delta-buys-Ottawa-Crowne-Plaza%3B-plans-%2425M-in-renovations/1

Looks like the Crown Plaza has been sold and is to be renovated and converted into a Delta. Makes you wonder if the Delta Hotel just up the street will be sold off or redeveloped.

Cheers,
Josh

[c_speed3108]

http://www.obj.ca/Local/Tourism/2010-12-17/article-2051911/Delta-buys-Ottawa-Crowne-Plaza%3B-plans-%2425M-in-renovations/1

Looks like the Crown Plaza has been sold and is to be renovated and converted into a Delta. Makes you wonder if the Delta Hotel just up the street will be sold off or redeveloped.

Cheers,
Josh


Opps I just made a thread...I had not seen your post. Sorry I was not trying to one-up you :(

I am wondering if Crowne Plaza has something to do with the Rideau Centre's Rumoured hotel.

Crowne Plaza was the big winner the Congress Centre was torn down (and on strike). Probably a good time for them to sell since that temporary business is pretty much done now. This leads me to believe they may want of the action around the new convention centre.

[blackjagger]

Opps I just made a thread...I had not seen your post. Sorry I was not trying to one-up you :(

I am wondering if Crowne Plaza has something to do with the Rideau Centre's Rumoured hotel.

Crowne Plaza was the big winner the Congress Centre was torn down (and on strike). Probably a good time for them to sell since that temporary business is pretty much done now. This leads me to believe they may want of the action around the new convention centre.

It deserves its own thread, no worries. A new soaring hotel and residence combo would anchor the Rideau St./Nicholas corridor nicely, especially if the Arts Court redevelopment goes forward. Lets see what happens.

[Mille Sabords]

New Charlesfort condo called "The Merit" has an ad in today's paper saying the launch is in early January. I suspect, by the art deco shape of the logo, that this is the Lisgar site (at last).

[rakerman]

New Charlesfort condo called "The Merit" has an ad in today's paper saying the launch is in early January. I suspect, by the art deco shape of the logo, that this is the Lisgar site (at last).

Here's the thread, needs an updated title now that the condo has a name.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=178393&page=3

[AuxTown]

Can anyone tell me how someone can be allowed to build a sidescraper in Centretown? The same neighbourhood that fought tooth and nail to save the Metropolitan Bible Church's fascade (yuck) is now home to a 12-15 storey highrise covered in what appears to be aluminum siding. Where was David Gladstone to fight this one? It's an apartment building on Maclaren between Kent and Bank and it used to be all brick. Over the last year, they replaced the railings with disgusting white ones and have covered some (but not all) of the faces of the building with greige siding. A large part of me still hopes that this "renovation" is temporary and the brick will be replaced, but it looks pretty permanent. It's embarassing that many great buildings and proposals have to fight for their existance with council and the OMB (with some even being cancelled due to too much resistance), while some cheap idiot can leave a scar like this on our urban landscape. I wonder if there is a mechanism to complain about these types of things and if theree is anything that can be done about it. A photo I took from my balcony this morning showing the top of the building in question:

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/1557/dsc03133n.jpg

A shot from 1 year ago:

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/3545/panooy.jpg


Someone please tell me the siding is temporary!?! :yuck:

With the stagnation at Bank and Somerset, the Distributel building (those of you in Centretown know what I mean), that empty lot beside the James Street Pub full of weeds, and now this, Centretown is a great neighbourhood that is at risk of becomming one of the ugliest in Canada IMO. I am moving from Centretown in 6 months, but I still work here regularly and I am very worried that red tape (and lack thereof in the case of our new sidescraper) is going to stifle any momentum this neighbourhood once had. Am I being too cynical?

[Kitchissippi]

:previous: Unfortunately there is no way the city can dictate in subjective aesthetic issues like that. Technically the building is not decrepit, the finishing materials are just questionable in taste. Asking the property owner to change the cladding is like telling someone to change their clothes because you hate the way they look.

[Cre47]

http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=45.413108,-75.694366&spn=0.000955,0.00327&z=19&layer=c&cbll=45.412955,-75.694233&panoid=NzHeUSU-Hli_dMpMTaSLEQ&cbp=12,243.54,,0,5

Add this ugly patch on that building too and the Doyle & Salewski building as well. This is right beside a lot where there was a building that was victim of an arson a few years ago and still by the looks of it has not filled and the neighbors not putting decent renovations/repairs and keep it as a god afwul scar.

[rakerman]

Can anyone tell me how someone can be allowed to build a sidescraper in Centretown?

It's subsidised housing / affordable housing / social housing, it's called Maclaren Towers, it's run by Ottawa Community Housing I think. http://www.och.ca/site/index.php?option=com_ezrealty&Itemid=123&task=detail&id=24

They clad it because it's poorly insulated; by adding extra insulation they will save on heating/cooling costs. It was built in 1972, I assume as a part of the 1960s-1970s wave of building this type of subsidised apartment building in cities across the western world. It does stick out like a sore thumb, being over the height profile of surrounding buildings by about 15-18 storeys.

[Cre47]

From the 18th floor this morning, I've noticed a tall crane way to the south. I would estimate roughly around the Alta Vista/Elmvale area. It is not in the Trainyards because the crane is well past the Hampton Hotel and it is behind the Riverside Drive and Lees Avenue towers. Actually, it is near or right along the Hydro Corridor and there are already some low to mid-rise buildings around it. My thinking was probably something being built at the Hospital Complex, being on the east side of downtown and over 15 stories over ground level, I think you should be able to see the Hospital Complex, more specifically the General and CHEO from east downtown. Maybe those at the Mondrian and Hudson Park might be able to see it if you are not obstructed by L'Esplanade Laurier.

I'm posting this because I don't think it has its own thread, or it doesn't look to be significant.

[Harley613]

whatever it is i can just see it through the trees in front of my window. if you look closely you can see a crane. the arrow is the main building of the general.
http://i.imgur.com/K6PY2.jpg

[Harley613]

Does anyone have any idea when this monstrosity will be complete? It's taking them for freakin' ever!!!
http://i.imgur.com/LWYcE.jpg

[AuxTown]

Does anyone have any idea when this monstrosity will be complete? It's taking them for freakin' ever!!!
http://i.imgur.com/LWYcE.jpg

First off, it's disgusting. At least before it was kind of brown and inconspicuous. I believe it is taking this long as they are basically evicting the entire building 1-2 vertical rows at a time which is why it is taking so long. As far as timelines, who knows??

[Harley613]

are they trying to make this place high-rent? that's like putting lipstick on a pig (a la '4 holes')

[Cre47]

Might be this

http://www.emcottawaeast.ca/20100923/news/The+Ottawa+Hospital+battles+against+pancreatic+and+other+cancers

"The money will help build the new Centre for Innovative Cancer Research, at The Ottawa Hospital General Campus. Construction of the Centre will accelerate research into "biological" treatments that harness viruses, cells and genes to eradicate cancer."

[Cre47]

double post

[blackjagger]

Could it be the Life Sciences Condos being built by Broccolini.

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/8117/lifesciencescondos.jpg

Source:http://www.broccolini.com/Broccolini_Project_Detail.aspx?ProjectID=177&All=No&Green=No&Current=No

[Ottawan]

Edit: deleted post because I was referring to the above project, without the pretty picture and link.

[blackjagger]

There was an article in the Citizen on Saturday which was describing the above project. Looks like it is an investor group which handed construction management to Phoenix Homes who owns the land and who than sub'd it out to Broccolini for actual construction. Better news is that another project similar to this is being planned near Rideau and King Edward. Without the need to sell units we could turn around one day soon and see a pit going down. Does anyone know of any properties that Phoenix owns in that area?

Cheers,
Josh

[gjhall]

There was an article in the Citizen on Saturday which was describing the above project. Looks like it is an investor group which handed construction management to Phoenix Homes who owns the land and who than sub'd it out to Broccolini for actual construction. Better news is that another project similar to this is being planned near Rideau and King Edward. Without the need to sell units we could turn around one day soon and see a pit going down. Does anyone know of any properties that Phoenix owns in that area?

Cheers,
Josh

Saw that, pretty sure they were referring to Daly Square (http://www.phoenixhomes.ca/condoLiving/condoLiving_overview.cfm?com=32)
which would explain how it sold as fast as it did.

[reidjr]

I have heard the u of ottawa will be comming out with a major plan this summer does anyone know is this true and if so whata re the rumors on possible devlopment plans.

[Luker]

Probally the equivalrnt to this plan...

http://www2.carleton.ca/fmp/ccms/wp-content/ccms-files/2010-Final%20CMP.pdf

[Davis137]

Wow, that's a pretty elaborate design/plan...it'll make Carleton look like even more of a mini-city than it is already. Mind you, I wonder why they want Dunton tower to be the only building in location that is more than 8-10 floors tall...

[ThaLoveDocta]

Probally the equivalrnt to this plan...

http://www2.carleton.ca/fmp/ccms/wp-content/ccms-files/2010-Final%20CMP.pdf

Wow, that's a pretty elaborate design/plan...it'll make Carleton look like even more of a mini-city than it is already. Mind you, I wonder why they want Dunton tower to be the only building in location that is more than 8-10 floors tall...

No doubt...
Carleton's master plan is very impressive. Was put together by the folks who did UBC, and a few other major world campuses.

If my count is correct, they're talking about several dozen new buildings over the next ten years, all in the architectural style seen in the buildings built over the last 5-10 yrs. (athletics, arena, unicentre, human interface, river bldg, new res, canal bldg etc.)

It will be nice to see significant developpment in the P6/P7 parking areas (near bronson and the canal) slated for graduate campus.
Hopefully they remember that underground parking and tunels are a must if they're taking away all that land.

Also, the new design for the Quad opening up in a grand staircase to the river and the rapids will create a focal point for the campus unrivaled by arguably any urban layout in the city.

TLD

[c_speed3108]

Regarding the U of O plan...if in fact this comes out...I had not heard anything.

Looking a bit at the list of what U of O owns:

http://www.uottawa.ca/services/immeub/fra/repertoire.htm


What I would expect to see:

-Plans Regarding the 200 Lees Avenue Campus.
-Plans Regarding the area around King Edward and Laurier (perhaps extending right down to Templeton)
-Plans/Timelines Regarding the construction of the North Tower of the Desmarais Building
-Plans Regarding further expansion of the Health Sciences area on Smyth.

[reidjr]

Carleton is aslo expected to upgrade keith harris stadium so it can host a cis football team as soon as 2012.

[JackBauer24]

Aside from their men's basketball team, Carleton has, andalways will be, against sports. In every "renovation" they've completed since the 70's, they always build it in such a way that they will never have to host a large national or international event - eg 1. - they're swimming pool in about a foot off from being official olympic length (so no national swim meet could be held), eg 2, they're indoor soccer/lacrosse feild - used old astroturf (which hasn't been used in almost a decade) and is nowhere near the size needed to host any offical soccer, football or lacrosse event.

So I wouldn't thold your breathe for a Keith Harris stadium renovation.

[ThaLoveDocta]

Aside from their men's basketball team, Carleton has, andalways will be, against sports. In every "renovation" they've completed since the 70's, they always build it in such a way that they will never have to host a large national or international event - eg 1. - they're swimming pool in about a foot off from being official olympic length (so no national swim meet could be held), eg 2, they're indoor soccer/lacrosse feild - used old astroturf (which hasn't been used in almost a decade) and is nowhere near the size needed to host any offical soccer, football or lacrosse event.

So I wouldn't thold your breathe for a Keith Harris stadium renovation.

As far as i'm aware, the field house is actually built with a removable floor so it can be upgraded at any time should the budget allow (this was a cost saving measure at time of construction) Secondly, the field house is currently 2/3 of potential full size. it can have the additional 3rd portion added at any time the budget allows. It is an internal pressure structure and adding the final third does not require interruption of services or significant renovation of any sort.

Touching on the subject of the pool. yes it may not seem a wise choice for the city as a whole... however international events committees have a nasty tendency to put forth cities as potential hosts, and then force local facilities to offer their space, with little regard for existing schedules or paying users.

Granted, I agree... it would have been nice if the pool were a foot longer and the 10m platform actually 10m (if I'm not mistaken it was kept at 9.9 for the same reason as the pool) to host pan-ams or the like.

*politics*:koko: :koko:



Incidentally, having one of the greatest CIS basketball clubs in the history of the CIS should pull some weight towards the "Carleton has, and always will be, against sports" bit... But hey, maybe I'm biased.

[jcollins]

As far as i'm aware, the field house is actually built with a removable floor so it can be upgraded at any time should the budget allow (this was a cost saving measure at time of construction) Secondly, the field house is currently 2/3 of potential full size. it can have the additional 3rd portion added at any time the budget allows. It is an internal pressure structure and adding the final third does not require interruption of services or significant renovation of any sort.




Incidentally, having one of the greatest CIS basketball clubs in the history of the CIS should pull some weight towards the "Carleton has, and always will be, against sports" bit... But hey, maybe I'm biased.

That was always my understanding. And I agree. But it'd be nice to see us be a bit more than a basketball school.

[TransitZilla]

I don't think this has ever been posted here, even though it is a couple of weeks old.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Ashcroft+Homes+lofty+plans+Central+Park/4114374/story.html


Ashcroft Homes has lofty plans for Central Park

Feedback on 18-storey-plus condo towers has been positive, developer says

BY JOANNE CHIANELLO, OTTAWA CITIZEN JANUARY 15, 2011


Ashcroft Homes is planning a new 930,000 square-foot project on the Merivale Road side of its Central Park housing development by the Experimental Farm, complete with eight mixed-used buildings -- four of them 18-storey-plus condo towers.

That's well above the eight-storey height currently allowed in the area so, as in virtually every other intensification project in the city, Ashcroft will be asking for that section of Merivale to be rezoned when it files its preliminary plans with the city in a few weeks. But what makes this higher-than-called-for project different from others is that the community supports it -- at least so far, and with caveats.

"I think overall the feedback was really positive," said Liz Allan, president of the Central Park Community Association, of a meeting that Ashcroft held last month with about 75 members of the surrounding neighbourhood.

The early thumbs-up from the community, which is 1,300 households strong, is a surprise on two fronts: residents are rarely happy with developers who want more height than the current zoning allows; and Ashcroft in particular doesn't have a spotless record with homeowners in the Central Park housing development. Central Park was plagued with construction-quality and safety issues early in the decade. Indeed, the developer was compelled by the city to re-inspect many homes in the area. And Ashcroft is the developer behind the hugely controversial convent redevelopment in Westboro.

The community's collective change of heart seems to be coming from the actual design for the new development. Instead of putting up a row of squat, square buildings -- which Ashcroft is allowed to do under the city's current zoning -- the developer is working with well-known Ottawa architect Ritchard Brisbin for the first time to create something of a walkable main street for the residents of Central Park that would include small gardens, street-level shops and parking. On the way out is the drive-thru Tim Hortons on Merivale, which many residents have complained causes traffic backups during morning rush hour. (Ashcroft officials said a Tim Hortons could be part of the commercial mix of the new development, but a drive-thru will not be allowed.)

"The concept (Ashcroft) is putting forward is not something we're really used to seeing," said Allan. "I expected to see a straight line of squat buildings, that would have really been a barrier to our community. Instead, the design seems innovative. There's even what you might call an organic flow to it."

Creating a main street feel for that part of Merivale, just north of Baseline Road, wasn't easy, accord to Brisbin, who is also one of the architects working on the designs for the commercial redevelopment of Lansdowne Park.

While the Central Park housing community sits on the west side of Merivale, the Experimental Farm is on the east side. "Frankly, it's hard to create a main street when you don't have both sides of the road in play," said Brisbane.

Instead of using Merivale as the main road in the new development, Brisbin has treated it as the back of the community. He's proposing a serpentine new "main street" running alongside Merivale, with parking and buildings on both sides. There would be greenery and some commercial uses between the new main street and Merivale, but mostly the gap would serve as a barrier between the housing development and the heavily used artery.

Currently, Ashcroft's proposed development calls for eight buildings, with the two highest on the extreme north and south ends with structures getting smaller towards the middle of the development. The building plans so far include two 25-storey towers on five-storey podiums, two 18-storey condos on two-storey podiums, a five-storey building in the centre of the development, and about three two-storey retail-and-office buildings.

Ashcroft aims to start building the middle of the development first, expanding outward over the next five to 10 years. But Ashcroft isn't exactly off the hook with residents -- at least not yet.

As Allan put it, "Our question was, 'How long will this be the actual design?' Quite frankly, our concern is whether this was a sleight of hand. The concept drawings from a forward-looking architect look great, but would there be a bait and switch?"

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

[TransitZilla]

And let us hope that this is NOT approved as proposed:

http://www.brentcomrealty.com/flyers/1500Merivale.pdf

:yuck: :yuck: :yuck:

[Cre47]

So essentially, what was the studio portion of CTV was located will only be replaced with an eyesore... called parking spaces. The former CTV location deserves much better then this.

[Proof Sheet]

So essentially, what was the studio portion of CTV was located will only be replaced with an eyesore... called parking spaces. The former CTV location deserves much better then this.

Does that schwarma place on Merivale/Clyde and CD Warehouse stay.....it is pretty shit*ful in terms of street presence (the plan on the rendering).

[joeto11]

Wow now this looks like a nice new condo!! Gotham by Lamb developments!

http://www.lambdevcorp.com/gotham.php

[Luker]

Looks great, the balconies here are offset and still front on a glass clad facade - like the old cathedral project rendering, that was 'artsy' - but I like it alot in this case.. This is slender and well put together imo, however, hopefully the 18 stories don't pose a serious promise to it's existence... My real question is it in Deans' ward :( Hopefully not, any ideas on the location? Their is a parcel of land at Gotham private fronting onto merivale that this could fit in, although the houses rendered in do not fit.. ?

[OttawaSteve]

any ideas on the location?

This is a bit of a wild guess, but it looks to be 324-328 Gloucester and 224-226 Lyon:

http://chat.carleton.ca/~sjrifkin/lamb.jpg

http://chat.carleton.ca/~sjrifkin/lamb2.jpg

[rodionx]

This is a bit of a wild guess, but it looks to be 324-328 Gloucester and 224-226 Lyon:

Good catch. I think you're right. A parcel with roughly those dimensions was up for sale at Lyon and Gloucester a few years back. I posted about it somewhere in this forum. For what it's worth, there were two big trucks doing something there this afternoon. It's almost next door to the Richcraft site.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

That is an awesome render.

[rodionx]

Found the reference... If you scroll down this page (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=140055&page=2) you'll see that I mentioned the Gloucester and Lyon parcel was listed for 3.2 million back on July 10, 2008. The ad itself is long gone, of course, but that's gotta be it.

[Harley613]

oops wrong thread

[c_speed3108]

Here comes a HUGE one....The Oblate Order is thinking about selling its property in Ottawa East (next to St Paul University) for redevelopment.






Catholic orders take ‘a leap forward’ in planning city development


By Don Butler, The Ottawa Citizen January 30, 2011

One of central Ottawa’s largest parcels of undeveloped land — three-quarters the size of Lansdowne Park — is being readied for eventual sale.

And the property owners, the Ottawa East Community Association and city planners are working together to ensure that when the land is put on the market, any future redevelopment won’t trigger another Westboro-convent-style cat fight.

The Oblate Fathers, a Catholic religious order, owns most of the 12-hectare property on Main Street. Another Catholic order, the Sisters of the Sacred Heart, owns about one hectare of the site.

Much of the land, which adjoins Saint Paul University and is bounded by Springhurst Avenue, Clegg Street and the Rideau River, is now open space. But it also includes the Oblates’ historic Deschatelets Building, constructed in 1885, and a convent of more recent vintage for the nuns.

There’s no timetable yet for the sale of the property. “Developers aren’t anywhere near this project now,” said Jeff Polowin, a spokesman for the Oblates.

But a sale at some point is “inevitable,” said consultant Ted Fobert, who represents the Sisters of the Sacred Heart, because both religious orders are winding down as older members die and aren’t replaced.

“There’s a lot of elderly sisters who are in the building, a lot of them not healthy,” Fobert said. “It’s a question of timing. There’s nothing imminent, but they are preparing for that future.”

Last June, the two religious orders obtained a deferral of a draft community design plan for Ottawa East — in the works since 2006 — so they could work with the community association and the city to devise a mutually acceptable plan for the redevelopment of the lands.

The Oblates and the Sisters hired Bruno St. Jean from Montreal’s DCYSA architects to produce a “demonstration plan” for the property, which will be incorporated in the broader community design plan. It was presented, to generally favourable reviews, to community association members earlier this month.

The demonstration plan envisages 1,300 housing units in townhouses and apartment blocks between four and nine stories tall — enough for 3,000 or more residents. It also calls for retail development along Main Street and the preservation and repurposing of the Deschatelets Building, which the city is expected to designate as a heritage structure.

The plan preserves much of the land as open space, with buildings occupying only about 20 per cent of the site.

The existing tree-lined “grand allée” from Main Street to the Deschatelets Building would remain, though it would be flanked on both sides by four-to-six storey buildings, which would give it a “very European feel,” Fobert said. Public access to the river would be preserved through a 30-metre-wide corridor.

The plan includes some property owned by Saint Paul University — a parking lot now occupied on weekends by the Main Street farmers’ market — which the university would likely trade for some adjacent Oblate land.

Nobody expects the demonstration plan to be implemented intact when the land is actually developed, though Fobert said whatever happens there “will be fairly close.”

Its main purpose is to illustrate how to create “a sustainable community within an existing community,” said Nick Masciantonio, president of the Ottawa East Community Association.

“We’re trying to get in front of the process a bit, because in the development process, there really isn’t a lot of time to react,” he said. “There’s a number of things there that will be taken out of negotiations with a future buyer, we hope.”

If city council agrees, the demonstration plan will form the template for rezoning the land — now zoned for institutional use only — in advance of any sale.

That would make it easier to determine the land’s resale value and add “a level of certainty” about future opportunities on the site, Fobert said.

It also would reduce the likelihood that future developers would propose projects unacceptable to neighbours, as happened at the Soeurs de la Visitation convent site in Westboro, which Ashcroft Homes purchased for $12 million in 2009.

And it would help protect legacy features — including the Deschatelets Building, the grand allée and a small woodlot and Madonna statue — the two religious orders are anxious to preserve.

David Chernushenko, the city councillor for the area, said the collaborative process has been “a leap forward compared with most potential developments in this city.”

Chernushenko’s also impressed with what he’s seen of the demonstration plan. “I look at this and go, wow, what a great opportunity,” he said. “This could be a real showpiece. It’s got sustainability, its got community livability and quality of life written all over it.”

Neighbours remain wary. John Baglow, who lives adjacent to the Oblate lands, said people are “a bit apprehensive. It does make us a bit nervous to think of a 1,300-home development taking the place of a very nice, pristine bit of green space.”

Traffic implications and the height of some apartment blocks worry those who live near the site, Baglow said. Despite that, he isn’t opposed to redevelopment of the property. “I just want to know more and have some safeguards built in.”

Chernushenko has heard concerns about the height of the apartments. However, some of the existing historical buildings are almost as tall, he said. “I would say to the community, ‘keep an open mind.’

“It is Oblate land,” he said. “To some degree, they can do what they want with it. But we all acknowledge that if you choose to take that approach, you waste a lot of time and money on lawyers.”

The two religious orders acknowledge that raking in huge profits at the expense of the surrounding community would be incompatible with their values, Chernushenko said.

At the same time, “they’re thinking of the retirement of their own religious order and being able to support their own aging members. This is about the only source of income. I think it’s possible to have a win-win out of that.”

Masciantonio said the community design plan, including the plan for the Oblate lands, will be presented at an open house in mid-to-late February. If all goes well, it will go to city council in March.

dbutler@ottawacitizen.com
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Catholic+orders+take+leap+forward+planning+city+development/4193520/story.html#ixzz1Cdb4QrOq

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/4193521.bin?size=620x400

[Harley613]

pretty exciting. i live on main street. this piece of land has incredible potential if it's developed properly. don't understand why 4-9 stories would be 'too tall', but hey it's ottawa. the st. paul university residence is 7 stories tall and 99.9% of the city doesn't even know it exists. 4-9 is perfect scale for this space. i'm glad to hear they are preserving the deschatelets building...it's truly one of the handsomest old buildings in ottawa.

[Proof Sheet]

pretty exciting. i live on main street. this piece of land has incredible potential if it's developed properly. don't understand why 4-9 stories would be 'too tall', but hey it's ottawa. the st. paul university residence is 7 stories tall and 99.9% of the city doesn't even know it exists. 4-9 is perfect scale for this space. i'm glad to hear they are preserving the deschatelets building...it's truly one of the handsomest old buildings in ottawa.

I agree this has great potential and without any formal application it is all just conceptual at this time.

I wish all parties involved all the luck in the world in dealing with the local community association....

[Dado]

I agree this has great potential and without any formal application it is all just conceptual at this time.

I wish all parties involved all the luck in the world in dealing with the local community association....

People on this forum complaining about local community associations/residents complaining about development/height is just about as predictable as community associations/residents complaining about development/height.

In this case, RTFA:

Its main purpose is to illustrate how to create “a sustainable community within an existing community,” said Nick Masciantonio, president of the Ottawa East Community Association.

[Proof Sheet]

People on this forum complaining about local community associations/residents complaining about development/height is just about as predictable as community associations/residents complaining about development/height.

In this case, RTFA:

Its main purpose is to illustrate how to create “a sustainable community within an existing community,” said Nick Masciantonio, president of the Ottawa East Community Association.

What does 'RTFA' refer to.

I've had personal experience with this Community Association and it wasn't good.

In many ways people in favour of height/density have little common ground with those who want to preserve their neighbourhood the way it is.....

[citizen j]

As others have argued, the city needs to put into clear and legally binding language a minimum density level for new developments. That way, no one's surprised by (OMG) developers' proposals to build anything higher than a bungalow next door. Yes, if I lived close by, I'd wish all of that land would remain open green space, too. And while some public space should be built into the development, keeping the whole thing undeveloped is neither reasonable nor sustainable. Waterloowarrior recently posted a link to this article and I think its focus on low density in the suburbs bears repeating here in this case inside the Greenbelt.

http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/greaterottawa/archive/2011/01/21/we-re-not-building-suburbs-any-denser.aspx

[ServiceGuy]

What does 'RTFA' refer to.
Polite version = "Read the Freaking Article"

[Proof Sheet]

Polite version = "Read the Freaking Article"

Thanks...greatly appreciated.

[Dado]

What does 'RTFA' refer to.

http://www.internetslang.com/RTFA.asp


I've had personal experience with this Community Association and it wasn't good.

In many ways people in favour of height/density have little common ground with those who want to preserve their neighbourhood the way it is.....

Here's a thought: how about we let the community, the city and the orders come up with something together. Maybe treating neighbours with a modicum of respect might yield better results than belittling them. It can't possibly be worse than the alternative employed by Ashcroft.


As others have argued, the city needs to put into clear and legally binding language a minimum density level for new developments. That way, no one's surprised by (OMG) developers' proposals to build anything higher than a bungalow next door. Yes, if I lived close by, I'd wish all of that land would remain open green space, too. And while some public space should be built into the development, keeping the whole thing undeveloped is neither reasonable nor sustainable. Waterloowarrior recently posted a link to this article and I think its focus on low density in the suburbs bears repeating here in this case inside the Greenbelt.

How about we start here...

And let us hope that this is NOT approved as proposed:

http://www.brentcomrealty.com/flyers/1500Merivale.pdf

:yuck: :yuck: :yuck:

There's absolutely no danger of the Oblate property being redeveloped at too low a density. No minimum is needed there. It might end up lower than some of the density and height fanatics here might like, but that in of itself doesn't make it too low. The CTV property, on the other hand, well, as we can see above, there is a clear and present danger of too low a density - and in a location where there is a very good opportunity for redevelopment without any of those pesky nimbys to complain about it. The entire Baseline-Clyde-Merivale triangle, being surrounded by commercial and office uses on all sides while being relatively underdeveloped itself, and which will have a major bus corridor running along the north edge, is the sort of location where we should be focusing intensification. It even has many of the retail uses needed to support high density residential and commercial, like grocery stores, pharmacies, banks and restaurants. The single property holding above, since it is so large and touches all three streets, could, if developed properly, be a catalyst for further urbanizing of this suburban area.

[cityguy]

The Gotham looks interesting.

[citizen j]

Yes, Dado, you're right. That proposal is egregious.

[Harley613]

putting a nice development on merivale south of baseline is like putting lipstick on a pig. if we have to have another power centre, might as well put it there...smack dab in the middle of the wasteland.

[McC]

Merivale south of Meadowlands is hopeless, but I think it still has a lot of promise north of there. There's no reason that this Merivale-Clyde-Baseline triangle couldn't be developed with the same kind of density as is planend for the next phase of Central Park a block North, with a mix of apartments, hi-density townhouses, street-focused retail and another retirement home. There's so much potentially revenue-generating space wasted as free parking in that plan... funny that I'm left wanting the city to force the property owner to increase the value of their own land!

[Cre47]

Does that schwarma place on Merivale/Clyde and CD Warehouse stay.....it is pretty shit*ful in terms of street presence (the plan on the rendering).

Haven't seen or heard anything on that though. The plan just mentions retail on that same spot and that's it.


One positive thing though is that field of weeds that is adjacent to Loblaws or right near the entrance to the former A-Channel studios will be gone if all goes as planned. Being at such a passing road, that is quite an eyesore.

[Uhuniau]

Merivale south of Meadowlands is hopeless, but I think it still has a lot of promise north of there. There's no reason that this Merivale-Clyde-Baseline triangle couldn't be developed with the same kind of density as is planend for the next phase of Central Park a block North, with a mix of apartments, hi-density townhouses, street-focused retail and another retirement home. There's so much potentially revenue-generating space wasted as free parking in that plan... funny that I'm left wanting the city to force the property owner to increase the value of their own land!

Agreed. Merivale between Meadowlands and Baseline could be mainstreeted over time... if there was any will to do so.

[eternallyme]

Agreed. Merivale between Meadowlands and Baseline could be mainstreeted over time... if there was any will to do so.

I agree about Merivale between Meadowlands and Baseline (the Clyde intersection would need to be redesigned) and I also disagree about Merivale south of Meadowlands being hopeless. I think it can easily be redeveloped as far south as Colonnade before it enters the mixed industrial zone. The former CTV studios area would be where I would relocate Clyde to, so Merivale curves itself.

Merivale Mall would be prime for redevelopment (small strips and malls are definitely out of style these days) and it could easily be shifted onto Merivale Road. With the possible exception of a few boxes on the east side, there could easily be small buildings built right on Merivale throughout as it is almost all parking lots (and small parkland) directly fronting.

From Viewmount to Colonnade, there is some residential on the west side (not exactly desirable residential either, I don't think they would mind selling to the city) and Merivale High School and Arena could be the backing of a community area (i.e. library, small recreational and artistic) in that area. IMO, the high school at Woodroffe/Hunt Club should be closed (since I have other thoughts for that area) and moved to Merivale and renovated there.

[rakerman]

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5220/5419256448_466316908b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/rakerman/5419256448/)
DSC03654 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/rakerman/5419256448/) by rakerman (http://www.flickr.com/people/rakerman/), on Flickr

[waterloowarrior]

^ http://www.thebergehomes.com/westpines/index.html

http://www.thebergehomes.com/graphics/westpines_announcement.png

[rakerman]

^ http://www.thebergehomes.com/westpines/index.html

Those renderings are hilarious. Hello homes actually on narrow strip of land between a residential street and a busy highway (Greenbank) that is metres away from the onramp to the Queensway. I suppose "west hellish asphalt wasteland" would have had less of a ring to it.

[reidjr]

On ctv i just heard that the old cjoh studios are going to be torn down and a shopping centre will be built does anyone know about this?

[Cre47]

So they will remove the five-storey building? - though it seems to be shown in that plan or did they left the remains for that long? If the five-storey building is gone, not much of a loss (sorry CJOH for that harsh comment), it looked so ugly anyways. Put up some better buildings there and maybe taller as well - considering the plan on the link below shows proposed new buildings not specifing the height. 10-12 stories wouldn't be a bad idea.

http://www.brentcomrealty.com/flyers/1500Merivale.pdf

Not sure if the building that is identified as Retail A1 and Retail A2 was the old CHRO location itself.

Edit: The studio section is still up and mostly boarded. What an eyesore! This and that adjacent lot I've mentionned makes that Baseline to Clyde segment brutal. The excess parking space that will occupy the studio will mean that lot will remain an eyesore. With the eventuality of a BRT corridor along Baseline, that triangle perimeter deserves better.

[Exewau]

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5220/5419256448_466316908b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/rakerman/5419256448/)
DSC03654 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/rakerman/5419256448/) by rakerman (http://www.flickr.com/people/rakerman/), on Flickr

Same builder as my place at "Wellington at Island Park", coincidently with same move-in date.:rolleyes:

[reidjr]

Does anyone has gotham ottawa been approved?

[Cre47]

Another case of NIMBYISM in the Greenbank area.
http://www.emcimport.com/infomart/images/46677-12040.jpg

Opposition to condo proposal shows intensification divide
Posted Feb 10, 2011 By Steph Willems
Email Print Tweet ThisTweet This


The building proposed by DCR Phoenix for the corner of Greenbank Road and Craig Henry Drive would be six storeys tall and contain 72 dwelling units. Residents accused the developer of greed for proposing higher density within a low-density neighbourhood.

EMC News - A new front in the fight against intensification in existing neighbourhoods was opened in Nepean on Jan. 31 as Craig Henry residents reacted angrily to a developer's proposal for a six-storey condominium building.

The community meeting held at the Trend Arlington Community Building was moderated by Stewart Kronberg, president of the Trend Arlington Community Association, and attended by city planner Prescott McDonald, Knoxdale-Merivale Coun. Keith Egli and DCR Phoenix planning manager Bill Buchanan. The meeting saw 60 residents turn out in full opposition to the proposed building, which would be located at the northeast corner of Greenbank Road and Craig Henry Drive.

The 72-unit building would be built on three properties that are in the process of being sold to DCR Phoenix. Currently, those properties are occupied by the same type of single-detached homes that make up the surrounding neighbourhood.

The site is bordered by commercial property to the north and south, a church to the west, and a residential cul-de-sac to the east.

"The owners (of the three homes) approached us with a view to sell," said Buchanan, adding that the development would fit within the city's Official Plan (which calls for intensification inside the greenbelt).

Though the property is zoned General Mixed-Use, permitting a wide variety of uses, the developer will be submitting a rezoning application to increase the allowable building height from the current 10 metres to 20 metres to accommodate the building. DCR Phoenix also plans to reduce the number of parking spaces from the mandatory 88 (1.2 spots per unit) to 79. Of these, 66 would be underground.

After detailing his company's intentions, Buchanan opened up the floor for questions. Things got off to a loud start when the first speaker, a long-time resident of the community, yelled, "I've been living there 30 years, those houses have been there 30 years and it's worked fine - how would you like a high-rise in your backyard?"

After decorum was re-established by Egli, Buchanan answered the question by saying, "It probably wouldn't bother me that much," a response that was met with scoffs and jeers.

The list of concerns regarding the impact of the building on the surrounding community was numerous. The proposal shows a single entrance onto Craig Henry, concerns surrounded an increased level of traffic on that roadway and the resulting danger to children attending the two nearby schools. However, a traffic study commissioned by the developer and delivered to the city showed that the roadway (and Greenbank, too) could handle the increase in volume.

"We've taken a traffic study and I have to rely on them," said Buchanan. "They say (the roads) can handle it, whether you want to accept it or not."

This claim was met with suspicion, and several audience members accused the study of not being legitimate, saying the roadway was already at capacity.

"The traffic study will be posted online (on the city's website) for all to see," said McDonald.

One resident asked Buchanan how his conscience would handle someone being killed in the future by a car originating from the development.

The proposed building is arranged in a 'L' shape, with the northern block extending further to the back of the property (25 feet from the property line), while the southern block would be 80 feet from the property line to accommodate parking and a landscaped rear entrance. Setbacks from the sidewalk would be three metres (10 feet).

Teacher Wes Friedrich, who lives on the Wade Court property that would be closest to the building, expressed his sadness over not being able "to see blue sky again" if the building is built. Rather than oppose the development outright, he asked Buchanan if a three-storey building (which would fit within existing height zoning) was a viable alternative.

"It's a question of economics," answered Buchanan. "You could not do it and make a profit if you were limited to three storeys, due the cost of purchasing the properties, constructing the building and city fees."

Buchanan said the developer has looked at other options for the site, but (economically) they didn't pan out.

The subject of intensification as a whole then became the subject of debate, with one woman angrily demanding to know who approved such a policy.

"Did the desire (for intensification) come from the community?" she asked.

Egli, who explicitly stated he will not be supporting the developer's proposal, explained the intentions of the previous city council, who created the policy to decrease rampant urban sprawl and the destruction of natural areas outside the greenbelt.

Long-time resident Dr. Ian Carpenter raised the possibility of this development leading to a series of similar developments in the area. The value of neighbouring homes will decrease, he said, without any compensation from the developer.

Buchanan countered this by saying home resale prices are rising in Ottawa and are effected little, if at all, by nearby residential developments.

"The last house that sold on Wade Court was over $300,000 - these houses have increased in value," said Buchanan. "The argument that property values will be lowered - that's a myth."

Because the developer proposes fewer parking spaces, which Buchanan said was to encourage the use of public transit, several incredulous residents asked to know where the overflow of cars would be parked.

"No one has just one car," said one man. "Where will the 140 cars go?"

He was told by Buchanan that if a potential resident wanted to own two cars, there were plenty of housing options available elsewhere to accommodate that desire.

Because DCR Phoenix plans to take their proposal to the Ontario Municipal Board if the city's planning committee (and council) rejects it, many residents asked Egli what they could do to fight the proposal. His response was to make presentations to planning committee when the rezoning application is brought up (on April 26). They could also appeal the development to the OMB themselves.

Some asked what the cost of another traffic study, one not commissioned by the developer, would cost.

At this point Buchanan dispensed some advice to the residents, saying that the people performing traffic studies do so with an OMB hearing in mind (meaning the results have to stand up to scrutiny).

"If an outside transportation engineer comes up with his own study, he has to support it at the OMB - it doesn't matter whether he likes the developer or not," said Buchanan. "Don't come to the OMB hearing and say you're sure traffic is going to increase. You'd better be able to produce someone who can prove it - the OMB is a fact-based board."

At the end of the hour-and-a-half meeting, few (if any) people had changed their opinion, with many continuing to assert their property values would go down, the developer could make a profit off a three-storey building, and some asking Egli if the city would pay for another traffic study on their behalf.

Following the meeting, Egli told the EMC he supported intensification in theory, and mentioned the site in question could handle a three-storey townhome project like the many that are being erected on former single-detached lots on Carling Avenue.

Because such projects (like those built by DMRG Developments, Doyle Homes and Mulligan S H) retail for $600,000 and more, Egli was asked if the city's growing population could be accommodated (and sprawl prevented) by building luxury homes on sites within the greenbelt.

Without price points on how inexpensive a three-storey development could be built on that site, Egli couldn't comment on that, saying instead, "It's a difficult issue - you want to maintain the greenbelt while intensifying as well. When I was knocking on doors during my campaign, I asked residents whether the city should maintain the greenbelt and urban boundary. They said 'sure', but then I asked them whether they'd be willing to see a higher density development in their community to ensure that happened. It's complicated - intensification will be a challenge for this council."

[OttawaSteve]

Residents accused the developer of greed for proposing higher density within a low-density neighbourhood.

You know what's greedy?

People occupying single dwellings, each on ~5000 sq feet of valuable land in the middle of an urban area, viewing this "property" as somehow constituting their own rightful and sovereign domain.

People who think that this "ownership" furthermore entitles them to dictate (yell) to planners and developers of other pieces of land how many people should or should not be housed there, in spite of the official plan, traffic studies, ecological consequences, logic, reason, etc.

:gaah:

[Proof Sheet]

You know what's greedy? [/LIST]

People occupying single dwellings, each on ~5000 sq feet of valuable land in the middle of an urban area, viewing this "property" as somehow constituting their own rightful and sovereign domain.
:gaah:

Good post....you know I could do a sideline gig writing on behalf of the EMC where the article and the related development timeline basically goes along the line of:

1...City Planner outlines the Planning Act and the process (people's eyes glaze over)
2..developer shows proposal and outlines how it meets City infill criteria (public scoff and shout insults)
3..public rant at developer, City Staff and Councillor....'we moved here and the real estate agent promised us that would be a field forever', increased noise, pollution, drug dealing, parking on their street, permanent shadowing, overcrowded schools, roads, increased taxes, decreased property values
4...developer/City staff pack up their easels (and sometimes meet for a post meeting beverage) and leave
5...residents of this so called close community acquaint themselves with one another for the 1st time and try and bend the ear of the Councillor
6...OMB appeals get filed by one of the parties after Council do not support Planning Dep't position....community association are ill prepared and withdraw from the hearing on the friday afternoon beforehand after they can't get credible witnesses.
7....development proceeds

[waterloowarrior]

Good post....you know I could do a sideline gig writing on behalf of the EMC where the article and the related development timeline basically goes along the line of:

1...City Planner outlines the Planning Act and the process (people's eyes glaza over)
2..developer shows proposal and outlines how it meets City infill criteria (public scoff and shout insults)
3..public rant at developer, City Staff and Councillor....'we moved here and the real estate agent promised us that would be a field forever', increased noise, pollution, drug dealing, parking on their street, permanent shadowing, overcrowded schools, roads, increased taxes, decreased property values
4...developer/City staff pack up their easels (and sometimes meet for a post meeting beverage) and leave
5...residents of this so called close community acquaint themselves with one another for the 1st time and try and bend the ear of the Councillor
6...OMB appeals get filed by one of the parties after Council do not support Planning Dep't position....community association are ill prepared and withdraw from the hearing on the friday afternoon beforehand after they can't get credible witnesses.
7....development proceeds

great post to read on a Friday afternoon :haha:

here's the application documents

http://app01.ottawa.ca/postingplans/appDetails.jsf?lang=en&appId=__7EC5KD

streetview
http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=greenbank+and+craig+henry,+ottawa&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Greenbank+Rd+%26+Craig+Henry+Dr,+Ottawa,+Ottawa+Division,+Ontario+K2H+5S7&gl=ca&ll=45.329771,-75.78234&spn=0.003175,0.008256&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=45.330089,-75.781809&panoid=hF9VZClhe0Vthhso1mehTg&cbp=12,36.91,,0,11.96

[Dado]

Were something like this to be proposed in Westboro (i.e. 6 storeys), it would probably just get waived on through since it is pretty much what the CDP here calls for, though this specific design might be criticized for not having any ground floor retail if it was on Richmond.

Of course, people on this forum love to paint the inhabitants of Westboro as NIMBYs - without ever producing any real evidence, naturally - and likely won't admit that projects like this would go through with a minimum of complaint.

And even when a developer does come along with a proposal as outrageous as the convent proposal, violating just about every planning document in sight and treating people with an attitude that borders on contempt, no one actually starts the evening's proceedings by outright yelling at the developer.

What you've got in Nepean is real raw NIMBYism, not the trumped-up alleged NIMBYism of Westboro or the Glebe. People on here would do well to remind themselves from time to time what real NIMBYism looks like rather than constantly tarring everyone anywhere who opposes something with accusations of it.


As to the project as proposed...

Firstly, from the article I found the attitude of the developer to be arrogant and condescending. Already he's saying he'll head to the OMB if his rezoning application is not granted - so basically instead of taking a decision of Council like an adult he'll instead run off to the OMB to get his way. His discussion on the OMB and traffic studies was particularly condescending. Anyone who knows anything about the OMB will also know that it is not exactly a "fact-based" body. Zoning requests should be an infrequent request that are approved by Council even less frequently and approved by the OMB less frequently still. The fact that the opposite is the case indicates something profoundly wrong with the planning system. Accordingly, he's carrying on as if he knows the OMB will support his rezoning application, so he really doesn't care what the neighbours think. It's not clear how much of this came out during the presentation and how much after the questions started, but if his attitude was on display during the presentation it's perhaps less surprising that the neighbours reacted so angrily. This is one of the biggest problems created by the OMB - developers have no reason to act like adults when meeting communities, and neither do the residents. Until the OMB is dissolved, the City might as well get rid of the requirement to hold public consultations because they serve no identifiable purpose.

Anyway, leaving aside the immature behaviour of just about everyone but the councillor, the site in question consists of three properties that are all single-storey bungalows with driveways on Greenbank... not good. Replacing these three with something else is without a doubt a good idea, assuming the entrance is relocated to Craig Henry.

The image accompanying the article is pretty disappointing, and it's clear that the mixed use zoning is not going to be used, but instead will be residential only despite being between other commercial spaces. With office commercial, a church, a high school and a middle school in the area plus the development itself, one might think that there would be a market for a café (say at the corner) or something similar at the least. Since they have no ground-level activity, they're going to have a setback of 3 m from Greenbank.

Despite being a major road, Greenbank doesn't have a major transit route along it (just two local routes), so the proponent's talk of transit use is probably overoptimistic.

I also have to wonder about the developer's claim that a three-storey development wouldn't be economic. These properties are not exactly choice properties as houses - after all, they're on Greenbank - so it's not like they paid a minor fortune for each of these lots (and if they did, that was dumb). They each look to be 60'x170' lots. The developer noted that the last house sold on nearby Wade Crescent (bigger, newer houses on smaller lots but not on Greenbank) went for $300,000, so we can assume that the cost of these properties is in the same range (bigger lot but less favourable location and less valuable house). The fact that the three homeowners came forward together to sell indicates that they felt that they would get a better price by doing so than selling one-by-one, which indicates that their selling options were actually quite constrained. The developer would still have had a fair amount of bargaining power, so overpayment should not have been an issue.

Give the size of the property (which opens up different design options), its location and probable value, I just don't buy the "it's not economic" argument. I basically agree with Egli's observation that 3-storey townhouse developments are being built on [more prime] properties on Carling (there's one going in across from the Nepean Yacht Club!). There are townhouse infills all over the city on far pricier properties than this one. We also have the example of the 3-storey apartment on Hunt Club, though it's being built on a vacant lot. At any rate, it should be possible to make an economically viable 10-15 unit 3-storey townhouse development on this site that wraps the intersection corner, or a 4-storey development with a mix of ground-oriented units, retail and apartments, all without running into a need to provide underground parking. If that's uneconomic, then just replace the houses with semis.

If they're not going to put in any mix of uses, I really don't see the rationale to get more than the zoning permits here. They bought the properties knowing the zoning. If, as they say, it's uneconomic to build what the zoning allows then they should just fix up the houses they bought and resell them (after all, property values are rising, says the developer). It's not the responsibility of the City or the OMB to change zoning so as to ensure that developers make a return on their property purchases. The point of zoning is to make it clear what is and isn't allowed before property is acquired, and to set bids accordingly.

[waterloowarrior]

Zoning is an implementation tool of the Official Plan, it's meant to be flexible. Almost every proposal out there needs some kind of modification to the zoning. The zoning on a property can frequently be outdated or irrelevant (e.g. has site-specific provisions based on a proposal that never ended up happening). If zoning wasn't intended to be easily changed there wouldn't be a minor variance process. Not sure how many variances there were last year but 2008-250 was amended (http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/bylaw/a_z/zoning/parts/pt_16/appendix_b_en.html) over 100 times in 2010.

But a pro forma shouldn't really be used as a planning rationale :)

[blackjagger]

Dado,
I was going to comment about that rant, but don't want to be rude and after three attempts I kept sounding like a jack a$$.

Anyways,
I think this development has alot of potential. Commerical or walkup units at grade, 0m setback from Greenbank property line, stepbacks on floors 5 & 6 at the building closest to the rear lot line, and perhaps a setback for the 5th & 6the floor along Greenbank to reduce the visual impact would make it great. Greenbank could easily be a Arterial Main Street with a little effort.

Cheers,
Josh

[citizen j]

How to begin to respond?

Yes, the developers bought the property knowing that the zoning was for 10m, not 20m. So, if they would just play by the rules, everything would be fine. The neighbours, naturally, would have no objections to a 10m block rising at their property line and shading their backyards. And no one would complain over a 3-storey multi-unit monolith rising so close to the Holy of Holies -- a single-family home. (See complaints over 3 storeys in this suburban neighbourhood: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=188357) And there would be no appeals to the OMB by the community association or the residents in the immediate vicinity because they understand that zoning is zoning and so, logically, the developer can do whatever he/she wants within the limits of current zoning and, thus, no appeals to city council or the OMB to make an exception (variance) to the existing zoning would be justified based on the details of this specific case.

I thought not.

[waterloowarrior]

for future reference, Phoenix is calling the Greenbank/Craig Henry building "Arlington Square"
http://www.phoenixhomes.ca/communities/communities_future_overview.cfm?com=37

marketing site plan
http://www.phoenixhomes.ca/documents/communities/sitePlans/sitePlan_37.pdf

[rakerman]

I couldn't find a separate thread for this. Is it considered another phase of Tribeca? It's pretty close by.

Developer presses forward with Centretown tower (http://ottawa.openfile.ca/ottawa/file/2010/12/developer-presses-forward-centretown-tower)

Local developer Claridge Homes says it won’t wait for the completion of a community planning initiative before it moves forward with a new 27-storey condominium in Centretown.

Claridge recently submitted an application to amend zoning bylaws that would let the proposed apartment tower grow taller and wider than current rules allow.

If approved, the tower would span 89 and 91 Nepean Street (between Metcalfe and O’Connor streets), and it would sit beside a nine-storey apartment building and seven-storey office building.

[McC]

I couldn't find a separate thread for this. Is it considered another phase of Tribeca? It's pretty close by.
Developer presses forward with Centretown tower (http://ottawa.openfile.ca/ottawa/file/2010/12/developer-presses-forward-centretown-tower)

the thread is here: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=186817

[Cre47]

Support pillars are starting to be set up at the St-Joseph/Caron building

[reidjr]

Support pillars are starting to be set up at the St-Joseph/Caron building

I am sorry what is going up i am unware of this project?

[Cre47]

I am sorry what is going up i am unware of this project?

That's a 10 floor buildings, that might be occupied by Environment Canada (though not sure), which is the main tenant of the existant 21-story Place Vincent Massey.

First time, I was aware of this project was seeing the crane, initially thinking it was just parking renovation of PVM.

[danny the dog]

Is there something going on at the Rideau Centre? As I passed by this morning there was a some kind of crane in the parking lot facing Rideau street. Is it possible it just has to do with some of the construction/renovations going on inside the mall?

[kevinbottawa]

This morning I read an article from January's OBJ where a reader commented on the need for a heated pedestrian bridge connected the National Arts Centre and the new waterfront plaza/Ottawa Convention Centre. http://www.obj.ca/Local/Tourism/2011-01-10/article-2103765/Conventions,-increased-culinary-experiences-on-tap-for-tourism-industry-in-2011/1

I though it was an interesting idea so I did a blog post about it just now (http://reinventingottawa.blogspot.com). The decision makers in the city aren't on this forum, but I'd be interested to hear what you think.

[gjhall]

From my understanding, the NAC/OCC/NCC are interested in a link below the canal.

[ThaLoveDocta]

From my understanding, the NAC/OCC/NCC are interested in a link below the canal.

that's too bad... bridges add so much more to the skyline if designed tastefully.

[McC]

that's too bad... bridges add so much more to the skyline if designed tastefully.

it seems to me that it would be kind of tricky to integrate a high level bridge into the glass bubble of the Convention Centre, so I think it would probably have to be a lift bridge, which I'm sure would be overruled as unsafe, etc...

[gjhall]

It seems to me that it would be better to just improve the Mackenzie King bridge which already connects the OCC and NAC at their edges.

[McC]

It seems to me that it would be better to just improve the Mackenzie King bridge which already connects the OCC and NAC at their edges.

couple of new doors and an end to the wall o' buses post-LRT in 2075 could do the trick nicely.

[harls]

That's a 10 floor buildings, that might be occupied by Environment Canada (though not sure), which is the main tenant of the existant 21-story Place Vincent Massey.

First time, I was aware of this project was seeing the crane, initially thinking it was just parking renovation of PVM.

Do you have any idea what it is going to look like? I went by there recently and they have zero information at their site.. only the names of the contractor (Boless) and design firm (DCSYA). I went to DCSYA website and they have nothing on there about this place, unless it's buried somewhere deep inside.

The crane looks super huge for just 10 storeys (not saying I don't believe you, just does..)

[kevinbottawa]

From what the guy on the OBJ site said I think he meant a pedestrian bridge from Le Cafe on the NAC side to that new waterfront plaza on the OCC side. At least that's what I meant. A literal bridge from the OCC to the NAC would be weird.

[McC]

From what the guy on the OBJ site said I think he meant a pedestrian bridge from Le Cafe on the NAC side to that new waterfront plaza on the OCC side. At least that's what I meant. A literal bridge from the OCC to the NAC would be weird.

which would have to be a lift bridge or a swing bridge to let boats through

[Cre47]

Do you have any idea what it is going to look like? I went by there recently and they have zero information at their site.. only the names of the contractor (Boless) and design firm (DCSYA). I went to DCSYA website and they have nothing on there about this place, unless it's buried somewhere deep inside.

The crane looks super huge for just 10 storeys (not saying I don't believe you, just does..)

Haven't seen any renderings just yet either. Probably just a simple box in my thinking.

[gjhall]

which would have to be a lift bridge or a swing bridge to let boats through

Hmm...I don't know how I feel about that. Might be better to improve the canal-front up to Confederation Bridge/Square and make that a more natural connection. I guess I generally think this isn't a super high priority compared with improvements that could be done in the area.

[ThaLoveDocta]

which would have to be a lift bridge or a swing bridge to let boats through

just has to maintain the same clearances as the one at uOttawa

offset suspension or floating deck designs would really spark the look.