PDA

View Full Version : General Update/Rumour thread


Pages : 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70

clynnog
Jan 9, 2008, 3:37 PM
^ yes, last summer they refurbished the entire P-Can station..it was quite a relic before. That intersection is probably the best location for a gas station in the city as flocks of quebec commuters take advantage of 5-cent-a-litre cheaper gas before scooting home across the bridge.

Is the difference still that high between Ottawa and Gatineau. I know Mtl is always more but I thought Gatineau competed with Ottawa for gas.

Whoever buys that PCan for higher density development in the future will likely have to content with some cleanup costs. I can't imagine it is the cleanest site in town.

Kitchissippi
Jan 9, 2008, 6:27 PM
Excavating some 20 feet down is as good a clean up as any.

As the only remaining gas station on Rideau Street, it will be a long time until they give up that location. in fact is there another gas station in Sandy Hill or Lowertown?

Acajack
Jan 9, 2008, 6:29 PM
I’d say it’s cheaper in Ottawa about 80 or 90% of the time. But generally when it’s lower in Gatineau, it’s only by a cent or less. When it’s cheaper in Ottawa, it’s usually by at least a few cents per litre.

For a Quebec resident, it’s worth it to gas up before crossing the bridge if you happen to be in Ottawa, but I’d say leaving from Gatineau to go to Ottawa just for that purpose, most of the time you’d burn up most of your dollar savings in gas, unless you live right near the river in the downtown Vieux-Hull area.

Acajack
Jan 9, 2008, 6:30 PM
There is a Pioneer gas bar further east on Rideau St. near Augusta and Chapel.

harls
Jan 9, 2008, 6:37 PM
I’d say it’s cheaper in Ottawa about 80 or 90% of the time. But generally when it’s lower in Gatineau, it’s only by a cent or less. When it’s cheaper in Ottawa, it’s usually by at least a few cents per litre.

For a Quebec resident, it’s worth it to gas up before crossing the bridge if you happen to be in Ottawa, but I’d say leaving from Gatineau to go to Ottawa just for that purpose, most of the time you’d burn up most of your dollar savings in gas, unless you live right near the river in the downtown Vieux-Hull area.

Agreed. I'll gas up if I'm there, if not there's no real savings.

The gas stations on rue Principale in Aylmer used to be almost 10 cents lower than those in Hull for the longest time...now there's no difference with the rest of Gatineau. I'm thinking the new Shell station at Vanier/Alumettières had something to do with it.

Deez
Jan 9, 2008, 6:48 PM
There is a Pioneer gas bar further east on Rideau St. near Augusta and Chapel.

It closed last year.


I walked by Nate's today at lunch to read the development application notice. Claridge's proposal is for 14 storeys facing Rideau and 6 backing on to Besserer. Not that I'm entirely against this development (or any others on Rideau) but it's becoming increasingly frustrating watching existing retail being torn down to make way for these projects when the street is littered with parking lots. Are those properties worth more than their retail brethren?

It's also worth mentioning that on my way to the site I noticed that much of Rideau was cordoned off due to ANOTHER pedestrian being struck by a transport truck. There was blood on the pavement so it couldn't have ended well. How many more studies is it going to take...

Tor2Ott
Jan 9, 2008, 8:25 PM
OBJ article discusses some potential new office buildings in the core. Definitely good news...

http://www.ottawabusinessjournal.com/290722411235520.php

Aylmer
Jan 10, 2008, 1:18 AM
I smell new towers!

:)

waterloowarrior
Jan 10, 2008, 2:20 AM
It closed last year.


I walked by Nate's today at lunch to read the development application notice. Claridge's proposal is for 14 storeys facing Rideau and 6 backing on to Besserer. Not that I'm entirely against this development (or any others on Rideau) but it's becoming increasingly frustrating watching existing retail being torn down to make way for these projects when the street is littered with parking lots. Are those properties worth more than their retail brethren?

It's also worth mentioning that on my way to the site I noticed that much of Rideau was cordoned off due to ANOTHER pedestrian being struck by a transport truck. There was blood on the pavement so it couldn't have ended well. How many more studies is it going to take...

It would be interesting to see the MPAC data for those sites... it's probably a lot of numbered companies, but sometimes the address registered points to which company it is.

re: pedestrian
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/features/blotter/story.html?id=48df9cd7-8568-46f0-b791-b3c870e587a6&k=62129

AuxTown
Jan 10, 2008, 2:36 AM
Just build a freakin' bridge already!!!! Does anyone actually think that routing trucks through our downtown core is a good idea by any stretch of the imagination? And what about pedestrian safety? Neighbourhood aesthetics? There's no reason to continue with this crap.

harls
Jan 10, 2008, 1:23 PM
How about a tunnel from Laurier/Nicholas to the M-C Bridge?

(I know, I know.. the costs would be astronomical..)

eemy
Jan 10, 2008, 1:25 PM
How about a tunnel from Laurier/Nicholas to the M-C Bridge?

(I know, I know.. the costs would be astronomical..)

Wasn't the Vanier Parkway supposed to eventually connect to the M-C Bridge?

Aylmer
Jan 10, 2008, 2:13 PM
They could also build a bridge from brittania to Aylmer and build the 550 expressway and connect it to the qweensway via the river parkway...

Acajack
Jan 10, 2008, 2:21 PM
Yes, the Vanier Parkway was originally planned to lead all the way to the Macdonald-Cartier Bridge*.

Local Franco-Ontarian lore is that the new Vanier Parkway was run through the (at the time) majority French-speaking areas like Overbrook and Vanier, but that it was halted as soon as it hit the mainly anglo-populated areas that begin once you cross Beechwood.

Regarding Harls’ proposed tunnel near Ottawa U., I’d say any new plans on this subject are just going to set us back another 20 years when this has been delayed long enough already.

The logical bridge route is Montée Paiement to Aviation Parkway, which will necessitate a change in the parkway’s heavy truck ban (still doable though). All of the studies over the years have shown this to be the number one choice, but the main stumbling block is NIMBYism from people in Manor Park, even though the new bridge would actually be quite a distance from anyone’s “back yard”.

*BTW, does anyone on this forum know that francophone media in the region always refer to this bridge as Cartier-Macdonald rather than Macdonald-Cartier? Eeeeeeenteresting.

Mille Sabords
Jan 10, 2008, 2:31 PM
Yes, the Vanier Parkway was originally planned to lead all the way to the Macdonald-Cartier Bridge*.

Local Franco-Ontarian lore is that the new Vanier Parkway was run through the (at the time) majority French-speaking areas like Overbrook and Vanier, but that it was halted as soon as it hit the mainly anglo-populated areas that begin once you cross Beechwood.

Local lore is probably onto something, but the truth is also that the Vanier Parkway was built on a former railbed that served the old Vanier industrial rustbelt (of which the Dominion Bridge site is the final remnant, now being redeveloped by Claridge as Edinburg Common). But one way or another, these types of road-building projects were products of their era, the apex of the automobile age. The original plan, in fact, was to have a Décarie-style expressway along King Edward, but that would've meant destroying the entire block between King Edward and Nelson (there would be no Bytowne cinema today, just an on-ramp). That's how Action Sandy Hill was born in 1969. Back then they led the good fight... now they're just a bunch of grumpy old NIMBY's.

The logical bridge route is Montée Paiement to Aviation Parkway, which will necessitate a change in the parkway’s heavy truck ban (still doable though). All of the studies over the years have shown this to be the number one choice, but the main stumbling block is NIMBYism from people in Manor Park, even though the new bridge would actually be quite a distance from anyone’s “back yard”.

Yes, that is the logical choice. Politics will continue to cloud the issue but at the end of the day, the Aviation Parkway not only feeds directly into the 417 and therefore is the perfect downtown bypass without the wasted time of a long detour for trucks, but also, being an NCC parkway, iot has AMPLE GREEN SETBACKS protecting adjacent areas from noise and visual impacts. Unlike any other alignment, starting with King Edward but even Trim Road, where trucks would literally be under everyone's nose. It really is the only place for trucks to go.

*BTW, does anyone on this forum know that francophone media in the region always refer to this bridge as Cartier-Macdonald rather than Macdonald-Cartier? Eeeeeeenteresting.

One day, I'd like to mix a track called "Julie Trottier et la circulation", with her voice-over traffic shpiel over those electro beats she has going in the background. Ever notice how she speaks a little faster when she's doing the traffic shpiel? :yes: And she refers to the bridge as Cartier-MacDonald about 50% of the times...

Acajack
Jan 10, 2008, 4:48 PM
Julie is indeed “très spéciale”.

The common name for the bridge on the less intello, commercial francophone radio stations is actually “Cartier-Macdo” I think.

Marcus CLS
Jan 11, 2008, 2:59 AM
I am new to this site and threads. How can Councillor Holms be for Intensification and against local projects given that she is the "rep" for centretown. This is completely against city plans for intensification "inside the green belt"

The inter city ward councillors in Ottawa are so screwed up about whether they will get elected again they refuse to consider intensification over paving over Corn fields in Barrhaven et al.

While T.O. is building 50 story plus condos Ottawa reduces a 35 to 20 or a 10 to 6 because of the nimby's. The truth of the matter is if we can save some of the cornfields outside Ottawa by allowing more high rise condos. I am all for it, but the nimby's are rich, self centered people who care about nobody but themselves and not about a sustainable intelligeant growth of a city
.

lrt's friend
Jan 11, 2008, 4:23 AM
One thing I have learned very recently, intensification cannot exceed the capacity of your transportation network. A 50 story building can be built near a subway station but you cannot do the same next to the #2 bus route. Unless we are planning rapid transit within walking distance, it just won't work. This is why we are so desparately in need of a new rapid transit plan. This will dictate where intensification is most appropriate and some sort of electric rail (LRT or subway) will allow development immediately next to or right over stations.

AuxTown
Jan 11, 2008, 5:24 AM
I think if and when it (LRT) happens we will finally see the potential of Lebreton Flats. The two towers going up there are only the tip of the iceberg and I think there is potential to change the current site plan to allow for much taller (and more interesting) structures. I can't believe that Claridge will be the only builder for all of the phases....or maybe I just don't want to believe it.

lrt's friend
Jan 11, 2008, 2:06 PM
Just think how shortsighted the Urbandale LRT plan was to eliminate a station on Lebreton Flats to save money for building the downtown tunnel. If we want high density development on Lebreton Flats, there has to be a rapid transit station there.

Acajack
Jan 11, 2008, 3:19 PM
The Kettle Island (Montée Paiement-Aviation Parkway) is also logical because most of the interprovincial heavy truck traffic has two origins:

- intercity truck traffic between Montreal and Gatineau (Réno-Dépôt, Métro, etc. supplying the Outaouais from Montreal-area distribution and warehousing centres) that has to go through Ottawa via the 417 because of the lack of a good highway on the Quebec side

- local Ottawa-Gatineau truck traffic from large distribution and warehousing centres concentrated near the 417 in south-east Ottawa in the Innes/Star Top/Hawthorne/Walkley area supplying locations on the Quebec side

Couple this new bridge with the completion of Autoroute 50 to the Montreal area around 2010, and this will take substantial traffic pressure of the highly-distressed Lowertown/King Edward part of Ottawa.

Although it probably won’t be a main goal of the new bridge (certainly not stated by anybody!), Kettle Island will also alleviate some commuter traffic pressure, as origin/destination studies show that the inner east end of Ottawa is the second work trip generator on the Ontario side (after downtown Ottawa) for residents in the central/eastern part of Gatineau. Most of these people work just across the river from where they live, at places like Montfort, Cité collégiale, RCMP, francophone schools and school board headquarters. But currently they have to drive into what is basically downtown Ottawa (Lowertown) on King Edward when they have no business at all there, and then come back eastbound towards St. Laurent, Montreal Rd, etc. which is a very circuitous routing.

It’s the worst-kept secret in town that Ottawa politicians aren’t keen on new links to Quebec because they fear they’d lose residents and businesses to Gatineau if the traffic wasn’t so bad. But in this case, I think the situation around King Edward is getting so critical that they can no longer put off the logical solution.

Kitchissippi
Jan 11, 2008, 4:21 PM
The bad thing about the Kettle Island Bridge is that local commuter traffic would add strain on roads that cannot take more traffic during rush hour, like the Rockcliffe parkway and Montreal Road. On paper, a bridge would work there if there are no exits between Quebec and the 417.

Ottawa would not lose residents and businesses to Gatineau because of improved access because the issues are more than just location. It's about taxes, politics and language.

Acajack
Jan 11, 2008, 4:42 PM
The bad thing about the Kettle Island Bridge is that local commuter traffic would add strain on roads that cannot take more traffic during rush hour, like the Rockcliffe parkway and Montreal Road. On paper, a bridge would work there if there are no exits between Quebec and the 417.

If there is any road in this region where traffic could be referred to as “breeze”, it’s the Rockcliffe Parkway. Except in exceptional circumstances (snowstorms, accidents), you can drive the Rockcliffe Parkway at the speed limit between Orleans and the big curve at the lookout during rush hour pretty much any day of the year. I live and work on the Quebec side but often have personal business to attend to in Orleans and use this road all the time.

My only fear now is that the people in Orleans I know will be PO’d at me for giving away their best-kept-secret.

As far as Montreal Road is concerned, it’s no busier than any other comparable arterial in the region.

But in any event, the goal of a bridge at Kettle Island wouldn’t be to send more traffic onto Rockcliffe Parkway (or even that much on Montreal Road), but rather the Aviation Pkwy, which might even be referred to as underutilized. It would be used as a link the 417 to the 50. And commuters going to CMHC, La Cité collégiale, Montfort all end up on Montreal Road anyway at the moment, as do heavy trucks that currently make deliveries to these areas.

So, most of the traffic would be new through traffic (in the case of trucks) and traffic that’s already going through the area anyway (commuters).

Ottawa would not lose residents and businesses to Gatineau because of improved access because the issues are more than just location. It's about taxes, politics and language.

Agree 100% with this comment. I should have said “because of their IRRATIONAL fear they’d lose... etc.”. Warranted or not, the fear is still there.

Kitchissippi
Jan 11, 2008, 4:52 PM
It's not the traffic to Orleans I'm worried about it's the traffic from the proposed Kettle Island bridge to downtown Ottawa, which is the bigger flow during rush hour. There is no choice but to use the Rockcliffe Parkway, Hemlock/Beechwood, Montreal Road, or add traffic to the westbound Queensway. It basically will make up for the inadequacies of the des Draveurs and Lady Aberdeen bridges across the Gatineau River and dumps that problem on the Ontario side.

Acajack
Jan 11, 2008, 5:18 PM
If you look at the area on a map, I doubt that many people would use this bridge to go to downtown Ottawa, even if Des Draveurs and Lady Aberdeen are congested. Traffic may be bad on Aberdeen and Draveurs, but it’s not THAT bad. Sure the Rockcliffe Parkway is an easy drive almost to Rideau Hall, but after that you have to take narrow, busy streets like Sussex down behind the Château Laurier and the cross the canal on Rideau St. which is also something of a nightmare more often than not.

Not worth the hassle. I’d take my chances going directly into downtown Ottawa on Macdonald-Cartier or the Portage Bridge. If it’s going to be congested everywhere, may as well take the direct route.

And certainly, taking Montée Paiement down, across the river, and then Aviation Parkway to the 417 westbound to downtown Ottawa is not going to be an attractive option to almost anybody in Gatineau.

Don’t forget also that the new bridge would take some pressure off Macdonald-Cartier in particular, given that all of the people from Gatineau who work in east end Ottawa won’t have to use it anymore.

Of course, I don’t have many illusions with respect to traffic engineering, and am fully aware that new roads often bring more congestion, but we can’t deny that having thousands of heavy trucks navigating narrow, busy downtown Ottawa streets every day isn’t something that has to be urgently addressed.

Mille Sabords
Jan 11, 2008, 5:20 PM
The bad thing about the Kettle Island Bridge is that local commuter traffic would add strain on roads that cannot take more traffic during rush hour, like the Rockcliffe parkway and Montreal Road. On paper, a bridge would work there if there are no exits between Quebec and the 417.

Avoiding a logical alignment for a trucking bridge for the sole reason of preserving people's God-given right to fly down a road in their car is not a valid planning argument.

The first and most important problem is trucking through the core. The solution must eliminate trucking through the core first and foremost, and relocate the truck route on an alignment that will still be time-efficient for them. Trucking and industry are legitimate concerns. They trump selfish convenience.

More traffic on your road? Take transit. The attitude taken by too many is that we don't want OTHER cars in our way. OTHERS can take transit. OTHERS can be slowed down. Not us.

Sorry, that doesn't cut it.

Aylmer
Jan 11, 2008, 5:20 PM
The problem isn't urgent but unsightly...

Jamaican-Phoenix
Jan 11, 2008, 5:22 PM
The problem isn't urgent but unsightly...

Wrong. It is quite urgent.

Aylmer
Jan 11, 2008, 5:23 PM
It doesn't seem to cause problems but I would like them removed at all costs.

Kitchissippi
Jan 11, 2008, 5:48 PM
Avoiding a logical alignment for a trucking bridge for the sole reason of preserving people's God-given right to fly down a road in their car is not a valid planning argument.

The first and most important problem is trucking through the core. The solution must eliminate trucking through the core first and foremost, and relocate the truck route on an alignment that will still be time-efficient for them. Trucking and industry are legitimate concerns. They trump selfish convenience.

More traffic on your road? Take transit. The attitude taken by too many is that we don't want OTHER cars in our way. OTHERS can take transit. OTHERS can be slowed down. Not us.

Sorry, that doesn't cut it.

You're misreading my point, I am not advocating an exitless road, I'm just pointing out the downsides of that route.

We could actually alleviate the problem next week by allowing trucks to use St. Patrick and the Vanier Parkway *in the short term*. This is a far easier route for trucks rather than the narrow dogleg around Rideau Street and tight ramp at Nicholas which has seen quite a few truck spills.

Acajack
Jan 11, 2008, 5:51 PM
Aylmer Optimist,

This goes way beyond esthetic issues. There are serious health and quality of life issues related to the truck traffic problem in Lowertown.

Plus, if you spoke to anyone involved in economic development on the Quebec side of the river they would tell you the bottleneck in the King Edward and Rideau area is a serious impediment to attracting business and industries. This partly (but no solely) explains why there are so many Quebec-based companies in the industrial areas off the St Laurent, Innes and Walkley exits of the 417. Many of them serve both their Gatineau and Ottawa locations from the Ontario side of the river.

Easy transportation access is a key economic consideration for many of these businesses, and a huge handicap for Gatineau since almost anything shipped by truck in and out of the city has to negotiate a bunch of 90-degree turns and avoid dozens of cars and pedestrians in a busy urban setting.

Outaouais politicians a long time ago gave up on a solution that involves Ottawa, and that explains their eagerness to see Autoroute 50 completed. Perhaps they’ll eventually end up getting both, and the people of Lowertown can regain some semblance of quality of life, and Gatineau can develop its economy with transportation links that one would normally expect for a city of 250,000 people in 21st century North America.

Acajack
Jan 11, 2008, 6:02 PM
The St. Patrick/Vanier Pkwy. would certainly improve truck access to Gatineau, but it wouldn’t resolve the main problem (negative effects on people and neighbourhoods) from Ottawa’s perspective, since half of King Edward (between St. Patrick and the bridge) would still have heavy trucks on it. As well, you’d hand a new truck traffic problem off to the people who live St. Patrick, along which there are homes for much of the length between King Edward and the Rideau River.

Cre47
Jan 11, 2008, 6:07 PM
I've added a new thread on that in the Transportation section - so the discussion may be easier.

Kitchissippi
Jan 11, 2008, 6:08 PM
The St. Patrick/Vanier Pkwy. would certainly improve truck access to Gatineau, but it wouldn’t resolve the main problem (negative effects on people and neighbourhoods) from Ottawa’s perspective, since half of King Edward (between St. Patrick and the bridge) would still have heavy trucks on it. As well, you’d hand a new truck traffic problem off to the people who live St. Patrick, along which there are homes for much of the length between King Edward and the Rideau River.

Yes, but you would remove the fact that trucks have to negotiate with buses and pedestrians on the busier and more used area of Rideau Street. Again I am talking short term, just until a new bridge is figured out.

Deez
Jan 11, 2008, 6:55 PM
I'm going to have a field day with this one when I get off work.

Until then, consider these O-D numbers for all trips leaving the Quebec side in the morning (taken directly from the O-D survey trip database).

Ottawa Centre 12669
Ottawa Inner Area 5403
Ottawa East 2041
Beacon Hill 1566
Alta Vista 3677
Hunt Club 857
Merivale 2487
Ottawa West 3426
Bayshore 1242
Orleans 860
Rural East 47
Rural Southeast 68
South Gloucester 156
South Nepean 159
Rural Southwest 398
Kanata/Stitts 1112
Rural West 117
Gatineau (internal) 41844

clynnog
Jan 11, 2008, 9:59 PM
More traffic on your road? Take transit. The attitude taken by too many is that we don't want OTHER cars in our way. OTHERS can take transit. OTHERS can be slowed down. Not us.

Sorry, that doesn't cut it.

I was at a community meeting this week for an infill townhouse project in which the developer is proposing 1.5 parking spaces/unit (all underground). When a resident questioned 'why you don't provide 2 spaces/unit + visitor, as everybody has 2 cars these days' and the response given back to the resident was that 'we aren't targetting this development to people with 2 cars (btw 1.5/unit is the bylaw requirement for a stacked townhouse (aka apartment) use), the residents immediate reply was 'what kind of cheap housing will this be in our neighbourhood.

What I'm getting at is that there is a real education needed that infill can work well, it isn't all low income housing and that we can't continue to have 2+ cars and expect no traffic in Ottawa (or any other urban area) anymore.

BTW transit is 50 m away from the site but the nearby people said 'nobody takes the bus these days'.

Some days you just can't win.

Mille Sabords
Jan 11, 2008, 10:01 PM
I was at a community meeting this week for an infill townhouse project in which the developer is proposing 1.5 parking spaces/unit (all underground). When a resident questioned 'why you don't provide 2 spaces/unit + visitor, as everybody has 2 cars these days' and the response given back to the resident was that 'we aren't targetting this development to people with 2 cars (btw 1.5/unit is the bylaw requirement for a stacked townhouse (aka apartment) use), the residents immediate reply was 'what kind of cheap housing will this be in our neighbourhood.

What I'm getting at is that there is a real education needed that infill can work well, it isn't all low income housing and that we can't continue to have 2+ cars and expect no traffic in Ottawa (or any other urban area) anymore.

BTW transit is 50 m away from the site but the nearby people said 'nobody takes the bus these days'.

Some days you just can't win.

What a telling story. What part of town was this project? Would I be wrong to guess the west end?

clynnog
Jan 11, 2008, 10:12 PM
What a telling story. What part of town was this project? Would I be wrong to guess the west end?

Got it in 1. It was a classic case of people not wanting change in the neighbourhood (the zoning is in place for up to a 5 storey apartment unit) and suggesting to the Councillor that the City should change the zoning and make it a City park etc.

waterloowarrior
Jan 12, 2008, 1:03 AM
heh I have a stack of public comments on my desk I've been going through.... it's amazing what people some people say about issues like converting SF homes to multi-unit rental apartments, and the assumptions that are made about who will be living there and what will happen to their neighbourhood

Aylmer
Jan 12, 2008, 11:35 PM
Sorry for the interruption...

Are there any plans to build other condos in the market (proposed/fantasy)?

Acajack
Jan 14, 2008, 12:20 PM
For some odd reason, the type of NIMBYism people are referring to here is relatively rare on the Gatineau side of the river.

Just down the street from where I live, you have new 2500-sq.-ft. single-family homes with stone façades that sit about 100 m from $120,000 condos. Of course, all of this was built at the same time, so one could make the argument that people knew exactly what they were buying into.

But... if I look just a few streets over, the biggest houses in the neighbourhood (worth between $600,000 and $800,000, in Gatineau prices), are less than 100 m from a bunch of public, rent-to-income housing blocks (known in Quebec as HLMs). Now the HLMs were built quite a few years after the luxury houses, but when they were announced and built, not a peep was heard from the neighbours. And there wasn’t a flurry of “A VENDRE” (FOR SALE) signs either.

This is even more surprising when you consider the planning framework in Québec can actually be used to foster NIMBYism. When someone wants to build something near you, there has to be a public notice, after which locals have a specified period of time to sign a “register” at a nearby city service centre. If a sufficient number (predetermined) of people sign the register, then this triggers a referendum in the local area (we in Québec love our referendums!), and the project can actually be rejected by this neighbourhood referendum.

And it doesn’t just apply to private developments. An expensive traffic calming project (that the city wanted to bill us for) was actually overturned by residents in my old neighbourhood several years ago.

clynnog
Jan 14, 2008, 1:55 PM
This is even more surprising when you consider the planning framework in Québec can actually be used to foster NIMBYism. When someone wants to build something near you, there has to be a public notice, after which locals have a specified period of time to sign a “register” at a nearby city service centre. If a sufficient number (predetermined) of people sign the register, then this triggers a referendum in the local area (we in Québec love our referendums!), and the project can actually be rejected by this neighbourhood referendum.

And it doesn’t just apply to private developments. An expensive traffic calming project (that the city wanted to bill us for) was actually overturned by residents in my old neighbourhood several years ago.

I know that private sector clients based in Montreal expanding into Ottawa complain about the process/length of time/costs etc of building in Ottawa (and Ontario in general), but if the scenario is as indicated the QC process can be quite cumbersome as well. I'm surprised that there aren't a lot of referendums. I know of one seniors builder (based in Montreal) who were wanting to expand an existing building in Sherbrooke who literally had a VP go door to door on summer evenings explaining the proposal to the neighbourhood. In the end, the proposal passed. If this type of system were instituted in Ontario (highly unlikely) I would demand better notification signs that clearly describe the proposal in both numeric and visual terms.

Acajack...do you think that less developments go the referendum route because people in QC have more of a 'live and let live' attitude and less of a home ownership obsession/history than those in Ontario.?

Mille Sabords
Jan 14, 2008, 1:55 PM
For some odd reason, the type of NIMBYism people are referring to here is relatively rare on the Gatineau side of the river.

Just down the street from where I live, you have new 2500-sq.-ft. single-family homes with stone façades that sit about 100 m from $120,000 condos. Of course, all of this was built at the same time, so one could make the argument that people knew exactly what they were buying into.

But... if I look just a few streets over, the biggest houses in the neighbourhood (worth between $600,000 and $800,000, in Gatineau prices), are less than 100 m from a bunch of public, rent-to-income housing blocks (known in Quebec as HLMs). Now the HLMs were built quite a few years after the luxury houses, but when they were announced and built, not a peep was heard from the neighbours. And there wasn’t a flurry of “A VENDRE” (FOR SALE) signs either.

This is even more surprising when you consider the planning framework in Québec can actually be used to foster NIMBYism. When someone wants to build something near you, there has to be a public notice, after which locals have a specified period of time to sign a “register” at a nearby city service centre. If a sufficient number (predetermined) of people sign the register, then this triggers a referendum in the local area (we in Québec love our referendums!), and the project can actually be rejected by this neighbourhood referendum.

And it doesn’t just apply to private developments. An expensive traffic calming project (that the city wanted to bill us for) was actually overturned by residents in my old neighbourhood several years ago.

Interesting, for sure. Latin cultures congregate, WASP cultures segregate. At least that seems to be the way things are around here. Even though there are some parts of the world where WASP's are actually capable of living close to one another (England, for instance).

To all our WASP friends on the Forum - please don't take offence to this, it's meant to be humourous - just make sure you don't grow old like that! :D

Acajack
Jan 14, 2008, 2:17 PM
A few years ago, not too far from my place on Montée Paiement in Gatineau, a rumour went around that a vacant lot would be the future location for a strip joint. Neighbours started talking about going to sign the register.

In fact, the rumour was false anf the project was a large Métro supermarket, which actually opened in 2007.

But the people from Métro were actually so concerned that they held a town hall meeting in the area to fully explain their project. After that, opposition fizzled out and few people if any signed the register.

Acajack
Jan 14, 2008, 2:23 PM
It’s only been in the last 40 years or so that substantial numbers of francophones in this country (incl. those in Québec) have become prosperous enough to buy fairly luxurious single family homes. Many of these people living in these homes may have themselves grown up in less spacious surroundings, or at least their parents or grandparents likely did.

And even today your average francophone is probably more likely to have, friends, acquaintances or family members who are renters/apartment dwellers. (Québec has by far the highest proportion of renters in the country.)

clynnog
Jan 14, 2008, 2:35 PM
A few years ago, not too far from my place on Montée Paiement in Gatineau, a rumour went around that a vacant lot would be the future location for a strip joint. Neighbours started talking about going to sign the register.


I would have thought that people in Gatineau would welcome a strip joint in their area which would avoid young girls crossing the bridges into Ottawa for employment. (just kidding, sarcasm mode on, but there do seem to be a high % of Gatineau girls in the various Ottawa SJ's...or so I've heard, never having been in one as I am a WASP).

clynnog
Jan 14, 2008, 2:40 PM
Interesting, for sure. Latin cultures congregate, WASP cultures segregate. At least that seems to be the way things are around here. Even though there are some parts of the world where WASP's are actually capable of living close to one another (England, for instance).

To all our WASP friends on the Forum - please don't take offence to this, it's meant to be humourous - just make sure you don't grow old like that! :D

As a WASP (and the purest kind as I was born in the example where WASP's live close to one another), I don't take offense. In England, many people would probably prefer to live further apart, but due to the tight urban boundaries on Cities and the high cost of country properties, they make do with the situation. Most towns in England have very defined edges....one minute you are driving past semi's/row houses/pubs/townhouses/shops and the next minute you are out in the fields with cows/sheep...none of the speculative land on the fringes that we see here in Ottawa.

If you were to live in London and see what you get on a /ft2 (or /m2) basis for the 4 walls etc, and you compared it to the equivalent house in Ottawa, there would be 1 way traffic westbound across the Atlantic. However, you can't put a price on history,culture,liveable density, public transit, footie recognized as part of the culture, quirky sense of humour that Ottawa doesn't have in abundance (despite the plus points of London, YOW is for me).

Mille Sabords
Jan 14, 2008, 3:05 PM
In England, many people would probably prefer to live further apart, but due to the tight urban boundaries on Cities and the high cost of country properties, they make do with the situation. Most towns in England have very defined edges....one minute you are driving past semi's/row houses/pubs/townhouses/shops and the next minute you are out in the fields with cows/sheep...none of the speculative land on the fringes that we see here in Ottawa.

If you were to live in London and see what you get on a /ft2 (or /m2) basis for the 4 walls etc, and you compared it to the equivalent house in Ottawa, there would be 1 way traffic westbound across the Atlantic. However, you can't put a price on history,culture,liveable density, public transit, footie recognized as part of the culture, quirky sense of humour that Ottawa doesn't have in abundance (despite the plus points of London, YOW is for me).

Then it's time to bring all those things to Ottawa, with the help of our WASP friends from across the pond. (I'd sooner go drinking with a bunch of Brits, given a choice, exactly because of the dry sense of humour). Let's start a massive recruitment campaign for British immigrants! (their French is actually quite understandable when they're drunk, as is their Spanish, Italian, German...)

:cheers:

Ottawade
Jan 15, 2008, 1:46 PM
It was mentioned on the CBC this morning that Charlesfort intends to build on the site of the Ottawa public library at Bank & Sunnyside. Charlesfort stated that the site and the parking lot beside it (the auto garage?) are underutilized. As a part the deal Charlesfort would donate the bottom floor of the building to the city for use as a library. This would increase the size of the library in the process.

The CBC said the only other concern is that the hight restriction is 7 stories and that neighborhood and that the NIMBY's would potentially shoot down anything larger.

Between the church across the street, the canal and its raise elevation that site would have a pretty good view on the higher floors.

clynnog
Jan 15, 2008, 2:09 PM
It was mentioned on the CBC this morning that Charlesfort intends to build on the site of the Ottawa public library at Bank & Sunnyside. Charlesfort stated that the site and the parking lot beside it (the auto garage?) are underutilized.

The public library on Rideau (@ Friel) got a fresh impetus of patrons when the Rideau Gardens seniors building was constructed and connected at the rear of the library branch. It was a win/win situation for both parties. In that case none of the library building was destroyed/modified....their parking area was transferred to lands now owned by the seniors building.

Mille Sabords
Jan 15, 2008, 2:10 PM
It was mentioned on the CBC this morning that Charlesfort intends to build on the site of the Ottawa public library at Bank & Sunnyside. Charlesfort stated that the site and the parking lot beside it (the auto garage?) are underutilized. As a part the deal Charlesfort would donate the bottom floor of the building to the city for use as a library. This would increase the size of the library in the process.

The CBC said the only other concern is that the hight restriction is 7 stories and that neighborhood and that the NIMBY's would potentially shoot down anything larger.

Between the church across the street, the canal and its raise elevation that site would have a pretty good view on the higher floors.

Very good move by Charlesfort. This project would bring a mature type of partnership and enhance the neighbourhood in all aspects. Charlesfort is one of the few (if not the only one) actually making an effort at beautiful architecture. I hope the NIMBY's will be able to trade that for a building taller than a blade of grass.

Aylmer
Jan 15, 2008, 2:12 PM
We should make it law that people can't decreasse the size of a building unless council finds a concret reason.

Ottawade
Jan 15, 2008, 2:26 PM
I think on the whole it is a good move by both Charlesfort and the library, but at the same time that building, even at 7 stories, really would dwarf everything around it. From down on the canal it would be straight up monolithic because of the elevation. Overall I agree with the plan tho, especially since Charlesfort makes nice buildings

lrt's friend
Jan 15, 2008, 2:41 PM
It was mentioned on the CBC this morning that Charlesfort intends to build on the site of the Ottawa public library at Bank & Sunnyside. Charlesfort stated that the site and the parking lot beside it (the auto garage?) are underutilized. As a part the deal Charlesfort would donate the bottom floor of the building to the city for use as a library. This would increase the size of the library in the process.

The CBC said the only other concern is that the hight restriction is 7 stories and that neighborhood and that the NIMBY's would potentially shoot down anything larger.

Between the church across the street, the canal and its raise elevation that site would have a pretty good view on the higher floors.

Gag!

Sorry, I have always found that Public Library (Bank and Echo Drive) attractive and was the proper scale for the location. Who cares about the view from the building. A tall building would look totally out of place. Southminster United Church has beautiful architecture and a building rivalling or exceeding it in height would totally detract from views along the canal. It would be like building an apartment building on the lawn in front of Parliament Hill. Thumbs down from me, but I guess I have bad taste. If you want to build a 7 storey (or whatever) condo, build at the site of the former gas station at Bank and Sunnyside next to the Mayfair Theatre. Only a couple of blocks away, but would make it much less obtrusive in the landscape.

Mille Sabords
Jan 15, 2008, 3:07 PM
Gag!

Sorry, I have always found that Public Library (Bank and Echo Drive) attractive and was the proper scale for the location. Who cares about the view from the building. A tall building would look totally out of place. Southminster United Church has beautiful architecture and a building rivalling or exceeding it in height would totally detract from views along the canal. It would be like building an apartment building on the lawn in front of Parliament Hill. Thumbs down from me, but I guess I have bad taste. If you want to build a 7 storey (or whatever) condo, build at the site of the former gas station at Bank and Sunnyside next to the Mayfair Theatre. Only a couple of blocks away, but would make it much less obtrusive in the landscape.

Bank is wide enough at that location for a building that is taller than the single-storey library. If we were determining the optimal height of the building for that location, we would start with benchmarking it to the street width. If Charlesfort has both the library and the garage on which to build, he need not build very high. He can get a good building with 100% lot coverage (or close to).

lrt's friend
Jan 15, 2008, 3:36 PM
Bank is wide enough at that location for a building that is taller than the single-storey library. If we were determining the optimal height of the building for that location, we would start with benchmarking it to the street width. If Charlesfort has both the library and the garage on which to build, he need not build very high. He can get a good building with 100% lot coverage (or close to).

Yeah, we could have more than 1 storey there, but the library's stone front almost matches the church across the street. What are we going to replace it with?

There is a special character to the landscape along the south and east side of the canal between Ottawa U. and Carleton U. All the buildings are lower scale. The couple of somewhat taller buildings are heritage buildings. A modern 7+ storey building at one of the higher points of land would be unattractive and totally out of character.

Show me a drawing of the proposed building that demonstrates that it doesn't detract from the area, and I will change my mind.

Ottawade
Jan 15, 2008, 4:31 PM
Ya thinking about it more this morning esp having gone by the site anything even 4-5 stories would be crazy overwhelming. And they already said 7 stories is the max there (still too high) and they want to be over that, but nobody knows how much. I think esp from down on the canal things would look insanely high. If I have time this afternoon I'll go take pictures of the site from the various elevations and we can have some photoshop fun.

If any Glebe-ite wants to go to the meeting Charlesfort is having with the community it is tonight...

Aylmer
Jan 15, 2008, 5:08 PM
The day that the Glebe builds anything over 3 storeys will be the day the NIMBYs of Ottawa will have officialy been annialated.

:)

lrt's friend
Jan 15, 2008, 5:13 PM
Remember guys, the Rideau Canal is now a World Heritage site. We need to keep the views along it attractive. We don't want to create another DND headquarters. The people who designed and approved that building should have been put in front of a firing squad.

c_speed3108
Jan 15, 2008, 5:38 PM
Just found this on CBC.ca.....doesn't sound like a 7 story building they are proposing...it sounds like a 13 story building...



Ottawa developer eyes library site for condo tower
Last Updated: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 | 10:27 AM ET
CBC News

A developer is looking to build a condo on a prime piece of Ottawa real estate, and isn't discouraged that the site is occupied by a popular public library branch and not officially for sale.

Charlesfort Developments will make its pitch to redevelop the site of the Sunnyside library branch at a board meeting of the Ottawa South Community Association on Tuesday night.

The company said it wants to build an upscale 13-storey condominium building on the site overlooking the Rideau River between the Glebe and Old Ottawa South neighbourhoods on a bustling strip of Bank Street lined with stores and restaurants.

The building would include a new, bigger library on the ground floor.

Doug Casey, the company's owner, said he thinks the site, which includes a street-level parking lot, is "totally under-utilized."

In an e-mail, he declined a taped interview, saying he wanted to discuss matters with the community association's board and "reflect on their comments and try to incorporate their thoughts in our proposal, before we discuss this matter with the public."

Coun. Clive Doucet, who represents Capital Ward, where the site is located, said the plan is impressive, but Casey could have trouble selling the idea of a 13-storey building in a neighbourhood where the design plan calls for a maximum of six storeys.

"I will support what the community agrees to, and I've told him from Day 1, the big problem is going to be the height," Doucet said, adding he thinks people will want to think about the idea and study it before responding.

Coun. Jan Harder, chair of the city's library board, said she is willing to listen to the proposal, but there is nothing wrong with the Sunnyside library branch, and there are no plans for renovations and repairs.

Aylmer
Jan 15, 2008, 10:23 PM
Ohh for heaven's sake! Are there any polititians in Ottawa that are not NIMBYs?

Ottawade
Jan 16, 2008, 2:21 AM
I mentioned 7 stories because the CBC said that was the current maximum anyone is allowed to build to in that neighbourhood, but that Charlesfort wanted to go over that...

13 is quite a bit more than 7 so they are going to have enough problems even without the NIMBYs

lrt's friend
Jan 16, 2008, 2:59 PM
I think we also have to consider the scale of the community and the road capacity. Ottawa South has entirely low scale buildings. It is totally out of community character to have a tall building here. More importantly, being between the Rideau Canal and the Rideau River, road patterns are very restricted. Bank Street is already often very congested and there is no prospect of rapid transit in the area. How can we possibly start introducing large buildings here without creating major traffic problems? It is not a matter of NIMBYism, it is a matter of logic. The 6 or 7 storey building limit is sensible and allows for some intensification. There is already an example of successful intensification with the construction of a properly scaled new building a Bank and Grove. Let's face it, this project is mainly designed to make money for the developer on prime real estate because of the views that it offers. It does not make sense in respect to planning this community.

ajldub
Jan 16, 2008, 4:16 PM
I say go for the 13 floors, then put a bunch of 13 floor buildings at lansdowne and together they'll combine to make a nice little node south of the downtown core.

c_speed3108
Jan 16, 2008, 4:18 PM
I imagine most developers are now smart enough to ask for more then they want to allow for some so called "winning room". So in this case if they want say 8 or 10 floors ask for 13 and "compromise" down to 9 and the NIMBY's will feel they won when in face you got three extra floors out of them (over the current zoning of 6) :cool:

Kitchissippi
Jan 16, 2008, 4:22 PM
I say go for the 13 floors, then put a bunch of 13 floor buildings at lansdowne and together they'll combine to make a nice little node south of the downtown core.

With a Bank Street subway, maybe, yes. but as it stands, both Bank and Bronson are overtaxed as N-S arterials making both traffic and transit inadequate for much higher densities.

Mille Sabords
Jan 16, 2008, 4:56 PM
With a Bank Street subway, maybe, yes. but as it stands, both Bank and Bronson are overtaxed as N-S arterials making both traffic and transit inadequate for much higher densities.

All you people who worry about traffic take it for granted that those living in the new building will drive everwhere. When you live at a location like that one, you can walk to most of your everyday shopping. Between the Glebe and Billings Bridge, either bike or bus will do it too. It's a vicious circle if we start thinking cars every time we get infill. Yes there will be more people, cars, traffic - but in the big scheme of things, better to have the extra (what?) 90 apartments, THERE, than 90 single-famile homes in Stittsville, no?

Besides, if you don't like traffic, downtown ain't for you. If someone commits to a mortgage in a downtown building then they accept everything that comes with it, including more people, more traffic, more congestion - the tradeoff is the convenience and beauty of where you live, and the higher property values.

Aylmer
Jan 16, 2008, 5:01 PM
I thought they were building this on Laurier where the current cement block now stands...

Now that I have an idea of where the proposal is being proposed, I think that 13 floors is a blessing!

:)

lrt's friend
Jan 16, 2008, 5:14 PM
All you people who worry about traffic take it for granted that those living in the new building will drive everwhere. When you live at a location like that one, you can walk to most of your everyday shopping. Between the Glebe and Billings Bridge, either bike or bus will do it too. It's a vicious circle if we start thinking cars every time we get infill. Yes there will be more people, cars, traffic - but in the big scheme of things, better to have the extra (what?) 90 apartments, THERE, than 90 single-famile homes in Stittsville, no?

If you have lived in a neighbourhood that is low density, you should have certain rights that your neighbourhood remains liveable. If density increases, you still need to be able to get around the city. If you have narrow streets like Bank Street in Ottawa South, which is very congested most of the time, and transit that doesn't move because of the same congestion, it simply doesn't work. Sure, 90 appartments are better than 90 single family homes adding to sprawl, but lets build those 90 appartments within walking distance of our rapid transit lines as often as we can. Ottawa South may be reasonably close to shopping but it is still a very brisk walk from most employment areas. Also, remember the seniors who live in those neighbourhoods, for whom long distance walking and biking is no longer feasible.

Besides, if you don't like traffic, downtown ain't for you. If someone commits to a mortgage in a downtown building then they accept everything that comes with it, including more people, more traffic, more congestion - the tradeoff is the convenience and beauty of where you live, and the higher property values.

Excuse me, many people in those older neighbourhoods have lived there for decades and as I have pointed out, a high rise out of place is not necessarily beautiful. Don't forget the sometimes obscene property tax increases and people being taxed out of their homes.

lrt's friend
Jan 16, 2008, 6:00 PM
To those of you who think I am an Ottawa South NIMBY. Wrong! I don't live anywhere near there. It is just that Ottawa South and Ottawa East are both historic neighbourhoods with very special character and architecture and both face the Rideau Canal, and therefore must present a special image to the many tourists visiting the city. Intensification and redevelopment are possible (there are many good examples) but only if it respects the character of the area and we make every effort to preserve historic residential and commercial architecture. High rise development does not fit in.

ajldub
Jan 16, 2008, 6:12 PM
Some interesting points but I still think 13 floors is appropriate. Bank and Bronson are hardly congested. You could live in that building and shoot along the driveway to downtown in five minutes. Also, as Milles mentioned, why assume these people will be going downtown? Many people in Old Ottawa South have lived there for decades, yes. They are greying boomers and a project like this would be a perfect place for downsizing; I have no doubts the units will sell. Would a 13-storey condo be offensive here? Unquestionably the most offensive structure on the canal is Lansdowne park. That is slated for redevelopment and if this project doesn't go ahead because of density concerns then any hopes for anything substantial on the Lansdowne site are lost. Besides, Charlesfort is one of the few developers in the city that gives a damn what their buildings look like. Any site they get their hands on before Claridge does I say go for it!

We are going to see many projects like this all along Bank and Wellington/Richmond for the duration of this cycle and the next. I say build them tall and beautiful, each and every one.

ajldub
Jan 16, 2008, 6:13 PM
Who's with me? L'Optimiste???

Cre47
Jan 16, 2008, 7:08 PM
I don'T know if anyone caught the brief glimpse of the rendering of the proposal on CTV at 11:30, I haven't had a good look of it unfortunately.

m0nkyman
Jan 16, 2008, 7:13 PM
The reality is that we will never get anything resembling a subway going along Bank St. unless the density goes waaaay up. It's a chicken and egg problem. I do know that 900 people in towers near Sunnyside is going to cause less congestion than 900 people living in SFD's on the southside who have to commute the full distance into town.

lrt's friend
Jan 16, 2008, 8:13 PM
The reality is that we will never get anything resembling a subway going along Bank St. unless the density goes waaaay up. It's a chicken and egg problem. I do know that 900 people in towers near Sunnyside is going to cause less congestion than 900 people living in SFD's on the southside who have to commute the full distance into town.


Well, that is why we have an official plan and a transportation master plan. If those things don't fit together, or we try to deviate from it in major ways, we end up with chaos and it is the taxpayer who will have to pay to resolve the chaos. As we all know, a Bank Street subway is not up for discussion and I highly doubt that developers who want high density development along Bank Street are prepared to pay for the construction of a subway, given the astronomical costs.

In reality, we are better off to build in the suburbs than forcing the construction of enormously expensive infrastructure such as a subway. At least in the suburbs, corridors still exist that don't require us to go underground at 10 times the cost.

If we build according to our master plans, there are ample opportunities for intensification and building high rises, where our infrastructure is either built or planned to support it.

Constructing buildings more than double the size specified in the master plan is a good way to create chaos and neighbourhood protests.

Mille Sabords
Jan 16, 2008, 8:32 PM
If you have lived in a neighbourhood that is low density, you should have certain rights that your neighbourhood remains liveable.

Excuse me, but there is no such thing as the "rights" you are inventing here. Neighbourhoods change. Who are you to stand in the way of change? You may not want it, but others would. This "right", would amount to the "right" not to let anyone else in? Unless they buy you out of your house at a large profit to you? Is that the "right" you're claiming here? I'm sorry, that won't work.

Besides, you're automatically equating "liveable" with low density. And you call yourself an LRT's friend? What planet are you on? Here's how I see it: Central, older neighbourhoods can only remain liveable if they receive infill. They have been so depopulated since the 1950's, and average household sizes in them are so much lower compared to the suburbs, that only a strong repopulation will ensure they stay liveable. By liveable, I mean: schools don't close. Stores don't close. New things open. New efforts keep being injected at beautifying and improving the neighbourhood. New families form. New residents can move in.

Sure, 90 appartments are better than 90 single family homes adding to sprawl, but lets build those 90 appartments within walking distance of our rapid transit lines as often as we can. Ottawa South may be reasonably close to shopping but it is still a very brisk walk from most employment areas. Also, remember the seniors who live in those neighbourhoods, for whom long distance walking and biking is no longer feasible.

If we were to confine infill ONLY to areas that are near rapid transit, we'd miss a bunch of good ones where people actually want to live. Rapid transit is important but it's not the only thing. As ajldub said, many of the possible buyers in these older neighbourhoods would be seniors. They don't have an office to go to in the morning. But they would like to walk to their local newsstand and coffee shop. And maybe they would like a new condo in Old Ottawa South.

Excuse me, many people in those older neighbourhoods have lived there for decades and as I have pointed out, a high rise out of place is not necessarily beautiful. Don't forget the sometimes obscene property tax increases and people being taxed out of their homes.

13 storeys is a mid-rise in my book. But for the sake of not splitting hairs, it doesn't matter whether it's a mid- or a high-rise. Design is what matters most. And as others have correctly pointed out, Charlesfort is the builder who can most be trusted with that aspect of development based on his track record.

The site is long and narrow. It has definite limitations. I would look at it from that perspective (ie. from the ground up). If the ground level is to have a library, how wide should its frontage be? Is there not an opportunity to introduce other retail here, and have the library on a narrower frontage and on TWO storeys? What retailers are missing from Old Ottawa South? Which ones would be needed or well received by the neighbourhood? What architectural style can this building adopt to blend in as well as possible? Charlesfort has been on an art-deco kick with his past two projects, what else can he propose?

clynnog
Jan 16, 2008, 9:03 PM
We should make it law that people can't decreasse the size of a building unless council finds a concret reason.

What exactly do you mean by this?.....size of what building...an existing building or a proposed building or an addition to an existing building. Council will find a 'concrete' reason if it is in their own best interests (i.e covering their butt).

clynnog
Jan 16, 2008, 9:05 PM
It is just that Ottawa South and Ottawa East are both historic neighbourhoods with very special character and architecture and both face the Rideau Canal, and therefore must present a special image to the many tourists visiting the city.


I think you will find that everybody thinks their own neighbourhood is unique and has special characteristics. This type of argument comes up at PEC and public meetings all the time...it is up there with increased taxes, decreased property value, noise, traffic and loitering teenagers.

clynnog
Jan 16, 2008, 9:07 PM
I imagine most developers are now smart enough to ask for more then they want to allow for some so called "winning room". So in this case if they want say 8 or 10 floors ask for 13 and "compromise" down to 9 and the NIMBY's will feel they won when in face you got three extra floors out of them (over the current zoning of 6) :cool:


This is exactly what goes on all the time. It is much easier to ask for 13 and end up at 9 (based on an existing zoning of 6), then ask for 6 initially and then later on ask for 9.

lrt's friend
Jan 16, 2008, 9:25 PM
Excuse me, but there is no such thing as the "rights" you are inventing here. Neighbourhoods change. Who are you to stand in the way of change? You may not want it, but others would. This "right", would amount to the "right" not to let anyone else in? Unless they buy you out of your house at a large profit to you? Is that the "right" you're claiming here? I'm sorry, that won't work.

Besides, you're automatically equating "liveable" with low density. And you call yourself an LRT's friend? What planet are you on? Here's how I see it: Central, older neighbourhoods can only remain liveable if they receive infill. They have been so depopulated since the 1950's, and average household sizes in them are so much lower compared to the suburbs, that only a strong repopulation will ensure they stay liveable. By liveable, I mean: schools don't close. Stores don't close. New things open. New efforts keep being injected at beautifying and improving the neighbourhood. New families form. New residents can move in.

You are very wrong about rights. This is still public property. There are also zoning laws. A developer does not have the right to do as it pleases. The community has every right to demand something that is compatible with the aesthetics of the area especially when it is presently public property. We still live in a democratic society, don't we?

Read my posts. I am not opposed to intensification at all. I said intensification that respects the community character is fine. Look at some very fine examples along the Rideau Canal between the end of Main Street and Ottawa U. There are some near Sunnyside and Bronson. There are many others examples. All provide intensification without being out of place with the overall community. Now look at the other side of the coin. The absolutely dreadful looking apartment building on Bronson just north of the canal. It totally stands out in an otherwise low rise community to the detriment of everybody. Wrong colours and wrong height and just architecturally lousy.

I also point out my post from a few months ago, when I complained about intensification in my own neighbourhood. Not because of intensification itself, but because the infill housing did not in any way respect the architecture and scale of the neighbourhood. The result has been a horrid mishmash. A friend from Florida commented immediately about it when he visited me. His comment was far from complimentary.

I also said, show me a drawing that convinces me that it does fit in and I will change my mind. But 13 storeys on a very small lot in a low density community on one of the highest points of land on an already congested street sends up red flags immediately. Convince me otherwise with visual evidence.

If we were to confine infill ONLY to areas that are near rapid transit, we'd miss a bunch of good ones where people actually want to live. Rapid transit is important but it's not the only thing. As ajldub said, many of the possible buyers in these older neighbourhoods would be seniors. They don't have an office to go to in the morning. But they would like to walk to their local newsstand and coffee shop. And maybe they would like a new condo in Old Ottawa South.

Fine, scale the condos to fit the community. I didn't say no intensification, but if we are talking about really high density development, then most should be within walking distance of rapid transit or near downtown or scattered so as not to overwhelm transportation infrastructure.

Don't get me wrong, I am not out protesting every high rise building being constructed in the city, in factor I have never commented about such a thing before. It just concerns me about that particular location, having driven, biked, walked and skated by the site countless times. And then tearing down, an attractive older building in the process.

Deez
Jan 17, 2008, 12:10 AM
FYI...

Demolition has begun in earnest on the Rideau Centre's parking structure.

I can't understand how they're wasting the opportunity to put up a mixed used tower there to pay for the new structure.

AuxTown
Jan 17, 2008, 3:14 AM
As long as they leave the option open to build something interesting in that empty lot just East of Rideau Centre. I'm assuming that once the new garage is complete, they will submit another proposal for expansion of the mall into that lot and the old department store. The neighbourhood is growing substantially with the new condo developments and streetfront stores +/- a tower of some kind would make a great addition to an already awesome mall.

Mille Sabords
Jan 17, 2008, 1:40 PM
You are very wrong about rights. This is still public property. There are also zoning laws. A developer does not have the right to do as it pleases. The community has every right to demand something that is compatible with the aesthetics of the area especially when it is presently public property. We still live in a democratic society, don't we?

I agree with you as far as zoning and public property, of course. What I read in your post was a link between "liveability" and "low density".

The thing about zoning, too, especially in this city, is that it is too often the reactionary product of organized NIMBY. Many areas of the city that would be perfectly suitable for denser and taller construction have been downzoned thanks to the aggressively schizophrenic attitudes of the local self-appointed judges of what should and should not be. That is not the proper way to build a city either, but somehow it fits under the definition of "democracy".

In that regard, I compare Ottawa to a long-time smoker who started young and doesn't quite have cancer yet. Loves to smoke, doesn't see why she should quit, and gets all worked up when anyone suggests it.

Same pattern of attitudes apply to Ottawa and its love of cars.

I also point out my post from a few months ago, when I complained about intensification in my own neighbourhood. Not because of intensification itself, but because the infill housing did not in any way respect the architecture and scale of the neighbourhood. The result has been a horrid mishmash. A friend from Florida commented immediately about it when he visited me. His comment was far from complimentary.

Definitely, we need the City to become sharper and much more sophisticated about design. It's about the things that matter. Applications often get bogged down over irrelevant items such as FSI and setbacks, when in fact the elements that matter go completely unscrutinized. And since the developer has to waste his time and consulting money on trivial details like FSI and setbacks, he skimps on architecture.

The new infill at Evelyn and Main is a prime example of infill that has forever disfigured a very visible main street corner with an architectural abomination that should never have been permitted. Six townhouses that are essentially two-storey dwellings above garages. If height was the main genesis of such an abhorrent eyesore, then I'd sooner take a 6-storey condo with underground parking.

Fine, scale the condos to fit the community. I didn't say no intensification, but if we are talking about really high density development, then most should be within walking distance of rapid transit or near downtown or scattered so as not to overwhelm transportation infrastructure.

I have to point out here that the concept of "real high density" that you're using in your argument doesn't describe the right thing. Scale is one thing. Density is another.

The site (if you combine the library and the garage) is about 90 ft deep by about 350 of frontage. If there are 5 residential storeys above a retail/library ground floor, Charlesfort can get about 165 units. That means 100% lot coverage. If Charlesfort, on the other hand, assumes that the community "will want some green space" (i.e. a useless patch of grass) in exchange for "density", then by leaving half the site as green space he gets 12 residential storeys above a retail/library ground floor with about 130 units.

Not a big difference in the unit count, but a huge difference in street presence. Both would have roughly the same density (the number of units on the site wouldn't be that different) but the scale would. I haven't seen a drawing and, like you, I have to see a drawing to make up my mind.

On the transportation issue, the chicken-and-egg dilemma we have in this city is plain to see here. What do we do? Avoid densifying the city in a way that will make rapid transit viable and necessary? Or put up with the added congestion so that one day, incrementally, a real rapid transit solution becomes inevitable? I'm of the latter school.

Don't get me wrong, I am not out protesting every high rise building being constructed in the city, in factor I have never commented about such a thing before. It just concerns me about that particular location, having driven, biked, walked and skated by the site countless times. And then tearing down, an attractive older building in the process.

Did you know that the "attractive older building" you're talking about, used to be a garage?

clynnog
Jan 17, 2008, 2:00 PM
Definitely, we need the City to become sharper and much more sophisticated about design. It's about the things that matter. Applications often get bogged down over irrelevant items such as FSI and setbacks, when in fact the elements that matter go completely unscrutinized. And since the developer has to waste his time and consulting money on trivial details like FSI and setbacks, he skimps on architecture.


Truer words have not been said in this forum in a long time. With a standard zoning application, architectural elevation drawings are often an afterthought until the site plan approval stage comes along. In many cases, the artists renderings don't look a lot like the drawings that are filed for a building permit. The people looking at building permit drawings are that...building code reviewers/enforcers. They are not visionary people who look at the architectural elements of a building.

lrt's friend
Jan 17, 2008, 3:53 PM
I agree with you as far as zoning and public property, of course. What I read in your post was a link between "liveability" and "low density".

The thing about zoning, too, especially in this city, is that it is too often the reactionary product of organized NIMBY. Many areas of the city that would be perfectly suitable for denser and taller construction have been downzoned thanks to the aggressively schizophrenic attitudes of the local self-appointed judges of what should and should not be. That is not the proper way to build a city either, but somehow it fits under the definition of "democracy".

In that regard, I compare Ottawa to a long-time smoker who started young and doesn't quite have cancer yet. Loves to smoke, doesn't see why she should quit, and gets all worked up when anyone suggests it.

Same pattern of attitudes apply to Ottawa and its love of cars.

Not true that I am tying liveability together with low density. Liveability and density are a factor of available (or even planned) infrastructure.

I am also saying that we need to respect and protect community character and I might add our city heritage and architecture. We have torn down far too many beautiful old buildings in this city in the name of progress. Sure, there are a lot of nondescript buildings that were worthy of being replaced but the things that have happened in this city would never have happened in European cities.

So replace poor quality or non-descript buildings (when I was growing up, Ottawa's downtown was full of them), rehabilitate and rebuild on former industrial sites, fill in parking lots, build on burnt out sites, or incorporate old facades into new larger buildings. Those are the locations that should be redeveloped first.

As I have said, I am not a NIMBY zealot and I do enjoy the appearance of many modern buildings including the tall ones, but I also think that many of Ottawa's older buildings add to the beauty of the city as well and we need to preserve some of that as well. I am looking for balance and sensible planning and development that does not leave the taxpayer screwed in the long run.

On the transportation issue, the chicken-and-egg dilemma we have in this city is plain to see here. What do we do? Avoid densifying the city in a way that will make rapid transit viable and necessary? Or put up with the added congestion so that one day, incrementally, a real rapid transit solution becomes inevitable? I'm of the latter school.

Go ahead and densify as long as roads and standard transit can handle it. But our rapid transit plan should dictate where the most dense development goes. As I pointed out, the cost of building a subway is enormous. I imagine at least $1B to run just to Billings Bridge. Development could not possibly recover this cost and every taxpayer would be on the hook for this. What I am saying is that transportation planning must come first.

Just look at Toronto. Toronto decided to build a subway along Yonge Street, because it was Toronto's main street and because there was enough funding to build it. The sensible thing to do. The decision to build the subway enabled high density development along north Yonge Street. You cannot reverse the process. Development cannot exceed infrastructure.

I will give you another example. It would be really nice to just go and tear down all the strip malls along Bank Street south of Billings Bridge and build higher and denser. Realistically, we can't, at least not too much. Why? Bank Street is at capacity. Transit is caught in the same congestion. Rapid transit would have to go underground and if that ever happens, it will be decades away. So, major intensification of this stretch of Bank Street will just lead to total gridlock and deterioration of the quality of life of anybody who lives near there or has to travel there.

Did you know that the "attractive older building" you're talking about, used to be a garage?

If it was, they did a nice job refurbishing it. That must have been some decades ago, since it has been a library as far back as I can remember.

AuxTown
Jan 17, 2008, 4:02 PM
At the same time, any building that is being proposed in a neighbourhood in Ottawa that really matters (Centretown, Byward Market, Glebe, Westboro, New Edinburgh) has to be approved by both the Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee and the Planning and Environment Committee. This ensures that nothing gets built that ruins the herritage character or is out of scale with the surrounding structures. An example is this application report for Mondrian:

http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/occ/2007/04-25/pec/ACS2007-PTE-APR-0086.htm

Where were these people in the 1970's and 80's when a ton of terrible buildings were built along Elgin and Bank Street and no one batted an eye.

Still, I understand that there isn't a lot of forward-thinking or architecturally stunning ideas coming out of City Hall these days, but I think projects like the Congress Centre show that things are moving the right direction.

lrt's friend
Jan 17, 2008, 4:15 PM
Yes, I hope we are getting better. I look out of my office window right now at a 1970s or 80s apartment building, which looks like a drab grey pile of cement blocks. Yuck!

ajldub
Jan 17, 2008, 8:49 PM
I think seeing the value in the Duke of Somerset building shows how much more aware we are as a community about our built heritage. I really felt we turned a corner with that one.

clynnog
Jan 17, 2008, 10:34 PM
I think seeing the value in the Duke of Somerset building shows how much more aware we are as a community about our built heritage. I really felt we turned a corner with that one.

One of my funniest memories of the Duke was in the fall of 1999 when the Duke was one of the few places to watch England vs. Scotland in a home and away playoff to play at Euro 2000. Imagine a packed pub full of English and Scottish soccer fans in the middle of the afternoon. A good friend of mine went there, got quite inebriated and was interviewed on CBC TV at the pub. Needless to say his wife and boss were not amused as he pulled a 'sickie' on both of them.


With more soccer available on TV at home, the Duke lost that audience.

waterloowarrior
Jan 17, 2008, 10:53 PM
with Bill 51, municipalities can regulate design through site plan control... :tup:

they can also create a Development Permit System that combines zoning, minor variances, and site plan control into one process, with lots of flexibility in uses and standards, faster timelines for appeal, and delegation of permit granting to municipal employees. I did a co-op term for an area with a development permit system and I really liked it a lot better than Ontario's current system. Minor variance applications for the tiniest things along with the rest of an application seem so pointless (edit: on the other hand, having to go through the development permit process for a minor thing that doesn't meet exemptions can be frustrating).

Jamaican-Phoenix
Jan 18, 2008, 12:23 AM
I think seeing the value in the Duke of Somerset building shows how much more aware we are as a community about our built heritage. I really felt we turned a corner with that one.

Are you kidding me?! That building would've come down were it not for the direct intervention of the owner.

ajldub
Jan 18, 2008, 12:58 AM
:previous:

Did you not see the local media rally around saving the building? It was in all the papers and on tv...

clynnog
Jan 18, 2008, 1:25 AM
with Bill 51, municipalities can regulate design through site plan control... :tup:

they can also create a Development Permit System that combines zoning, minor variances, and site plan control into one process, with lots of flexibility in uses and standards, faster timelines for appeal, and delegation of permit granting to municipal employees. I did a co-op term for an area with a development permit system and I really liked it a lot better than Ontario's current system. Minor variance applications for the tiniest things along with the rest of an application seem so pointless (edit: on the other hand, having to go through the development permit process for a minor thing that doesn't meet exemptions can be frustrating).

I was at a seminar put on by MMA about this time last year and there seemed to be general indifference by municipal employees to initiate a Development Permit System. It could have been general inertia, tired people or just people afraid of change. IIRC the planners from the City of Ottawa were the ones who were trying to find issues with a system like this.

Jamaican-Phoenix
Jan 18, 2008, 1:35 AM
:previous:

Did you not see the local media rally around saving the building? It was in all the papers and on tv...


I recall only ever read two articles, one mention, and what I read on SSP on the issue.

ajldub
Jan 18, 2008, 6:23 AM
:previous:

Ok well there were a bunch in the citizen and on cbc ottawa's website. Did you read about how the city extended tax relief to the stores affected by the street shutdown?

Aylmer
Jan 18, 2008, 2:14 PM
?

Deez
Jan 18, 2008, 6:23 PM
Although the debate on panhandling seems to have subsided slightly of late, it may interest some people that I saw Diane Holmes giving some money to a homeless guy on the MacKenzie King Bridge this morning.

clynnog
Jan 18, 2008, 6:55 PM
Although the debate on panhandling seems to have subsided slightly of late, it may interest some people that I saw Diane Holmes giving some money to a homeless guy on the MacKenzie King Bridge this morning.

You know what the root cause of panhandlers in Ottawa is don't you. Its increased density from developers who want to change Centretown.

Mille Sabords
Jan 18, 2008, 7:58 PM
Although the debate on panhandling seems to have subsided slightly of late, it may interest some people that I saw Diane Holmes giving some money to a homeless guy on the MacKenzie King Bridge this morning.

Ottawa's Hells Angels should send her a thank-you card for helping keep another faithful customer hooked on their crack.

Kitchissippi
Jan 18, 2008, 8:37 PM
You know what the root cause of panhandlers in Ottawa is don't you. Its increased density from developers who want to change Centretown.

So what you're saying is that both the developers and the panhandlers want change? :haha: