PDA

View Full Version : Westboro Station | ?m | 10fl | Completed (Phase I) | Completed (Ph. 2)


Pages : [1] 2 3

harls
Oct 30, 2007, 8:31 PM
Westboro Station

Developer/Builder: Bourk Family Developments/Morley Hoppner Group

Architect: Barry J. Hobin & Associates

Landscape Architects: Corush Sunderland Wright Limited

Structural Engineer: Cunliffe & Associates

Mechanical & Electrical Engineer: Goodkey Weedmark

Civil Engineer: Novatech Engineering

Law Firm: Soloway Wright

Location: Richmond Rd @ Golden Ave. - 66 condo units

Scheduled completion - 1Q 2009

website: http://www.westborostation.com/

rendering:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2256/1804946525_37c7c21f25_o.jpg

ajldub
Oct 30, 2007, 9:56 PM
All hail the rise of Ottawa West! How many projects in this city can claim they have a BELL TOWER on them? Huh??

adam-machiavelli
Oct 30, 2007, 11:09 PM
As much as I like this project, I'm worried that the big 'Westboro Station' sign might be a bit misleading, considering the actual transitway station of the same name several blocks away.

p_xavier
Oct 31, 2007, 12:31 AM
As much as I like this project, I'm worried that the big 'Westboro Station' sign might be a bit misleading, considering the actual transitway station of the same name several blocks away.

Hahaha, and it looks just like the London Underground logo.

harls
Oct 31, 2007, 1:27 PM
I wonder if the bell really rings, or if it's decoration?

it does look like the London underground logo, I noticed that as well!

eemy
Oct 31, 2007, 5:49 PM
Geez, I suppose it will have that subway-themed wallpaper in the lobby like they do at Subway?

keninhalifax
Oct 31, 2007, 5:53 PM
Let's hope the cafe on the ground floor won't be called "Cafe au Lait".

The rendering looks good, though. I hope the street landscaping doesn't make the sidewalk too crowded.

Kitchissippi
Oct 31, 2007, 10:48 PM
I agree the visual branding of the development is a bit confused. I think it is named after the original CPR Westboro Station which was close to where the Transitway footbridge is now, at the end of Roosevelt street. here's a photo, from technomuses.ca:
http://www.images.technomuses.ca/images_site/Matt-3792_m.jpg
I guess this explains why all the suites are named after famous trains. The future phases of the project is supposed to include the rest of the block to Roosevelt. The resemblance of the logo to the London Underground's is a bit tacky, and I hope they change this or downplay it. I have doubts about the bell remaining, too, but anyone who knows about the bell saga in Westboro finds it amusing, a blatant attempt to connect to the village's history.

Mille Sabords
Nov 1, 2007, 12:19 AM
I agree the visual branding of the development is a bit confused. I think it is named after the original CPR Westboro Station which was close to where the Transitway footbridge is now, at the end of Roosevelt street. here's a photo, from technomuses.ca:
http://www.images.technomuses.ca/images_site/Matt-3792_m.jpg
I guess this explains why all the suites are named after famous trains. The future phases of the project is supposed to include the rest of the block to Roosevelt. The resemblance of the logo to the London Underground's is a bit tacky, and I hope they change this or downplay it. I have doubts about the bell remaining, too, but anyone who knows about the bell saga in Westboro finds it amusing, a blatant attempt to connect to the village's history.

Nice picture of the old station! I caught the reference to the Westboro bell too. You can see it as a "blatant attempt" - or you can see it as a respectful nod. Don't we always ask developers to be more mindful of local history? I'm ok with the bell, it's a cool feature that will get people talking about why it's there and maybe learn the whole history that way.

niwell
Nov 2, 2007, 1:14 AM
Get rid of the bell tower and LU style logo and I'm sold.

Kitchissippi
Nov 2, 2007, 3:33 PM
I guess my issue with the bell is that that story belongs to the Town Hall a block away, and should be told there and not diluted elsewhere -- it's bad enough that the real bell is in Nepean. The development's reference to the old station is already reaching a bit too far, and the inclusion of the bell, which is unrelated to the train theme kind of puts it over the top. I do think this was a preliminary conceptual embellishment (pardon the pun) much like the compass point pavement on the street (the city avoids puting paving bricks on the road because of snow removal issues)

There is a treasure trove of history in this area that they could use if they wanted to connect to the village's history. I think they should have played more on the streetcar theme as the south side of the property actually includes the old ROW for the Britannia A-line. There are wonderful photos from this location of the streetcar going up and down the hill on Byron. Another is the numerous industires that used to be in the area. It's too bad that the last factory in the area, Ketchum's (http://www.ketchum.ca/index.htm) which operated up to 2005, is not marked or celebrated in the architecture of the Exchange. It would have been cool to have a piece of public art or building decoration that used livestock tags as a theme to remind people what used to be made in that location.

In this neat brief history of Westboro (http://aix1.uottawa.ca/~weinberg/westboro.html) you can find tons of other historical tidbits.

Mille Sabords
Nov 14, 2007, 5:21 PM
Does anyone have any idea when construction's supposed to start on this puppy? They're way past the minimum comfort level in terms of sales. I'm guessing they were caught by surprise with the speed at which they sold all those condos. They haven't updated their sales data in a while - does anyone know how they're coming along?

Kitchissippi
Nov 15, 2007, 1:53 AM
I think they have leases on the existing stores that need to run out. I don't think they'll start well into the second half of 2008.

Mille Sabords
Nov 15, 2007, 2:32 AM
I think they have leases on the existing stores that need to run out. I don't think they'll start well into the second half of 2008.

Thanks.

Kitchissippi
Dec 6, 2007, 7:13 AM
I stand corrected. It looks like they will be starting sooner, as they are preparing to put up some hoarding.

In connection to this project, there was a heated meeting in Westboro regarding the closure of Golden Avenue between Richmond and Byron, at the western edge of this site. The proposal is a disgusting attempt at deception, which has pitted some residents of Golden against each other. While the proposal is being sold as turning that portion of Golden into a "pedestrian walkway", what was not really properly shown (conveniently hidden behind greenery in the rendering) is that much of the easement would actually be used for a ramp into the underground parking garage. Imagine of a small scale version of what happened on Metcalfe street downtown where the builders of the World Exchange Plaza hoodwinked the city into allowing them to use part of the street to build their ramp instead of accommodating it entirely within their property.

Mille Sabords
Dec 6, 2007, 1:16 PM
I stand corrected. It looks like they will be starting sooner, as they are preparing to put up some hoarding.

In connection to this project, there was a heated meeting in Westboro regarding the closure of Golden Avenue between Richmond and Byron, at the western edge of this site. The proposal is a disgusting attempt at deception, which has pitted some residents of Golden against each other. While the proposal is being sold as turning that portion of Golden into a "pedestrian walkway", what was not really properly shown (conveniently hidden behind greenery in the rendering) is that much of the easement would actually be used for a ramp into the underground parking garage. Imagine of a small scale version of what happened on Metcalfe street downtown where the builders of the World Exchange Plaza hoodwinked the city into allowing them to use part of the street to build their ramp instead of accommodating it entirely within their property.

I heard about that. It's totally unnecessary to close that street, I know people who aren't too pleased with the idea because they use Golden and they shouldn't be made to feel like planet killers because they do. From another source, I hear that the councillor is starting to come around and will oppose closing Golden. Another fun test of "Show us your common sense, City Hall".

harls
Jan 7, 2008, 8:47 PM
Last weekend at one of our mandatory monthly MEC visits, I noticed that there were a bunch of those hoarding boards in a pile at the parking lot of the site. Could see some action soon, I'm guessing.

waterloowarrior
Jan 19, 2008, 6:04 PM
recently granted some minor variances
1. Westboro Station condo - there were 3 minor variances requested and none had to do with the closing of Golden Ave. Because the notice for this meeting was attached to the sign for the closing a number of people came to the meeting just in case it was about Golden. It wasn't. I label the changes as housekeeping and they were granted. Howevere keep your eyes open - there will be new applications forthcoming.project description (click for full CofA pdf)

http://wwuploads.googlepages.com/westborostationcofa.jpg (http://www.quietfish.com/WCA/BourkeCoA.pdf)




site plan (click for pdf)
http://wwuploads.googlepages.com/westborostationsiteplan.jpg (http://www.quietfish.com/WCA/DRIVEONL2.pdf)



http://lovewestboro.blogspot.com/


Golden Avenue closure news and community views (http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/greaterottawa/archive/2008/01/07/a-fuss-on-golden-avenue.aspx)

Kitchissippi
Mar 30, 2008, 10:52 PM
The site's been cleared for excavation. They'll be hammering though the bedrock pretty soon and I'm dreading the noise. My dentist is just across the street, and it will be excruciating for anyone having their teeth drilled. :D The topsoil is very thin here, about a metre or so and you hit rock, one of the reasons why the Exhchange has covered parking, not completely below grade. You can see the almost complete Amica building in the background.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3244/2375518832_12803bb33d_o.jpg

The view from those balconies on the Exchange will be short-lived.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2164/2375518666_3e0acb392a_o.jpg

Richmond Road is filling in quite nicely, and having more shops on the other side will complement the streetscape.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3249/2374685227_98b32cdc70_o.jpg

waterloowarrior
Apr 15, 2008, 2:48 AM
from http://lovewestboro.wordpress.com/

Also this week the CDP’s public advisory team (PAC) was presented with the Phase 2 proposal for Westboro Station (Bourk site). The developer indicated they would be seeking re-zoning to permit a twelve-storey building at the corner of Roosevelt and Byron.

We have several drawings of the proposal but the two we have posted show the 12 storey (http://lovewestboro.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/bourk-site-development.pdf) proposal as well as what could be built under the current zoning (http://lovewestboro.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/bourk-site-alternative.pdf) as well as the CDP which is six storeys. As part of the re-zoning process the WCA will be requesting a community meeting and anyone can go to PEC and speak when the application is heard.

old and busted

http://wwuploads.googlepages.com/westborostationsiteplan.jpg


new hotness


http://wwuploads.googlepages.com/westborostation_phase2.jpg

waterloowarrior
Apr 16, 2008, 4:29 AM
the 'square' between phases 1 and 2 would be nice. the buildings are ok, but having more density along mainstreets and close to the Transitway is a good thing. They are also set back from the street, which could address some community concerns about height (though maybe not from the houses across Byron :) )
http://wwuploads.googlepages.com/westborostation_phase2.jpg

ajldub
Apr 16, 2008, 9:00 AM
I love it. It's sure to sell, too. Westboro/Wellington Village is the most unstoppable neighborhood in Ottawa these days. When I lived there 10 years ago it was nice but sleepy, now it's quickly taking the title of most successful retail strip from Bank in the glebe. We will see how the new glebe BIA can defend its position, but I think the relative lack of NIMBYism plus the number of easily developable used car lots and junky one story buildings will ensure that Westboro will win out.

PS Sens in seven. I expect everybody on this site to believe.:whip:

Mille Sabords
Apr 16, 2008, 1:20 PM
The podium with interior terrasses on the second tower is a great piece of residential design. That is what I call a suitable condo for small kids. Outdoor space that is larger than a balcony, but still in an apartment building.

I agree with ajldub, the Glebe has lost its crown, and I suspect much of it has to do with the immobilism that results from the strident, hysterical NIMBY-ism of that neighbourhood. (some even want the stadium to be removed from Lansdowne park!) The Glebe will need to grow again to stay lively and avoid drifting. There are several good opportunities for redevelopment, but they are complex and will require buildings taller than 2 storeys. Another important piece of urban surgery we need for the Glebe is to stitch its retail strip with both north and south ends of Bank street. The discontinuity is already interrupted by the Queensway and the Bank Street bridge but these distances are short enough to walk if there is an immediate resumption of activity on the other side.

And by the way, Wellington Village is pretty cool about its prospects, but Westboro thinks it's so interesting, it's now trying to out-NIMBY the Glebe. A pity, really.

Jamaican-Phoenix
Apr 16, 2008, 2:19 PM
Westboro/Wellington Village is the most unstoppable neighborhood in Ottawa these days.

Speaking of which, I'm moving to Wellington Village in a couple weeks... :)

Kitchissippi
Apr 16, 2008, 2:40 PM
I have been getting startled throughout the day from the blasting going on at the site. It's like living in San Francisco with the tremors. Despite a few days of that they seem to have barely scratched the surface.

Odd shadows on that rendering - like 6 to 7pm on a mid-summer evening. In reality that development casts a shadow on Richmond road and that interior terrace most of the time. nothing like a bit of developer spin :)

They've moved the presentation centre to the corner of Roosevelt and Richmond. Ironically they have an old black and white picture of Westboro on the wall, the kind of scene they are trying to replace. I have to say, I will miss the building that Fab64 is in when it goes -- it's one of those classic main street stores: tin ceiling, indented entry and large bay windows. I think the old industrial buildings could have been a cool rabbit warren of shops had the condo craze not hit this area.

Not sure about the Glebe - Westboro comparison. I think the Glebe still has a much better retail mix that caters to residents. Most of the shops in Westboro Village cater to outsiders. Luckily for me, Wellington West Village and Parkdale Market is just a short bike ride away, and to risk sounding traitorous to my community, I think the scene there is much more exciting.

AuxTown
Apr 16, 2008, 2:42 PM
The discontinuity is already interrupted by the Queensway and the Bank Street bridge but these distances are short enough to walk if there is an immediate resumption of activity on the other side.


This is a big issue, but I think it will slowly happen as Centretown fills in and pushes some of the population closer and closer to the Queensway. There really isn't that big of a gap between the Glebe and Centretown at the moment when you look at the North end of the Glebe (Clocktower Pub, The Works, various retail) and the South end of Centretown (new Central Condos, many busy retail like Staples, T&L, and multiple ethnic restaurants). Hopefully, as the DT population grows, some the businesses along Bank will renovate and more and more of the sketchy-looking places will be forced to do the same (or move).

I agree that Westboro is a massively up-and-coming neighbourhood and that it is huge competition for the Glebe, but there's no question that the Glebe will win this battle. It has too much going for it including the canal, new stadium and surrounding development (hopefully), beautiful well-established residential, and an easy walk/bike to DT core. Westboro is unique in that it has all kinds of room for infill and it is gonna be a great place in a few years (or an even better place) once a few of these well-planned, quality developments are complete.

ajldub
Apr 16, 2008, 7:26 PM
The thing that Wellington/Richmond has over the Glebe that I think will see it win out in the long run is growth potential. There are just so many old lots on that road that will be developed, and like Milles said nobody in the neighborhood blinks an eye when a company throws up a nine storey building. For instance, of the four corners at Wellington and Island Park, only one(the Esso) is doing really solid business. If a developer snatched up the other three lofts they could do something great with that intersection. There have to be another 20 used car lots, old gas stations and garages between Westboro Station and Somerset with potential too. The neighborhood has a 32-storey condo(with arguably the Glebe's most famous export, Alanis Morrisette, living in the penthouse); could that have ever gotten past the rigid fed employees dwelling in the Glebe? I agree with Kitchissippi that the mix is better in the Glebe, but that will surely change with time as more projects with ground floor retail come to realization. American Apparel picked Westboro. And while Westboro doesn't have anything as large-scale as Lansdowne, Lebreton Flats is just down the street and once that area gets more built up it will only do good things for Hintonburg, which will then become part of the strip. It will be interesting to see how the Lebreton Flats/Richmond area matures in the future, and how its growth interacts with the neighborhoods around it. The future is West Ottawa!

Mille Sabords
Apr 16, 2008, 7:44 PM
:previous: ajldub makes some good points. The main one is the limited growth potential in the Glebe. Only a Bank Street subway line could reignite it as a major growth corridor, in spite of the rigid objections of cranky Glebites. If the Glebe wanted to grow more it would have to "grow offshoots", maybe aong Catherine toward the Canal (there is a new seniors condo complex there, facing the Queensway - I guess the hard-of-hearing seniors aren't affected by the noise?), and maybe the half-blocks from Bank on either side could have more restaurants or minor retail, as in Fourth Ave. east of Bank. The Lansdowne frontage is an enormous opportunity but it has its limits too.

Both streets offer "extended linearity" that crosses several neighbourhoods - the Glebe is just one of them along Bank and it is hard to visualize extensive redevelopment (I can, but most Glebites probably can't, or won't). For instance, setting aside the obvious former KFC, take the LCBO lot - next to the park, etc. Prime site for a condo. Could easily be 6 storeys. The block with the Beer Store and the Mister Muffler, same thing. But there are many difficult sites - such as the small parking lot north of the Indian restaurant, itself a strip mall, next to the Bose store. Former gas station. Very small site, expensive clean-up - how many storeys would you need for something to happen there - 6, 7, ... 12? Horrors. And yet... should it stay a parking lot forever?

harls
Apr 16, 2008, 8:22 PM
Alanis owns the penthouse at Metropole?

I did not know that.

ajldub
Apr 16, 2008, 11:05 PM
Yeah you know the green glass knob on the top of the building? There are two apartments in that - one looks downtown and the other looks up the river. I am sure they are two stories. They sold for something like $3.1 million when the Metropole went up. One went to a businessman I think, and the one looking downtown went to Alanis. I think she spends most of her time in LA or someplace but it's her 'pied-a-terre' in Sens country. There was an article in some interior decorating magazine a while back, I don't remember which one, but it had photos of her place. She packed it full of Balinese-style furniture if I remember correctly.

To be honest I don't know who pays $3.1 million to live next to the transitway, regardless of how nice the finishings of your condo are... nice to know she still has some ties to this place though. And I guess if you are trying to stay out of the limelight when you come back home it's as good a spot as any to hide out.

Mille Sabords
Apr 17, 2008, 2:00 PM
To be honest I don't know who pays $3.1 million to live next to the transitway, regardless of how nice the finishings of your condo are... nice to know she still has some ties to this place though. And I guess if you are trying to stay out of the limelight when you come back home it's as good a spot as any to hide out.

Well, if you're 32 storeys above the transitway I don't think you'd even know it was there...:cool:

cityguy
Apr 18, 2008, 10:25 PM
I remember reading a U.S.magazine a few years ago,and it said her condo over looked the canal.

AuxTown
Apr 18, 2008, 10:34 PM
I remember reading a U.S.magazine a few years ago,and it said her condo over looked the canal.

Ya, I was sure that she purchased one of the penthouses at 700 Sussex. There was also an episode of MTV cribs where they went to her previous apartment along the Ottawa river and it looked to be East of downtown judging by what I saw from her balcony on TV. Whether it's 700 Sussex or Metropole, those are two pimp penthouses worthy of a photo thread if anyone has any connections :) .

ajldub
Apr 19, 2008, 3:24 PM
Hmm I thought she owned in the Metropole but I could be mistaken. Maybe she has two...

Dado
Apr 28, 2008, 3:36 PM
This new design for Phase II of Westboro Station is pretty good - until you look at the awful tower block. It's unbalanced. What's with the east half of that tower block? Get rid of that and continue wrapping the Richmond Road facade onto Roosevelt. And it's too tall - that area is zoned 6 storeys, not 12. The Phase I tower on the corner of Golden and Richmond and the Exchange across the road were allowed to go to 9 because they were going to act as "gateways" to Westboro. So now Phase II will blow away the the gateway function of Phase I? Or was the "gateway" argument just used as an excuse to build a taller tower, and once that can't be used some other argument will be used for the next one (how about "stepping up"?).

No wonder you get NIMBYism when it comes to infill. Developers just can't seem to resist the urge to build higher or bigger even when they well know ahead of time that they're not permitted to. Developers keep shooting themselves in the feet. Can we please have some decent stuff in the 4-6 storey range (like what they propose less the tower - heck, throw another storey or two on the rest of it; it'll look better than what's proposed)? Just once. Seriously. Just once could we have a proposal that fits within the rules, looks decent and gives infill/intensification a good name instead of providing ready fodder for those who oppose it in all forms? Very few people in Westboro would strongly object to this proposal if it looked like what I suggest (beyond the loss of the nice mix of buildings that are there already), but no one here wants shadows being cast for most of the day during most of the year on Richmond Rd.

Mille Sabords
Apr 28, 2008, 7:36 PM
... but no one here wants shadows being cast for most of the day during most of the year on Richmond Rd.

You may have a point when it comes to the loose and ever-changing interpretation of "the rules" (and I agre it's unprofessional and irritating), but when it comes to shade, in a city where too many street trees are hockey sticks with tiny leaves, on a hot scorching summer day I wouldn't mind some shade on the sidewalk. Take a walk in the Market next weekend if it's sunny and hot, and notice which sidewalk is most crowded: the sunny one or the shaded one?

c_speed3108
Apr 29, 2008, 4:01 PM
Hmm I thought she owned in the Metropole but I could be mistaken. Maybe she has two...

She has a unit in 40 Boteler. That building usually comes out +/- as the most expensive in the city. It is the Lowertown/market area but far enough north to miss out on all of Lowertown's crappy stuff (drugs, homeless shelters, panahandlers etc..)

It is a corner unit overlooking the river, parliaments, hull etc... They featured it on MTV cribs one time. She has it done in an asian theme...with buddas and alters everywhere :koko:

I am not aware what other real estate she might own in this town of ours.

c_speed3108
Apr 29, 2008, 4:03 PM
What I really wanted to address before I got sidetracked was how much I hate this development!!!

Why is anything being allowed to be built in the Byron Streetcar Corridor? It is one of the few free east-west corridors the city has in that part of the city.

:whatthefuck:

Dado
Apr 30, 2008, 1:25 AM
That part of the Byron corridor... isn't. It never was. There have always been buildings/development where that will be going.

The streetcar line went directly up the hill where Byron is now located (I believe they shared the running way in this location). Besides, this property is east of the useful piece of the corridor (approx Broadview westwards), unless you have some plan to run something through the Superstore parking lot or blow away a bunch of houses between Holland and Parkdale to get something running through from Byron to Gladstone... (frankly, if the City wants to make some investments towards cycling one would be to acquire about 6 properties in that area and turn them into a cycleway connecting Byron and Gladstone).

Kitchissippi
May 30, 2008, 2:06 AM
Crane went up last weekend:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2141/2535493564_92b45909fe.jpg

Luker
May 30, 2008, 1:28 PM
Anyone know whats the deal with Phase II and when its due for approval?

Mille Sabords
May 30, 2008, 2:17 PM
There's a render of it somewhere on this thread, it actually looks pretty good. I suspect it won't be too long before they start sales on the next phase since I remember also reading on this thread that they had started letting retailers know that their leases wouldn't be renewed. And Phase I is comfortably sold so that Phase II wouldn't dent any of their Phase I sales. The timing of the two buildings would target different buyers anyway. Stay tuned I guess... unless one of our Wetberian forumers like Kitchissippi can walk over to the sales office and do some espionage for us?

waterloowarrior
Jun 5, 2008, 1:45 PM
phase II planning app page... (http://app01.ottawa.ca/postingplans/appDetails.jsf?lang=en&appId=__6AXWMH)

down to 8 storeys

http://wwuploads.googlepages.com/westborostationII.JPG

Luker
Jun 5, 2008, 2:46 PM
nice to similar blocky buildings at the same height not providng any sort of sense of orginality or variation in the skyline, would of looked much better with phase two being a few floors taller, I guess anything reminiscing a normal skyline is opposed to here.

waterloowarrior
Jun 16, 2008, 4:21 AM
Westboro fights for community plan's integrity
This year, Kitchissippi Ward residents have been to the Ontario Municipal Board five times to challenge projects they think are too big, Maria Cook writes.
Ottawa Citizen
Sunday, June 15, 2008

OTTAWA - To hear architect Barry Hobin describe his new condominium project in Westboro makes you want to live there. Terraces, setback upper floors, a landscaped courtyard, broad sidewalk, ground floor retail, plus the neighbourhood setting, evoke images of sophisticated urban life.

This is very much the vision of the Richmond Road/Westboro Community Design Plan except in one fundamental respect: size. At eight storeys, it is two floors taller than the maximum contemplated in the plan and its floor area is bigger, too.

At a public meeting Tuesday, Mr. Hobin and Bourk Family Developments will present the proposal for redeveloping a full city block owned by the Bourk family.

"Because we're doing the whole block, we have the ability to be a lot more generous about public space," says Mr. Hobin. "The stepping has a huge impact on the perceived height of the building. We are actually shaping the building for urban design reasons."

At stake for the Westboro Village community association and concerned residents is the integrity of the community design plan, which was approved last July by city council, and sets a rigid height limit of six storeys.

The Bourk project, known as Westboro Station Phase 2, is the latest in a string of developments to exceed the size provisions of area zoning and the community design plan.

The site is bounded by Roosevelt Avenue to the east, Richmond Road to the north, Golden Avenue to the west and Byron Avenue to the south. It will have 102 condominiums and public underground parking.

The developers have applied for a zoning amendment for height, setbacks and parking. The building has 50-per-cent more floor space than would be allowed under current zoning.

"(Developers) keep coming back and saying we need six or eight or 10 storeys despite what it says in the zoning bylaw or the community design plan," says association co-chairman Wallace Beaton. "I believe that the current zoning bylaw permits more than enough intensification, and the community design plan gives more, and yet they want even more. At some point, we're going to have a tunnel."

This, he warns, has implications for other neighbourhoods.

The plan is an official document prepared by a range of groups and individuals led by area councillors.

Set to become part of the city's official plan in the coming months, it is a guide to the long-term design and development of the area.

So far this year, residents of Kitchissippi Ward, which includes Westboro, have gone to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) five times to challenge projects they believe are too big, but have lost each time.

The latest board decision in May concerned a five-storey condo building at 300 Richmond Rd. in Westboro, which the community association felt was too bulky and did not have enough setbacks. It has twice the floor area permitted under current zoning and four times what would be allowed under the community design plan.

"There's a question of consistency and integrity," says Mr. Beaton. "The ink is barely dry on the document and not only are developers not making much effort to respect the spirit and letter of it, but in the case of 300 Richmond, neither are city staff standing up for the plan."

A spokesman said the planning department did not attend the hearing because it had no objections to the variances.

"Why does the city's planning department seem to be paying lip service to a process and plan that is the result of hundreds of hours of input from community volunteers and has been endorsed by city council?" says Mr. Beaton.

"Here we are a year later and we have various development proposals that are essentially getting the green light from planning staff," without adherence to the document.

He says the neighbourhood is not against development. Intensification is part of the community plan that would see the one- and two-storey village transform to a main street of four- to six-storey buildings.

Area residents are in a bind. While they may be persuaded that the Bourk project is thoughtfully designed, it asks for more height and bulk. If they accept it, it sets a precedent.

"Our concern is you're going to get a domino effect," says Mr. Beaton. "The OMB has essentially ignored the provisions of the community design plan when it comes to 300 Richmond. We'll be dealing with similar scenarios with every other redevelopment application. We fully expect the developers are going to keep pushing the envelope to the extreme.

"When I go down Bank Street South, I don't see a proliferation of six- and eight- and nine-storey buildings, yet that seems to be the thrust of what developers want to do on Richmond Road."

Phase 1 of the Bourk project is under construction. In 2006, the committee of adjustment approved an increase in the maximum building height on the western part of the Bourk site from six to nine storeys based on a concept that reduced the middle section to two storeys and would retain the six-storey limit in Phase 2.

In a planning rationale report, consultants for the developers argue that, except for the extra height, the development is "generally consistent" with the city's official plan, and the community's plan.

They contend that it will meet the intensification goals of the city, and that the official plan authorizes increases in height on main streets in certain circumstances, which this project meets, including the fact it is on a corner and near transit, other area buildings are five to nine storeys, and it offers a public facility (a square and parking).

Furthermore, the design contributes to a human scale. Mr. Hobin adds that a taller building gives greater access to light and views, making it more attractive to buyers.

Kitchissippi Ward Councillor Christine Leadman says residents will need to consider if it gives back enough in public amenities to warrant extra size.

Mr. Hobin notes that the incoming zoning bylaw places less emphasis on floor area and more on negotiation on appropriate urban design.

"The vision that the (City of Ottawa) official plan has for traditional main streets is clearly changing the existing character of Westboro," he says. "I think, realistically, there is some play between what felt comfortable to people in the past and what will feel comfortable in the future."

The meeting takes place Tuesday from 7-9 p.m. at the Churchill Seniors Centre (corner of Churchill Avenue and Richmond Road).

© Ottawa Citizen 2008
the wca is much too concerned about height; design at the streetlevel is much more important. The CDP is much too strict regarding the heights of buildings, a lot of it was about lowering the heights (http://ottawa.ca/residents/planning/community_plans/completed/richmond_westboro/appendix_en.html) that were previously allowed under the zoning. some of the FSIs are very low (300 Richmond was a good example)

Dado
Jun 16, 2008, 2:28 PM
Ya, idiocy all around. Community associations with no regard to what makes sense and developers with no regard to the rules or urban design who just try to slap down the tallest building possible. The developer's earlier design was fine - except for the two 12-storey towers. That stepped-back upper level feature with a courtyard was neat; they could even have added another storey and one more still at the corners. But instead they've gone to proposing 8 storeys where it's zoned 6 storeys and where they already agreed to 6 storeys as part of Phase I.

If you're a developer and you want to sell views of the river and the Gatineaus, then don't try to do it on Richmond Rd in Westboro.

Kitchissippi
Jun 16, 2008, 5:20 PM
Yikes, the large retail space is big at 18,000 sqft for one store, and 5,000 sqft each for two others. That's like adding another MEC in the area. I can see this creating parking issues along the residential side streets south of Byron from drivers trying to avoid pay parking. Already, Roosevelt is lined with parked cars all day, and last winter, there were cases of snow rage where some people felt they had the right to park on the street to the detriment of safe access for residents into their own homes.

It also seems like they are integrating public garage parking with private condo parking. If I were a potential buyer, I would be wary of this, with security problems regarding car vandalism and theft from lockers. The underground garage can be accessed through a public elevator on Richmond which would be hard to control. Looks like an invitation for homeless people — we already have one bag lady roaming the street.

Luker
Jun 16, 2008, 7:02 PM
hahahahaha ^ bag lady... shes been around since i was in high school about 5 years ago havent seen her since last summer though sleeping near the macs at a vacant house lol

waterloowarrior
Jun 17, 2008, 1:56 AM
the 18,000 sq ft space would be great for a grocery store.

Dado
Jun 17, 2008, 3:31 AM
The last grocery store in the western half of Westboro (Westboro Market, an organic grocery) went under within a year, but this site would have a better location, a better size, more and closer walk-in traffic (both from the development itself and from the Amica just down the road), and more parking. Still, the grocery stores where the MEC now is (Mr. Grocer and then a Hong Kong grocery) both went under as well, as did the fish monger where the Travel Cuts now is. Westboro seems to have commercial property values (and therefore taxes and rent) that are too high for many village services to survive; instead the street fills up with places selling outdoor equipment, overpriced coffee and expensive clothing.

Kitchissippi
Jun 17, 2008, 12:54 PM
Although something like the old Market Fresh would be nice in there, I doubt a grocery would work because of the loading dock facilities. One of the items in the rezoning application is a reduction in the loading dock requirements.

One thing that disappoints me about this development is that it displaces 10 or so locally run small shops with 3 large stores which could possibly be chain operated because of the higher rent. Some of these storefronts facing the wrecking ball are a few of the oldest in Westboro. If you go into the alleyway towards the Paddle Shack, you'll see a faded sign painted on the brick wall for Stevenson Hardware and Imperial Gas, probably about 80 years old.

harls
Jun 17, 2008, 1:15 PM
I don't think Market Fresh is looking to expand anytime soon.. they recently closed their Aylmer a few months ago (under the Marché Frais name). The 3 other Gatineau locations are hurting, so I've been told.

What about Farm Boy.. or are they hurting too?

Kitchissippi
Jun 17, 2008, 1:42 PM
Actually, I think Home Hardware would work really well there. Also in the smaller spaces, something like Omer deSerres Art/Craft/hobby shop would be great in the neighbourhood, especially with the seniors' residence going up just down the street.

clynnog
Jun 17, 2008, 1:53 PM
I don't think Market Fresh is looking to expand anytime soon.. they recently closed their Aylmer a few months ago (under the Marché Frais name). The 3 other Gatineau locations are hurting, so I've been told.

What about Farm Boy.. or are they hurting too?

Market Fresh in Kanata closed and a Shoppers Drug Mart took its place. A high end Farm Boy anchors the mall at the west end. The Lapointe's in the Market Fresh (which was doomed due to its exposure) moved further to the east (near March Road) in its own space and appears to be doing well.

Kitchissippi
Jun 17, 2008, 2:25 PM
I walked down to $t*rbu¢k$ for a coffee and snapped a few pics.

This is the building I will miss the most. It is such a classic storefront with the deep bay and sheltered entry, the kind that is fast disappearing from our main streets. I love the quirky double bay window turret happening in the other corner too.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3266/2587446712_760ebb0754_o.jpg

On the west wall is this fading sign, a reminder of Westboro's past:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3010/2586612871_616a0a18bd_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3189/2586612713_203303dae4_o.jpg

Mille Sabords
Jun 17, 2008, 3:19 PM
Actually, I think Home Hardware would work really well there. Also in the smaller spaces, something like Omer deSerres Art/Craft/hobby shop would be great in the neighbourhood, especially with the seniors' residence going up just down the street.

Those are great ideas. :tup: Also, something like a Best Buy wouldn't be out of place in an area like this one. Something like this:

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t30/CortinaFan/Chicago176.jpg
Photo: mine, Chicago, last December

Dado
Jun 17, 2008, 4:14 PM
I walked down to $t*rbu¢k$ for a coffee and snapped a few pics.

This is the building I will miss the most. It is such a classic storefront with the deep bay and sheltered entry, the kind that is fast disappearing from our main streets. I love the quirky double bay window turret happening in the other corner too.


Yes, it would be nice if they would incorporate the old street frontage into the new building somehow. In fact, this building will be the first of the more traditional storefronts that Westboro will have lost in quite a while - the pharmacy across the street used to be an Esso station, the new Exchange was a small field with a one-storey factory behind it, Phase I displaces a garage, the MEC reused the old Mr. Grocer and the Superstore removed an old factory (which actually didn't look half bad, but was probably not easily reused). I can't actually think of any other recent new buildings that have displaced something worth keeping, can you?

Luker
Jun 17, 2008, 4:23 PM
nope, I cant. But I really cant see another grocery store going in around their. I mean their is a Loeb on island park the monster real canadian superstore, aswell as another loblaws at carlingwood. But homehardware seems like the perfect fit other than the one currently at parkdale near holland. Personally id rather a bestbuy ive always wanted a computer/electronic store nearby instead of the boonies I mean they have west merival and east st laurent, North in gatineau wouldnt this be the perfect Central location anyways? I mean its not west wellington or glebe close to downtown but still central.. and im sure they could make nice change with the surrounding residents incomes...

waterloowarrior
Jun 17, 2008, 5:40 PM
Intensify within reason
The Ottawa Citizen
Tuesday, June 17, 2008

Ottawa's old west end is one of the incubators of the new urban movement. It has become a desirable neighbourhood but that very popularity could result in the area's demise.

The community -- Wellington West, Westboro and the west end of Hintonburg -- has thrived due to its proximity to Ottawa River parkland, the Champlain Bridge providing access to West Quebec and Gatineau Park, lots of bus routes and bus rapid transit as well as the nearby Queensway, in a safe, family oriented environment.

But the identity of the area is created by the commercial and residential activity of the Wellington Street-Richmond Road corridor. Funky businesses, cute stores, very necessary food and hardware establishments, restaurants and traditional companies give the strip an eclectic flair that few streets can match in the city.

However, that is causing condominiums to pop up like toadstools after a rainstorm. There are as many signs telling of new such residences as there are coffee shops in Trendyville. All this is fine. Intensification of development makes good economic and environmental sense. More people in the neighbourhood produces more commerce for the Loblaws, the Loebs and the Bushtukahs.

But when does the success of the neighbourhood begin to kill it? The Richmond Road/Westboro Community Design Plan calls for a six-storey height limit for buildings along the commercial ribbon. Why? Doesn't it make more sense to build high structures to create even more of a street scene?

No.

People in the area want to create a village feel to Wellington Street-Richmond Road. They are up against some formidable obstacles.

People don't like to walk outdoors during the blustery, stormy months. Thus the malls and big-box stores are very seductive. Just drive your car to the huge free parking lot and run into a climate-controlled shopping experience.

So what does this have to do with tall buildings in the old west end? Well the Richmond-Wellington corridor runs east-west. The prevailing winds come out of the west. If this commercial ribbon becomes a high-rise canyon, the wind-tunnel effect will be considerable. So too, the shade. In marginal weather now, quite often shoppers gravitate to the sunny side of the street. Ottawa is already cold enough, thank you, without creating windy, shaded streets.

So the height of Westboro Station Phase 2 matters. It will be the western opening to the commercial corridor. Residents, who know the neighbourhood, have spoken loudly that six storeys is their limit. The developer wants eight. Tall buildings are for downtown, not here.

This is a community that has embraced intensification. [?] Privately owned wooded land has been developed without much of a wimper. Condos are being built left and right, any one of which would cause Rothwell Heights to shiver.

An intensifying community says build your condos, just keep them at six storeys so that the neighbourhood is not lost.

© The Ottawa Citizen 2008


http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/editorials/story.html?id=862fa57e-c761-4a22-bb84-684e5226a166

Jamaican-Phoenix
Jun 17, 2008, 6:34 PM
What pisses me off is how eight storeys instead of six is somehow going to destroy a community, make a wind-tunnel, make a dark streetscape, and is "tall"... :rolleyes: :hell:

waterloowarrior
Jun 17, 2008, 6:43 PM
What pisses me off is how eight storeys instead of six is somehow going to destroy a community, make a wind-tunnel, make a dark streetscape, and is "tall"... :rolleyes: :hell:
especially since the building steps back away from the street

Kitchissippi
Jun 17, 2008, 7:13 PM
Actually, it's not about "tall" it's about retaining the character of the street. I doubt leaving the limit to six storeys will make the project unfeasible. The example that Mille Sabords posted of the Best Buy in Chicago even has just 4 storeys.

I took the liberty of photoshopping the rendering to erase the upper two storeys and compare the look:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3113/2588150490_56f4626990_o.jpg http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3003/2587315091_e766bcd462_o.jpg

I have to say, keeping the six storey limit makes the Phase 1 tower stand out as the village "gateway" that they intended it to be

Dado
Jun 17, 2008, 8:21 PM
What pisses me off is how eight storeys instead of six is somehow going to destroy a community, make a wind-tunnel, make a dark streetscape, and is "tall"... :rolleyes: :hell:
Actually, it does make a difference. An eight-storey street wall has quite a different feel than a six-storey one.

The nine-storey Exchange and its soon-to-be counterpart across the street are one thing - they're supposed to be a gateway. That's how the height of both was justified. But if that's the case, then the other buildings further along have to be shorter, and that is what was agreed. The idea is make an environment in Westboro that feels more like a European city, not Chicago or Manhattan. The developers knew this - they were even party to the agreement. That's what has really got everyone up in arms here - the developers agreed to a build a six-storey building at the east end of the site and two-storeys in the middle in exchange for being allowed to build a nine-storey building at the western end. They haven't even finished building the foundations of Phase I and they already want to renege.

Luker
Jun 17, 2008, 8:31 PM
pfft I hate Ottawa.

citizen j
Jun 17, 2008, 8:59 PM
If stepped-back 8-storey buildings are too tall for a main street in a central neighbourhood, then no one had better whine that there are too many people living in sprawled-out neighbourhoods in Stittsville/Kanata, Orleans, and Barrhaven/RS, demanding rail service across the Greenbelt. If intensification isn't going to occur on mainstreets, where should it be happening? Same old tower-in-the-park approach in Alta Vista? Wasn't there a similar broohaha about a similarly scaled building on freaking Rideau Street? And Diane Holmes nearly self-immolated over a 9-storey condo on Bank Street. It's a low-rise (not even mid-rise) in Westboro. We're not talking about Le Corbusier tearing down half the Right Bank to build monoliths.

... ahem. Sorry.
I'll go back to just watching from a distance.

waterloowarrior
Jun 17, 2008, 9:06 PM
Actually, it does make a difference. An eight-storey street wall has quite a different feel than a six-storey one.

The nine-storey Exchange and its soon-to-be counterpart across the street are one thing - they're supposed to be a gateway. That's how the height of both was justified. But if that's the case, then the other buildings further along have to be shorter, and that is what was agreed. The idea is make an environment in Westboro that feels more like a European city, not Chicago or Manhattan. The developers knew this - they were even party to the agreement. That's what has really got everyone up in arms here - the developers agreed to a build a six-storey building at the east end of the site and two-storeys in the middle in exchange for being allowed to build a nine-storey building at the western end. They haven't even finished building the foundations of Phase I and they already want to renege.

the setback/step back also makes a difference though, reducing the impact of increased heights.

People may want a European feel for Westboro rather than NYC/Chicago, but it ignores the fact that the street is surrounded by single detached dwellings. If they want a European feel, higher transit use, and more vibrancy the whole area including side streets should have a consistent 4-6 storey streetwall throughout the neighbourhood (or at least town/rowhomes if you want more of a UK style, triplexes/small apartment buildings MTL style).

If that's what people want, that's great. But just having mainstreets with medium density and the rest as low density isn't going to be European, just a slightly more dense version of what we have now. Either allow the neighbouhood streets to be denser, or increase the height on main streets (rather than reduce many of them or opposing urban buildings like 300 Richmond like the WCA has been doing).

My point is that people such as Councillors Doucet and Holmes reject height increases on Bank, Richmond, etc saying that in European cities the cities are very vibrant and the buildings are 4-6 stories tall (the Parisian ones are 6-8 storeys). However, they fail to mention that the entire neighbourhood is dense, not just the main streets. (they also don't mention that lots of European downtowns actually do have a skyline :) )

clynnog
Jun 17, 2008, 9:23 PM
they also don't mention that lots of European downtowns actually do have a skyline :) )

Would you consider London, Paris, Amsterdam,Milan, Zurich,Geneva, to have a skyline. I've been to all of them and they don't really have a distinctive skyline in the core. London has the docklands/Canary Wharf area and Paris has le Defense but that is outside the Peripherique

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mxMQW0rdHM

waterloowarrior
Jun 17, 2008, 9:40 PM
I was thinking London (The City), Frankfurt, Moscow (spread out more), Rotterdam, and Warsaw... you are right though... 'several' is a better word than 'lots' I think. most of the ones with lots of skyscrapers are outside the historic core like Paris, London/Canary Wharf, Amsterdam (zuidas), Barcelona, Istanbul (not sure if that one is in the core), Vienna :)

waterloowarrior
Jun 18, 2008, 3:10 AM
Condo proposal too tall, Westboro residents complain
Approved plan called for six floors, not eight, speakers argue at public meeting
Maria CookOttawa Citizen
Tuesday, June 17, 2008

OTTAWA - At least 100 people attended an emotional public meeting Tuesday night in Westboro, many opposing the height of a proposed condominium building on Richmond Road.

The project, known as Westboro Station Phase 2, is two floors higher than the maximum allowed by zoning and the Richmond Road/Westboro Community Design Plan.

Applause greeted speaker after speaker as they rose to question the scale and express concerns about increased traffic, parking problems and loss of sunlight.

"I think the project is very nicely designed, and the owner should be complemented for the urban amenities," said Peter Simister, who lives in McKellar Park. "The only problem is the eight storeys. The design would be better at six storeys. Take two storeys off."

It is the latest in a string of developments in the area to exceed the size provisions of area zoning and the community design plan.

"When you have eight storeys, no matter how you step it back, that centre plaza in the middle is going to get sun for two or three hours a day," said Glenn Kachkowski, an architectural lighting designer and area resident.

"The life of the street is going to be lost if it becomes Westboro canyon.
This sets a precedent. The next developer comes along and says why can't I do that? Development yes, overdevelopment, no. We have to think at this point what is the right amount?"

Jane Reade has lived in Westboro 30 years and says five generations of her family have lived in her house.

"It used to be a beautiful neighbourhood. Now with all the development and high-density residences coming in, the traffic noise is almost driving me out.

Our little character is being gobbled up by those high-end stores. I'm also very dismayed at the way (in spite of) all our meetings and public action, the plans get approved anyway. I don't care about all these fancy architectural things."

Some expressed a sense of betrayal that the community design plan, which sets a six-storey height limit, is being exceeded. Also, the community understood that during Phase 1 planning, there had been an assurance by developers to stick to six storeys in Phase 2.

"This was not what was agreed to in the beginning," said Hilary Casey. "If it wins approval, I will feel cynical and disappointed with the public process."

Mikhaila Deeble is a student who has walked along Richmond Road for the past five years. "There has been a notable increase in wind tunnels along Richmond. What is attracting people to our area is its good points. I hope we can keep it pedestrian friendly. Keep it a village."

The building is designed as a U-shaped eight-storey building that steps back as it rises. It features terraces, a landscaped courtyard, broad sidewalk and ground floor retail.

Architect Barry Hobin said he designed it to minimize the perception of height. He said the shape of the building will be more attractive than a box-like six-storey building, and much effort has been made to avoid shadow and to create an attractive landscaped streetscape.

"Right from the street edge, the building steps back. By the time they get to the top floor it's set back 50 feet from the street," he said. "We're actually trying to develop something that has an interesting profile for the street. Our desire for height is to enhance the profile on the street, not to have more units. This issue of six or eight storeys is not going to change the traffic situation."

The site is bounded by Roosevelt Avenue to the east, Richmond Road to the north, Golden Avenue to the west and Byron Avenue to the south. It will have 102 condominiums and public underground parking.

The developers have applied for a zoning amendment for height, setbacks and parking. The building has 50-per-cent more floor space than would be allowed for residential development under current zoning.

© Ottawa Citizen 2008
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=fcbe608d-bb13-4208-9d4b-f8363c98bba1

Dado
Jun 18, 2008, 3:37 AM
If stepped-back 8-storey buildings are too tall for a main street in a central neighbourhood, then no one had better whine that there are too many people living in sprawled-out neighbourhoods in Stittsville/Kanata, Orleans, and Barrhaven/RS, demanding rail service across the Greenbelt. If intensification isn't going to occur on mainstreets, where should it be happening?
Who said anything about no intensification on mainstreets? You've just set up a strawman. Is not going from 1-2 storeys to 5-6 storeys, with certain select sites at 8-9 storeys, intensification?

citizen j
Jun 18, 2008, 3:55 AM
^yup. But it's like pulling teeth the whole way. 5-storey structure at 300 Richmond is a good example. Site currently zoned for 1-2 storeys??! Really!

waterloowarrior
Jun 18, 2008, 4:22 AM
throughout westboro and on richmond road, properties with height limits of 24.7 m were downzoned to 15 m as part of the CDP process (eg 975 richmond, 971 Richmond, 415 Richmond, 249 Richmond, 276 Richmond) etc

here's a link showing some of the zone changes resulting from public input for the CDPs
http://lovewestboro.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/cdp-zoning-changes.pdf

they also lowered the FSIs to 1.0 down from 2.0. Very hard to have a 6 storey building with an FSI of 1.0 unless you create a more suburban form (like on-street parking on half the lot).

edit: also, I'm not sure if the zoning was implemented yet, or if it will be as part of the CDP becoming a secondary plan, this is from the WCA's website (http://lovewestboro.wordpress.com/2008/06/04/300-richmond-road-wca-response-to-omb-hearing/#comments)

Dado
Jun 18, 2008, 2:48 PM
^yup. But it's like pulling teeth the whole way. 5-storey structure at 300 Richmond is a good example. Site currently zoned for 1-2 storeys??! Really!
No, that site is zoned 5-6. But there was idiocy on both sides - the WCA wanted an FSI of 1.0 and the developers 3.7. Clearly both are unreasonable.

The south side wall of that thing will be awful. All the stepping back, such as it is, is being done on the Richmond Rd side and with an FSI of 3.7* there's no way it can be anything other than a single vertical wall on its south side facing the lane and houses. The houses at the bottom of the hill on Eden Ave that are next to this thing will have just lost much of their property value as residences, which need not have been the case had the developer been reasonable. You complain about it being like pulling teeth, but it's like pulling teeth trying to get developers to be reasonable as well.

This kind of oversized stuff is what gives intensification a bad name. If it's given a bad name enough times, it gets fought all the time.

*the FSI excludes utility spaces (i.e. it's net FSI) so the actual gross FSI will be closer to 4-4.5.

Dado
Jun 18, 2008, 3:25 PM
the setback/step back also makes a difference though, reducing the impact of increased heights.

I was looking at the shadow diagrams last night. It will still shadow the entire street at noon in the winter, and the effect on Roosevelt in the afternoon in the winter is pretty nasty too.

The design of the 6th to 7th floors has a canopy over the 6th floor balcony/terrace that becomes part of the 7th floor balcony and 7th floor unit, which is actually further forward than the 6th floor unit. That is contributing a lot to the shadow (it puts the Starbucks in shadow). You can see it on Kitchissippi's post but it was quite obvious on some of the other perspective drawings. If the top two floors were lopped off along with the canopy over the 6th floor, it doesn't look like the shadow would hit the street nearly as badly.


People may want a European feel for Westboro rather than NYC/Chicago, but it ignores the fact that the street is surrounded by single detached dwellings.
Maybe you should visit the area before lecturing me on what my neighbourhood actually contains. It is not surrounded by single detached dwellings. There are apartment blocks within a few hundred feet and every street in the area has seen some of their detached dwellings replaced by semis.


If they want a European feel, higher transit use, and more vibrancy the whole area including side streets should have a consistent 4-6 storey streetwall throughout the neighbourhood (or at least town/rowhomes if you want more of a UK style, triplexes/small apartment buildings MTL style).

If that's what people want, that's great. But just having mainstreets with medium density and the rest as low density isn't going to be European, just a slightly more dense version of what we have now. Either allow the neighbouhood streets to be denser, or increase the height on main streets (rather than reduce many of them or opposing urban buildings like 300 Richmond like the WCA has been doing).
How do you figure it's medium density surrounded by low? What in blazes do you think this area is? Suburban Nepean? It's medium-high density surrounded by low-medium. If we're low density, I don't even want to know what suburban Nepean is and less still what the average exurban estate is.

As to having 4-6 storeys throughout, dream on. That will not happen anywhere any time soon. From a practical point of view, getting townhouses is difficult since lots are infilled most of the time only one at a time and you can't really get a three-unit townhouse with 4' sideyard setbacks on a 50' lot, which is why we keep getting semis instead. However, where there have been larger parcels of land available they have been filled with townhouses, some good and some bad. Any lack of overall density will have to be made up by *CAREFULLY* placed towers, like beside the Transitway or backing onto woods where they won't destroy the main commercial streets. You might even get away with 8 storeys on some mainstreets, but only on the north-south streets (stepping down from the south end of the block) or on particularly wide streets like Carling. It's even zoned 8 storeys a little further east along Danforth because there's enough depth-of-block that shadowing can be mitigated by stepping down. But this site just isn't deep enough.

You also have to remember that once an 8-storey precedent is set in a place where it doesn't make sense to do so, all developers will try to do it, and that will have really nasty effects if it's tried on the north side of the street because there won't be enough depth to step down on both sides (like a Pyramid).

Dado
Jun 18, 2008, 3:42 PM
throughout westboro and on richmond road, properties with height limits of 24.7 m were downzoned to 15 m as part of the CDP process (eg 975 richmond, 971 Richmond, 415 Richmond, 249 Richmond, 276 Richmond) etc

here's a link showing some of the zone changes resulting from public input for the CDPs
http://lovewestboro.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/cdp-zoning-changes.pdf

they also lowered the FSIs to 1.0 down from 2.0. Very hard to have a 6 storey building with an FSI of 1.0 unless you create a more suburban form (like on-street parking on half the lot).

edit: also, I'm not sure if the zoning was implemented yet, or if it will be as part of the CDP becoming a secondary plan, this is from the WCA's website (http://lovewestboro.wordpress.com/2008/06/04/300-richmond-road-wca-response-to-omb-hearing/#comments)
Yes, the WCA are a bit nuts at times, though I would point out that not all FSIs are down to 1.0. I don't know why they've done it, but frankly, given developers' proclivity to request unreasonably high FSIs regardless of the zoning the fact that there are unreasonably low FSIs in the CDP does present a chance of getting a reasonable FSI at the end of the day if the WCA is smart about it.

But again, why are developers asking for an FSI of 3.7 in a place zoned for 5-6 storeys (never mind what the actual FSI says)? On 5 storeys that prevents any serious amount of stepping back, especially since it will need it on two, if not three, sides. That fails the reasonableness test. Why is it that developers just can't seem to come forward with a reasonable proposal?

The zoning hasn't been implemented yet; the older zonings are still in force.


Anyway, aren't there some other mainstreets in the suburban parts of the city that developers can pick on? Oh, right, those streets are so ugly no one wants to live there... but if they continue like this no one will want to live here either.

citizen j
Jun 18, 2008, 4:02 PM
^It's the curse of the popular neighbourhood. More people want to live there, but as they are accommodated by increased development, the character of the area changes. Sometimes in a good way, sometimes not. In any case, it's no longer 1950 and Westboro is no longer on the edge of the city. Talking with friends who live in the area, I get the feeling that there are those who would be more than happy with NO development, let alone sensitive infill. Change is inevitable. I agree with you that developers need to work with the neighbours. I think that's what the change in the Phase 2 plan was addressing -- i.e., the neighbours not wanting a 12-storey tower across the street from them.

Mille Sabords
Jun 18, 2008, 4:13 PM
FSI should be removed from zoning entirely. It has no practical use other than to perpetuate a suburban type of built form. Combining FSI with height limits basically ensures that every application ends up needing some form of amendment. It doesn't make sense.

If we are serious about creating a more urban form on the Mainstreet, then in exchange for a firm building height the WCA should accept the following:

- there will be no side yards - buildings will touch each other;
- the will be no front setback;
- there will be no maximum limit on % lot coverage - only a minumum rear yard (to avoid sterilizing smaller lots);
- there will be no FSI;
- there will be no parking requirements. Projects that want to ofefr parking can do so, but no one will be forced to. The market will ensure that residential components of any new building have resident parking, but retail uses should not be penalized with parking requirements if the goal is getting people to shop on foot. And yeah, yeah, it will attract people from all over town who will drive. That's life. Pedestrian areas are more popular. Those same folks who drive now to Westboro will continue driving to Westboro whether there are more stores or not. It's not like they don't have retail in their suburbs - they come to Westboro because they LIKE IT. How about having Westboro serve its own residents properly first and foremost, i.e. more things accessible on foot. People will LIKE that anyway, so why curtail it.

This would be the serious way to allow intensification within a rigid height limit. The built form WILL be more urban. People WILL park on the street. Each individual lot WILL NOT try to fulfill the open space needs of the community - the street will be treated as an open space and its urban design will reflect this, starting with a continuous street wall.

The tradeoff is:

- the Mainstreet will be more inhabited;
- it will be livelier;
- it will offer more services to the entire neighbourhood, accessible on foot;
- it will be busier, which will slow traffic down;
- it will increase your property values, because popular areas do that.

Jamaican-Phoenix
Jun 18, 2008, 6:23 PM
Actually, it's not about "tall" it's about retaining the character of the street. I doubt leaving the limit to six storeys will make the project unfeasible. The example that Mille Sabords posted of the Best Buy in Chicago even has just 4 storeys.

I took the liberty of photoshopping the rendering to erase the upper two storeys and compare the look:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3113/2588150490_56f4626990_o.jpg http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3003/2587315091_e766bcd462_o.jpg

I have to say, keeping the six storey limit makes the Phase 1 tower stand out as the village "gateway" that they intended it to be

Sorry, but I don't see it making that different an impact. Nor is it "too tall".

Dado
Jun 18, 2008, 6:25 PM
FSI should be removed from zoning entirely. It has no practical use other than to perpetuate a suburban type of built form. Combining FSI with height limits basically ensures that every application ends up needing some form of amendment. It doesn't make sense.
I don't really agree with that. Using building height alone can result in a great big box as well as a tower surrounded by asphalt (though more likely the former). You're going to have to convince me and everyone else that dropping FSI won't just result in boxes filling the building envelope, and we in Westboro have seen it happen on the residential streets where there is no FSI - there are places that have basically been built to fill the entire envelope and hence we now have semi-McMansions.

What are the ways to avoid this? Rigorously enforced upper storey setbacks? I don't like that idea since it begins to limit architectural flexibility.


If we are serious about creating a more urban form on the Mainstreet, then in exchange for a firm building height the WCA should accept the following:

- there will be no side yards - buildings will touch each other;

Not that I disagree, but you do realize that except for the occasional alleyway and two or three small parking lots (plus the large one of the MEC...) that are sure to go sooner or late that this is already the case? This is the kind of uninformed statement that is sure to piss people off.

- the will be no front setback;
I disagree a bit with this one since the sidewalks are on the narrow side as the architect himself said last night. I wouldn't go nuts with it, but widening the sidewalks by 1-2 m adds a lot of useful space for street trees and street furniture that we currently don't have the room for. If projects are going to add more pedestrians then we sort of need more pedestrian space too. The way I look at it is that if a developer is going to knock down part of the existing streetscape to put in a taller building then they ought to be willing to provide a little more sidewalk space to accommodate the extra pedestrians.

- there will be no maximum limit on % lot coverage - only a minumum rear yard (to avoid sterilizing smaller lots);
- there will be no FSI;

So long as there is an alternate way to avoid getting a giant box that shadows the street.

- there will be no parking requirements. Projects that want to ofefr parking can do so, but no one will be forced to. The market will ensure that residential components of any new building have resident parking, but retail uses should not be penalized with parking requirements if the goal is getting people to shop on foot. And yeah, yeah, it will attract people from all over town who will drive. That's life. Pedestrian areas are more popular. Those same folks who drive now to Westboro will continue driving to Westboro whether there are more stores or not. It's not like they don't have retail in their suburbs - they come to Westboro because they LIKE IT. How about having Westboro serve its own residents properly first and foremost, i.e. more things accessible on foot. People will LIKE that anyway, so why curtail it.
I think most Westboro residents would love to have retail that serves them "properly first and foremost", but, as one speaker said last night, who among the long-time residents shops at all these expensive places that have driven out the stores we used to frequent by high rents and taxes? We still have our pharmacy (though no longer at the main intersection) and we still have our banks and some of the long-time restaurants, but the hardware store (and the Canadian Tire too!), the fish monger, the baker, the cobbler and others I can't even think of have all been forced to pack it in.

Just as Westboro gets nominally more pedestrian-friendly, the types of stores needed for pedestrian living are disappearing to be replaced by places that rely on people driving here from elsewhere.


The tradeoff is:

1 - the Mainstreet will be more inhabited;
2 - it will be livelier;
3 - it will offer more services to the entire neighbourhood, accessible on foot;
4 - it will be busier, which will slow traffic down;
5 - it will increase your property values, because popular areas do that.
Again, this is the kind of lecturing that pisses people off. We know about all this since we've seen it happen. I get the impression reading many of the comments from others on this area that few of you actually know what has happened here in the last ten years and what the changes (good and bad) have been. Anyway, your claim of all this offering more services to the entire neighbourhood (3) is turning out to be false because of (5) - we're not getting more services, we're getting fewer.


How about we spread the walkable mainstreets around a bit more widely so that ours isn't the only one in the west end and therefore is subject to inflationary commercial rents that drive out the truly walkable from all those who want to be located somewhere walkable?

Dado
Jun 18, 2008, 6:31 PM
Sorry, but I don't see it making that different an impact. Nor is it "too tall".
:rolleyes:

It's obvious. The "gateway" function of Phase I is gone. It would become even more obvious if the canopy over the 6th floor terrace was removed. But hey, we only live here, what do we know?

citizen j
Jun 19, 2008, 3:52 AM
Dado, it's two storeys. If the WCA want to play it this the way Holmes played the Hudson Park case, you're going to end up with two six-storey lot line to lot line boxes with no set backs, which will have a much greater visual impact on the street. When residents around Hudson Park realized they were facing a massive box that conformed to height limits, they chose the taller proposal.
Sorry if I sound insensitive to Westboro's neighbourhood aesthetics and all, but in my neighbourhood, we've got a proposal for 10 towers of heights between 24 and 49 storeys abutting an established 2-3 storey residential neighbourhood. And Minto is currently building 54 storeys a block away from a neighbourhood of 2-storey detached and semi-detached homes from the 1920s. I'm certainly not saying Westboro should roll over and play dead for developers, but 2 storeys stepped back from the street? I guess I've been in Toronto too long.

Good luck with the fight.

ajldub
Jun 19, 2008, 4:54 AM
I say go for 8 floors. Let's get aggressive on making this a real city already. I grew up in Wellington Village/Westboro and my parents did too. I think it's a bit rich for people to stand in the way of what really is quite positive development in the name of 'the village atmosphere' or whatever you want to call it. We're in the midst of a building boom that may end in a few years' time. Let's build as much quality product as we can while the going is good. Can anybody point to a neighborhood and say that 60 years ago they overbuilt that area back then? These are transient feelings that pass with time and the flux of people. It's unrealistic to expect the Wellington/Richmond strip to stay 2-3 stories forever. Just my opinion...

Aylmer
Jun 19, 2008, 11:23 AM
Evolution was never an Ottawa thing...

:)

Luker
Jun 19, 2008, 1:30 PM
God that pisses me off^, its so true.

Mille Sabords
Jun 19, 2008, 2:16 PM
I say go for 8 floors. Let's get aggressive on making this a real city already. I grew up in Wellington Village/Westboro and my parents did too. I think it's a bit rich for people to stand in the way of what really is quite positive development in the name of 'the village atmosphere' or whatever you want to call it. We're in the midst of a building boom that may end in a few years' time. Let's build as much quality product as we can while the going is good. Can anybody point to a neighborhood and say that 60 years ago they overbuilt that area back then? These are transient feelings that pass with time and the flux of people. It's unrealistic to expect the Wellington/Richmond strip to stay 2-3 stories forever. Just my opinion...

I agree. The Westboro CDP has been largely resident-driven and several of the niche developers that build quality infill have complained in the newspaper that they were excluded. Being an outsider to the process, to me that already appears problematic.

But more basically, aren't the residents there playing a game themselves with their insistence on a rigid limit? Why 6 storeys then, and not 5 or 7? Who are they to dictate, and based on what? Any time you exclude an important party to what is actually taking place, you lose legitimacy. It's all well and good for community associations to take an interest, but to usurp ownership and then pretent to impose terms on the people who make it happen can be a problem.

As for a "village atmosphere"... we need to talk. Westboro may have been a village 50 years ago. It's now a central city neighbourhood that is about to receive the equivalent of subway service. Capping its growth is not an option. The discussion should rather focus on how to properly integrate growth.

Luker
Jun 19, 2008, 2:41 PM
Well if them trendy westboroers want it so bad let them have it, uproot them all destroy their houses from churchill to mckellar, and well fill in the whole highland/broadview area up with touching 4-6 storey apartments in a european fashion, with no backyards and 30 foot front gardens and double car garages, oh and you can all walk to work no more cars or public transit in this "village from the past" idea, Please.... No intensification no transit. This way they wont be "forced" to have proper highrise built along MAIN streets and corridors such as one of the largest and most important streets in the entire city.

People amaze me as they expect they can have everything stay the exact same way forever, tahts fine if you want to put houses in the next subdivision past rockland, HAHAHA.

If you want to live in central ottawa, with this urbany feeling(if thats a word) then you cant protest and argue that its an outlying village area. Which should never change for a million years, its a central artery for the city give me a fucking break. What differs us from Toronto where a 60 storey building can cast a shadow over 3 different neigbourhoods, BUT god damn them if their is a shadow touching the road directly beneath the structure.

Last time I checked everything has a shadow? good game westboro.

Mille Sabords
Jul 3, 2008, 3:30 AM
According to their website, Phase I is now sold out! Phase II is supposed to be launched in the Fall. Hope they will finalize the design in a constructive way.

jitterbug
Jul 3, 2008, 2:49 PM
What differs us from Toronto where a 60 storey building can cast a shadow over 3 different neigbourhoods, BUT god damn them if their is a shadow touching the road directly beneath the structure.


They build higher in Toronto but that's the big leagues down there, where money talks loud and clear all the way to the mayor's office (ever heard of corruption?).

While the debate over 2 storeys in Westboro may seem petty, it's not if you look into the future: each time the bar is raised someone will try to raise it further in the future. Next thing you know, you'd have 40 storey buildings in Westboro, which you and the developers might like but that doesn't mean it would be good for the neighbourhood.

Experience shows you can have density without necessarily resorting to standalone towers.

In any case, your language is rather inappropriate.

Dado
Jul 3, 2008, 5:52 PM
Dado, it's two storeys. If the WCA want to play it this the way Holmes played the Hudson Park case, you're going to end up with two six-storey lot line to lot line boxes with no set backs, which will have a much greater visual impact on the street. When residents around Hudson Park realized they were facing a massive box that conformed to height limits, they chose the taller proposal.
The FSI limit would prevent six-storey lot line to lot line, unless of course they try to change that too...

Dado
Jul 3, 2008, 5:55 PM
I say go for 8 floors. Let's get aggressive on making this a real city already. I grew up in Wellington Village/Westboro and my parents did too. I think it's a bit rich for people to stand in the way of what really is quite positive development in the name of 'the village atmosphere' or whatever you want to call it. We're in the midst of a building boom that may end in a few years' time. Let's build as much quality product as we can while the going is good. Can anybody point to a neighborhood and say that 60 years ago they overbuilt that area back then? These are transient feelings that pass with time and the flux of people. It's unrealistic to expect the Wellington/Richmond strip to stay 2-3 stories forever. Just my opinion...

I love the attitude - because no one wants 8 storeys, apparently we only want 2-3... it's 5-6.

Dado
Jul 3, 2008, 6:15 PM
Well if them trendy westboroers want it so bad let them have it, uproot them all destroy their houses from churchill to mckellar, and well fill in the whole highland/broadview area up with touching 4-6 storey apartments in a european fashion, with no backyards and 30 foot front gardens and double car garages, oh and you can all walk to work no more cars or public transit in this "village from the past" idea, Please.... No intensification no transit. This way they wont be "forced" to have proper highrise built along MAIN streets and corridors such as one of the largest and most important streets in the entire city.

People amaze me as they expect they can have everything stay the exact same way forever, tahts fine if you want to put houses in the next subdivision past rockland, HAHAHA.

Again, same pathetic attitude. Apparently opposing 8 storeys on Richmond but supporting 6 means you want things to stay the same way forever. I would even point out that elsewhere in the area (but not on Richmond) taller buildings have gone in without serious opposition because it didn't ruin the main street, not that you take any notice of that. Seriously, with the kind of attitude you display it's no wonder people oppose everything.

As for being "trendy", my family and a lot other families have been here since long before it became trendy. I guess those who have been here for longer, for 40-50 years, we real good trend-spotters... You seriously need an attitude adjustment if you think this area is full of trendy complaining people. When you consider what has happened here over the years (bus sewer anyone?) the people are actually remarkably tolerant to change, which just seems to encourage developers to push their luck more than anything else. Not that you give a damn about people. Try building a 4-storey streetwall on Meadowlands and see what happens... ya... Westboro gets 8 storeys so that all the suburban neighbourhoods can remain as they are. If intensification is so good, why is concentrated into only a few places?

Kitchissippi
Jul 3, 2008, 8:03 PM
I live within a hundred metres of this site and I've become quite neutral to it going ahead. It definitely will have a huge impact in the area, as there is no other situation where an entire city block has been uniformly developed in this stretch of Richmond Road. The streetscape reminds me a bit of the Place du Portage in old Hull, a bit cold and a far cry from the eclectic collection of buildings it will replace. I really don't care if the traffic and parking situation gets bad as I walk everywhere. I am not looking forward to more blasting and the house shaking all day in the near future, however.

After this project is done, developers will have to move east of Churchill and work towards closing the gap between Westboro and Wellington West. There won't be another chance to build a project of this size in the immediate area, so it will risk sticking out like a sore thumb for a while.

Here are some more details on the project that I received:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3044/2634752982_3c69c1d9d7_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3136/2634753194_02776002a5_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3155/2634753368_b51096bff4_o.jpg

Mille Sabords
Jul 3, 2008, 9:34 PM
:previous: It's not as bad as I feared. Looks like a good application of the podium-and-tower concept, although the previous version of it looked better IMO.

Kitchissippi
Jul 3, 2008, 10:19 PM
Here's a few more renders. The brick building is currently the tallest building on that side of the street. This building is going to be the most massive thing in the entire village. I do like the plaza, I think it is a good counterpart of the open space by the old town hall and church down the street.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3100/2634247659_b050ca628a_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3121/2634247861_9a35e24326_o.jpg

Mille Sabords
Jul 4, 2008, 1:23 AM
If you ask me, it doesn't look "massive" at all, it's actually quite a respectful building in several ways. In terms of integrating a taller building into a lower-profile fabric, it's hard to fault this one on an urban design basis. I see great street presence, I also see a design that deliberately tries to mitigate the height of the building by terracing it back to have the greatest sunshine angle, I also see shade trees for the sidewalks, I like the way they have concealed the parking entrance behind the plaza's restaurant, and grouped all parking entrances at one location, I also like the pedestrian pathway from Richmond to Byron, framed by shade trees as well, and for the Phase II residents I see the garden above the podium as a big plus.

It's not a village any more, that's one thing.

Dado
Jul 4, 2008, 4:08 AM
If you ask me, it doesn't look "massive" at all, it's actually quite a respectful building in several ways. In terms of integrating a taller building into a lower-profile fabric, it's hard to fault this one on an urban design basis.

So we can expect to find such designs being implemented elsewhere in the city on suburban arterials? Heck, I can think of a few other places in Westboro where this would probably work, among them north of Westboro Station (well, it ought to be 12 storeys) and on the Loblaws parking lot.


I see great street presence, I also see a design that deliberately tries to mitigate the height of the building by terracing it back to have the greatest sunshine angle,
That's not really true: look at it very carefully. Take a look at the 6th storey. Then note that it has a canopy above it, and on top of the canopy is a terrace and part of the 7th storey, which steps forward slightly over the 6th storey. Then above the 7th floor is another canopy/terrace. Those terraces are cancelling out much of the apparent stepping back as far as sunshine angle is concerned. As an aside, the shadowing seen in most of these depictions is early evening in midsummer, with one bizarre one being early morning in which the building's shadowing somehow mysteriously disappears into the street scene while the shadow of the existing 4-storey block on the corner is readily apparent. The only ones with midday shadowing are those limited to in and around the plaza. Must just be a coincidence though.

Of course if they just took the design as is and chopped off the two top storeys (and the canopy over the sixth floor), then the issue would go away. But then they wouldn't sell pricey views, which is really what this is all about. Nobody's being fooled: that's entirely what it is about. I guess it's lucky for them that their across-the-street neighbours only built to two storeys a few years back. I wonder though what would happen if this project gets built as is and in a few years' time someone decides to re-redevelop the 2-storey pharmacy/Starbucks/Yoga building on the north side of Richmond to 8-storeys as well... I wonder if the residents of this project would welcome with open arms the potential for new neighbours or if they would protest the loss of their views... hmm...


This is what's odd about all this: if you're trying to buy into Westboro, then it doesn't matter if you're on the 6th or 8th floor. And if you're trying to buy a view, then it need not be in Westboro (or at least not on Richmond). What's with this apparent need to build places with a view on Richmond? It's so ridiculous because we've got sites on Scott Street that shadow nothing but linear greenspace and the Transitway in which the developers don't go higher than 5 storeys:

http://www.stoneworklofts.com/
http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=2060+Scott+Ottawa&sll=45.42148,-75.69188&sspn=0.337362,0.480652&ie=UTF8&ll=45.395252,-75.754021&spn=0.002637,0.003755&t=k&z=18
There's not been any protest about this 5-storey building whatsoever. Oh, and for those of you who think that people living in Westboro hate change... just look across the Transitway from this site. See that? That's a social housing project with a pair of 8-storey (iirc) buildings and townhouses. It went in with barely a whimper about 15 years ago before all the trendy types showed up. There's another just to the west that is 7 storeys high on the south side of the Transitway.

Anyway, there's this place, directly across from Westboro Station:
http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Ottawa&ie=UTF8&z=11&om=1

Wtf? Where's the height gone all of a sudden? Why not 6, 7 or 8 storeys on Scott? One or two neighbours might complain, but you're not going to have the entire community up in arms because everyone knows that Scott needs improvement and the community would be willing to put up with more there. What's the fascination with Richmond Rd that it somehow has to be developed to heights no one wants, yet a street right nearby - even closer to transit - that could do with some density to improve it gets only blandish 5-storey buildings?

Luker
Jul 4, 2008, 3:00 PM
Again, same pathetic attitude. Apparently opposing 8 storeys on Richmond but supporting 6 means you want things to stay the same way forever. I would even point out that elsewhere in the area (but not on Richmond) taller buildings have gone in without serious opposition because it didn't ruin the main street, not that you take any notice of that. Seriously, with the kind of attitude you display it's no wonder people oppose everything.

As for being "trendy", my family and a lot other families have been here since long before it became trendy. I guess those who have been here for longer, for 40-50 years, we real good trend-spotters... You seriously need an attitude adjustment if you think this area is full of trendy complaining people. When you consider what has happened here over the years (bus sewer anyone?) the people are actually remarkably tolerant to change, which just seems to encourage developers to push their luck more than anything else. Not that you give a damn about people. Try building a 4-storey streetwall on Meadowlands and see what happens... ya... Westboro gets 8 storeys so that all the suburban neighbourhoods can remain as they are. If intensification is so good, why is concentrated into only a few places?



Since when does an urban village within a few km of core and in the direct path of LRT, BRT/transitway, as well as being a corridor for personal auto also, relate to meadowlands which is off future LRT, has poor public transit comparablly now, does not have a transitway hub/ or link, is not a urban village, is not in a previously considered "Core" area of the real Ottawa Center, and is in a completly suburban surrounding, with big box power centers, and winding crescents have anythign to do with Westboro/West Wellington.

Thanks and please come down from that pompus westboro no-it-all cloud.

Dado
Jul 4, 2008, 6:25 PM
Since when does an urban village within a few km of core and in the direct path of LRT, BRT/transitway, as well as being a corridor for personal auto as well relate to meadowlands which is off future LRT, has poor public transit comparablly, does not have a transitwat, is not a urban village, is not in a previously considered "Core" area of the real Ottawa, as compared to the former outlying/suburb areas of meadowlands.
The question - had you bothered to read it - was why are places that are already urban villages the only places that are getting intensification? Why aren't places like Meadowlands - or anywhere else - getting it too? Shouldn't we be trying to make more places become like Westboro?


Thanks and please come down from that pompus westboro no-it-all cloud.
Piss off.

Mille Sabords
Jul 4, 2008, 6:48 PM
So we can expect to find such designs being implemented elsewhere in the city on suburban arterials? Heck, I can think of a few other places in Westboro where this would probably work, among them north of Westboro Station (well, it ought to be 12 storeys) and on the Loblaws parking lot.

When? Well, when those streets actually become more human places and less highway-like traffic sewers. Which all starts with the city doing things like widening sidewalks, planting street trees that will form a canopy over the sidewalk, putting in a streetcar line (Carling, Merivale, St. Laurent) and allowing on-street parking. Until then, I wouldn't expect anyone to commit to a mortgage on any of those streets.

Take a look at the 6th storey. Then note that it has a canopy above it, and on top of the canopy is a terrace and part of the 7th storey, which steps forward slightly over the 6th storey. Then above the 7th floor is another canopy/terrace. Those terraces are cancelling out much of the apparent stepping back as far as sunshine angle is concerned. As an aside, the shadowing seen in most of these depictions is early evening in midsummer, with one bizarre one being early morning in which the building's shadowing somehow mysteriously disappears into the street scene while the shadow of the existing 4-storey block on the corner is readily apparent. The only ones with midday shadowing are those limited to in and around the plaza. Must just be a coincidence though. Of course if they just took the design as is and chopped off the two top storeys (and the canopy over the sixth floor), then the issue would go away. But then they wouldn't sell pricey views, which is really what this is all about. Nobody's being fooled: that's entirely what it is about.

Well, if the setback of the upper storeys allows for the sunlight to illumine the street, what's the problem? The challenge of integrating taller buildings into older fabrics is all about practical design interventions such as this one but let's not forget, this is about integrating taller buildings, not about chopping them down.

I guess it's lucky for them that their across-the-street neighbours only built to two storeys a few years back. I wonder though what would happen if this project gets built as is and in a few years' time someone decides to re-redevelop the 2-storey pharmacy/Starbucks/Yoga building on the north side of Richmond to 8-storeys as well... I wonder if the residents of this project would welcome with open arms the potential for new neighbours or if they would protest the loss of their views... hmm...

They probably would squawk, yes, but it is known in the city's official plan that Mainstreets are one of the designations targeted for intensification. And intensification means among other things taller buildings. My own take on this is that even if you lose the river view, your location at Westboro Station is good enough to balance it out. Many would probably disagree and move but they would quickly be replaced by others eager to live there. I don't believe anyone should move into a vibrant and evolving area like Westboro and expect there to be no change ever after.

This is what's odd about all this: if you're trying to buy into Westboro, then it doesn't matter if you're on the 6th or 8th floor. And if you're trying to buy a view, then it need not be in Westboro (or at least not on Richmond). What's with this apparent need to build places with a view on Richmond? It's so ridiculous because we've got sites on Scott Street that shadow nothing but linear greenspace and the Transitway in which the developers don't go higher than 5 storeys:

Wtf? Where's the height gone all of a sudden? Why not 6, 7 or 8 storeys on Scott? One or two neighbours might complain, but you're not going to have the entire community up in arms because everyone knows that Scott needs improvement and the community would be willing to put up with more there. What's the fascination with Richmond Rd that it somehow has to be developed to heights no one wants, yet a street right nearby - even closer to transit - that could do with some density to improve it gets only blandish 5-storey buildings?

I think developers are building in Westboro for many more reasons than the views of the river. It's a Glebe-like pedestrian neighbourhood that, unlike the Glebe, still has room to grow and accommodate more buildings and taller ones than the 1-and-2 storey fabric (punctured by used car lots and vacant lots) that is there now.

Scott, on the other hand, is barren and soulless, it looks like a rural road in some stretches, and it's still strewn with dilapidated buildings, an ugly hydro corridor, and the Transitway trench with its chain link fencing.

What Scott Street needs in my opinion is to become a two-sided street. The Transitway (especially when it is converted to rail) should be covered and built over. The street needs sidewalks on both sides and on-street parking. The fact that Stonework Lofts even exists speaks more about Richmond Road's power of attraction than about the desirability of living on Scott Stree, which is nil.

Luker
Jul 4, 2008, 7:05 PM
Thank you very much^

And as for you Dado, you are the one who is completly ignorant A. Their was no direct question asked, those where my opinions. B. You lack to read yourself, not I so take your head out of those Westboro clouds. C. Their never was and never will be areas like Glebe, The Market, Preston, Westboro, Sandy Hill, and so forth. D. It doesn't matter which city the same occurs so suggesting it in the burbs which has poor routes and transportation methods will just further increase congesstion and pollution within the city.

E. And all that matters really is it goes everything which is bad, and hosntly most of us in here hope for and believe real intensification is coming, and that these predeveloped height limits are abolished. Apart from everything being wrong it was pretty bang on for a westboroian view.