PDA

View Full Version : 263-267 Rochester | 22.1 m | 7 fl | Proposed


waterloowarrior
Dec 11, 2008, 5:51 PM
http://app01.ottawa.ca/postingplans/appDetails.jsf?lang=en&appId=__7I6G52
http://app01.ottawa.ca/postingplans/appDetails.jsf?lang=en&appId=__7I6GET

The proposal is located at the NE corner of Rochester and Balsam

The applicant is proposing a seven-storey mixed-use building with some commercial space on the ground floor, approximately 60 apartment units above, commercial parking at grade (under the building), and residential parking underground.

here are some images I assembled from the planning rationale (http://webcast.ottawa.ca/plan/All_Image%20Referencing_Zoning%20Bylaw%20Amendment%20Application_Image%20Reference_Planning_Rationale_D02-02-08-0119.PDF)

http://wwuploads.googlepages.com/263-267Rochester.jpg

Mille Sabords
Dec 11, 2008, 6:30 PM
Too much setback from the sidewalk, with resulting useless grass in front of the building - otherwise, a good little project.

lrt's friend
Dec 11, 2008, 6:45 PM
Isn't the setback designed to be consistent with neighbouring buildings? Consistent setbacks are important in maintaining visual continuity in a neighbourhood.

Mille Sabords
Dec 12, 2008, 8:32 PM
Isn't the setback designed to be consistent with neighbouring buildings? Consistent setbacks are important in maintaining visual continuity in a neighbourhood.

I agree, setbacks are one thing, but MUST they be grass? I mean, here we have a mixed-use building whose ground floor is meant to engage people on the sidewalk, hopefully with well-appointed display windows, and yet having grass between those windows and the sidewalk conveys a get-away-from-me message to passersby. There is a functional contradiction there which makes grass the wrong choice for an active ground floor, or an active ground floor the wrong choice if they want a grassy setback.

harls
Dec 12, 2008, 8:38 PM
What kind of development is it.. is it a seniors residence? or is it like that place in Vanier with the slimy Tijuana dude as their spokesmodel? Seems to me that if it's a senior-type place, they like to be as far away from the sidewalk as possible (lest someone mess up their shuffleboard shot). Hipsters on the other hand, don't mind being so close to the street.

no? am I out in left field on this one?

(christmas office party.. too much nog today..)

cityguy
Dec 15, 2008, 2:39 PM
I live near by.and I think it's a great proposal,besides seniors can live close to the street because they can't hear.

waterloowarrior
Apr 13, 2009, 7:04 PM
some news from West Side Action blog
http://westsideaction.blogspot.com/2009/04/shrinking-condos.html


Immediately to the left of the Z6 are a series of land parcels owned by Fanto. They applied for rezoning to permit a seven storey condo at the corner of Balsam and Rochester, with two more 'future' buildings to be built on either side of it. They did not get the desired rezoning, facing opposition from the Councilor and Dalhousie Community Assoc. I gather they are now considering a lower rise building or stacked townhouses for their site.

osirisboy
Apr 13, 2009, 8:07 PM
Isn't the setback designed to be consistent with neighbouring buildings? Consistent setbacks are important in maintaining visual continuity in a neighbourhood.

agreed but the set back used here seems a little too large, looks weird but otherwise looks like a nice project.

waterloowarrior
Jun 11, 2011, 4:22 PM
Fanto Group changes Little Italy condo design
http://www.obj.ca/media/photos/unis/2011/06/02/photo_1721566_resize.jpg

Fanto Group's proposed townhome development at Rochester and Balsam streets. (Provided)

Published on June 3, 2011
Elizabeth Howell

In response to city concerns about streetscape views, an Ottawa developer has changed its plans for a residential development just east of Little Italy to feature townhomes, rather than a seven-storey condominium building.
Topics : Fanto Group

The Fanto Group filed a site plan and zoning application with the city in late May to demolish four buildings on a 19,730-square-foot property at the northeast corner of Balsam and Rochester streets, just west of Gladstone and Bronson avenues.
In its place, the builder proposes 23 townhomes ranging between three and four storeys, including garages and a private roadway.

"We (ran into) opposition with the city," said Fanto co-owner Teodoro Oliviero in an OBJ interview, of the seven-storey, 61-condo building proposed in 2008.

"Councillors decided that zoning was too difficult to change and (also), for us economics made sense for townhomes right now because there are a lot of condos going on in the city."

He explained it makes more sense for Fanto to build townhomes because there are already so many condo developments under construction.

The lot at 261 Rochester St. was bought by Mr. Oliviero's father in the 1980s. Mr. Oliviero and business partner Angelo Serpellini subsequently purchased the adjacent properties.

This represents Fanto's first foray into building townhomes, although the company has been active in construction for 20 to 25 years. For his part, Mr. Oliviero also manages Rideau Cliffe Developments, a custom home builder, that has been building townhomes in Manotick since about 2002.

Liff & Tolot Architects designed the Rochester Street building, with landscape engineering done by James B. Lennox & Associates. Paterson Group Inc. performed an environmental assessment on the area in 2008.
Public comments on the revised proposal are due June 27, and the city plans to make a decision on the development around Sept. 2.


http://app01.ottawa.ca/postingplans/appDetails.jsf?lang=en&appId=__7I6G52

The applicant ihas revised is application and is now proposing a three and four-storey planned unit development consisting of semi-detached and row-dwellings (multiple attached dwelling), with approximately 23 units an internal private road and individual parking garages. The revised application requires changes to performance standards including reduced minimum yards, private roadway widths, set backs, and a 1.5 m. building height increase.

McC
Jun 11, 2011, 6:49 PM
Fanto Group changes Little Italy condo design.
The applicant ihas revised is application and is now proposing a three and four-storey planned unit development consisting of semi-detached and row-dwellings (multiple attached dwelling), with approximately 23 units an internal private road and individual parking garages. The revised application requires changes to performance standards including reduced minimum yards, private roadway widths, set backs, and a 1.5 m. building height increase.
Urban townhouses are good too!

cityguy
Jun 17, 2011, 11:29 AM
looks good,any addition to the neighborhood is good.

waterloowarrior
Aug 14, 2011, 1:46 PM
http://www.unotowns.com/

waterloowarrior
Nov 1, 2011, 9:50 PM
staff report
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2011/11-08/1%20-%20ACS2011-ICS-PGM-0210%20Zoning%20Balsam%20and%20Rochester.htm

Cre47
Nov 2, 2011, 12:23 AM
More wasted space once again and Holmes jumping for joy on that one.

“This revised proposal for a planned unit development of 23-units is much more appropriate to the scale of the existing neighbourhood than the 7-storey condominium tower originally proposed. I would encourage this type of ground-oriented development because it is likely to be more attractive to families, and bring more children into the community. I have some concerns about the high density of this development and the number of units per hectare, and the resulting reduced internal yards setbacks that are needed.”

Ottawan
Nov 2, 2011, 12:28 AM
gah! Couldn't agree more.

kevinbottawa
Nov 2, 2011, 12:38 AM
A seven storey "tower" was too high? Wow.

Cre47
Nov 2, 2011, 3:20 AM
I guess according to Holmes, yes it was too tall. And concerns about the density? Geez Louise!

S-Man
Nov 2, 2011, 4:10 PM
When does a building become a 'tower'? Something to think about.

And isn't this site a block away from Rochester Tower, the 19 (or so) storey building built decades ago?

Proof Sheet
Nov 2, 2011, 5:33 PM
A seven storey "tower" was too high? Wow.

Believe me....HRH Holmes is never happy with a design and the best one can hope for if proposing something in her ward is that she holds her nose and reluctantly allows it to go through.

Cre47
Nov 2, 2011, 10:41 PM
Well now I share a concern. There is not enough density and it is too low and as S-Man pointed out, there is a 20+ story tower right across at the corner of Gladstone.

Just another lame excuse by Holmes for not having something over 2 stories tall been built.

Davis137
Nov 3, 2011, 4:40 PM
Epic Fail Councillor.

citizen j
Nov 3, 2011, 6:51 PM
Much as I hate to say it, I do see Holmes' point about ground-level use. I'd much rather see townhouse units along a sidewalk than an extended glassed-in lobby with a single, set-back entrance. That doesn't mean, however, that you can't build a tower above a townhouse-podium. That said, Holmes continues to baffle and bewilder with her failure to accommodate logical intensification in the CENTRE of the city. Perhaps she should consider representing Stittsville -- I hear they're having a pernicious influx of mega-projects along their main street.

teej1984
Nov 3, 2011, 7:24 PM
Id love to see more urban townhouses. I for one, can't stand the floorplans in most of the condos going up and would much rather live in something like this (plus the design is nice!). Why should I have to move all the way to Barrhaven for this option!?

It will be refreshing to see a different concept other than a tower going up. I hope it is replicated in other areas!

Davis137
Nov 7, 2011, 3:01 PM
You don't have to move to Barrhaven...there are lots of Rowhouse condos, rather nice ones, that were built in the mid-to-late 80's in Southgate and Greenboro that some of us like just fine...;)

reidjr
Nov 7, 2011, 3:43 PM
Id love to see more urban townhouses. I for one, can't stand the floorplans in most of the condos going up and would much rather live in something like this (plus the design is nice!). Why should I have to move all the way to Barrhaven for this option!?

It will be refreshing to see a different concept other than a tower going up. I hope it is replicated in other areas!

The thing with row town houses while there some are nice is they take up a fair amount of space.

Cre47
Nov 7, 2011, 3:45 PM
Id love to see more urban townhouses. I for one, can't stand the floorplans in most of the condos going up and would much rather live in something like this (plus the design is nice!). Why should I have to move all the way to Barrhaven for this option!?

It will be refreshing to see a different concept other than a tower going up. I hope it is replicated in other areas!

Not enough intensification with this type of home.

umbria27
Nov 7, 2011, 9:13 PM
Not enough intensification with this type of home.

For density to be sustained you need families downtown. You don't want all those people in 1 bedroom condos moving to barrhaven when the first child comes along. Until tower developers start building affordable 3 bedroom apartments, stacked townhomes are the best option for families that want to live downtown. There's a market for this that Fanto acknowledges. They could presumably have gone OMB on this, but realized that with the rush of new condos there's a niche market for townhouses.

The human real density loss isn't much anyway: 23 townhouses with 3-4 inhabitants as opposed to 60 apartments with 1 or 2 inhabitants. It's worth it to have those families downtown.

reidjr
Nov 7, 2011, 9:39 PM
For density to be sustained you need families downtown. You don't want all those people in 1 bedroom condos moving to barrhaven when the first child comes along. Until tower developers start building affordable 3 bedroom apartments, stacked townhomes are the best option for families that want to live downtown. There's a market for this that Fanto acknowledges. They could presumably have gone OMB on this, but realized that with the rush of new condos there's a niche market for townhouses.

The human real density loss isn't much anyway: 23 townhouses with 3-4 inhabitants as opposed to 60 apartments with 1 or 2 inhabitants. It's worth it to have those families downtown.

Its good to have some stacked town houses but i don't think the idea we should have more and more stacked town houses over condos really would not work.

waterloowarrior
Nov 7, 2011, 11:12 PM
West Side Action - Planning Committee to set new low standard http://westsideaction.wordpress.com/2011/11/06/planning-committee-to-set-new-low-standard/

Mille Sabords
Nov 8, 2011, 2:19 AM
Much as I hate to say it, I do see Holmes' point about ground-level use. I'd much rather see townhouse units along a sidewalk than an extended glassed-in lobby with a single, set-back entrance. That doesn't mean, however, that you can't build a tower above a townhouse-podium. That said, Holmes continues to baffle and bewilder with her failure to accommodate logical intensification in the CENTRE of the city. Perhaps she should consider representing Stittsville -- I hear they're having a pernicious influx of mega-projects along their main street.

The use isn't the problem with this one, it's the crappy suburban way in which the site is laid out. You'll basically have a private loop road with just garages along the ground, zero amenity space for the residents (hello, families with kids!) and frontage that completely departs from the funky Rochester Street streetscape. There are better ways to do this.

umbria27
Nov 8, 2011, 1:45 PM
Its good to have some stacked town houses but i don't think the idea we should have more and more stacked town houses over condos really would not work.

I don't disagree. You can't have a whole downtown of stacked condos. There's probably an ideal ratio of apartments vs. townhouses that some urban planner has in their textbooks. A better design here would have included both, but the developer is not the most sophisticated of builders. As Mille Sabords notes there are other design flaws that will reduce its appeal to to urban families.

citizen j
Nov 9, 2011, 4:42 PM
The use isn't the problem with this one, it's the crappy suburban way in which the site is laid out. You'll basically have a private loop road with just garages along the ground, zero amenity space for the residents (hello, families with kids!) and frontage that completely departs from the funky Rochester Street streetscape. There are better ways to do this.

Hmm, distressing. Didn't know about this loop road and the garages, etc.
A decent townhouse podium with a 'tower' (even if it's only 6 or 7 storeys) above would have have been a great addition to the neighbourhood. This development has neither of those elements.