Gladstone Village [933 Gladstone Ave/1010 Somerset St] | U/C

[J.OT13]

I saw an image somewhere of the work they are doing. From above, you can now see the pattern of the future road network, so yeah, I'm assuming they are starting to build the infra and roads.

[Badyouken]

From what I can read, there is no detail on what would be in the Plant addition, or in that new RCFS facility, correct?

I hope the Plant gym will remain open during construction of that addition.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Badyouken

From what I can read, there is no detail on what would be in the Plant addition, or in that new RCFS facility, correct?

I hope the Plant gym will remain open during construction of that addition.

Yeah, I think it's more of a "here's the space, what do want us to fill it with".

I don't see any reason why they would need to close the current facility while this one is u/c. That said, renos were done in the early 2000s, so who knows.

From Wikipedia. Didn't realize the original pool was removed.

The Plant Bath is a historical bath in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. It was built along with the Champagne Bath in 1924 to try to improve the hygiene and well-being of the city's lower classes. It was named after Frank H. Plant, then mayor of Ottawa. It is located at 930 Somerset Street West at the intersection with Preston Street. It is in the centre of the Italian-Canadian community and near the Chinese-Canadian areas of the city.

In 1994 it was designated a heritage property, but three years later the building was closed for safety reasons. The brick pillars holding up the roof had eroded and there was some danger that the building could collapse. Repairs were estimated to cost millions of dollars and the baths remained closed for several years. After 2000, a project to refurbish the baths and build a new recreation centre attached was launched. This project cost eight million dollars, including removing the pool from the old building which now contains community meeting halls. Two new pools, hot tub, steam bath, gyms, and other community structures were added to a large new centre attached. The new Plant Recreation Centre opened in June 2004.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Bath

[McKellarDweller]

I had no idea what stage this site was at - have not seen it in person since the Oak St. Complex / 933 Gladstone industrial building was torn down and the site was sodded. Thanks to everyone who contributed to this thread.

[Badyouken]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Yeah, I think it's more of a "here's the space, what do want us to fill it with".

I don't see any reason why they would need to close the current facility while this one is u/c. That said, renos were done in the early 2000s, so who knows.

From Wikipedia. Didn't realize the original pool was removed.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Bath

Thanks for the info! I didn't know it was renovated so "recently."

[zzptichka]

[SL123]

^The section with the grass removed seems to match perfectly with the road network of the Gladstone village masterplan

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by SL123

^The section with the grass removed seems to match perfectly with the road network of the Gladstone village masterplan

Still not to late to just kill the internal above ground road network and turn most of into usable space around with increasing density 2 fold.....(One can hope can't they)....

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

Still not to late to just kill the internal above ground road network and turn most of into usable space around with increasing density 2 fold.....(One can hope can't they)....

You mean Kowloon Walled City?

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

You mean Kowloon Walled City?

There's a block of town homes that can easily accommodate a tower on top of them if you care more about housing then the feelings of those in the SFH next to the site....

Though, You've already stated your preference for appeasing the comfortably housed.

Edit: Just to be specific here there are 3 towers of only 8 stories, and 2.5 "blocks" of townhomes, that should all be raised 20-30 stories, but as other have implied its more important that this development step down to the SFH nearby, even though those homes will eventually be redeveloped as well, likely to height taller then 8 stories.

[Ottawacurious]

To echo williamoforange, if you show 3D of proposed towers and potential here (ie towers along Loretta, bayswater and Laurel including the proposed pedestrian overpass at Laurel), it'd show how you are right...they will eventually get developed into a lot of height.

[Harley613]

Originally Posted by Ottawacurious

To echo williamoforange, if you show 3D of proposed towers and potential here (ie towers along Loretta, bayswater and Laurel including the proposed pedestrian overpass at Laurel), it'd show how you are right...they will eventually get developed into a lot of height.

I'll post some 3D angles tomorrow when I fire up my work laptop.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

There's a block of town homes that can easily accommodate a tower on top of them if you care more about housing then the feelings of those in the SFH next to the site....

Though, You've already stated your preference for appeasing the comfortably housed.

Edit: Just to be specific here there are 3 towers of only 8 stories, and 2.5 "blocks" of townhomes, that should all be raised 20-30 stories, but as other have implied its more important that this development step down to the SFH nearby, even though those homes will eventually be redeveloped as well, likely to height taller then 8 stories.

I was replying to your comment about replacing the road network with more density, which would suggest just one big building, or buildings in very close proximity.

For what it's worth, I agree the site could use more density. The towers on Somerset should go up to 40 floors, on a 6 storey podium, along the street (no parallel drop-off street). That could leave space for mor park at the back.

Townhomes should be 4 floors closest to the existing residential, and 6 to 8 floors on the west side.

I understand staggering the buildings, with high-rises and mid-rises, along the track. It allows more space between them, more light to get through. I agree with the 8 floor buildings, but the high-rises should be taller.

So for what it's worth, I don't completely disagree with you. I too would up the density, but maybe not as much as you would. I'm sure that somehow makes me an evil NIMBY.

And that residential area adjacent to Gladstone Village, I doubt those are all sfh. I see semi-detached homes, I see former sfh converted to apartments. It's probably reasonably dense. I'm counting about 50 residential buildings (which were "sf" when built), but today has 94 dwellings, so nearly double the original unit density. I doubt those are the privilege rich people you assume.

https://censusmapper.ca/#18/45.40615/-75.71553

[Harley613]

Originally Posted by Ottawacurious

To echo williamoforange, if you show 3D of proposed towers and potential here (ie towers along Loretta, bayswater and Laurel including the proposed pedestrian overpass at Laurel), it'd show how you are right...they will eventually get developed into a lot of height.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Townhomes should be 4 floors closest to the existing residential, and 6 to 8 floors on the west side.

I understand staggering the buildings, with high-rises and mid-rises, along the track. It allows more space between them, more light to get through. I agree with the 8 floor buildings, but the high-rises should be taller.

So for what it's worth, I don't completely disagree with you. I too would up the density, but maybe not as much as you would. I'm sure that somehow makes me an evil NIMBY.

And that residential area adjacent to Gladstone Village, I doubt those are all sfh. I see semi-detached homes, I see former sfh converted to apartments. It's probably reasonably dense. I'm counting about 50 residential buildings (which were "sf" when built), but today has 94 dwellings, so nearly double the original unit density. I doubt those are the privilege rich people you assume.

https://censusmapper.ca/#18/45.40615/-75.71553

Why should the existence of low-rise structures in the URBAN core of a city between two mass transit stations dictate the use of the land nearby?.....The answer is they shouldn't but here you are doing exactly that, The city should not be planning the future use of a site based upon past building patterns. The logic your using is the same that Councillor Carr is using for the 1245 Kilborn Pl to keep it low-rise and most would call that nimbyism.

As for the site, the entire site should have been point towers, (with the added space moved to increase the park size of the new plouffe park) there shouldn't be individual townhouse blocks & 8 story towers on city land specifically bought & used to build social housing. Density should be as high as possible to get as many Social housing units from the mixed income development. Do you agree that the city should be making best use of its resources to provide social housing? or do you believe the # of units should be minimized to appease low-rise density nearby?....(As Harley has shown High rises are going up all around the site, so shadow worry is out of place)

As for the density of the area, its lower density then most new suburbs, and the owners have in those SFH have $600k+ assets if not closer to a million, making them close to being millionaires.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

As for the density of the area, its lower density then most new suburbs, and the owners have in those SFH have $600k+ assets if not closer to a million, making them close to being millionaires.

I agree with everything else you said, but the above assumption of the owner's net worth assumes that they have paid off their mortgage. I "own" a home that is worth $700,000, but I certainly don't have $700,000 in equity.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

Why should the existence of low-rise structures in the URBAN core of a city between two mass transit stations dictate the use of the land nearby?.....The answer is they shouldn't but here you are doing exactly that, The city should not be planning the future use of a site based upon past building patterns. The logic your using is the same that Councillor Carr is using for the 1245 Kilborn Pl to keep it low-rise and most would call that nimbyism.

As for the site, the entire site should have been point towers, (with the added space moved to increase the park size of the new plouffe park) there shouldn't be individual townhouse blocks & 8 story towers on city land specifically bought & used to build social housing. Density should be as high as possible to get as many Social housing units from the mixed income development. Do you agree that the city should be making best use of its resources to provide social housing? or do you believe the # of units should be minimized to appease low-rise density nearby?....(As Harley has shown High rises are going up all around the site, so shadow worry is out of place)

As for the density of the area, its lower density then most new suburbs, and the owners have in those SFH have $600k+ assets if not closer to a million, making them close to being millionaires.

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

I agree with everything else you said, but the above assumption of the owner's net worth assumes that they have paid off their mortgage. I "own" a home that is worth $700,000, but I certainly don't have $700,000 in equity.

And sure, people own, or "own" these buildings (i.e. the bank owns them), but the majority of residents are likely renters, because again, very few, if any, are still sfh.

As for the density of those century old blocks, they are not the same as the newer suburbs. Look at the map, a few areas in the burbs have similar density, but for the most part, this is much denser than the vast majority of the outer Greenbelt suburbs.

[yotajoe]

I think we can change this to U/C. More equipment on site today.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

I agree with everything else you said, but the above assumption of the owner's net worth assumes that they have paid off their mortgage. I "own" a home that is worth $700,000, but I certainly don't have $700,000 in equity.

That is a good point, the assumption is that its paid off, considering the age of the homes and the state of repair my guess is most are at this point paid off and either owner occupied or rented.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

And sure, people own, or "own" these buildings (i.e. the bank owns them), but the majority of residents are likely renters, because again, very few, if any, are still sfh.

As for the density of those century old blocks, they are not the same as the newer suburbs. Look at the map, a few areas in the burbs have similar density, but for the most part, this is much denser than the vast majority of the outer Greenbelt suburbs.

The area by the very map you linked and the area i'm referencing that is DIRECTLY next to the site within the MTSA has a density of 12.06 people/hectare. Even if you were to take just the area built up that only ~50-70 (assuming the same density as across the street). While the Hub Area (MTSA, which this falls into) are at minimum targeting (as per the official plan) 250 with a minimum AREA wide density of 160-200, more then double the current density. The entire Downtown transect (this area falls into it), is targeted for 80 to 120.

So why are you are arguing that the city should limit the density (on a city asset) of this site they are buying specifically to provide housing with townhomes & mid-rise? Would it not be best for the renters that this site be built out to higher density thus increasing the local unit count & allowing those that need it more access to social housing and the rest of the society more access to units and thus lowering or keeping rents & prices stabilized (which is backed by data).