Broadstreet Properties Ltd. is proposing a new development called “Blackstone Village” at 360 Bobolink Ridge in Stittsville. The proposal is for a mixed-use development, consisting of four (4) mid-rise apartment buildings and one (1) low-rise commercial / office building with a gross floor area (gfa) of 683.1 m2 with connections to the Village Green from the central amenity area (See Figure 1) and from the two apartments that abut the Village Green.
Each apartment building is six (6) storeys (18.6 m) with approximately 8,830.5 m2 of gfa. The commercial building is two (2) storeys with a building height of 6.7 m. There will be a total of 354 apartments accompanied by 513 parking spaces, 180 bicycle spaces and 3,212.6 m2 of interior and exterior amenity space which conforms with the present zoning of the site. The development will provide a range of 1, 2 and 3-bedroom units in an effort to provide a true mix of dwelling unit types. The proposed parking fields will also allow for an opportunity for residential intensification and infill with minimal impact upon abutting owners in the future as the neighbourhood matures.
HA Wow... that surface parking lot though. And very laughable they put the kids playground right in the middle, kids running through parking lots to go play, nothing to see here
I usually don't care too much about what happens in the suburbs, but I submitted a comment for this one. If the suburbs ae to get ALL the new rail and bus transit, then they need to step-up and create true livable communities, and this ain't it.
Truly awful. Also, so many questions. How does a road get named "Bobolink Ridge"? Was it part of the Bobolink family's traditional homestead? Was it a trading route between neighbouring tribes of Bobos? Or was it the former habitat of the North American Bobolink?
Almost worth buying here just to get that ridiculous address.
Truly awful. Also, so many questions. How does a road get named "Bobolink Ridge"? Was it part of the Bobolink family's traditional homestead? Was it a trading route between neighbouring tribes of Bobos? Or was it the former habitat of the North American Bobolink?
Almost worth buying here just to get that ridiculous address.
The bobolink habitat and any ridge-like features will be destroyed when the site is graded lol. Well, at least they needed to submit a tree conservation plan....
Quote:
All existing trees on site require removal to accommodate site grading and servicing for the new
Blackstone Village development.
And who the hell would let their kid play in that park in the middle of that parking lot!?
Glen Gower seems to agree with you. The following is from his website:
Quote:
Quick thoughts: I’m glad to see the inclusion of at least *some* commercial space on this mixed-use site. The applicant was originally planning only residential apartments — which is allowed in the zoning. I met with the applicant several weeks ago and emphasized the lack of retail space in the Fernbank community, encouraging them to include retail space in their plan. Still, there’s much room for improvement. This initial plan shows an awful lot of surface parking and pavement. Putting the playground in the middle of the parking lot doesn’t make sense either. I welcome comments and feedback from residents: glen.gower@ottawa.ca. We’ll be organizing a public info meeting as well, stay tuned.
-GG.
The size of the off-leash dog park is comically small. Not to mention the fact that it's right beside the playground which is also likely a terrible idea.
The snow removal for this lot would take hours. I wonder how many people will complain about that noise.
If the site plan is accurate the parking shown is not going anywhere unless the city wishes to accept less parking then required by its own bylaw, a bylaw that really should have be changed instead of say lowering the maximum height on minor corridors from 6 to 4 but hey height is far more detrimental then a sea of parking /s
The size of the off-leash dog park is comically small. Not to mention the fact that it's right beside the playground which is also likely a terrible idea.
The snow removal for this lot would take hours. I wonder how many people will complain about that noise.
Glen Gower seems to agree with you. The following is from his website:
Good to see. Gower has a pretty good grasp on what's good urban planning and what's not, at least from a development perspective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Williamoforange
If the site plan is accurate the parking shown is not going anywhere unless the city wishes to accept less parking then required by its own bylaw, a bylaw that really should have be changed instead of say lowering the maximum height on minor corridors from 6 to 4 but hey height is far more detrimental then a sea of parking /s
If the site plan is accurate the parking shown is not going anywhere unless the city wishes to accept less parking then required by its own bylaw, a bylaw that really should have be changed instead of say lowering the maximum height on minor corridors from 6 to 4 but hey height is far more detrimental then a sea of parking /s
That would only be true if underground parking wasn't permitted. The reality is, underground parking is encouraged by the city. The devloper waved this off with a weak argument in their Planning Rational (pg. 39):
Quote:
Where practical, the use of parking structures or underground parking is encouraged.
Response: Underground parking is not currently proposed, in order to remain adaptive and flexible to future development, including the potential infill of parking fields to support highdensity development when future transit has been built.
If you look at the nearby development planned at 5000 Robert Grant Ave (formerly known as 1000 Robert Grant), it doesn't have any significant amount of surface parking for a development with 566 units, so it can be done with a plan for the future.
Prev
Linear Mode
