Morrison-Draper Redevelopment: 3 towers & lowrise| 46-65m |14-20f | U/C

[waterloowarrior]

location - just west of baseline/greenbank (http://apps104.ottawa.ca/emap/?emapver=lite&LAT=45.339106&LON=-75.792966&featname=2781+Baseline+Road&lang=en)

Application page (http://app01.ottawa.ca/postingplans/appDetails.jsf?lang=en&appId=__6B2RM4)

To rezone the property to permit a multistorey housing complex composed of low, medium and high rise apartment builings containing 537 units. COMMUNITY MEETING, THURSDAY, OCT. 2, 2008 7-9PM, ST. PAUL'S HIGH SCHOOL [existing property has townhomes]

http://wwuploads.googlepages.com/morrison-draper-render.jpg

http://wwuploads.googlepages.com/morrison-draper-siteplan.jpg


that baseline frontage needs some changing....



Can you switch the Floors/Height in the title harls...

[Aylmer]

Pardon my Thai, but *GAG*.

I think it's the 90's resort green that makes me hurl.

:(

[Kitchissippi]

No way could they put an eight-storey high fountain in a tight space like that unless they're trying to simulate Vancouver weather in the courtyard :haha:

[Mille Sabords]

With a bit of work this could be all right. Townhouses a bit closer to the street along Draper, towns and apartment buildings along Morrison and Baseline too. Would make for a larger courtyard. Take out the visitor surface parking along Baseline, tuck it between buildings F and C and between buildings G and D on space reclaimed from useless front setbacks.

[waterloowarrior]

Developer's highrise plans rile west side neighbours
Tim ShufeltOttawa Citizen
Thursday, October 02, 2008

OTTAWA-Angry residents opposed to a highrise residential development that vastly exceeds the current zoning restrictions on the west side packed a high school auditorium Thursday night and took their frustrations out on representatives of the developer and property manager.

Ottawa-based property manager Regional Group presented drawings and specifics for a plan to construct a 537-unit development, featuring a 20-storey tower on Baseline Road and Draper Avenue.

The developer already has an application before the city to rezone the site, which is currently zoned for only low-rise developments with a maximum height of 11 metres.

The project also includes two 14-storey apartment buildings and a series of stacked townhouses.

Residents at times shouted down the presenters and said the main tower would be the tallest structure in the neighbourhood.

It would also create a significant shadow effect, would exacerbate existing traffic and parking problems and would drive property values down, they said.

Byron Holland, who bought a house in the area a couple of months ago, said the project would dramatically and fundamentally change the neighbourhood.

"We, as a neighbourhood and a community, bought into this community
because of what it is," he said. "This is so far out of character that it is simply a non-sensical development in this area."
© Ottawa Citizen 2008

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=f9fc06d1-f5f6-4516-9778-0508a897b14d



yikes

[adam-machiavelli]

While I generally support densification, shadow patterns are a serious concern for raising support for (or opposition to) a project. If a developer can't tell existing residents that the new project won't interfere with the light going into their house, then there is a problem.

[citizen j]

Interesting that in the image provided by the developer, they've juxtaposed the site not against existing conditions along Baseline but, rather, with an image lifted from the north end of St. Laurent where the towers are higher but also farther away. I wonder what the rationale behind that was?

[p_xavier]

While I generally support densification, shadow patterns are a serious concern for raising support for (or opposition to) a project. If a developer can't tell existing residents that the new project won't interfere with the light going into their house, then there is a problem.

If buildings would be less packed, but higher, the light issue would be resolved. You can have shadows with a 6 storey-high building, it's just a matter of how they are set up.

[rocketphish]

Redwood Residences Ltd. and the Regional Group have just revised their proposal. It now includes two stacked townhouse unit buildings, two 4-storey, two 12-storey and one 14-storey apartment buildings. Building elevations for the revised structures have now been posted:

http://app01.ottawa.ca/postingplans/appDetails.jsf?lang=en&appId=__6B2RM4

Here's the revised siteplan:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2603/3664581125_92a9ea0475_o_d.jpg


And this is what the site looks like now:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3651/3665384018_c25677755d_o_d.jpg

[highdensitysprawl]

Redwood Residences Ltd. and the Regional Group have just revised their proposal. It now includes two stacked townhouse unit buildings, two 4-storey, two 12-storey and one 14-storey apartment buildings. Building elevations for the revised structures have now been posted:

And this is what the site looks like now:

http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/1/0/5/5/3/3/1/webimg/242233377_o.jpg

Great update rocketphish...btw how do you embed windows live local birds eye imagery....

[rocketphish]

Great update rocketphish...btw how do you embed windows live local birds eye imagery....

There are probably many ways to do this, but my procedure is to screen capture the active window using Alt-PrintScreen, (or you could use a screen capture utility) then paste it into an image editor, where I crop it to just the necessary image. Then I save it locally. At this point you then need to upload your image to an image hosting service somewhere on the web, or if you run your own webserver, that will do too.

You then need to copy the URL to your image and paste it into your message post using the "Insert Image" button http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3576/3664581587_fbd909baeb_o_d.jpg, which wraps it with the appropriate tags in order to display it as an image, not as a URL.

Note that this procedure works for any image capture on your screen, not just MS Live imagery.

I hope this helps!

[Ottawade]

So this complex is a homage and a nod to the aesthetics of early-90's McDonald's and Chinese buffet exteriors?

I don't get it.

I still suspect that there was this mass overproduction of ugly teal cladding and metal somewhere during the last century and we are still feeling the effects of its discount priced surplus. It might as well be neon purple with yellow polka dots because its that freggin ugly.

About the only thing I can imagine is that someone thinks old myopic elderly citizens will mistake this for weathered copper, but if they are going to go for that they should paint on some fake rust, put a flag on top and hope those people imagine themselves living in parliament.

[Radster]

It all has to do with today's trend of "going green". More and more buildings are now incorporating "green roofs", so there is your explanation.

:jester:

[Ottawade]

It all has to do with today's trend of "going green". More and more buildings are now incorporating "green roofs", so there is your explanation.

:jester:

:rolleyes:

[waterloowarrior]

Staff report

http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2009/09-08/3%20-%20ACS2009-ICS-PGM-0129%20-%20Baseline%20&%20Draper%20Ave.htm

[drawarc]

Follow up news article from OBJ:

News Story
Developer drops density in Baseline Road redevelopment proposal
By Peter Kovessy, Ottawa Business Journal Staff
Tue, Sep 1, 2009 4:00 PM EST

After a public outcry over the heights of several Nepean condominiums proposed last year, a developer has returned with a rezoning application that dramatically reduces the density of the residential project.

The property, owned by Redwood Residences Ltd. and managed by The Regional Group, is bounded by Baseline Road, Morrison Drive and Draper Avenue. The 2.2-acre site currently contains seven townhouse buildings with 12 units each, which would be demolished if the development proceeds.

Last year, the developer proposed a 537-unit development that included a 20-storey tower and a pair of 14-storey high-rises. The new plans call for 334 units and buildings no higher than 12 storeys. (See table below)

"As a result of the public consultation process and staff negotiations with the applicant, building heights and number of units were reduced," city staff say in a report being tabled at the Sept. 8 planning and environment committee meeting.

The city received "extensive comments" when the initial proposal was circulated. Staff say fewer public comments were received when the revised proposal was distributed, but common concerns persisted.

Specifically, residents said there was too much density being proposed for the site, which is currently zoned to allow apartments of up to four storeys.

In response, staff say the proposal conforms with the city's official plan.

"Given the property's location on the edge of a neighbourhood and adjacent to an arterial and a collector road, the level of intensification is seen as appropriate."

Link: http://www.ottawabusinessjournal.com/295321537176050.php

[waterloowarrior]

being discussed at PEC right now
http://ottawa.ca/online_services/committee_live/index_en.html

[waterloowarrior]

Wasn't following 100% but it sounded like there was an amended motion to reduce height that lost on a tie and there ended up being no real recommendation (just that Council consider the application)

[waterloowarrior]

Council committee rejects plan for tall condos near Baseline and Greenbank


BY PATRICK DARE, THE OTTAWA CITIZENSEPTEMBER 8, 2009 2:02 PMBE THE FIRST TO POST A COMMENT


OTTAWA — College ward residents fighting a proposed housing development on Baseline Road walked away from Ottawa City Hall with a partial victory Tuesday.

City council’s planning and environment committee evenly split on whether to permit the development of 334 condominiums at the site, called the Redwood Community, currently home to 84 families in rented townhomes. The tie vote means the planning department's recommendation to go ahead with the project failed; it will be up to city council on Sept. 23 to decide the issue.

Residents from the neighbourhood turned out in force for the committee meeting, arguing that the proposed buildings, up to 12 storeys, were too tall for the area and would create too much traffic in a neighbourhood that’s already congested. Others said they would not be able to find rental housing of similar quality and price and might have to move out of the city.

The planning committee voted to limit the size of any buildings to six storeys, but such a limit may make the project by The Regional Group not viable. The company originally wanted to build as high as 20 storeys.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

[Cre47]

And no wonder why the urban sprawl accelerates. Not that this project would have made a difference anyways - yet Council in full might be in favor in two weeks.

[Proof Sheet]

Wasn't following 100% but it sounded like there was an amended motion to reduce height that lost on a tie and there ended up being no real recommendation (just that Council consider the application)

You got it perfectly. Wait until you read what happened on the Orville Station OMB issue with Doucet misreading the motion and then changing his vote. Qadri was not thrilled.

[waterloowarrior]

You got it perfectly. Wait until you read what happened on the Orville Station OMB issue with Doucet misreading the motion and then changing his vote. Qadri was not thrilled.

I kind of hoped that Qadri would vote against the motion to waive procedural rules/change Doucet's vote :banana: the other week Diane Holmes went into a rant about other councillors approving tall buildings in her ward at a poor resident who wanted Committee to support a reduction in height for a project in Kanata North... wish I could have seen the guy's face.

[Proof Sheet]

I kind of hoped that Qadri would vote against the motion to waive procedural rules/change Doucet's vote :banana:

It was real sour grapes on the part of Qadri to deny the right to redo the vote. The reality of it all is that the City Council position (if they decide to fight this at the OMB) will be a losing position and the City will be $20/$25K in the hole on this and they will be fighting City Planners who will be there in support of the application. City Planning said that even if this was a ZBLA they would still support the application.

[waterloowarrior]

Planning decisions: No logic required
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Planning+decisions+logic+required/1978411/story.html

BY RANDALL DENLEY, THE OTTAWA CITIZENSEPTEMBER 10, 2009


It must take a great sense of humour to be a developer in this city. Any consequential project they propose must be approved by a city planning committee that doesn't believe in the main principle of its official plan, is unwilling to take its staff's professional device and is deeply distrustful of developers. These would be the same city councillors who think a compromise consists of some numbers they pull out of the air and who are undaunted by the price the public will pay when yet another of their illogical interventions is defeated at the Ontario Municipal Board.

The committee was in vintage form this week when it was asked to approve a plan to replace 84 rental townhouses in the Baseline Road-Morrison Drive area with various high and low-rise buildings totalling 334 units. The buildings abutting other residences were three and four storeys, with six- and eight-storey buildings fronting on Baseline and a 12-storey tower in the centre of the development.

The plan ought to be have been a slam dunk, considering the central idea in the city official plan. Councillors have restricted suburban expansion based on the theory that the needs of about 60,000 new home buyers can be met over the next dozen years by intensifying existing urban areas. That's precisely what this plan will do. Logic would suggest that any kind of significant intensification means higher buildings, and this is an area that already features several large high-rise towers. City staff supported the plan, which was a compromise from the developer's original proposal for 537 units and buildings as tall as 20 storeys.

At planning committee, however, decisions aren't always based on logic.

Instead, those decisions are based on neighbourhood opinion, and the people who live near the planned development don't like it. They made that point perfectly clear in numerous presentations. It seems that most of the neighbours are professional engineers armed with PowerPoint presentations and laser pointers. Even the people in other socio-economic strata came equipped with slideshows.

The highlight was the intervention of Wolfhard Geile, PhD, who said he was the group's scientific advisor. To summarize, tall buildings are bad for both people and the environment. Cancer is certainly a possibility.

Presenters also elicited great sympathy from socially-concerned councillors by stressing the unfairness of a landlord wanting to redevelop his property to the detriment of existing tenants. While it's true that eliminating the existing townhomes will be bad for the tenants, that's life as a renter. The alternative is to compel landlords to provide low-cost rental housing forever. Councillors would favour this, of course. In addition to all the other alleged deficiencies of this plan, it would create unbearable traffic and cause sewers to back up, neighbours say. Councillors accepted the views of residents as gospel on these matters, while the city's professional staff did little to rebut the criticisms or explain why they supported the project. John Moser, the city's planning chief, had nothing to say as another of his staff's recommendations was not accepted by councillors.

Regulating planning and development is one of city council's most important functions. It shapes our city. Yet, we have councillors who support intensification only until someone doesn't like it, know little about the economics of the development industry and are quick to shirk their responsibilities.

When councillors approved an official plan that would mean more housing in existing neighbourhoods, it was clear the neighbours wouldn't always like it. That doesn't make it a bad policy. The problem is that councillors favour intensification in theory, but not in practice. It takes some courage for a councillor to explain to angry neighbours why a locally unpopular development is a good idea in the grand scheme of things. Alternatively, he can orchestrate local opposition to thwart city policies, which Councillor Rick Chiarelli has done.

Councillors tried to preserve some kind of intellectual integrity by saying they would support moderate intensification, which might be defined as the type that isn't enough for developers to make any money. By calling for six-storey buildings, for example, they are obligating developers to install expensive elevators, but not giving them enough units to make the expenditure worthwhile. Councillors say they are concerned about affordable housing, but compelling the developer to have fewer units on the site guarantees that he will have to raise the price to make a profit.

Despite extensive discussion, a half-baked compromise that would have produced more height than the neighbours want and fewer units than the site should deliver was defeated on a tied vote. Councillor Clive Doucet actually seemed content to let the matter go the OMB so the community and the developer can duke it out if "that's their trip." That's a complete abdication of the decision-making responsibility councillors have repeatedly said they want. The "trip" of Doucet and his colleagues is to make tough decisions in keeping with their policies, even when some people disagree.

Contact Randall Denley at 596-3756 or by e-mail, rdenley@thecitizen.canwest.com

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

[Proof Sheet]

Planning decisions: No logic required
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Planning+decisions+logic+required/1978411/story.html

BY RANDALL DENLEY, THE OTTAWA CITIZENSEPTEMBER 10, 2009


It must take a great sense of humour to be a developer in this city. Any consequential project they propose must be approved by a city planning committee that doesn't believe in the main principle of its official plan, is unwilling to take its staff's professional device and is deeply distrustful of developers. These would be the same city councillors who think a compromise consists of some numbers they pull out of the air and who are undaunted by the price the public will pay when yet another of their illogical interventions is defeated at the Ontario Municipal Board.


The problem is that councillors favour intensification in theory, but not in practice. It takes some courage for a councillor to explain to angry neighbours why a locally unpopular development is a good idea in the grand scheme of things. Alternatively, he can orchestrate local opposition to thwart city policies, which Councillor Rick Chiarelli has done.




Without getting into a Lowell Green type rant about those lefties and liberals on Council, this article hit the nose on the head regarding the frustrations of dealing with City Council. The part about Council not trusting their planners etc rang very true on this matter. Chiarelli was in fine form rounding up the troops in the hallway. Good luck at the OMB on this one City Council.

[waterloowarrior]

Problems build on lack of details

Council must stick to intensification, but give residents more information

BY RANDALL DENLEY, THE OTTAWA CITIZENSEPTEMBER 15, 2009


Councillors will be asked next week to approve a 334-unit intensification project on Baseline Road just west of Greenbank Road. The mix of low, medium and highrise buildings is strongly opposed by people in the neighbourhood, but the developer and city planning staff say it's just the kind of intensification called for by the city's official plan and provincial planning policy.

The planning committee couldn't decide what to do, so now it's over to full council, where members will have even less background than the planning committee did. We have to do better than this, and we can.

Last week, I wrote about the way the planning committee fumbled this issue and some of the over-the-top arguments made by those opposed to the plan. That made me a lightning rod for angry neighbours. One woman set a record by complaining about my column before it was even published.

Despite some people's perception, I'm not on anyone's side in this issue. I do think that if the city approves a policy calling for intensification to make up much of its growth, there is an onus on councillors to follow through. I am also convinced that there is a way to handle development applications that will be better for communities, developers and city politicians.

The city's intensification policy is a good one in that it helps restrain suburban sprawl, but councillors and planning staff should accept as a given that neighbours will be opposed to plans that increase traffic and change the nature of their communities.

The city's first job should be to get the facts out in a way that people can understand. A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

The city includes on its website all the supporting engineering and planning studies for developments like the one on Baseline. That's good, but it also means that skeptical residents will read all this fine print and use it as ammunition. In this case, residents are citing an engineering study that supposedly says that sewer pipes can't handle the flow from the development and houses will be flooded. What it actually says is that the problem can be fixed by replacing 325 metres of pipe. The developer will pay for this. Staff at the planning committee last week failed to explain that.

The skepticism of the public and most of the councillors on the planning committee also makes it difficult to agree on the facts and have an intelligent debate. The skepticism is partly driven by the fact that developers pay for the planning, traffic and servicing studies for their proposals. This causes the public and councillors to dismiss the studies' conclusions if they don't like what they hear. The solution is for the city to retain the consultants and bill the developers, so the consultants are clearly working for the public. It is unlikely to change the content of their reports, but it will boost their credibility.

City councillors also have to accept some responsibility for mediating between developers and the community while showing respect for their own policies. In this case, Councillor Rick Chiarelli has helped inflame the community to give him leverage to reach an unspecified compromise. If he had been doing his job, many of his residents' concerns would have been answered before the planning committee met. For example, many failed to understand that the height allowed in the neighbourhood now is a default amount, not a negotiated deal that is being betrayed.

City planning staff need to up their game, too. It's not enough to give bland, generic assurances that a plan is worthy of approval. On the sewer matter, staff's report says existing underground services are available. That's not entirely accurate. People expect specifics, not a "trust us, we're experts" approach.

In front of the planning committee itself, everyone gets five minutes to speak. Often that means that the person proposing the development gets his few minutes up front and then councillors hear from a long lineup of those opposed. Developers need a fairer opportunity to answer the criticisms of the public.

It's not like intensification can't be done properly. A similar intensification in Alta Vista was recently approved. The height limit wasn't a big issue there because the developer had a right to go up, but the city employed an outside architect from Toronto to work with all the parties and make sure things were done in a way that was acceptable to the community. The neutral third party should be part of any contested project.

Above all, people need to remember the big picture. The city is growing and new residents have to live somewhere. Any kind of growth will mean more cars on streets and more demand on services. People have a perfect right to push for high-quality intensification, but they should acknowledge that growth is inevitable. It can't all go in someone else's neighbourhood.

The bottom line is that we all need to stick to the demonstrable facts and work within the rules that are set by our elected councillors. The alternative is to let the Ontario Municipal Board decide Ottawa planning issues because we haven't the maturity to do it ourselves.

Contact Randall Denley at 613-596-3756 or by e-mail, rdenley@thecitizen.canwest.com

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

[waterloowarrior]

At council today

[waterloowarrior]

A neighbourhood redevelopment involving three mid-rise towers was approved by city council Wednesday.
 
 
SEPTEMBER 23, 2009 11:02 PM
 
 
OTTAWA-Residents and neighbours of the Redwood community — bounded by Baseline Road, Morrison Drive and Draper Avenue — were upset about the development, which originally had a tower of 20 storeys. The Regional Group brought the buildings down to a 12-storey, an eight-storey and a six-storey building.

The 334 condominiums will replace 84 townhouses.

The company has done about 2,000 conversions of rental units to condominiums in Ottawa. It has agreed to have current tenants buy units in the new buildings, but with monthly payments as low as rent.

The company has also agreed to offer small office leases to condominium owners in the buildings and to build commercial space at the ground level to accommodate several small stores or restaurants.

College Councillor Rick Chiarelli said he would meet with residents and urge them to accept this development rather than try to fight it at the Ontario Municipal Board

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen
 
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/neighbourhood+redevelopment+involving+three+rise+towers+approved+city+council+Wednesday/2025931/story.html 

[kwoldtimer]

I have no particular views on this project, but am puzzled about the last bit in this report re Chiarelli. Unless he is trying to save the developer time and money (after they appear to have gone through considerable hoops to satisfy the neighbourhood demands), why would he care if private citizens take a development to the OMB (where I assume they would lose)? Seems like micro-management to me, but perhaps I do not understand the report.:shrug:

[Cre47]

Still disappointing about the outcome, should have gone with the initial proposal instead of crumbling to NIMBYISM.

[waterloowarrior]

appealed to the OMB

[RTWAP]

appealed to the OMB

By the community?

[blackjagger]

Site Plan Control up for approval. Looks like this one will be going ahead.

http://app01.ottawa.ca/postingplans/appDetails.jsf?lang=en&appId=__7XEF8I

Cheers,
Josh

[waterloowarrior]

OMB site is showing a hearing beginning 11 May 2010.

[rocketphish]

Here are the latest elevations:


http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4022/4467368056_dbfc0ac34b_o_d.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2798/4467368120_c8fabe56b4_o_d.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4066/4467368010_703f055c7c_o_d.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2704/4466593541_42800f24e2_o_d.jpg

[blackjagger]

Looks like the OMB appeal has been withdrawn and the zoning application approved now just the Site Plan approval is required. Its not bad density wise in this area and I think there is the opportunity to continue this trend, if a BRT route were to go in along Baseline I can see this area growing especially if there was fast transit to college square (groceries).

Cheers,
Josh

[waterloowarrior]

City decision could pave way for Redwood development
Posted Sep 16, 2010
BY STEPH WILLEMS
http://www.emcbarrhaven.ca/20100916/news/City+decision+could+pave+way+for+Redwood+development

Email Print Tweet This


EMC News - A proposal is being considered by the city's planning and growth management department that calls on the city to lift the holding zone on a Baseline Rd. property scheduled for development.

The 2.2 acre site, bounded by Baseline Rd., Draper Ave., and Morrison Dr., is owned by Redwood Residences Ltd. and managed by The Regional Group. The developer is proposing a 334 unit project that would include three condominium towers of no more than 12 stories, a dramatic decrease from its earlier proposal of 537 units, a 20-storey tower and two 14-storey towers.

That proposal, which was made public in 2008, saw nearby residents rise up in anger to protest what they said was a grossly oversized development that would overwhelm their residential community. The developer subsequently downsized the proposal to include a 12-storey, eight-storey and six-storey tower - a proposal that was approved by council in Sept. 2009.

The lifting of the holding zone would allow the developer to move forward with condo sales and construction plans.

College ward Coun. Rick Chiarelli said one difference between the current proposal and the city-approved proposal is the elimination of one access point to the property. He said that residents in the area remain pleased that they were able to have the project's size reduced by 40%.

"There was a little bit of an attempt on the part of the developer to go back on that - he tried to appeal his own zoning-bylaw," said Coun. Chiarelli. "So we beat that back, and now the only change is the access - the one access that people were skeptical about, because it didn't line up with Guthrie."

The elimination means that the property will have one access point. Site plan controls for phase one of the project can be expected before committee and council by late November or December of this year, said Coun. Chiarelli.

Phase one of the project will likely be the eight-story building, closest to Baseline Rd. Regional Group has previously done about 2,000 conversions of rental units to condominiums in Ottawa, this project will cater to buyers in the high-end condo market. Residents displaced by the development will also be able to buy units in the new building with monthly payments as low as their current rent.

For the first time in Ottawa, buyers in the development will have the option to lease small offices contained within the building, thus allowing some tenants to live and work in the same building.

"So you'll buy a condo unit...and get first dibs on renting an office," said Coun. Chiarelli.

It remains to be seen how quickly the condo units will sell at their high-end prices, which will determine how quickly nearby residents will see construction begin. A high-end 10-storey condo building was once proposed by Richcraft Homes at Baseline Rd. and Centrepointe Dr. and flopped when it hit the marketplace, leading the developer to pull out of that location and focus its efforts elsewhere.

Since the plug was pulled on that development, however, the plans for the Centrepointe Town Centre have been released. A cohesive vision for the community, construction of which is well underway, might make the location more attractive to buyers now than it was before.

A decision is on the proposal is expected to be handed down by a manager within the planning and growth management department by Sept. 13.

swillems@theemc.ca

[RTWAP]

I wonder if the Minto properties on Baseline, just west of Woodroffe and the Transitway will get the same treatment.

Right now they're somewhat run down looking low-rises, but it would be a great spot for some density. Walking distance from Baseline Station and College Square, as well as the density the city is planning for the undeveloped chunks of land on the east side of the Centrepointe community.

[waterloowarrior]

Developer is now proposing up to 590 units

City press release
http://ottawa.ca/cgi-bin/pressco.pl?&Elist=17375&lang=en

City moves to cap size of Redwood development

Ottawa – The City of Ottawa’s Planning Department is recommending a zoning change to cap the number of units built at the Redwood community in College Ward after the developer submitted an application that increased the size of the project by more than 75 per cent.

The site, bounded by Baseline Road, Morrison Drive and Draper Avenue, was approved by Planning Committee and City Council for 334 residential units after extensive community discussion and input in 2009. However, a revised application from the developer has made the proposed buildings larger and radically upped the number of units to 590.

The Planning Department is recommending a zoning amendment that will ensure the original agreement on size of the development will stand.

“This project went through an extensive planning process and a great deal of public debate. The agreement that resulted between the community, developer and the City cannot be arbitrarily overturned on a technicality, after the fact, by the proponent,” said Mayor Jim Watson.

“This developer came to Planning Committee with a concept plan that eventually secured our agreement for a zoning change. Now the company is attempting to throw out the concept plan. That’s wrong and we cannot allow it to happen,” said Councillor Peter Hume, chair of Planning Committee.

“I am delighted that the City’s Planning Department has agreed that almost doubling the size of this project would not be fair to the people of my ward,” said College Ward

Councillor Rick Chiarelli. “We had an agreement. If Planning Committee and Council agree to this zoning, that agreement will stand.”

The matter will go before Planning Committee on January 10 and City Council on January 25.

City staff recommending capping the # of units
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2012/01-10/03%20-%20ACS2012-ICS-PGM-0017%20Change%20of%20Zoning%20Baseline%20and%20Draper.htm

Developer's response

A proposed condominium complex near Baseline and Greenbank roads won’t make financial sense if the city government caps the number of units allowed there at 334, says the project’s lead planner.

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Capping+number+condos+Baseline+project+doesn+make+financial+sense+says+developer/5941385/story.html#ixzz1iRSGcrfV

[S-Man]

"Won't make financial sense"??

With 334 units? I somehow doubt that.

[waterloowarrior]

deferred http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Ottawa+planning+committee+defers+Greatwise+decision/5972892/story.html

[waterloowarrior]

still recommended for deferral
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2012/04-10/IPD%20A%20-%20ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0105%20-%20%20Baseline%20Morrison%20Zoning%20update.htm

[MountainView]

Here's what to take from the article below:

First it was going to include 540 units in buildings as high as 20 storeys

Eventually, the city agreed to 334 units in buildings up to 12 storeys — which still required a rezoning, in an area where only four-storey buildings were allowed.

Angry Residents didn't want tall development in their backyards

Now Greatwise has written to the city proposing a 400-unit development in buildings with the same floor area the city previously approved, but with a maximum height of five storeys — so they’ll be shorter but squatter, and each of them will be the same L shape.

MORE STUMPY BOXES!!

Article:
Developer reduces height, number of units proposed in Greenbank complex

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Developer+reduces+height+number+units+proposed+Greenbank+complex/6412391/story.html

[waterloowarrior]

recommended for approval by planning committee
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Ottawa/6586636/story.html

[citizen j]

The following quote from The Citizen's article speaks volumes:

"The fact they’re all the same height may make for a less architecturally interesting development, Chiarelli said, but that’s OK with him. 'I think people would rather it be a little less interesting than go to 12 storeys and have twice as many units,' he said."


Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Condos+Baseline+Greenbank+finally+planning+committee+ahead/6586636/story.html#ixzz1uKM6ZtUZ

[Uhuniau]

recommended for approval by planning committee
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Ottawa/6586636/story.html

Children, PREPARE TO DIE!

Meh. Not great, exactly. But also could be a lot worse. I guess. Almost daring for the burbs, what, with mostly straight lines and all.

[McC]

The image with the Citizen article must be from an earlier (rejected) proposal, because some of the buildings shown are double the approved height.
Scratch that, looks like they've updated the story with 4 new images since I read it yesterday. must admit that I liked that one a bit more.

[Ottawan]

The Chiarelli quote really irks me too. He states the exact opposite sentiment from the one I hold.

Children, PREPARE TO DIE!

Meh. Not great, exactly. But also could be a lot worse. I guess. Almost daring for the burbs, what, with mostly straight lines and all.

I was also pleased to see that they're putting retail along Baseline, which wasn't in the earlier proposals. That at least is one improvement. Anything somewhat mixed-use is 'daring for the burbs', I suppose.

[rocketphish]

The image with the Citizen article must be from an earlier (rejected) proposal, because some of the buildings shown are double the approved height.
Scratch that, looks like they've updated the story with 4 new images since I read it yesterday. must admit that I liked that one a bit more.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/6588854.bin?size=620x400s
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/6588853.bin?size=620x400s
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/6588855.bin?size=620x400s
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/6588856.bin?size=620x400s

[McC]

The suburbs of Vancouver have had impressive results increasing population density levels along their arterials with with wood frame apartment projects of this scale. Even though this would have been a good location for higher-profile construction, as a first step, it's also a good place to start with a project of this scale -- there's no need to go straight from houses to 20+ storey towers which become a lightning rod for opposition and resentment. There's nothing wrong with easing people in to a generation of changes that are coming to their neighbourhood, when there are so many other un/underdeveloped lots that could be built up to higher profile in the future as people get more comfortable with the idea.

To me it's a little like the situation with the CDPs currently under development for the areas around the future LRT stations that prescribe leaving the blocks of established single-family homes intact. At first blush you might ask yourself, why keep that lower density around an LRT station, but I think there's some forward thinking method to that madness. Looking around Ottawa, history seems to suggest that redevelopment often targets existing built up areas rather than the undeveloped lots, and you see perfectly good houses/buildings getting knocked down and replaced with larger developments even while nearby empty gas station and surface parking lots stay undeveloped. (who owns what lot, and the personalities involved play a role, to be sure, but this can't be the only reason that downtown parking lots last for generations while new buildings have replaced once-fine old ones). I think that under these new plans, in the short term, new development should be pushed on to those un/underdeveloped lots giving the benefits of increased population density while mitigating some of the impacts of intensification on existing neighbourhoods. But in 20 years, once the empty lots are all developed up, then, if there's still demand, restrictions on building up on lots with existing dwellings can start to be lifted, and at the same time we can reconsider what sort of scale that development should take at a time when people are much more comfortable with the idea of living in denser neighbourhoods with a mix of building types and scales.

[gjhall]

The suburbs of Vancouver have had impressive results increasing population density levels along their arterials with with wood frame apartment projects of this scale. Even though this would have been a good location for higher-profile construction, as a first step, it's also a good place to start with a project of this scale -- there's no need to go straight from houses to 20+ storey towers which become a lightning rod for opposition and resentment. There's nothing wrong with easing people in to a generation of changes that are coming their neighbourhood, when there are so many other un/underdeveloped lots that could be built up to higher profile in the future as people get more comfortable with the idea.

To me it's a little like the situation with the CDPs currently under development for the areas around the future LRT stations that prescribe leaving the blocks of established single-family homes intact. At first blush you might ask yourself, why keep that lower density around an LRT station, but I think there's some forward thinking method to that madness. Looking around Ottawa, history seems to suggest that redevelopment often targets existing built up areas rather than the undeveloped lots, and you see perfectly good houses/buildings getting knocked down and replaced with larger developments even while nearby empty gas station and surface parking lots stay undeveloped. (who owns what lot, and the personalities involved play a role, to be sure, but this can't be the only reason that downtown parking lots last for generations while new buildings have replaced once-fine old ones). I think that under these new plans, in the short term, new development should be pushed on to those un/underdeveloped lots giving the benefits of increased population density while mitigating some of the impacts of intensification on existing neighbourhoods. But in 20 years, once the empty lots are all developed up, then, if there's still demand, restrictions on building up on lots with existing dwellings can start to be lifted, and at the same time we can reconsider what sort of scale that development should take at a time when people are much more comfortable with the idea of living in denser neighbourhoods with a mix of building types and scales.

Easiest way to achieve that: tax the value of the land, not the building/use. There goes any incentive to leave a lot vacant or extremely under-utilized.

[McC]

Easiest way to achieve that: tax the value of the land, not the building/use. There goes any incentive to leave a lot vacant or extremely under-utilized.

would that also reduce the property tax bill on my relatively tall and small-footprint townhouse? if so, then I'm all for it! ;-)


...


wait a second.... but wouldn't that distort the differential between urban and exurban tax rates even further? e.g., take the McMansion out of the equation and what's the piece of Dunrobin land worth? whereas my little patch of 20-some by 40-some in Mechanicsvile would still be worth...? Honest question, cause you know more planning theory than I do!

[gjhall]

would that also reduce the property tax bill on my relatively tall and small-footprint townhouse? if so, then I'm all for it! ;-)


...


wait a second.... but wouldn't that distort the differential between urban and exurban tax rates even further? e.g., take the McMansion out of the equation and what's the piece of Dunrobin land worth? whereas my little patch of 20-some by 40-some in Mechanicsvile would still be worth...? Honest question, cause you know more planning theory than I do!

Yes, it would, but if you added in Pamela Blais style pricing for services (water, sewer, road, etc) based on frontage, that would at least partly balance that out. I can't remember where I read about this, but it has been successful in the past at creating good urban form. There would obviously be winners and losers and finessing to be done, but it's something to think about.

[McC]

Yes, it would, but if you added in Pamela Blais style pricing for services (water, sewer, road, etc) based on frontage, that would at least partly balance that out. I can't remember where I read about this, but it has been successful in the past at creating good urban form. There would obviously be winners and losers and finessing to be done, but it's something to think about.

makes sense. unfortunately our political class seems to have developed a nearly all-party consensus on the idea that no one deserves to pay for the things we all use (energy, water, waste removal, transportation... social democrat, arch-Tory, libertarian, doesn't matter; although, to be fair, at least some conservatives think *you* should pay for those kinds of things that *they* don't use)

[Dado]

Easiest way to achieve that: tax the value of the land, not the building/use. There goes any incentive to leave a lot vacant or extremely under-utilized.

This idea keeps cropping up - and it's a bad one.

For starters, how do you determine the value of land? It's hard enough already figuring out the value of property, but now you'll not only have to figure out the value of the property but some way of subtracting the value of any buildings on it. Unless you've got lots of vacant properties lying around that change hands reasonably frequently, you simply have no good way to determine land value.

Beyond the practical issue is the distributional aspect.

Right now, the owner of a townhouse on a small plot in Little Italy can easily pay as much property tax as the owner of a large detached house on a large lot in Nepean, since the two property values are roughly the same - a low value house on a high value lot vs a high value house on a low value lot. This of course makes little sense, since the townhouse dweller in Little Italy is costing the city a lot less.

But look what happens when you switch to land value taxation: the townhouse dweller's taxes go up since his land is worth a lot while the suburbanite's taxes go down since his land is not worth all that much. We'd be going from a bad situation to one that is even worse. You create an odd incentive for cash-strapped inner area landowners to vacate properties downtown and move out to the suburbs. Over time, development downtown would get denser while development in the suburbs would get even more spread out since people can afford to hold more land for the same level of property tax due to the fact they no longer pay tax on the value of their dwelling.


The way out of this is to stop wasting everyone's time with some kind of value taxation and switch instead to land area taxation. Now your suburban dweller pays more than the resident of Little Italy. It increases the incentive to densify in the suburbs while lessening the incentive to do so downtown, resulting in a more even density overall.

It's also administratively simple since property size does not vary much over time: no more of this ritual of continual MPAC assessments and people getting upset about them.

[Richard Eade]

So the little, two-bedroom, one-bath, Vetran's House, built on a double wide lot because it still has a septic system would pay as much tax as the two, five-bedroom, four-bath monster homes built on the severed lot next door which was connected to city water and sewer? But which would use more of the City's resources?

The city of Ottawa used to charge taxes based on frontage, but that didn't stop developers from selling 75' x 100' (or larger) lots. Pamela Blais's belief that charging development fees based on frontage would drive people to choose smaller lots may not be as true as she hopes. How swayed is a person who is prepared to buy a $700,000 home going to be if he can get the same house on a much smaller lot for only $695,000?

I agree that charging taxes based on lot size should have the affect of shrinking the lot sizes, but is that the only goal? Isn't there more to smart planning than making all homes five stories tall, on 20 x 20 lots?

Having large lots can push development out further and further, but does that have to be un-smart? What if it created true satellite cities on land that wasn't suitable for farming? What if there were distributed sources of water and waste disposal so that large, long, pipes were not needed?

Maybe there needs to be more zones and user-fees. Zones would handle the distance from utility plants and user-fees would capture other aspects - including road frontage. For example, typically a garbage collection fee should be the same for two families which both put out two bags of trash. However, if one family is in a neighbourhood of 100' lots and the other surrounded by 30' lots, then there is a greater efficiency for the collection in the denser neighbourhood. If a person lives on a large lot very near one of the water purification plants, should they pay the same fees as a smaller lot much further away which requires long pipe runs? As the developments further away get more dense, those long pipes need to get larger in diametre, too, eventually forcing the replacement of the pipe all the way back to the source. What about the dense street with driveways so close together that all of the snow needs to be trucked away, verses a street with larger lots onto which the snow can be plowed and left; shouldn't their user-fees for winter maintenance be different?

Making a fair municipal tax system is not a simple thing; but it should be done.

[McC]

I'd rather see us pay more transparent user fees for the services we use (with rebate options for those who need it) and use a VAT (1-2 cents of HST, also rebatable) to pay for infrastructure construction like expanding the LRT network and replacing water and sewer pipe, and get these things off of the property tax base.

[Dado]

So the little, two-bedroom, one-bath, Vetran's House, built on a double wide lot because it still has a septic system would pay as much tax as the two, five-bedroom, four-bath monster homes built on the severed lot next door which was connected to city water and sewer? But which would use more of the City's resources?

The way you deal with issues like that is to exclude certain fees for services where practicable, much as we already do.

Another modification is to do add in the total floor area of any buildings to the area calculation. It's more to measure and it does vary a bit more often than property size, but it's still a lot more constant than property value. The downsize to that, besides added complexity, is that it can discourage development; it's not as "clean" from an economic perspective.



The city of Ottawa used to charge taxes based on frontage, but that didn't stop developers from selling 75' x 100' (or larger) lots.

I'd stick with area rather than frontage. Frontage really gets messed up with culs-de-sac (wedge-shaped lots). A property's contribution to the city's costs is probably more related to how much land it is occupying than how much frontage it happens to have.


Pamela Blais's belief that charging development fees based on frontage would drive people to choose smaller lots may not be as true as she hopes. How swayed is a person who is prepared to buy a $700,000 home going to be if he can get the same house on a much smaller lot for only $695,000?

But would the difference for a "much smaller lot" really be only $5000?


I agree that charging taxes based on lot size should have the affect of shrinking the lot sizes, but is that the only goal? Isn't there more to smart planning than making all homes five stories tall, on 20 x 20 lots?

Having large lots can push development out further and further, but does that have to be un-smart? What if it created true satellite cities on land that wasn't suitable for farming? What if there were distributed sources of water and waste disposal so that large, long, pipes were not needed?

I think that's getting into separate discussions on "strategic" land use planning that can apply pretty much regardless of the property tax regime.


Maybe there needs to be more zones and user-fees. Zones would handle the distance from utility plants and user-fees would capture other aspects - including road frontage. For example, typically a garbage collection fee should be the same for two families which both put out two bags of trash. However, if one family is in a neighbourhood of 100' lots and the other surrounded by 30' lots, then there is a greater efficiency for the collection in the denser neighbourhood. If a person lives on a large lot very near one of the water purification plants, should they pay the same fees as a smaller lot much further away which requires long pipe runs? As the developments further away get more dense, those long pipes need to get larger in diametre, too, eventually forcing the replacement of the pipe all the way back to the source. What about the dense street with driveways so close together that all of the snow needs to be trucked away, verses a street with larger lots onto which the snow can be plowed and left; shouldn't their user-fees for winter maintenance be different?

Snow clearing and the costs associated therewith is a pandora's box of its own...

We have these wide residential streets, which on paper would give us lots of room for snow, but then we clear them fully, meaning we need still more space to store it all. Streets with boulevards would appear to offer more options than those with sidewalks next to the curb, but of course the weed lawn that develops there in the rest of the year needs to be kept under control.

In the Netherlands, a lot of residential streets are made so narrow that they are one-way only (for cars), so that would tend to lessen snow clearing needs generally.

Then there are sidewalks, which need their own specialized equipment to clear.

And on and on it goes.


Making a fair municipal tax system is not a simple thing; but it should be done.

[waterloowarrior]

demolition control
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2012/07-09/15%20-%20ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0162_Baseline.pdf

[RTWAP]

I so wish this project was going in along Baseline at the Transitway. There is a block of old low rise apartments that would be a great location for intensification. And only a few minutes walk to the transitway. There's even a path under Baseline along the Transitway.

[adam-machiavelli]

That block of "old low-rise apartments" is reasonably-affordable rental housing. I don't know about you but I think it would be pretty immoral to replace affordable housing with luxury condos.

[jaz]

That block of "old low-rise apartments" is reasonably-affordable rental housing. I don't know about you but I think it would be pretty immoral to replace affordable housing with luxury condos.

Aren't the ones they are tearing down for this project affordable housing as well? It seems poor people are expendable and of course, no one wants to see 'affordable housing'.

[RTWAP]

That block of "old low-rise apartments" is reasonably-affordable rental housing. I don't know about you but I think it would be pretty immoral to replace affordable housing with luxury condos.

Who said anything about luxury condos?

And the owner doesn't have an obligation, moral or otherwise, to continue providing affordable housing. Getting off-topic, I don't think the city does either. I wish they'd get out of the business and instead of providing subsidized buildings they would just provide rent subsidies.

Closing the loop, those on subsidies should have their rental agreement as a sublet from the city, and the rental laws should be changed so landlords are prevented from disqualifying them based on income. If they fail to pay then the city cancels the rental agreement and claws back the subsidy from any future rental request. The city shouldn't be in the business of owning or managing rental properties.

I swear the public housing authority is more about keeping "those people" out of good neighbourhoods than about providing a decent and affordable place to live.

[waterloowarrior]

Who said anything about luxury condos?

And the owner doesn't have an obligation, moral or otherwise, to continue providing affordable housing

In a way they do because there are restrictions in demolishing rental housing in the city's by-laws, they can't convert to condo unless they meet certain conditions in the Official Plan, and they can't raise the rent over provincial guidelines if the buildings are pre late '91.

[kevinbottawa]

There's a website up for this one. http://QWcrossing.com

They're calling it Qualicum Woods Crossing, "Ottawa's cool new lifestyle-ready West-End Urban Village" and "The most affordable resort living in Ottawa".

It takes up four pages in the New Home and Condo Guide.

[S-Man]

Can't wait to unleash my cool new lifestyle on the unsuspecting inhabitants of Qualicum Woods Crossing!

But seriously, those ridiculous write-ups of new developments have to go away. Even something annoyingly existential would work better for me right now.

"Qualicum Woods...is It."

There you go.

[McC]

sorry QWXing, it's not a lifestyle community if there're no pictures of bicycles and people carrying market baskets.

[adam-machiavelli]

Many people in public housing need more than just cheap rent. They need social supports INSIDE the building. Replacing public housing with rent subsidies has been tried in many American cities and has proven to be more costly and less effective.

[kevinbottawa]

But seriously, those ridiculous write-ups of new developments have to go away. Even something annoyingly existential would work better for me right now.

The real estate phrase I hate the most is "in the heart of..." Most times the project is never in the heart of that particular area or the city. Can every project in Westboro be in the heart of Westboro?

[McC]

The real estate phrase I hate the most is "in the heart of..." Most times the project is never in the heart of that particular area or the city. Can every project in Westboro be in the heart of Westboro?

Perhaps they still ascribe to the quack theory about the "wandering womb" and think that hearts migrate around the body too?

[S-Man]

I'm pretty sure Westboroite Ken Grey suffers from 'wandering brain', along with most of his temperance mob. They are, of course, concerned about 'wandering zoning'.

[Uhuniau]

The real estate phrase I hate the most is "in the heart of..." Most times the project is never in the heart of that particular area or the city. Can every project in Westboro be in the heart of Westboro?

Westboro is like the universe; there is no edge, and everything is moving away from everything else.

[RTWAP]

Many people in public housing need more than just cheap rent. They need social supports INSIDE the building. Replacing public housing with rent subsidies has been tried in many American cities and has proven to be more costly and less effective.

Then you're not talking about affordable housing, you're talking about housing with enhanced social services. I can see that being more efficiently delivered in a dedicated building.

And the only reason I can think of why public housing would be more cost effective for general affordability cases is cost savings based on minimal maintenance and repair. Personally, I'd prefer people in affordable housing not be treated to crappy service.

[RTWAP]

Westboro is like the universe; there is no edge, and everything is moving away from everything else.

Man, I wish this website had upvotes.

+1

[waterloowarrior]

site plan application
http://app01.ottawa.ca/postingplans/appDetails.jsf?lang=en&appId=__8AHCP1

[canabiz]

I was at the grand opening earlier today and there was enough traffic and sales (judging by the number of stickers on the map).

I used to live in the area (near Centrepointe) and think this location is really good, close to the highways, hospitals, shopping and schools.

1 bedroom starts at the low 200 and 2 bedroom starts at the high 200. Closing date is late 2014 and i was told construction would begin once they sell 50% of the units.

[rocketphish]

We should probably update the title of this thread to reflect the latest siteplan (number of buildings and heights).

[canabiz]

I was here today at lunch with a colleague and they have knocked 2% off the grand opening price to push sales along.

I used to live in the area and appreciated the proximity to everything but when you are looking at $270K (including parking) for a 700 square feet 1-bedroom + den apartment, it is not an easy pill to swallow. From an investor's perspective, you would need to charge at least $1,500 (assuming standard 20% down) just to break even and I am not sure if people are willing to pay that amount to live here.

I think this project has potential (it used to be called the Courtyards) but they need to look at the prices, again.

[canabiz]

Since my last post, I have received several emails advertising new prices and promos (no property tax for first year, no land transfer tax, no Tarion enrollment fee etc)

I hope they can get the project going in a timely manner. Like I said, I love the location but the price is obviously a sticky point and I think they have started to address that.

[canabiz]

I drove by the site late last week (Friday I believe) and there has not been much activity. Couple of buildings were razed but that's about it. I believe they have reduced the price to push sales along but it will be a while before we see anything happening here.

[kwoldtimer]

How much have they dropped asking prices so far? I wonder how low they will need to go to generate some sales?

[J.OT13]

Are these much more affordable than other condos in the city?

[1overcosc]

Are these much more affordable than other condos in the city?

Condos in Ottawa are very overpriced. $200k is now considered 'cheap'. Call me a fearmongerer, but I'm very concerned that housing prices are getting so high that soon only the rich will be able to afford homes and all normal people will be reduced to renters filling the pocketbooks of investors. Something needs to be done to lower housing prices, and fast.

[Postmaster]

As a habitual renovator/seller, I would like to see house prices go down a bit. I hear they are forecasting a fall this year. I'm not greedy enough to think 6-7% increases every year are good for everyone. Real nice when you flip 3 or 4 houses a year (i dont), but at some point the buyers herd thins out. Most of my friends are 1 or 2 years away from 30 and most still rent. It's pretty crazy in Ottawa.

[S-Man]

The rents are too damn high!

No, seriously - they are.

[canabiz]

How much have they dropped asking prices so far? I wonder how low they will need to go to generate some sales?

I did not go in to grab the latest price list but I believe they have dropped prices by at least $20K + adding more upgrades and features for good measures.

Website has more details http://qwcrossing.com/price-list-stan.html

I like the area, having lived in Parkway Park (across from Centrepointe) for a number of years. It's close to Bayshore shopping/hospital/the major highways, Barrhaven/Kanata and a 20 minute drive to downtown but the downside is it borders Draper/Morrison which is not exactly a desirable part of town, to put it diplomatically.

Price is obviously another issue and I think they are/will be/should be addressing that as GreatWise (the builder) previously partnered with another boutique realty firm (it could be PMA but I don't remember for sure) before going with Marnie Bennett because the project just didn't seem to go anywhere.

[canabiz]

Are these much more affordable than other condos in the city?

If you are curious about the price for these condos, Marnie Bennet has several of them listed on her website as well as MLS. Here is an example, 1 bed & 1 bath for $208K

http://www.realtor.ca/PropertyDetails.aspx?&PropertyId=13292828&PidKey=1048187052

Here's the most expensive of the bunch, 2 beds & 2 baths & $347 monthly condo fee for $420K

http://www.realtor.ca/PropertyDetails.aspx?&PropertyId=13292839&PidKey=1866789894

You be the judge if this is a deal :-)

[RTWAP]

Condos in Ottawa are very overpriced. $200k is now considered 'cheap'. Call me a fearmongerer, but I'm very concerned that housing prices are getting so high that soon only the rich will be able to afford homes and all normal people will be reduced to renters filling the pocketbooks of investors. Something needs to be done to lower housing prices, and fast.

If investors can buy and make a profit from renters then renters should be able to afford to buy.

[McC]

This is true, but with at least one important caveat: saving for a down payment is extremely difficult, as housing prices in Ottawa have been increasing at a much faster rate than the returns on just about any type of investment over the past five years or so. this means that until you find a way on to that escalator, everything just keeps getting further out of reach; even with historic-low interest rates. (Flahery's re-tightening of the mortgage rules that he himself had relaxed early in his tenure, doesn't help new first-time buyers any, either).

[canabiz]

This is true, but with at least one important caveat: saving for a down payment is extremely difficult, as housing prices in Ottawa have been increasing at a much faster rate than the returns on just about any type of investment over the past five years or so. this means that until you find a way on to that escalator, everything just keeps getting further out of reach; even with historic-low interest rates. (Flahery's re-tightening of the mortgage rules that he himself had relaxed early in his tenure, doesn't help new first-time buyers any, either).

I agree with you for the most part but I just want to add that if you don't have the savings for downpayment, you can look at other avenues, if you want to get into the market and stop paying the mortgages of your landlords and making them rich. Some ideas include

- Cashing out your RRSP/TFSA
- Borrowing money from parents/relatives
- Looking at bank loans for downpayment (a popular option these days is 0% balance transfers from MBNA or Capital One)

Again these options are not for everybody and they all depend on your financial situations but all I am saying is sometimes you have to think outside the box to get to where you want to go and not simply rely on the traditional avenues.

And no when you are starting out for the first time, you don't have to jump straight into 400K+ detached home. Start small with a terrace home/stacked townhouse (5% of $200K is $10K down) where the builders are currently offering all kind of incentives and discounts and work your way up.

[McC]

Your first suggestion for people who don't have enough savings is to cash in their savings? RRSPs and TFSA are useful savings tools (that's what the "s" stands for after all), but they're not magic! It's been pretty tough to find investment vehicles that are consistently paying better returns year over year than the 5-8% or more that Ottawa housing price have been increasing for the past several years. Irrespective of whether your savings are tax sheltered or not, if the dollar you saved last year (or your parents/relatives saved last year) is today only worth two or three cents more, while a dollar's worth of housing last year now costs closer to a dollar-ten, your goal of a down payment is now further away rather than closer. There are ways around this (get pay raises above the rate of inflation, save harder, borrow more) but none of these change the fundamental challenge I described.

[canabiz]

Your first suggestion for people who don't have enough savings is to cash in their savings? RRSPs and TFSA are useful savings tools (that's what the "s" stands for after all), but they're not magic! It's been pretty tough to find investment vehicles that are consistently paying better returns year over year than the 5-8% or more that Ottawa housing price have been increasing for the past several years. Irrespective of whether your savings are tax sheltered or not, if the dollar you saved last year (or your parents/relatives saved last year) is today only worth two or three cents more, while a dollar's worth of housing last year now costs closer to a dollar-ten, your goal of a down payment is now further away rather than closer. There are ways around this (get pay raises above the rate of inflation, save harder, borrow more) but none of these change the fundamental challenge I described.

I stated I agreed with you for the most part. I simply wanted to add my 2 cents that if people want to find down-payment for their first home (and again I am talking about a manageable amount like $10K+ for a $200K+ stacked/terrace town), there are ways to go about doing so.

If people choose to continue renting and dishing out the tired old excuse *I don't have enough down* without looking at available options then that is their prerogative and we will not be able to help them.

[Buggys]

Just to hit that point home, here are some more reasons why a lot of people are out of the running for starting to own a property due to lack of liquid assets for a down payment.

Lots of people simply live paycheck to paycheck with lots of other debt to pay already:
* student debt
* credit card debt

And not everybody has such generous relatives willing to lend large sums of money.

Interest rates on downpayment loans must be scary high, otherwise how could the banks make their money?

Also, I guess those people don't want to pay agents' commmission:
* when they buy (yes, technically the seller pays both buyer & seller agents, but that money comes from the buyer)
* when they move to their dream McMansion

And perhaps they want to save $ faster by:
* renting a very cheap place
* not having to pay property tax

Oh, and the increase of borrowing interest rates rising again might be scaring some people out of the market. Nobody wants to pay the banks double to triple the purchase price for a home.

[canabiz]

I happened to drive by this area earlier today and there was a big hole in the ground but not much else. Will be curious to find out what the % of sold is and whether they need to get 75% (or thereabout) sold (like high-rise condos) before they can start construction

[Uhuniau]

- Cashing out your RRSP/TFSA
- Borrowing money from parents/relatives
- Looking at bank loans for downpayment (a popular option these days is 0% balance transfers from MBNA or Capital One)

Dunno what the rules are now, but when I bought, your down-payment had to be cash on the nail. No borrowings, not even from family members. (Straight-up gifts of cash are fine.)

[canabiz]

Dunno what the rules are now, but when I bought, your down-payment had to be cash on the nail. No borrowings, not even from family members. (Straight-up gifts of cash are fine.)

When did you buy? There are certainly more options now to come up with downpayment.

[Uhuniau]

When did you buy? There are certainly more options now to come up with downpayment.

2006. As far as I know, banks still will frown on anyone who makes their down-payment with other, non-mortgage debt.

If they aren't, then the bursting of the housing bubble is going to be brutal.

[canabiz]

2006. As far as I know, banks still will frown on anyone who makes their down-payment with other, non-mortgage debt.

If they aren't, then the bursting of the housing bubble is going to be brutal.

Yes things have certainly changed since and there are more options now Uhuniau.

Back to the original topic: This place is still a hole in the ground, nothing is moving. They need to reduce prices to get sales going.

[rocketphish]

The underground parking garage is well underway and the concrete has almost reached ground level.

[canabiz]

Just got an email from Marnie Bennett and Co. offering up to $14K savings in certain units.