900 Albert St | 234/203/105m | 65/56/23fl | Approved

[c_speed3108]

EDIT: 2018 updated renders

Latest renders and height increase for Trinity Centre at Bayview Station (900 Albert) in Ottawa. Preliminary sewer relocation underway and zoning going to Council next month.

232.5m / 65 fl (was 230.9m/65fl)
204.4m / 56 fl (was 192.7m/52fl)
130.7m / 27 fl (was 130.1m/32 fl)

Architect is GGLO from Seattle
http://www.gglo.com/

Thread
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=164924&page=23

Latest drawings June 2018
http://webcast.ottawa.ca/plan/All_Image%20Referencing_Zoning%20Bylaw%20Amendment%20Application_Image%20Reference_D02-02-16-0018%20REVISED%20site%20plan%20and%20elevations%20June%202018.PDF


https://i.imgur.com/zfa7Dvu.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/aceGibd.png
https://i.imgur.com/GFdjRPm.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/h9dhU0s.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/fCmUcTE.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/wFbVA18.jpg



Formerly known as 801 Albert | 140.4m & 130.9m | 33 fl & 30 fl | Approved
and 900 Albert


Phoenix proposes two 31-storey residential towers
By Peter Kovessy, Ottawa Business Journal Staff
Tue, Feb 10, 2009 4:00 PM EST

An Ottawa developer has reactivated its plans for a residential development just east of the Bayview Transitway station, but has returned with a significantly taller proposal.

DCR Phoenix has submitted a site plan application to build a pair of 31-storey, 338-feet high-rise apartment buildings and a four-storey office building on a 5.35-acre site at 801 Albert St. (map), formerly known as 801 Wellington St., according to city documents.

The proposed development would create 466 dwelling units and 478 surface and underground parking spaces. The property would have to be rezoned to accommodate the increased density.

A rezoning application was initially submitted in 2003 to allow for a residential development consisting of townhouses, stacked townhouses and an apartment.

The development was to be incorporated into a light rail station as part of Ottawa's since-cancelled north-south rapid transit line, an individual familiar with the file said on background.

"It all came to a halt with the death of the north-south light rail and then it got put on hold for two or three years as water mains were being built through the site," he said.

In September 2007, the developer requested its application be reactivated and proposed two 19-storey towers.

The developer's most recent application has not yet been deemed complete by city planners, but is being circulated for early public review.

DCR Phoenix's manager of planning could not be immediately reached for comment.
.

[Mille Sabords]

"Surface and underground parking" already reeks of a tower-in-the-park type of garbage. I'll wait to see renderings, but it would make me smile more if I had also seen the words "retail podium" and "Integrated with a transfer station".

[waterloowarrior]

here's their old proposal('05)

http://www.phoenixhomes.ca/phoenixNews/documents/September28-2005.pdf

[Davis137]

It'd be awesome to ANYTHING built west of Lebreton near Bayview/Scott Streets...would add some much needed rejuvination to the northern section of the city...

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

here's their old proposal('05)

http://www.phoenixhomes.ca/phoenixNews/documents/September28-2005.pdf

I quite liked that proposal.

[cityguy]

I live on Preston,these towers rise up quite close to my house.

[harls]

The views would be phenomenal....

[osirisboy]

what are the chances of this thing actually getting built at 31 stories? did they make it taller so they have room to negotiate with the city on height?

[cityguy]

^that's what I'm thinking.

[Beatrix]

Well, the elevation at Bayview is substantially lower than that of the CBD. I don't think it would obstruct any views of Parliament....

[highdensitysprawl]

what are the chances of this thing actually getting built at 31 stories? did they make it taller so they have room to negotiate with the city on height?

Happens all the time...it is rare that the public or councillors ask the developer to increase the height/density. City Planners do, but I've never known the public or the elected officials.

Its called the art of the negotiation.

[waterloowarrior]

application page (site plan) (http://app01.ottawa.ca/postingplans/appDetails.jsf?lang=en&appId=__7JXBPO)


To construct 2- 31 storey apartment buildings. + 2 storeys of mechanical equipment and 3-4 storeys of office building.

http://wwuploads.googlepages.com/801albert.jpg

[Deez]

bahaha.

This thing is an absolute abomination of urbanism...some of which is the City's fault and some the developer's.

First of all...why on earth are the property lines set so frigging far back from Scott (Albert?)? This development is steps from the CBD yet the setbacks are similar to new single family home subdivisions in Avalon. And what abuts the property line? A surface lot? At the intersection of what could be an N-S-E-W transit transfer location? Give me a break.

[cityguy]

I guess you would have too see the site,the property lines are set far back because of steep terrain.

[eemy]

I guess you would have too see the site,the property lines are set far back because of steep terrain.

Usually they would just zone it Hazard or something similar to prevent development on that part of the land (at least where I work). Obviously the road ROW is particularly wide along Scott Street/Wellington in that area. I'd be curious to find out why.

It seems a little bit premature to begin developing Bayview. There should really be a more comprehensive plan for the area before development should proceed.

[harls]

You can see the hatch marks along Scott street on the left hand side, but that's the only place where steep terrain is shown.

the drawing makes me think of Place Champlain in Hull with its parking lot along Taché.. it has a similar type of drop-off from the street.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3551/3328472660_a521ce739e_o.jpg

[TransitZilla]

First of all...why on earth are the property lines set so frigging far back from Scott (Albert?)? This development is steps from the CBD yet the setbacks are similar to new single family home subdivisions in Avalon. And what abuts the property line? A surface lot? At the intersection of what could be an N-S-E-W transit transfer location? Give me a break.

You can see from the site plan that this site is criss-crossed with sewer easements. If the buildings were brought any closer to Scott/Albert, they would be encroaching on the easement.

I don't think there's any other alternative in this case.

[waterloowarrior]

The residential buildings have about 50% more resident parking spaces than required (although based on the numbers it is probably all underground and visitors is above ground)

[Radster]

The first thing that came to my mind when I saw this plan was the grouping of all the Alta Vista apartments and condos (in the vicinity of the Canada Post depot). I agree, this is a joke.

[Deez]

You can see from the site plan that this site is criss-crossed with sewer easements. If the buildings were brought any closer to Scott/Albert, they would be encroaching on the easement.

I don't think there's any other alternative in this case.

I guess that shows how much I know about reading site plans.

Would these sewers predate the current Scott St. alignment? I wonder if there are plans to move them...

[Davis137]

I hope they go through with this location...

[k2p]

Sorry, they need to build something that horrendous because of a steep incline? Monte Carlo, Hong Kong, San Francisco, New Zealand, Rio, Italian mountainsides have steep inclines. Scott Street?

[p_xavier]

Sorry, they need to build something that horrendous because of a steep incline? Monte Carlo, Hong Kong, San Francisco, New Zealand, Rio, Italian mountainsides have steep inclines. Scott Street?

Look, it's Ottawa, the same people that think that digging under the canal will result in a flooded subway.

[Mille Sabords]

Sorry, they need to build something that horrendous because of a steep incline? Monte Carlo, Hong Kong, San Francisco, New Zealand, Rio, Italian mountainsides have steep inclines. Scott Street?

I'm with you, and I hope the city kicks their asses out of the building permit office as soon as they show up. This is a pathetic effort.

[highdensitysprawl]

I'm with you, and I hope the city kicks their asses out of the building permit office as soon as they show up. This is a pathetic effort.

My experience with the 'building permit' office is that they never question the architectural treatment, FSI, proposed setbacks etc. That is taken care of by the Planners at the City and as long as their is a site plan approval in place, the building permit review people never question it. They are more concerned with Building Code conformity, making sure it meets the zoning, any variances applied for and in full force and effect, development charges paid etc.

[Mille Sabords]

My experience with the 'building permit' office is that they never question the architectural treatment, FSI, proposed setbacks etc. That is taken care of by the Planners at the City and as long as their is a site plan approval in place, the building permit review people never question it. They are more concerned with Building Code conformity, making sure it meets the zoning, any variances applied for and in full force and effect, development charges paid etc.

That was a figure of speech, but thanks for the lowdown.

[highdensitysprawl]

That was a figure of speech, but thanks for the lowdown.

Pas de probleme.....if ever there was a greater difference between the planning policy wonks and development approvals boffins and the 'pick and shovel' guys in the Building Department, I've yet to find it at City Hall. In many smaller municipalities that I've been involved in, the person who reviews the plans for zoning/site plan issues is also the person who reviews for building permit purposes....

[rocketphish]

here's their old proposal('05)

http://www.phoenixhomes.ca/phoenixNews/documents/September28-2005.pdf

...and here's another old, yet different, rendering from their 2007 Corporate Brochure. Notice that they were still planning to get their hands on the Tom Brown Arena lands as well.

http://www.phoenixhomes.ca/aboutPhoenix/CorpBrochure3.pdf

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2594/3665383642_b3979328a5_o_d.jpg

Maybe the latest plan of theirs will be third time lucky?

[cityguy]

^buildings in this picture appear to be about 22 stories.

[citizen j]

^Which might indicate what they expect to get approved if they propose 31 storeys?

[cityguy]

projects change all the time the picture has 3 main towers,the current proposal has two 31 storey tower with a 4 storey office building.

[waterloowarrior]

streetview of the site

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2447/4043976385_461f1b693b_o.jpg
(http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=801+albert,+ottawa,+on&ie=UTF8&gl=ca&ei=OcLkSqyvCpOStgfCiLi3DA&ved=0CAsQ8gEwAA&hq=&hnear=801+Albert+St,+Ottawa,+Ottawa+Division,+Ontario&ll=45.410322,-75.718825&spn=0.012262,0.027874&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=45.410248,-75.718998&panoid=qVqs_i3_SHMAh_MtJsKz6g&cbp=12,200.42,,0,5.29)

[cityguy]

Proposal signs have been removed.

[archie-tect]

After the commical effort on Somerset I think Pheonix should be banned from developing anywhere near the downtown core. Commical is so bad in this case that you just shake your head since what can you say

[cityguy]

^what?

[waterloowarrior]

DCR/Phoenix lowers City Centre rezoning request
Substitutes 17-storey office building in place of 31-storey condo tower
http://www.obj.ca/Real-Estate/2010-03-29/article-973252/DCR-Phoenix-lowers-City-Centre-rezoning-request/1
Published on March 29th, 2010
Peter Kovessy
Ottawa Business Journal



An Ottawa developer now plans to build a 24-storey residential tower and a 17-storey office building on a vacant lot west of downtown, according to the city.

The DCR/Phoenix Group is also proposing a four-storey mixed-use building for the 5.35-acre site at 801 Albert St., formerly known as 801 Wellington St.

The property is bordered by the O-Train tracks and is across from the Bayview Transitway Station.

The four-storey building would contain ground-level commercial space and 15 residential units while the 24-storey tower would contain 184 units and four levels of underground parking.

The 17-storey office tower, meanwhile, would be approximately 405,000 square feet.

Proposals for the site go back at least as far as 2003.

That’s when a rezoning request was submitted to allow for a residential development consisting of townhouses, stacked townhouses and an apartment building.

The project was to be incorporated in the Ottawa’s north-south light-rail line but came to a halt when city council cancelled the rapid transit plan.

It was then put on hold while new water mains were constructed through the site.

In 2007, the developer proposed two 19-storey towers. It came back in early 2009 with a site plan proposing two 31-storey residential high-rises and a four-storey office building for the site.

Vincent P. Colizza was the architect who prepared that previous site plan. Larocque Levstek prepared the landscape plan.

The latest rezoning request will be considered by the city’s planning and environment committee on April 27.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! :(

This was as close to perfect as we're gonna get for a 31 storey tower! :(

[jcollins]

Ya that's a shame. I guess they saw the writing on the wall.

Went from a great project (height wise - not sure about design) to a ho hum project.

[blackjagger]

24 storey residential roughly 75m and 17 storey office roughly 70m is good density, especially for this location and its distance from the CBD. I would rather see this height with a proposal that has good street interaction and does not suffer from the tower in the park syndrome that there site plan on page one shows. Lets hope that this proposal goes somewhere.

Cheers,
Josh

[waterloowarrior]

Here's the updated landscape plan, not really looking more urban
http://webcast.ottawa.ca/plan/All_Image%20Referencing_Site%20Plan%20Application_Image%20Reference_Landscape%20Plan%20March%202010%20D07-12-09-0004.PDF

[Davis137]

ANYTHING in that location would be awesome! It'd bridge the gap between Tunney's Skyline and downtown a little bit better...

[waterloowarrior]

updated landscape plan

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2742/4476868604_590e8d29ba_o.jpg (http://webcast.ottawa.ca/plan/All_Image%20Referencing_Site%20Plan%20Application_Image%20Reference_Landscape%20Plan%20March%202010%20D07-12-09-0004.PDF)

[blackjagger]

Here's the updated landscape plan, not really looking more urban
http://webcast.ottawa.ca/plan/All_Image%20Referencing_Site%20Plan%20Application_Image%20Reference_Landscape%20Plan%20March%202010%20D07-12-09-0004.PDF

Yeah I'm a little disappointed. I saw this after my post. I can understand the parking in the back but are the parking lots in between the road and the buildings necessary.

I realize that there are some easement issues here but even just have podiums coming to the roadway would have improved this project.

Cheers,
Josh

[waterloowarrior]

here's a quick and dirty fantasy proposal I made this afternoon (cantilevered building is built over easement, reaching bridge at grade, rest of pipe moved slightly north). I would love to see this type of dense development for the whole area (LeBreton, City Centre, Bayview).

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4068/4476305081_96ea516d82_b.jpg

[Richard Eade]

Well, if you are going to have all those GREEN ROOFS in such close proximity, why not add pedestrian bridges between them and have a 'Park in the sky'?

[drawarc]

Good to see area developed, but the taller proposal would've been nice.

[ajldub]

Look at all that empty land. What a confused city...

[Davis137]

Well Waterloo...I am doubtfull they would allow a black glass building that's at least 45-50+ storeys a-la-TD Center in Toronto, ANYWHERE in Ottawa. Mind you, this would be a perfectly suitable area for buildings between 20 and 30 Stories...

Cool Idea/plan/proposal mock-up!

[waterloowarrior]

Good eye Davis... my mockup was 150 metres (height of Spire (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Spire,_Toronto.jpg) in Toronto) using the TD Centre facade (one of my favourite buildings). The idea being to keep the area at a dense and more human scale and put all the height into one tall thin tower at the back of the site, rather than having several 20-30 floor towers. re: Green roofs, I just put them for stormwater/heat reduction, but I've seen some cool examples of park-like green roofs.

It's unfortunate that this proposal doesn't seem to contribute to making this area around Bayview station a more urban space. Although there are many issues with the site, these aren't physically impossible to surmount, only difficult/expensive/time-consuming :)

[Davis137]

Well, even if they built some buildings only 12-15 Storeys here, that'd be an improvement over the open brownfields that exsist there now...

Now, looking at the picture...it also irks me again to look at the Bayview O-Train Station. I hate how half-azzed that spot is. I've only ridden the O-Train twice, and I was very impressed, but I hate the fact that they chose to just build some concrete slabs with Bus Stop Shelters in this location...why couldn't they have built a proper facility, like an enclosed building of some sort.

Anyways, I look forward to seeing any kind of improvements in this area...

[Luker]

Well remember, the O-train was a pilot project, and was subsequently due to be expanded with the full project that Larry O bailed on - and sued. :/

Yay! for solid municipal governments.

[eternallyme]

Well Waterloo...I am doubtfull they would allow a black glass building that's at least 45-50+ storeys a-la-TD Center in Toronto, ANYWHERE in Ottawa. Mind you, this would be a perfectly suitable area for buildings between 20 and 30 Stories...

Cool Idea/plan/proposal mock-up!

Right there isn't a bad place at all for a 50-storey tower. Several factors need to come into play to allowing such:

1) Rapid transit access - PASSED, being at the O-Train junction. Ideally such extreme density should be at the junctions of multiple transit nodes (Hurdman is also an excellent place for such).

2) Impact of scenic views - PASSED, it wouldn't block any significant view of Parliament Hill or the Ottawa River.

3) Security - PASSED, that is nowhere near any areas where security is a factor (i.e. Parliament Hill, major embassies, DND). Such density should not exist within 500 metres of an area of potential security issues.

4) Ideal zoning - PASSED, that area should be mostly residential, with museums and national facilities north of the LRT line.

[waterloowarrior]

rezoning going to PEC 27 April

[waterloowarrior]

staff report - refusal recommendation
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2010/04-27/2%20-%20ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0082%20-%20Zoning%20801%20Albert.htm


Summary

The applicant’s current proposal provides for developing the site with uses considered appropriate for a Mixed-Use Centre, however, as a result of the site’s current constraints, is not responsive to the policies and objectives of the City for development within mixed use centers to contribute to place-making and to provide for strong integration with the adjacent community and with transit. The intended focus of Mixed-Use Centres is to have these areas developed as compact areas with a high quality public realm so that these areas will be focal points for the communities wherein they are located, and designed to integrate with transit and support pedestrian connections to and from adjacent areas within a pedestrian focused environment. The significant constraint to achieving this form of development is the existing major infrastructure crossing the site. This infrastructure, as reflected by the development concept, is preventing the site from being developed in a way that will be much more responsive to the planning and policy directions set out in the Official Plan for Mixed-Use Centres. As such, the applicant has demonstrated that development can be technically achieved within the existing site constraints, but that such development cannot achieve the key directions of the OP as discussed related to Mixed-Use Centres becoming special and unique places.

As noted, as part of the CDP process underway, the potential exists to relocate some of the major infrastructure in the area to unencumber potential development sites, which would allow those sites to be developed in a way that can respond well to not only the objectives of the OP for Mixed-Use Centres, but also in a manner that contributes to having the area advance the place-making objectives and integration objectives of the OP. This examination is part of the Master Servicing Study that is part of the CDP work program. Staff therefore are of the view that the retention of the holding provisions is appropriate. Determinations for this site, as was acknowledged when the City was working with the applicant to examine the potential for an integrated development of the site with the North-South LRT and key adjacent areas, are considered best made in the context of the CDP process. The subject site, being at the terminus of the Mixed-Use Centre and being adjacent to a major transit facility (both existing and planned), is considered too important to be developed in isolation of finding the best approach for development through the CDP process.

In this regard, as noted, the OP requires that CDP’s be completed for all Mixed-Use Centres. While the OP allows development to proceed in advance of CDP’s being completed, there is clear direction that where development does proceed that it occur in a way that is consistent with advancing all the policy objectives set out in the OP. Staff are of the view that the development proposed does not meet this direction.


:tup:

[TransitZilla]

staff report - refusal recommendation
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2010/04-27/2%20-%20ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0082%20-%20Zoning%20801%20Albert.htm



:tup:

Why not allow a phased approach that would allow building out to the street once the sewer easements are re-located?

It's the city's infrastructure- it's not the applicant's fault that it constrains development on their site.

[blackjagger]

Whoa...its not often that I completely agree with a staff report but that is good. If the services and easement issues could be resolved this site could be much better utilized. Maybe even a 31 fl tower again?? With commercial along the road even??

Cheers,
Josh

[blackjagger]

Why not allow a phased approach that would allow building out to the street once the sewer easements are re-located?

It's the city's infrastructure- it's not the applicant's fault that it constrains development on their site.

I was wondering that too. Even with the current proposal if you add in say a 7 storey building where the front office parking lot is that meets the road, move the entrance to the office tower to the north east corner and create a plaza in front to the residential tower instead of the drop-off circle it would create quite the dense site.

[Ottawan]

I was wondering that too. Even with the current proposal if you add in say a 7 storey building where the front office parking lot is that meets the road, move the entrance to the office tower to the north east corner and create a plaza in front to the residential tower instead of the drop-off circle it would create quite the dense site.

Yes, but this report doesn't completely close the door to the developper coming back with an improved plan that would show that type of phasing, and if more approrpriate to the OP, proceeding in advance of the CDP.

Overall, I'm glad they stopped this misuse of the site.

One feature I really hope to see in the development of this site is a pedestrian bridge/connection along the Wellington Street axis accross the train tracks to whatever is developped here.

[Ottawan]

Another great paragraph from the report:

The development proposed for the site under the current zoning in staff’s view is not reflective of the strategic intent of the OP for development within Mixed-Use Centres. As a result of the site’s physical condition, to the achieve development that does not impact the city’s infrastructure, the development proposed is not reaching the form and quality called for. It very much reflects a more suburban design approach of towers in a park and not the more urban interconnected pedestrian-focused development required to have the site be an integral element of the larger Mixed-Use Centre of which it is a part.

Edit: AND, they agree with my pedestrian concept:

As well, the concept plan does not provide for the consideration of the extension of Wellington Street over the existing rail-line to form a new connection to the area. Pedestrian movements from the south to the north have not been considered, nor movements from the eastern portion of the site to the west leading to the signalized intersection.

I'm a fan of whoever wrote up this report. I just hope the City follows through in helping to enable the proper type of development that they are espousing.

[blackjagger]

http://www.phoenixhomes.ca/phoenixNews/documents/September28-2005.pdf

Not a new article, heads-up its 2005. But it shows that they really haven't changed the site plan much in 6 years? (picture top right of article).

Cheers,
Josh

[Davis137]

Build something that's at least 20 Storeys here, and have some other smaller buildings that setback the taller tower with the transitways and streetscapes.

[waterloowarrior]

Dalhousie Community Association: 801 Alvert
http://dalhousiecommunityassociation.blogspot.com/

801 Albert Street is the triangle of land bounded by the City Centre Complex, Albert Street, and the Otrain corridor. It is presently a "hole", that is, it appears to be significantly lower than the surrounding properties. Phoenix owns it, and has come foreward with numerous redevelopment proposals, all of which have been lacking in merit. Granted, it is a very difficult site to develop, with many easements and utility lines crossing it. The City is now examining the utilties in the area as part of the Bayview-Carling CDP; it may be possible to realign some of them (but at great cost).

In their prior proposal, Phoenix wanted two condo towers and a four floor office building, all on one podium structure level with Albert Street. Building the garage would prevent the city from replacing the sewers some day, so they turned down the idea of a single podium structure. Now Phoenix is proposal three separate podiums, leaving the sewer rights of way open to the air. The City is recommending it be rejected, as it divides up the parcel into awkward pieces.

Here is our letter:


Planning Committee

Re: 27 April 2010: zoning – 801 Albert Street

Dear Sir/Madam

The Dalhousie Community Association supports the eventual development of this site. The development could be high density suitable for its proximity to a major transit hub. The current Phoenix proposal falls far short of the site’s potential and should be rejected. The buildings should be adjacent the sidewalk, parking should be underground, it should be pedestrian and transit focused (not parking garage and surface lots), its prominent location merits the very highest architectural and planning endeavor.

The Association calls on the city to make every effort to promptly resolve the issues of the utilities crossing the site and the city’s need for future access for repair and replacements. Rather than having the proponent come back repeatedly with proposals for the site, we encourage the city to work collaboratively with the developer to find a suitable development track.

Eric Darwin
23 April, 2010
President, Dalhousie Community Assoc.

[waterloowarrior]

Bayview highrise proposal rebuffed by city
Ottawa developer dejected about project's prospects
http://www.ottawasun.com/news/ottawa/2010/04/27/13739356.html
By JON WILLING, CITY HALL BUREAU
Last Updated: April 28, 2010 9:27am
http://storage.canoe.ca/v1/dynamic_resize/?src=http://www.ottawasun.com/news/ottawa/2010/04/27/Perspective2___April_27_10.jpg&size=248x186
A city committee rejected this development near Lebreton Flats, citing concerns over city services running beneath the property. DCR Phoenix image

William Buchanan has been battling City Hall over his “labour of love” for about seven years.

“It’s been a problem. There’s always something that has come up, whether it deals with the planning aspect, or more specifically, with the construction approval,” Buchanan said Tuesday after a planning and environment committee meeting.

Buchanan, planning manager for DCR Phoenix Development Corp., was trying to warm councillors up to the company’s three-tower proposal for a prime piece of land beside the O-Train Bayview station, south of Lebreton Flats.

DCR Phoenix is pitching a 17-storey office tower, 24-storey condo tower and a four-storey mixed-use building on the triangular chunk of land.

The property was originally owned by the city, which sold it to the National Capital Commission. DCR Phoenix acquired the property from the NCC in 2004 and in 2005 the company submitted an unsolicited proposal to develop a new main branch for the Ottawa public library and some residential units. The city declined the offer.

Since then DCR Phoenix has been trying to come up with a development the city could stomach.

The site is challenging to develop since key municipal infrastructure, such as sewers and watermains, run under parts of the property.

The three-tower proposal is being rejected by city planning staff because a study on the water and sewer infrastructure isn’t complete and neither is a community design plan. On top of that, staff are chilly to the design.

Owners of the neighbouring City Centre complex are also cold to the three-tower plan.

City councillors on the planning and environment committee believed the development would disrupt city infrastructure.

Capital Coun. Clive Doucet openly questioned why the developer bought the land when it appears undevelopable.

The committee agreed there couldn’t be any development until the proper studies are complete and it refused the necessary zoning change. City council will be asked to confirm the committee’s decision Wednesday (today).

Buchanan argued the towers wouldn’t disrupt any infrastructure.

“For them to come forward and say that you can’t develop the property is ridiculous,” he said outside the committee room.

As for community concerns, Buchanan notes there’s not much of a neighbourhood there and City Centre is hardly eye-catching as it is.

Buchanan was asked if he has any idea what the city would like to see on his land.

“To be honest, no,” he said. “We’ll try to sit down with them.”

jon.willing@sunmedia.ca


Developer should be stopped: city committee
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Developer+should+stopped+city+committee/2957980/story.html
Buried infrastructure at risk from three towers proposed at City Centre, councillors say

BY KATE JAIMET, THE OTTAWA CITIZENAPRIL 27, 2010


OTTAWA — The city should fight a zoning application that could see three towers built on a piece of empty land criss-crossed by underground water and sewage mains, city council’s planning and environment committee resolved Tuesday.

The majority of councillors on the committee felt there was a risk that critical city infrastructure, including major sewers and water mains, could be jeopardized if the development goes ahead at 801 Albert St., next to the City Centre development on the west side of downtown.

“As far as I’m concerned this is about protecting the city and that trumps any development,” said Capital Councillor Clive Doucet. “The developer made his own choice (to buy the property) and I’ll be damned if I’m going to be part of a crew that puts the city’s infrastructure at risk … for no good reason.”

But William Buchanan, manager of planning for the development company DCR Phoenix, said the risk to infrastructure will be minimal because the three towers — ranging in height from four to 24 storeys — would not be built directly over top of the pipes.

“We are not touching in any way, shape or form any of the current infrastructure that crosses the property,” he said.

Buchanan later said that the condition of the sewage pipes was not known, and that DCR Phoenix would likely conduct its own risk assessment before building.

DCR Phoenix will go before the Ontario Municipal Board (which can overrule city planning decisions) to ask for changes to the zoning of the property, a wedge-shaped piece of land bounded by the O-Train tracks, the Transitway and the City Centre commercial building.

The changes would allow for greater density than is currently allowed on the site and would remove a condition stating that the land cannot be developed before a “master servicing study” looking at water and sewer impacts is completed.

Councillors were also concerned that the proposed development — consisting of a residential highrise, an office tower, and a low-rise, mixed-use building — doesn’t fit with the vision of developing the area as a dynamic, pedestrian-friendly urban community.

But Buchanan said his development shouldn’t be held up by nebulous visions of the future.

“They talk about a neighbourhood, but it’s not really a neighbourhood,” Buchanan argued. “You’ve got City Centre, which has been rated the ugliest building in the city for years, and there’s nothing else.”

City council is to discuss the issue today.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

[Dado]

Just responding to a couple of earlier posts...

bahaha.

This thing is an absolute abomination of urbanism...some of which is the City's fault and some the developer's.

First of all...why on earth are the property lines set so frigging far back from Scott (Albert?)? This development is steps from the CBD yet the setbacks are similar to new single family home subdivisions in Avalon. And what abuts the property line? A surface lot? At the intersection of what could be an N-S-E-W transit transfer location? Give me a break.

Usually they would just zone it Hazard or something similar to prevent development on that part of the land (at least where I work). Obviously the road ROW is particularly wide along Scott Street/Wellington in that area. I'd be curious to find out why.

It seems a little bit premature to begin developing Bayview. There should really be a more comprehensive plan for the area before development should proceed.


If you look on Google it's pretty clear that when the overpass of the railway was built they departed from the Scott/Wellington/Albert road RoW to get a more perpendicular bridge. The services however remain in the original road alignment, so there is this odd arc of a circle chunk of land encompassing the original road alignment south of the current one that's a challenge to deal with.

The City, naturally, hasn't completed the CDP for the area (which should have been done *before* the NS-LRT EA but after the 2003 OP&TMP - it's now underway again) so they don't know what to do with it, nor did they buy the property itself from the NCC when the latter sold it (which they should have for the NS-LRT).

The fact that the developer has no idea what the city would like to see there just adds to the problems (whether that's because the City doesn't know, or they didn't ask, or both, is hard to say - but probably both). The proposal also seems to be done in complete isolation from anything on the City Centre site, whereas I would think that one would wish to develop (or at least plan) the entire area between the O-Train, Somerset, Champagne and Scott/Wellington/Albert in one shot, which would allow for addressing issues of servicing, LRT routing/integration and making the two overpasses (Scott & Somerset) more pedestrian friendly environments.


It's pretty much typical planning in Ottawa, I guess. Why plan years ahead when you can plan in a disorganized unfocused frenzy at the last minute? It's so much more exciting this way.

[citizen j]

^exciting indeed! I've already got tickets for the OMB hearings. I say the developer takes it in game 4.

[blackjagger]

My personal favourite.

"Capital Coun. Clive Doucet openly questioned why the developer bought the land when it appears undevelopable."

So he would rather see a field next to a major transit hub instead of a mix use high density project. I think this project has faults, but not so much that it can't be made to work. Even with just adding a pedestrian bridge to Wellington and some form of building right up to Scott.

Cheers,
Josh

[citizen j]

^Don't think of it as a field. Think of it as,... er, a park.

[Davis137]

Eventually the city will come to some sort of ammended agreement with the developer. I mean, they will be able to soak that land for a lot more tax money and stuff when there's businesses or people residing there.

[Richard Eade]

Apparently around 2003 the City estimated that it would cost about $16M to move the sewer pipes. I am thinking that when the new LRT is built, it might be a great time to lay a HUGE new section of sewer across LeBreton Flats to the Booth regulator. The pipes under this piece of property could then be moved and redirected to the new trunk. This will cost a lot of money.

Also, I was at the Bayview-Carling CDP Study the other day and it seems to me that there might be a problem with the sewer capacity in that area. Already there are a number of sewers which are pretty much at capacity so where would new development tie into? There might not be enough spare sewer capacity for the intensification desired due to all the up-stream flows leaving no room. (Apparently there is no problem providng the area with water - just sewer services.)

My suggestions would be to: A) Build a huge new section of trunk sewer under the new LRT line from Bayview to Booth; B) Have the City buy that corner of land and re-align the sewers; and C) Use the area for a large underground sewer storage tank to prevent overflows to the river.

[waterloowarrior]

ZONING - 801 ALBERT STREET
ZONAGE - 801, RUE ALBERT

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AS AMENDED

(This matter is not subject to Bill 51)

That Council refuse an amendment to the Zoning By law 2008 250 and former City of Ottawa By-law 93-98 to change the zoning of 801 Albert Street to permit a mixed-use development for the reasons outlined in the report and because, given the significant infrastructure easements required and already located on the site, Committee is of the view that this site is not developable without the following:
a. completion of a Master Servicing Study as part of the Community Design Plan (CDP) process to confirm the water, sewer and storm sewer service infrastructure requirements, including the potential and options for relocating main trunk lines to better accommodate development and design objectives determined through the CDP process;
b. completion of a comprehensive Transportation and Traffic Impact Assessment as part of the CDP process that will address the surrounding area transportation and traffic issues and the property’s vehicle access and egress requirements;

c. completion of the Bayview-Carling CDP to determine a larger direction for how this site would fit within the development program for the CDP; and
d. approval of an application for Site Plan Control following completion of the CDP which reflects and implements the directions determined through the CDP for the site, and is consistent with the policies of the Official Plan for Mixed-Use Centres.

REFERRED by the following motion:

MOTION

Moved by Councillor G. Hunter
Seconded by Councillor R. Bloess

WHEREAS the Planning Act provides to the City a period of 120 days to review a zoning application; and

WHEREAS, although a rezoning application for 801 Albert was submitted several years ago, the current proposal was only submitted in March, 2010, less than two months ago; and

WHEREAS it is appropriate to allow the Community, Committee and Council additional time to give further consideration to issues such as density and parking; and

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the matter of the zoning for 801 Albert Street be referred back to Planning and Environment Committee for further consideration of density, servicing and parking; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Clerk and Solicitor be directed to seek a hearing in November or December, 2010 in to permit Council to develop a position on these issues.

REFERRAL CARRIED

[Dado]

Interesting additions there. They look to be a preemptive strike against an OMB appeal by laying down the rationale for denying the request at this point in time. The developer has just been served notice not to think about appealing this and the OMB similarly has been served notice not to touch this one if it is appealed.

[waterloowarrior]

Empty excuses for an empty lot
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Denley+Empty+excuses+empty/3163496/story.html
City’s butt-covering over land deal fiasco does no one any good
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/3163498.bin?size=620x400
BY RANDALL DENLEY, THE OTTAWA CITIZEN JUNE 16, 2010 11:02 PM BE THE FIRST TO POST A COMMENT

The property known as 801 Albert Street is a scruffy little triangle of land on the western edge of downtown, near the Bayview transit station. The city made a big mistake when it sold the land a decade ago, and staff have been trying to cover their butts ever since.

Now, the company that owns the land is proposing a substantial office and residential development on the site and city planning staff are desperately trying to find some reason to say no. The problem is that all kinds of sewer and water lines run across the site and development could affect them. Unfortunately, city planning staff of the day assured the water and sewer people that the land would never be developed and sold it to the National Capital Commission for a pittance. The NCC then flipped it to DCR Phoenix. The city subsequently tried to buy the property back from the developer for $2.5 million, more than eight times what the city sold it for.

The developers have made a pretty persuasive case that the land can be redeveloped with no threat to sewers and they intend to prove their point at the Ontario Municipal Board. The pressure is now on city planning staff to prove that they have been right all along and that development on the site isn’t feasible.

In their attempt to do so, planning staff are really stretching for an argument. They say that the DCR Phoenix proposal for three towers on the site isn’t aesthetically pleasing and is more like the kind of development one would find in the suburbs. It’s a thin argument made thinner by the fact that the property is adjacent to the inaptly named City Centre, surely one of the ugliest buildings in town.

The city would also like the developers to wait for the completion of a community design plan for a vast area of the western downtown. That process began in 2004 and the city figures it will all be sorted out by 2012.

These arguments are definitely from the B list, but the city’s problem is that the developer has found a way to build without affecting the sewers, which planning staff now acknowledge. Pipe staff aren’t sure yet.

Planners are leaning heavily on the aesthetic argument, with urban design manager Richard Kilstrom saying the urban design is “pretty awful,” even though the developers haven’t even submitted sketches of the buildings.

The development company has been trying to find an acceptable use for the Albert Street site since 2004. First, it suggested a residential tower and townhouses. Then it got involved with the city in a public-private partnership deal that would have seen a new central library combined with a condo development. Funnily enough, the sewers didn’t seem to be an issue then. When that deal fell through, DCR Phoenix came back with a plan for two tall apartment buildings. Now it’s a mixed-use centre for offices and apartments.

The planning committee accepted city staff’s argument that the sewers were in dire peril when this issue came before it earlier this year. City council subsequently referred the matter back to planning for further consideration.

The city has always found a way to keep development from happening, but it is running out of options leading up to an OMB hearing scheduled for November. Staff really shouldn’t be spending public money at the OMB if their main arguments are “it doesn’t look nice,” and “can’t they just wait for another study?”

Planning committee chairman Peter Hume says the Albert Street matter typifies the thinking of what he calls “the something-for-nothing city.” Rather than protect a piece of land sewer staff said was required, the city decided to sell it off, then block development. If the city had retained the land or even bought it back from the NCC for the $800,000 DCR Phoenix paid, there would have been no issue, Hume says.

The lack of communication between city departments that is behind this problem happens far too often, Hume says. He acknowledges that an internal difference of opinion about the threat to the sewers is behind the years of delay at 801 Albert.

Buying the land back now isn’t really an option. With a viable development plan for the site, DCR Phoenix planning manager Bill Buchanan says the property is now worth at least $15 million. What the city needs to do, Hume says, is find a way to develop the site while protecting its interests.

That ought to be assisted by the fact that the mix of office and residential use is just the kind of thing the city’s official plan calls for. The city talks a great game about encouraging development and infill downtown, but on this particular site, it hasn’t followed through. It’s time to say yes to this plan.

There is no justification for wasting the taxpayers’ money at the OMB. This is such a tough-to-develop and unattractive site, the city should be glad that someone is willing to take it on.

[waterloowarrior]

whoops, double post....

Denley is really simplifying the "aesthetics" issue (IMO)... the staff report has a detailed explanation of how the design doesn't fit with the OP.

[TransitZilla]

Planners are leaning heavily on the aesthetic argument, with urban design manager Richard Kilstrom saying the urban design is “pretty awful,” even though the developers haven’t even submitted sketches of the buildings.


Isn't there a rendering here (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=4815980&postcount=63)?

Regardless, there is a big difference between aesthetics and site plan layout, and I'm sure Denley knows that. He's just pretending that they're the same because it's convenient to his argument.

I posted earlier in this thread that the City should have worked with the developers to identify a way to phase the construction to allow this site to evolve into what they want over time, and I still stand by that.

[Davis137]

It's all smoke n' mirrors to me

[waterloowarrior]

followup staff report
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2010/07-05/1%20-%20ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0124%20-%20Referral%20-%20801%20Albert%20St.htm

[cityguy]

This project seems doomed.

[waterloowarrior]

801 Albert Street, proposed development
http://dalhousiecommunityassociation.blogspot.com/2011/10/801-albert-street-proposed-development.html
DALHOUSIE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

755 Somerset Street West, Ottawa, Ontario, K1R 6R1

16 October 2011


Councillor Diane Holmes, City of Ottawa

Cc: Jeff Polowin, Hill & Knowlton
Councilor Katherine Hobbs

Dear Councillor,

Re: Re-Zoning of 801 Wellington St.

On Sept. 20 ’11, representatives of the Dalhousie and Hintonburg Community Associations were given a presentation of perspectives and other drawings of office towers for the 801 Wellington site opposite Bayview Station. The developer did not leave any documents with us. There was no assurance that any resultant buildings would look like what was presented. We were merely being informed that this was the basis of a re-zoning request which would eliminate the existing 1.5 FSI, allow 196, 184 and 95m heights ASL, and drastically reduce commercial parking requirements. Some shadow studies were later submitted electronically.

Site Planning:
A preliminary review indicates that the principal pedestrian and vehicle circulation and connectivity issues of the site have been met including views through the streets foreseen in the draft CDP, except that the gap between the two tall towers should be accessible around the clock.

Section 37:
The proponent committed to partial funding of a Wellington St. footbridge over the O-train, connected by a sidewalk and shared driveway/path along the south side of the site. We did not think anything else of significant was being provided that wouldn’t be required under the usual requirements of the OP. Replacing sewers is not a community benefit.

Mixed-use Centre:
As per the OP, Mixed-use Centres should be characterized by a broad variety of uses. In our view a significant residential component is essential in such a large development to insure the area is not dead after 5pm. Accordingly, at least 1/3 of the FSI should be residential. Thus the FSI should not be eliminated. Rather a max. FSI for commercial and a minimum FSI for residential should be applied. The great expanse of non-residential use between north Hintonburg and Walnut Court needs to be linked with some residential. A mixed use project will better contribute to knitting the communities together.

We support a “Mainstreet” style connectivity between northwest Dalhousie and north Hintonburg. This will require considerable care to ensure that Albert does not continue to be a speedway in this area.

Shadowing:
Studies were only forwarded for 10, 12 and 2 o’clock. Other shadow studies were requested but not yet provided. We would like a shadow study that instead of focussing on the new buildings, focuses on when and for how long the adjacent residences will be shadowed. The total FSI proposed should be less than 8.0 to reduce excessive shadowing.

Parking:
The requested reduction in commercial parking might just be sufficient in such proximity to a LRT station, but we have seen no parking study that backs this up. The possible impact on the nearby residential communities could be severe.

And there is no provision for residential parking, even though some non-office uses, such as residences or a hotel, were mentioned by the proponent. More parking needs to be incorporated into the development to accommodate a residential component. There will be no means to do so later.

All exterior parking should be short term only or the support uses will not function. Indeed, we favour most of the interior parking also being short term rather than monthly. Once it is monthly-only parking, the neighbourhood will be plagued by day parkers.

Compensating bicycle parking is required since vehicle parking is so reduced. We would like to see the bike parking facilitiy on the west side elaborated.

Design Review:
The proponents claim exemption from Design Review. Design review should be a condition of any re-zoning of such a prominent site.

Conclusion:
This proposal is not yet ready to proceed to a re-zoning in its present form.

Yours truly,



Eric Darwin, President

DALHOUSIE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

[waterloowarrior]

based on EMAPS it looks like the property is at around 56m asl so 196m asl would mean a 140m tall building? depends where it's located on the site. According to Josh's link in the general rumours thread it's two 33 fl office buildings.


As per the Dalhousie Community Association meeting minutes, Phoenix has revised their 801 Albert development to two 33 storey office towers. Could we have a new tallest proposal??


http://dalhousiecommunityassociation.blogspot.com/2011/11/dca-minutes-5-oct-2011.html

[S-Man]

It's annoying this is still in Diane Holmes' area - she might mount a 'Save City Centre from shadows' campaign.

[S-Man]

This project is still alive, but was on hold while kinks were being worked out. Eric Darwin has the run down of the updated proposal, which goes to planning committee this summer.

http://westsideaction.wordpress.com/2012/06/02/citys-tallest-office-towers-proposed-for-west-side/

Besides the height, the footbridge to the O-Train/LRT station are neat, as is the ressurection of the old Welington Street right-of-way over the O-Train tracks (pedestrian only).

This would truly be a transit/cycling/walking oriented complex, with many community benefits.

But I'm sure it will be "too tall".

[J.OT13]

I'm still skeptical. The past 2 designs were pretty horrible and this builder has no experience with projects on this scale.

[ml1471]

I'm still skeptical. The past 2 designs were pretty horrible and this builder has no experience with projects on this scale.

I've seen this idea posted a lot in the Ottawa forums. A company's experience is simply a collection of the experience of its people. You bring in the right people and you've got the experience. I've seen it done hundreds of times. That is how businesses expand to new things.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

If they can actually implement it so that we could play tetris on the sides of the building from consoles in the future Bayview station, I will immediately be sold.

[McC]

If they can actually implement it so that we could play tetris on the sides of the building from consoles in the future Bayview station, I will immediately be sold.

One hundred thousand times YES!

[TransitZilla]

One hundred thousand times YES!

Seconded! That would indeed represent pure awesomeness.:tup:

[cityguy]

I live just a block away and although it's tall I think it will be a great addition to the neighborhood.A parcel of land this close to a transit station should be utilized to its full potential.

[Davis137]

Those renders looks awesome, and I like the proposal overall...we need more stuff like this to go up!

[Radster]

If they can actually implement it so that we could play tetris on the sides of the building from consoles in the future Bayview station, I will immediately be sold.

Or they could do light shows like in Poland?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWyFNPhYLaM&feature=related

[waterloowarrior]

planning docs are online
http://app01.ottawa.ca/postingplans/appDetails.jsf?lang=en&appId=__49CB8H

132.4m...do we include the mechancial roof/logo element? It's 8.4m so the total height would be 140.8m.

[Postmaster]

planning docs are online
http://app01.ottawa.ca/postingplans/appDetails.jsf?lang=en&appId=__49CB8H

132.4m...do we include the mechancial roof/logo element? It's 8.4m so the total height would be 140.8m.

With a transit station there, is there any reason why it shouldn't happen?

[amanfromnowhere]

planning docs are online
http://app01.ottawa.ca/postingplans/appDetails.jsf?lang=en&appId=__49CB8H

132.4m...do we include the mechancial roof/logo element? It's 8.4m so the total height would be 140.8m.

I cannot believe... Ottawa can build something taller then Winnipeg!

[waterloowarrior]

staff report
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2012/09-11/05%20-%20ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0196%20-%20Albert.pdf

[Harley613]

i LOVE diane holme's comments, especially this one :

'1. Although this design has gone through some refinements, it is still out-of-scale, and will seriously impact the future development opportunities for the City Centre lands to the south.'

yessss....so out of scale with the rest of the the fields around it. it will positively DWARF the grass. future developments will be hindered by the building of a massive mixed-use project located at the nexus of two rapid transit lines. nobody will want to build around this new nexus because it will be way too awesome and hard to compete with.

[FiereSansVoiture]

I cannot believe... Ottawa can build something taller then Winnipeg!

Taller than Québec city and Hamilton too!
It's sad but Ottawa-Gatineau currently ranks 9th in Canada for city's tallest building with Terrasses de la Chaudière I at 124 m.
With this new building, Ottawa would likely rise 3 spots taking the 6th spot.
Is this Ottawa's highest proposal?

[Postmaster]

According to the planning it should stand around 140m which is probably the tallest proposal ever for the city; or certainly among them. I imagine it will still surpass 400 feet even after the protests and inevitable height compromise.

[kwoldtimer]

i LOVE diane holme's comments, especially this one :

'1. Although this design has gone through some refinements, it is still out-of-scale, and will seriously impact the future development opportunities for the City Centre lands to the south.'

yessss....so out of scale with the rest of the the fields around it. it will positively DWARF the grass. future developments will be hindered by the building of a massive mixed-use project located at the nexus of two rapid transit lines. nobody will want to build around this new nexus because it will be way too awesome and hard to compete with.

I read that and had no idea what she meant by "seriously impact". I conclude she foresees a negative impact but that comment could mean anything.

[J.OT13]

Taller than Québec city and Hamilton too!
It's sad but Ottawa-Gatineau currently ranks 9th in Canada for city's tallest building with Terrasses de la Chaudière I at 124 m.
With this new building, Ottawa would likely rise 3 spots taking the 6th spot.
Is this Ottawa's highest proposal?

No.

Claridge Icon: 128m|42Fl

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=199138

[FiereSansVoiture]

No.

Claridge Icon: 128m|42Fl



Even though the proposol for 801 Albert has less floors than Claridge Icon, it is higher with 132.4m and 140.8m with the logo.

[J.OT13]

Even though the proposol for 801 Albert has less floors than Claridge Icon, it is higher with 132.4m and 140.8m with the logo.

Sorry, I overlooked Bayview's height in meters.