340 Parkdale Ave | 127m | 38f | Proposed
 

In yesterday's citizen, there was an add for a new condo tower coming up in the Hintonburg Area.

Link to their registration website is here. I don't know how to add the picture here. See for yourself! it looks amazing. From $169k to over $1 million.

http://www.ottawaartisan.com

It is not clear who is the builder at this point! A beautiful addition to the Parkdale market area

Looks very nice. A great addition indeed. Looks like Armstrong and Hamilton?

http://www.ottawaartisan.com/images/onepage.jpg

Nice rendering. Let's hope the developer has some good projects under their belt already.

So far looks amazing! I like the industrial feel to the design, which is in keeping with the square bounded by Holland, Parkdale, Wellington and Scott. The southfacing units will have tons of sunlight because of the park, and nice unobstructed views of the park, market, and neighbourhood.

I'd prefer to keep the Carleton Tavern, which looks like it will get torn down for this. :(

I agree wholeheartedly about keeping the Carleton Tavern, but it seems pretty clear that it is not getting torn down, just the 1 story red brick building that used to house Add Electronics (I think last year it was a fairly unsuccessful artisans market, perhaps therefore the name of the condo). This is at the corner of Armstrong and Hamilton, whereas Carleton Tavern is just to the East at Armstrong and Parkdale - in fact the Parkdale Gallery (just west of the Carleton Tavern, in the same block) is visible at the far right of the render, showing that it too will remain.

My guess would be that it is the same developer who did the Parkdale Lofts on Parkdale/Spencer, which was KRP Developments. I quite liked the layouts in that building.

This is also where the Cube Gallery and Allan Dean Photography were (both recently moved to Wellington). An alternative address is 7 Hamilton Ave N..

Streetview

Also, the site is currently zoned for light industrial with an with an FSI of 2.0 and a height limit of 13.5 metres, so looks like it will need some rezoning.

There appears to be no active street-level facade, just a bunch of windows.

like a subdivision being named after deers, meadows and trees, this condo is named after the type of people it will displace ;)

You're right, but I think (or hope) that it'll be retail along Armstrong.

That area could use a Shoppers...

lol

What it needs is a Subway or Quizno's or something else like that on the ground floor, at the very least. I just moved from that neighbourhood like 6 weeks ago (I was on Bullman Street, living next door to One Hamilton). Would have been nice to be one of the people keeping tabs on this, and other Kitchissippi Ward Projects....

Orange Gallery opened there yesterday, which is why I assumed that it wasn't going to be in there. Who would open a brand new business in a building about to be torn down?

Yeah, I'm gonna be stealing that line.

Someone who got a very, very, very (did I mention very) good deal on a short term lease.

Ya and they could easily get a year out of the location before demolition happens.

The developer is Spencedale Properties Ltd. They also own the adjacent property at 3 Hamilton Ave. and 340 Parkdale (Parkdale Mini Storage) - basically the whole block except the Carleton Tavern (who knows they may own that too?). The ground floor looks like parking (similar to Parkdale Lofts). Since the whole area is rock which is expensive to excavate, it's cheaper to build above grade parking.

http://schoolhousecondos.com/builder.html

Complete website appears to be up, including floor plans and pricing. Looks pretty good, and from the 1st floor plan, it would seem that there is some Armstrong-facing retail.

http://www.ottawaartisan.com

Floor plans seem fairly good. Interesting to see amenities including bicycles and a shared car for residents - has that been done in other any other new projects in Ottawa? It seems like a nice little "perk".

Article from yesterday's Ottawa Citizen:

This looks like a really great project for the area and I like how the developers seem truly interesting in Hintonburg's history and character. Well, maybe they're not interested, but at least they are respecting it somewhat.

Hi. I'm with the Hintonburg Community Association. We try very hard not to oppose big developments in our community because we believe in the philosophy behind intensification. The Windmill building that houses the GCTC, for instance, was a big win for us, and the credit has to go to the Westeindes who took seriously their responsibility to offer the community something in return for height. It was a long discussion with them, but I think everyone won in the end. It was a huge boost to what was then our strategy of branding Hintonburg as the QUAD. The QUAD branding really took off once the GCTC moved in, and gave credibility to an effort on our part that was still, admittedly, as much bravado as fact.

Unfortunately, this development is proceeding along very different lines :(

We've posted a page at http://www.hintonburg.com/artisan.html to outline our initial concerns. A Community Design Plan that's been developed over a couple of years - and hundreds of hours of volunteer time - is already threatened by the very first proposal made for the area. Our challenge at this point is to try to get the developer and the City committed to meeting community concerns before re-zoning - for which no publicly available application has even been made available yet - becomes a rubber-stamp and we're forced into a long and costly OMB process. If this forum's participants are interested, I'd be happy to pass along developments (no pun intended).

Jeff Leiper

I can appreciate the concerns that you mentioned in your link, and it's interesting to hear what people in the area have to say about the proposed project. I also think, IMO, that the Artisan building is an improvement over the buildings that are currently at that address, which have no interraction with the streetscape anymore either. I know this, because I lived only a block or two away from there (On Bullman, near One Hamilton) for the better part of 2 years until I moved to the Gloucester/Southgate area, and I walked my dog around that neighbourhood year round, at least 2x per day.

It'll be interesting to see what happens with this proposal and/or project in it's entirety...

Absolutely! The site is also desperately in need of environmental remediation - that whole area is chock-a-block with nasty stuff which is being contained and monitored. Whoever develops it is going to need some height and density to offset that cost since brownfill funding is still inadequate. I don't think we and the developer are far apart. We're soliciting feedback, but right now my guess is that only a very few would push back at 6 storeys. 8 is going to be tougher, but might be appropriate if there's something in it for the community, and they respect the new CDP guidelines respecting setbacks. That would probably mean space the community could use, likely geared towards the arts, or some kind of affordable housing to help mitigate some of the effects of continued gentrification in the 'Burg. There'll have to be very significant engagement with the park/Market, as well, which doesn't seem to be contemplated in their drawings.

We'll be doing everything we can, though, to make sure that Council and the OMB don't accept 10 just because it's the first proposal to come along. It's a very valuable piece of real estate, and somebody out there is capable of doing a lot better than making a quick buck on it.

The way the Offical Plan is worded - after something like three years of work between we, the development community and the City - additional height in Mixed Use Zones is supposed to begin at the edges fairly low, and get higher as you move to the centre. That would seem to speak to respecting both the CDP and OP by building lower in phase I, and then going for additional height in phase II at the Hamilton/Spencer intersection. I don't think anyone's vision is for 14 storeys there given that it's bounded by three-storey townhomes, but it is designated a Mixed Use area and targeted for intensification. At the end of the day, with the Parkdale Market right there, Tunney's Pasture, rapid transit, and within a couple of blocks of a linear main street, it's difficult to see holding the line at even 8 in phase II, but we'll cross that bridge when we get to it.

For the time being, given that there's no "give" to the community, I'm pretty sure we'll be holding the line at 6 on this phase unless the developer figures out some way of turning a higher building into a plus. What they're proposing now is just the addition of more infrastructure strain and continued gentrification without any positives to net out as a benefit.

6? Good luck. I'll guess you get 8 with setbacks.

Yeah 6 will trigger an OMB appeal from the developer no doubt about it. The cost of concrete construction and the requirement of an elevator make 5-6 storey buildings a real art to breakeven with. Asking for 8 with some community benefit will be a good compromise if you ask me (I know nobody does). I believe that community associations that are willing to work with developers and gracefully force compromise will help to develop both a strong urban neighbourhoods and developments that reflect and add to the neighbourhood in which it is being built.

Cheers,
Josh

Agreed^

On the one hand its a useful tool to have the long list of anti-development agencyies and groups like we do here in Ottawa; with often extremly strict and narrow views, they often can suffocate developments or at times just trip them up. But in this case as many, these groups offer great risk, if this comes down to less than 6 stories, it will be a monothlic box, end of story, with even more profit maxing...It often intrigues me what they find so unfit, houses and yes CONDOS/Intensifcation are needed in all cities, and yes sometimes near your house too, its how cities grow and become vibrant dense patchs of urban networks and communities... Nonetheless it does AT TIMES keep developers in line, but the sense of HEIGHT NEVER WORKS in this city is attrocious.

I think that the developers might try to build higher than 8 stories in that location, if they have to be more heavily invested in it's relation to the park. If they were smart, they would put in places like Quizno's, or maybe even a bookstore or some other form of restaurant to replace the Carleton in the podium/base of the building. That area severely lacks commercial retail (that ISN'T a boutique-style shop that only people from Westboro and Civic Campus districts can afford on a daily basis).

I look forward to following whatever happens in this area, as I think it's the next neighbourhood to hit the bigtime, in terms of redevelopment...

Hehehe - not that these things progress with any kind of predictability, of course.

I think that the quasi-industrial look of the building fits the surroundings, that the height is not excessive (similar to GCTC and to the Parkdale Market Lofts, but with less massing), and makes a contribution to the neighbourhood fabric that the HCA is trying to promote (the retail space on the ground floor has been reserved for a gallery). If this type of height was proposed to the south of Parkdale Park that might be a problem (shadows cast over the Park and Market), but where it is, I think this is perfect - any effects of the development in terms of both shadowing and immediate increase in traffic (which the development, being near transit and actively promoting car-sharing and bike programs will be minimal) will be felt by the primarily industrial areas along Armstrong and Spencer.

That said, I understand your concerns about setting a precedent that encourages future development that is truly not in character with the neighbourhood. However, opposing something that is better than what could have been proposed (TRULY no ground level interaction, TRULY no setback, and greater height) does not to me seem the right way to go about this. Especially since inappropriate developments will surely be proposed in Hintonburg at some time, (imagine another building like the one accross the street from Saint-Francois-d'Assise) and your credibility will be greater if you save your fight for then.

Thanks. Again, we're hoping not to oppose it. We've kept our powder dry for over a decade doing the grunt work of working with some great developers who have been keen to ensure their buildings are in character with the neighbourhood and add to the community. The KRP building, GCTC building and School House lofts all went to Council unopposed after we spent months with each ensuring community concerns were largely satisfied. It's hard work, obviously, for a volunteer group, and the developers we've worked with have largely demonstrated the patience of Job! We never get everything we're looking for, but that's life. It's also not sexy and doesn't make headlines, so people continue to hold the idea that all community associations oppose all development all the time. We're absolutely hoping that by the time the re-zoning gets to Council, they'll be looking at yet another unopposed development. Development in Hintonburg, in fact, seems to be a case study in how to do it right - pre-consultation and compromise. We haven't gotten to the point, yet, of mounting a campaign of opposition - right now we just need to understand what the community thinks about the proposal, and to make sure the developer is listening to the community and incorporating its feedback into the plans. We spend a lot of time building our war-chest and are prepared for a lengthy OMB battle, but clearly hope the process works the way it should - and has - and that we can continue to work collaboratively rather than in conflict.

@Davis137: you would rather a cheezy fast food chain like quizno's than an original neighbourhood institution like the Carleton? Sir, I most forcefully disagree! (especially when there's a Subway and KFC 6 blocks southeast of here, and lots more choices for "real" food in all directions)

the best thing about Hintonburg / Wellington West is that most of the stores and restaurants aren't the same as all of the stores and restaurants you find everywhere else. I for one want to keep it that way. But then again, I can make a better sandwich than any chain, for less money, in about the same amount of time, so maybe I'm just a snob about sandwiches: boo to Quizno's and Subway and their tasteless ilk!

Actually, I should have added a fourth major project in which we've seen a very high level of cooperation from the developer - the Holland Avenue condos. We worked with Tartan, and then with Domicile, to accomplish some design changes to their proposal, and this one went unopposed by us, as well (an immediately adjacent neighbour filed, then dropped, an OMB appeal). We did, however, expend hundreds of hours collectively in the grind of pre-consultation.

Again, though - these guys, like the Westeindes, are pros. They didn't come out guns blazing with a proposal they knew would provoke the community. They finally applied for and got an 8 storey building - which strikes most as a very appropriate height for the location.

http://www.emcottawawest.ca/20100205...Holland+Avenue
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=163487

:previous:

OK HCA, you've convinced me that both you personally, and the community association more widely, are fairly reasonable. I wish you success in your endeavours to make this work for the neighbourhood (I actually live just west of Hintonburg, so this affects me quite directly).

I would simply urge you to consider the points I mentioned above with regards to this development: there actually are a number of positive aspects to it already.

Thanks, Ottawan. We circulate and submit comments for every single CoA, liquor licence, and zoning change - almost always "do not oppose". It just lends more weight when we do have good reason for concern. And, your points are valid. We figured from the start that shadowing would not be an issue. Traffic is tricky and we don't focus on it - I love traffic. Parkdale is choked with cars driving to and from the 'burbs. The more choked it gets, the better OC Transpo starts to look. We put in collectively thousands of hours on the road reconstruction, and drivers are already learning to slow down on the new, narrower Wellington: great for bikes. But, that's just me. A large portion of our membership hates traffic, and road pressure as a result of this building will certainly come up if and when we need to oppose it. When we say "infrastructure" pressure, that's things like the community centre and programming, the Plant Bath. The demo that will be looking at this condo will certainly take advantage of those. Community meeting spaces are already critically low, and the Plant Bath is choked with users in this demo's age group. When we're looking for amenities, a private gallery catering to the upper middle class doesn't help us with the decline of affordable houses and increased pressure on services used by everyone - our hope would be that the developer is thinking along more creative lines.

from the Ottawa Business Journal

I can agree with the concerns of the people in the neighbourhood where this building is supposed to go up in. I wasn't aware that there were already pre-sales of the building, even without actual approvals from the right oranizations/governing bodies yet. So, I side with the HCA and other concerned parties about the operations of the developers and/or those involved with them.

After reading that article above, where it talks about the developments within the flight paths of the airport...that I find unbeleiveable. Unbeleiveable in terms of them building homes in the areas right near the airport and the homeowners thinking it's their right to complain about the noise pollution, and perhaps eventually affect the operations of the airport.

In a situation like that, I say that those home owners can pound salt. YOU chose to buy your McMansion there, knowing full well what's nearby. Nobody held a gun to your head and ordered you to buy there. YOU bought there, YOU can live there. Should have bought someplace else.

Anyways, Hopefully things won't turn out for the worst with this development, as it would be a positive impact on the neighbourhood, in terms of bringing more residents in.

Thanks for posting - I was ready to post it, as well.

You guys probably saw the stories on the Domicile development over the weekend in the Cit and Sun. What a difference. While we were obviously a little uncomfortable with 8 stories, we didn't oppose it, and in the end we'll get a nice piece of art. The right building, at the right height, in the right place, by experienced and sensitive developers...

http://bit.ly/bUaY1k
http://bit.ly/abyGFk

I still think the scale and concept of the building is fine, but talk about the complete wrong way to go about it!

What do they expect to accomplish by saying things like this? -

I could understand that maybe by the OSEG about those in the Glebe (although even then it would not be constructive to the process), but here when the process has only just begun?

As long as all concerned - developer, prospective purchasers, and the City are all agreed that the pre-sales are irrelevant to the consideration of the merits of the re-zoning application, I'm not sure what the problem is.

:previous:

Assuming all concerned parties do feel that way, then there is no impact to the application. It is still wrong in the context of disrupting the lives of the prospective purchasers, who may have passed up other options for a project that will not proceed as they believed was planned.

Although my real issue is more with the attitude of the developper more than this practice.

Edit: I see you mentioned the purchasers. I think its unlikely that every purchaser would in fact be fully aware of the planning process, especially since this is a different way of going about things than normal.

I don't have a big problem if a developer wants to put something out to see if there is interest, but they probably should not be taking deposits as they have no idea what they exactly what they will be allowed to build or what it will look like.

Furthermore, since they are not building anything anytime soon, what exactly would a deposit be for? The developer isn't really spending any money building anything yet. If someone walks basically we are still at the "ow well" stage.

I think what they should be doing is letting people reserve units under the understanding that the units may not be how they presently appear, they may not even exist at all and assuming it does get approved a deposit will be required shortly after or reservations will be canceled and the reserved unit opened back up first come, first get.

It just comes down to be up front with people by saying this one is still a big "maybe" at this point.

Doing pre-sales before getting your major rezoning or OPA is sometimes done, but I've heard a developer complain about other developers doing that because it hurts their reputation... GOHBA also seems to feel the same way based on that article . If it's something like a few variances needed it's not that bad, but a full doubling of the height? Your chances of planning approval are considerably less. Consider that for a subdivision I believe you need at least draft approval before you can start offering lots for sale.

Technically their deposit is in a trust so they don't lose their money, but there is an opportunity cost for purchasers.

Good luck starting construction by Spring 2011 :yes:

By way of update, it's been a couple of months now since the City received an application. Apparently it's still stuck in deficiencies. The City notified residents of the development application, but it never went up on DevApp because a complete application was never received. Now, we're being told it's "on hold". The CA has had to go back to the City to ask them to notify those residents who received notice of the application of the current status. We don't know what remaining deficiencies there are with the application, but apparently it's something more than an undotted i.

I note that the presentation centre is open now by appointment only and not with regular hours. I wonder what those who have put down a deposit are being told?

This project has apparently been cancelled.

I think that's all she wrote:

http://www.obj.ca/Real-Estate/Reside...minium-plans/1

Congrats, Nimby.

@Luker: I think the HCA had some valid concerns and objections to this project, and their support past and present for a number of other (superior) project proposals clearly puts the lie to your lazy drive-by. Have you explained why you think this proposal was so great? A "Build absolutely anything everywhere" attitude is just as obnoxious as a NIMBY-BANANA attitude.