HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Downtown & City of Ottawa


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #121  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2014, 1:51 AM
Urbanarchit Urbanarchit is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,912
Sorry for coming in late when the discussion is probably over.

Wouldn't this be considered TOD because it's between two transit stations?

If I understood this correctly, now the project can't really be two slimmer towers, but can be one short squat one, much like this one in Little Italy? Is it really an improvement, or are people more so just rejoicing because they captured the city and planners in an unflattering light?

Edit: Analogy: Imagine there's a giant terrorizing a little town. He is coming in, kicking and stomping on houses, and decides to pick up a giant rock to throw on the townspeople. The people, being terrorized, want him to leave them alone, so they devise a scheme to kill him. At the same time that he's picking up this boulder to toss at them, they show him down with canons and arrows, finally killing the giant. The giant collapses in a big heap upon the ground. The villagers decide to rejoice at their success of felling a foe and defending their village, but what they hadn't thought through was the boulder he was carrying. By collapsing on the floor, the boulder is freed from his grips and tumbles onto the town, flattening it. While they may have succeeding in fixing on problem, they completely ignored another problem they faced, not having thought through their strategy, which ended up doing considerable damage.

It's the same here. Sure, they beat the city and a developer (humiliated them) by getting the buildings reduced from two, 14-16 storey buildings, but instead they're left with one short, squat building that could still have just as many people, but may not be that attractive or "beneficial". They won one victory, but the outcome may still not be as desirable, and they'll get stuck with something that may actually be worse. But no one cares because they bested the city and a developer.

Last edited by Urbanarchit; Feb 26, 2014 at 6:08 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #122  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2014, 4:33 PM
Dado's Avatar
Dado Dado is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,521
Why go to Little Italy for a reference project when there's one right next to the site in question?

https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=ottawa...9&z=16&vpsrc=6

No one seems too bothered about that building, and it's social housing. If the developer can't design something that equals or exceeds that in appearance, then they really have no business designing anything anyway.

I really don't get your analogy, either. You're carrying on as if there's some kind of downside to the community of having a couple more buildings like the above built instead of the ones the developer wanted. The idea of a few extra patches of open space next to the Transitway was always a joke when you're a few hundred metres from the Parkway and Westboro Beach.
__________________
Ottawa's quasi-official motto: "It can't be done"
Ottawa's quasi-official ethos: "We have a process to follow"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #123  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2014, 6:22 PM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is offline
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Greater Ottawa
Posts: 12,881
Lessons from the OMB

By Joanne Chianello, OTTAWA CITIZEN February 26, 2014


OTTAWA — It’s not very often that the Ontario Municipal Board sides with the community instead of city planners. So when the provincial body last week agreed with neighbours who argued that 14- and 16-storey towers were too tall for a residential street in northeastern Westboro, well, people were stunned.

However, the board did more than just rule against the city’s recommendation for the Roosevelt Avenue rezoning — it disparaged the city’s planning department for failing to follow its own policies.

OMB member Marc Denhez did allow that “existing planning documents are inconsistent”, ruling that developer Uniform Urban Developments could build up to eight storeys — slightly higher than the four-to-six floors that the current zoning calls for but nowhere near 16.

But Denhez followed that up with the particularly damning finding that “though staff addressed many individual components of the project, the rationale for changing the mid-rise skyline itself was not just flawed; it was non-existent. That slate was blank; and although it could have been corrected at the hearing, it was not.”

In other words, in the OMB’s view, Ottawa’s planning department didn’t have a policy leg to stand on.

This decision provides a number of lessons, while raising disconcerting questions too.

The first and most obvious is that, as critics have long contended, at least some city planners recommend rezonings without due regard for the city’s policies. There is just no other way to read the OMB decision. And that is unacceptable. Sure, there have been inconsistencies in the various planning blueprints for this city — inconsistencies that are supposed to be cleared up with the updated official plan — but why is it that Ottawa’s own planners can see their way clear to recommending a rezoning to double the height, while the OMB will only allow an additional two storeys?

And one has to wonder how many other times a city planner has disregarded (or bent) policy in giving a stamp of approval to a higher-than-allowed building. After all, not every rezoning decision is appealed to the OMB. Not all residents have the wherewithal to challenge a city decision before the OMB or raise thousands of dollars to hire experts to argue the case. (The inherent unfairness of a situation that calls for community members to take on developer and city lawyers is another issue altogether.)

The OMB decision also underlines council’s responsibility in understanding and applying the city’s own policies. It’s appropriate for council to take the city staff’s recommendations seriously. And in matters of rezonings, this council has been understandably reluctant to vote against city planners’ recommendations. When councillors have done so in the past and a developer appealed the decision to the OMB, the city found itself in the awkward position of having to argue against its own planners. It was a messy situation that usually ended up in the OMB overturning council’s decision.

Still, that does not completely excuse our elected officials. Yes, planning policies are confusing. Trying to make sense of the official and secondary community design plans, not to mention spot rezonings, section 37s and the Provincial Policy Statement, can turn one’s brain to water. But it’s councillors’ job to understand complex policies, to question staff when something doesn’t make sense — and then to question them some more when the answer doesn’t seem quite right.

All this only strengthens the case for more transparency in the city’s planning process, an ongoing issue that is surely to be part of this fall’s election campaign in the inner-city wards experiencing the most intensification. Even Coun. Peter Hume, the chair of the planning committee, admitted recently that more could be done to make planning more open. He recently mused, for example, that community associations could perhaps attend preconsultation meetings between developers and city planners. Great idea! If nothing untoward is being discussed at preconsultations, then why not?

A more open process might not have stopped Uniform from applying for that Roosevelt rezoning in Westboro. But having the community involved earlier in the process would have meant more back-and-forth between residents and the builder, and would have forced the city’s own planner to more clearly make the policy case for recommending the extra height.

Then perhaps everyone could have avoided a costly appeal, which resulted in an embarrassing decision for the city’s planning department.

jchianello@ottawacitizen.com

twitter.com/jchianello
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/busines...105/story.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #124  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2014, 6:26 PM
Urbanarchit Urbanarchit is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
Why go to Little Italy for a reference project when there's one right next to the site in question?

https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=ottawa...9&z=16&vpsrc=6

No one seems too bothered about that building, and it's social housing. If the developer can't design something that equals or exceeds that in appearance, then they really have no business designing anything anyway.

I really don't get your analogy, either. You're carrying on as if there's some kind of downside to the community of having a couple more buildings like the above built instead of the ones the developer wanted. The idea of a few extra patches of open space next to the Transitway was always a joke when you're a few hundred metres from the Parkway and Westboro Beach.
I chose the one in Little Italy because it's the closest one that comes to mind. It's really a bad building that would be better for the area if it weren't one long building, but instead two or three slimmer ones. I can't comment on what it's like to live there, but more on the impact it has on the area around it. That's my opinion, at least.

I don't know if I agree with no one complaining about the building you shared. I knew someone who lived there with her family, and it did not sound like a pleasant experience. The path out from beside the transitway was not very safe for people to go (I remember hearing about a few attacks that happened there a few years ago). If it's unpleasant for residents in the building, why would that not spill out for residents nearby? Just because we haven't heard people complain about this building doesn't mean there aren't complaints against it - (if a tree falls in a forest with no one near, does it make a sound?). But I think that one of a few reasons people aren't complaining about it now (though maybe people used to) is that:

1) the traffic only affects Scott and Churchill, rather than their smaller residential streets - the parking area is on a small, dead-end street with nothing but Donna's Express and this residential buildings. These two buildings would have traffic go down residential streets.

2) People don't care to argue about buildings that already existed, especially if they were built several decades ago. For example, with all the complaining about introducing more high-rises to Hintonburg, you don't hear people complaining about Bayswater or Wellington Apartments, or any of the others that were building between the '60s and '70s on Wellington West. It's possible that for many they don't even recall their even being these buildings here.

3) Maybe this building is actually good. Not too high, but high enough. Not too many people but increases density. Serves as a social good. People like the design (I'm not a huge fan, but it's not terrible).

I fixed the analogy, so hopefully it will be a bit more clearer if you can imagine it a bit more. The point is that while many are celebrating the embarrassment the OMB has heaped on the City, what might happen instead may not be much of an improvement, or it could end up worse. If you're worried about shadows, narrower buildings are better than a solid wall that block all of your sunlight and case a large shadow for much longer. Two slimmer, tall towers can achieve density and allows for light to pass around them, though their shadows might reach farther away. Take this example.

Is it still not transit-oriented development? Would the actual form of two taller towers have the same number of units as one short building? If so, then why should it matter if the buildings are taller or shorter (more importantly, what are the reasons for favouring short over tall here?) Is the only reason one should favour taller is because taller allows more people, and therefore if two designs can accommodate the same number of people, why is shorter better?

Basically, I'm wondering if this is actually a win, or if certain people are perceiving it as a win because it gets what they think is better.

In any case, I should be willing to accept that I might be wrong about everything.

Last edited by Urbanarchit; Feb 26, 2014 at 6:43 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #125  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2014, 7:24 PM
JackBauer24 JackBauer24 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 748
I know this isn't an exact comparision, but when the Metropole was originally proposed, it was three or four 12-15 level buildings and the people of Westboro didn't like that, so they petitioned to have it changed. They were successful in getting the builder to construct just one tower - one 32 level tower, that everyone in Westboro seems to hate (including the residents).

In a growing city like Ottawa development is going to happen one way or another, especially in popular areas (like Westboro). You can choose to fight every time any new proposal is presented (aka. be part of the propblem) or you can choose to accept that with growth comes development and try to come up with viable, reasonable and (hopefully) nicely designed ideas (aka. being part of the solution)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #126  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2015, 10:25 PM
Skipper Skipper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 101
Update?

Anyone has any update on this site? Biked by this morning and it looked like the land was being surveyed. Wonder if Uniform decided to put the land on the market????
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #127  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2020, 9:51 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 25,072
New proposal. Taller than the first proposal that was ultimately rejected by the OMB.

Quote:
335 Roosevelt Ave - Zoning By-Law Amendment, Site Plan + Open House Webinar

September 1, 2020, Kitchissippi Ward



The owner of the subject property, Uniform Urban Developments, is proposing the redevelopment of the lands known as 335 Roosevelt Avenue. The owner is proposing the construction of two (2) high-rise residential buildings and four (4) low-rise residential buildings in an integrated development with shared underground parking and amenity spaces.

Development applications were previously submitted in 2011 to permit the development of two (2) high-rise towers on the subject property, with building heights of 14 and 16 storeys, respectively. These applications were approved by Council and were subsequently appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board. The Board’s decision applied a maximum of eight (8) storeys on the subject site.

The owner is coming in with an application that would increase those permitted heights, proposing two (2) high-rise buildings having a height of 18 (east tower) and 21 (west tower) storeys, respectively. The owner has acquired lands to the south of 335 Roosevelt along Winston Avenue and Wilmont Avenue, for the development of new three (3) storey, ground-oriented residential buildings. A total of 361 residential dwelling units are proposed across the site.

With the exception of a small surface parking area for short-term parking, all parking is located underground and is accessed via two (2) entrances/exits at the termini of Winston Avenue and Roosevelt Avenue. Adjacent to the Winston access is a mid-block pedestrian pathway bisecting the site, providing direct access to the new Dominion LRT Station, located approximately 150 metres west of the property, via the existing multi-use pathway on the south side of the Transitway. Both high-rise towers contain ground-level bicycle parking spaces and other amenities.

The application has not been submitted yet, but once it is we will encourage the community to review the full details on DevApps. We are hosting a community open house in September to discuss the proposed development further:

Thursday, September 17 at 7:00pm

Please click the link below to join the webinar:

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81508140841

Password
: 915217

During the open house webinar, the applicant and their team will run through the proposed development in more detail, and we will take questions from those watching. In order to join, you just need to download Zoom and click the link provided. You will then be prompted to use the password, and sign in with your name and e-mail address.

We will be recording the webinar and posted it online afterwards for anyone who is unable to attend on September 17.

Please consider sending us feedback on the proposed development via Jeff.Leiper@ottawa.ca and / or Fiona.Mitchell@ottawa.ca. Once the application is online, we will encourage you to send feedback to the lead planner as well.
https://kitchissippiward.ca/content/...-house-webinar
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #128  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2020, 10:23 PM
Urbanarchit Urbanarchit is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.OT13 View Post
New proposal. Taller than the first proposal that was ultimately rejected by the OMB.



https://kitchissippiward.ca/content/...-house-webinar
I'd be curious to see if this ever goes ahead. With Dominion Station nearby that is definitely going to be an LRT station, I don't see why this wouldn't be considered a part of TOD. Not to forget that rents are really high in Ottawa that the circumstances to allow this to go through might be considered different now than in the past.

I don't know if I missed it in the blurb beneath the photos, but will these residential towers by rental apartments or condos?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #129  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2020, 12:23 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,244
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #130  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2020, 2:02 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 24,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanarchit View Post
I'd be curious to see if this ever goes ahead. With Dominion Station nearby that is definitely going to be an LRT station, I don't see why this wouldn't be considered a part of TOD. Not to forget that rents are really high in Ottawa that the circumstances to allow this to go through might be considered different now than in the past.

I don't know if I missed it in the blurb beneath the photos, but will these residential towers by rental apartments or condos?
Proposed as condo apartments, I think.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #131  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2020, 3:02 PM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is offline
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Greater Ottawa
Posts: 12,881
335 Roosevelt Ave | 56m + 65m | 18f + 21f | Proposed

Uniform Urban Developments is proposing the development of two (2) high-rise residential buildings and three (3) low-rise residential buildings on the subject property, containing a total of 361 residential units. The two (2) towers are 21-and 18-storeys in height, the tallest being 65 metres in height. The low-rise residential buildings are three (3) storeys in height (11 metres) and are designed to provide transition to the existing low-rise area to the south.

There are two (2) vehicular access points on the subject property. One is located to the west on Roosevelt Avenue and passes under the proposed low-rise building, adjacent to the outdoor amenity area at the main entrance to the west tower. The other is located between the east tower and the low-rise buildings along Wilmont Avenue, and is accessed via the terminus of Winston Avenue. At this terminus, the east side of Winston Avenue becomes a vehicular entrance to the short-term surface parking spaces, loading spaces for both buildings and the other ramp to the underground parking garage. The west side of the Winston Avenue extension becomes a landscaped, mid-block pedestrian connection to the multi-use pathway to the north, itself leading to Dominion Station. A total of 343 parking spaces are proposed, including the eight (8) short-term surface parking spaces, and the 24 underground visitor parking spaces. In addition to the vehicular parking spaces, 363 secure bicycle parking spaces are provided, 152 of which are located on the ground floor for easy access and the remainder are located in the underground parking garage.

The proposed buildings include both public and private (balconies, terraces, etc.) amenity spaces. Two (2) large outdoor amenity spaces are located on the east and west ends of the subject property, accessible by all residents of the proposed development. The proposed tower buildings also include a significant amount of amenity space on the ground floor and within the podiums, facing internal to the site and also to the north along the multi-use pathway, providing active uses on the north façade to create “eyes on the street” for the multi-use pathway. A total of 5,274 square metres of amenity space is proposed, of which 3,246 square metres (61.5%) is communal amenity space.

Architect: Hobin Architecture


Development application:
https://app01.ottawa.ca/postingplans...appId=__B93T6U

Location:




Siteplan:




Renderings:



























Reply With Quote
     
     
  #132  
Old Posted Sep 8, 2020, 2:20 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 25,072
Looks good. Another decent Hobin project. I like how they have the towers set-back with low-rise buildings that better fit the sale of the existing neighbourhood up-front.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #133  
Old Posted Sep 8, 2020, 10:49 PM
Harley613's Avatar
Harley613 Harley613 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Aylmer, QC
Posts: 6,740
Agreed. Massing, design, materials all look just fine and we know it's not Claridge so it should end up pretty similar to the application.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #134  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2020, 3:20 AM
gjhall's Avatar
gjhall gjhall is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,297
Slam dunk.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #135  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2020, 11:55 AM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 24,247
To what extent is noise going to be an issue for people in apartments facing the train lines? There are/will be a number of projects next to tracks.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #136  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2020, 12:28 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 25,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwoldtimer View Post
To what extent is noise going to be an issue for people in apartments facing the train lines? There are/will be a number of projects next to tracks.
The noise issues are particularly bad along rail trenches, as we've heard from residents near the Tunney's Pasture area.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local...ity-to-hush-it

These new towers will be closer to the trench than most other towers nearby proposals.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #137  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2020, 9:11 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 25,072
Looks like Councillor Leiper created a new YouTube Channel for Kitchissippi Ward.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZQ...OplaCG5rgihGKQ

Here's the online Open House for this one:

Video Link
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #138  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2020, 3:37 AM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 25,072
I'm about half way through the open house. A couple of points:
  • The community seems strongly opposed, and Councillor Leiper will be opposing it as well;
  • The developer refers to the nearly 1:1 parking ratio as "storage for cars" because people still need cars for weekend trips to visit parents. Encourage transit for work, but provide a car for everyone on the weekends. The focus on car is a sticking point for me. No reason why they couldn't eliminate a few dozen spots in favour of half a dozen virtue cars;
  • Colour of the towers facing Westboro will be darker than colour facing the river;
  • Someone proposed extending Scott (which will be done temporarily for bus detours) to serve the site and reduce pressure on Roosevelt and Winston. Both Leiper and the developer shot that down pretty quickly in favour of returning the strip to greenery and active transportation paths;
  • Later, someone proposed extending Wilmont into the site to better balance vehicular circulation. The developer seemed intrigued (though I suspect that would mean a re-drawing of the site since two shorter buildings proposed are in the way) and Leiper appeared open to the idea.

I don't think I have an issue with the density or height of the project. Parking could stand to be reduced fairly significantly, which could help their case.

I understand the reasoning why they're going against the OMB decision of 2014 and proposing even taller than what had been approved by the City prior to that. Obviously, this is a good site for TOD, under 100 meters from a rapid transit station. Taller buildings also mean more open space and better pedestrian/cyclist connections through the site. The development as proposed will provide better connections to the pathway system and Kitchi Sibi station than the current site or a series of large block 8 floor buildings.

Site plan could be reviewed for better/more intuitive flow and make it feel a little more connected to the area instead of towers/buildings in a park as we see with 50s era apartments on Byron.

I think this proposal has potential, but it could be improved.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #139  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2020, 7:20 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 25,072
Construction if approved could start in early 2022 with a phased approach. The entire project is estimated to take 5 years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #140  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2021, 5:32 PM
Marcus CLS Marcus CLS is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 350
New activity on site yesterday. Preparing for demolition.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Downtown & City of Ottawa
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:43 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.