Centrepointe Collective [19 Centrepointe Dr] | 65+72m | 21+23f | U/C

waterloowarrior · #1 Posted **Oct 28, 2011, 9:59 PM**

Developer: Richcraft
Architect: Roderick Lahey
Planning Consultant: FoTenn

Not sure if it's 22/24 or 24/26..... there are references to both sets of numbers

Proposed residential condominium development on a 3 storey townhouse podium that includes a restaurant (cafe) use with 2 residential towers 26 and 24 storeys in height (including podium element)\

http://app01.ottawa.ca/postingplans/...appId=__8UV7EU

Cre47 · #2 Posted **Oct 28, 2011, 10:40 PM**

Do like the top part. It's about time, there are tall (rather semi-tall) tower proposals for that area. Of course, the two main assets, being close to Algonquin and an intensification right near a transit station. I'm sure there will be some NIMBYISM on that project and probably something will be written on the Bulldog.

kevinbottawa · #3 Posted **Oct 29, 2011, 1:37 AM**

That area reminds me of the growing city centre in Thornhill. With these towers it'll look like it even more.

McC · #4 Posted **Oct 29, 2011, 2:03 AM**

now that's a proper-looking townhouse podium and point towers (for pure-residential, not mix use, of course, then the podium should be different..,), anyway, why has it been so hard to design some of these in this town? (and it's not a developer-specific thing, because Richcraft's Galleria site would have been a great location for townhouse-point-towers instead of the two massive slabs they built).

Admiral Nelson · #5 Posted **Oct 29, 2011, 2:47 AM**

It would be great to see these so close to a transit hub. Precisely what's needed.

I wonder when the other elements of the 2007 Centrepointe plan will be implemented.

S-Man · #6 Posted **Oct 29, 2011, 5:58 PM**

It is what's needed, in a big way - and the influx of population will probably spur new funding for the Baseline Station completion (Bob Chiarelli, are you there?)...
However, I see these towers being brought down to a stubby 12 storeys at the urging of impacted neighbours. And those neighbours won't be college students renting basement apartments on Baseline.

AuxTown · #7 Posted **Oct 30, 2011, 4:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by S-Man

It is what's needed, in a big way - and the influx of population will probably spur new funding for the Baseline Station completion (Bob Chiarelli, are you there?)...
However, I see these towers being brought down to a stubby 12 storeys at the urging of impacted neighbours. And those neighbours won't be college students renting basement apartments on Baseline.

I don't think the shadows from these buildings could possible touch another residential property so what could people be complaining about? If they're worried about traffic then they should move. Situating this type of development along two major arterials as well as adjacent to a major transit hub is ideal. Not to mention it is walking distance to Algonquin and a big shopping centre. This will be a great addition to the area.

Uhuniau · #8 Posted **Oct 31, 2011, 1:39 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by O-Town Hockey

I don't think the shadows from these buildings could possible touch another residential property so what could people be complaining about?

Astronomical reality has never, to my knowledge, prevented an Entitled Ottawan from bitching about shadows, real or imagined. On one of the media reports about the Preston project (CBC? Citizen?) someone was whinging that the Italia tower would keep Preston street in shadow all day.

RTWAP · #9 Posted **Nov 1, 2011, 6:22 PM**

I'm really pleased.

The facing side of Centrepointe Drive has a nice urban feel to it, with closely packed town homes and some nice walk-up businesses down the street. Kind of brownstone-like. But the other side of the street faces the solid back wall of a high school, and ... nothing. This will help to give the street a bit more of a feeling of completion and consistency.

Uhuniau · #10 Posted **Nov 1, 2011, 9:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTWAP

I'm really pleased.

The facing side of Centrepointe Drive has a nice urban feel to it, with closely packed town homes and some nice walk-up businesses down the street. Kind of brownstone-like. But the other side of the street faces the solid back wall of a high school, and ... nothing. This will help to give the street a bit more of a feeling of completion and consistency.

Speaking of which, why did the school boards start building such ugly, street-killing, neighbourhood-deadening schools?

Compare, say, the schools on Broadview Avenue, to bunkers like Lester B. Pearson.

kevinbottawa · #11 Posted **Nov 1, 2011, 9:40 PM**

These other renderings from the application are nice.

https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/phot...eat=directlink

https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/phot...eat=directlink

MountainView · #12 Posted **Nov 2, 2011, 4:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kevinbottawa

These other renderings from the application are nice.

https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/phot...eat=directlink

https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/phot...eat=directlink

Just to make it easier for everyone to see... thanks for finding the links!

Ottawan · #13 Posted **Nov 2, 2011, 1:45 PM**

Really nice street-level interaction!

I think if one takes developments like this in context, looking at the forest (what projects ultimately are being proposed and approved now vs. 15 years ago) rather than focusing on the trees (NIMBY reactions to individual projects, suburplosive requests of developers in the suburbs) we are starting to see how amalgamation is actually working at what I always thought would be its greatest purpose: allowing for a planning vison for the city as a whole to flourish, and specifically a planning vision focused on intensification.

kevinbottawa · #14 Posted **Nov 2, 2011, 7:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MountainView

Just to make it easier for everyone to see... thanks for finding the links!

Thanks!

citizen j · #15 Posted **Nov 1, 2011, 10:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Speaking of which, why did the school boards start building such ugly, street-killing, neighbourhood-deadening schools?

Compare, say, the schools on Broadview Avenue, to bunkers like Lester B. Pearson.

I blame Bauhaus and Le Corbusier for making it so easy to copy their designs badly/cheaply. Machines for learning?

Nepean · #16 Posted **Nov 1, 2011, 11:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTWAP

I'm really pleased.

The facing side of Centrepointe Drive has a nice urban feel to it, with closely packed town homes and some nice walk-up businesses down the street. Kind of brownstone-like. But the other side of the street faces the solid back wall of a high school, and ... nothing. This will help to give the street a bit more of a feeling of completion and consistency.

I agree. I live off Centrepointe and I think this project will really improve the neighbourhood. Though based on the meeting that I attended last week on this project, I may be in the minority.

Admiral Nelson · #17 Posted **Nov 2, 2011, 12:20 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nepean

I agree. I live off Centrepointe and I think this project will really improve the neighbourhood. Though based on the meeting that I attended last week on this project, I may be in the minority.

I'm also in Centrepointe, and I agree with you.

eternallyme · #18 Posted **Nov 13, 2011, 2:06 AM**

Excellent proposal being near Baseline Station. While some NIMBYism might be expected, there is already higher-density commercial and institutional in the area. APPROVE it.

Nepean · #19 Posted **Nov 24, 2011, 9:24 PM**

I attended a board meeting of the Centrepointe Community Association this past Tuesday that discussed this project. I would estimate that roughly 30 people attended, including Coun. Chiarelli who was there in listening mode.

After this meeting I was left with two main impressions. First, many residents in Centrepointe have the same concerns as other neighbourhoods in the city who are facing development: i.e. worries about increased parking, impact on property values, concerns about the height of the proposed building, etc.

Second, notwithstanding these concerns, it appears that a good part of the community realizes that something is going to be built at this site regardless of what they think, so instead of fighting a losing battle, they will start imposing demands on the developer in order to ensure that the community gets some benefit out of this project. To this end, a discussion on s. 37 benefits took place during the meeting.

A key word in the meeting was "negotiation." Without a doubt, some participants at the board meeting didn't like the development at all, and expressed full-blown NIMBY sentiments. Others, however, seem to feel that a better approach was to work with the developer.

For instance, one participant said that the community had to "get over itself" and to accept that something was going to be built on this site. So instead of simply saying "no," a better approach was to list the community's concerns, pass them on the developer, and then see if the project could bring greater benefits to the community.

Nepean · #20 Posted **Jan 11, 2013, 3:58 PM**

Last night, I went to the AGM of the Centrepointe Community Association (CCA), where this project was discussed. Councillor Chiarelli made a presentation and the CCA President also spoke. As expected, residents raised many traditional concerns: e.g. parking problems; increased traffic; height; a decrease in property values in homes in the immediate vicinity of this project. (The latter was a concern, given that Richcraft has esimated that all three buildings could take up to five years to build from start to finish).

What seemed to be unique, however, was that the CCA did not start from an inflexible position. Don't get me wrong, if most local residents had their way, they would opt for the full implementation of the Centrepointe Community Design Plan that was passed by council several years ago. For many, the Richcraft project goes against the spirit of the CDP.

However, the CCA also went out of its way to say that Richcraft had taken their concerns seriously, and that discussions were productive. While this was not a kumbaya session in praise of developers, local residents seemed to realize that development would occur, and that they had to be constructive in their feedback, rather than yelling "No!" at the top of their lungs.

My takeaway is that many local residents are opposed to this project, while realizing that it is not productive to fight a pointless battle. As such, the CCA actively engaged with the developer this fall and made several productive suggestions. For instance, they have requested that a pathway link the buildings to Baseline Station, in order to promote the use of public transit, which would address concerns about traffic. As well, the CCA has asked that any paths be open to the public.

According to Coun. Chiarelli, this project is a model for how a community and a developer should engage. This doesn't mean everyone got what the wanted (in fact, nobody got 100%) but at least it seems that everyone was left with the feeling that their voices were heard and taken into account. In short, an interesting meeting.