1546 Scott St | 90m | 25f | Approved

[SL123]

New proposal right next door to this proposal on Devapp 1546 SCOTT to be exact

https://devapps.ottawa.ca/en/applica...1-0216/details

[JHikka]

Beer Stores closing has been a common element throughout Ontario. With sales now allowed at grocery stores, and with the increased presence of micro-brews, I don't really see them closing as a bad thing.

[Spoonsy]

Originally Posted by JHikka

Beer Stores closing has been a common element throughout Ontario. With sales now allowed at grocery stores, and with the increased presence of micro-brews, I don't really see them closing as a bad thing.

Less concerned about the people buying five dollar 7% DIPAs and more about those trying to survive

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by Spoonsy

Less concerned about the people buying five dollar 7% DIPAs and more about those trying to survive

Perhaps there are better potential policies out there for supporting lower income Canadians than Beer Store recycling centres.

[Urbanarchit]

176 parking spots for 230 units is 76.5%, literally right beside a rapid transit station in one of the most walkable neighbourhoods in this city. Really? Does no one understand TOD and why they're upzoning around transit stations?

[SkeggsEggs]

Surely some of these will return in the new developments no? Like the one on Bank that closed but is opening in the new building?

[J.OT13]

Design is interesting, but it's quite jarring how different it is from the tower that was jsut approved. Usually you want towers in one complex to complement each other. Maybe not to Claridge level, but similar to the Dale towers which are different, but have a consistent design language.

Podium is weird. Screams 1970s. All around, not a huge fan.

[Mille Sabords]

It's an ok-looking building overall IMO but the retail interface with the sidewalk is awkward. We have landscape-itis in this city - we just automatically throw some green in front of a building to check a box and hope for the best, but unless landscaping actually works with and on the space, it becomes a giant ashtray/trash can or a path of mud. And the architecture of retail frontages has to be... just that. You need a visible store entrance, a prominent sign band above the storefront, and a basic notion of proximity between the sidewalk and the front door.

[Marcus CLS]

New proposal. 1546 Scott Street 25 story high rise on site of the Beer Store. This would be immediately north of the proposed 25 story at 1560 Scott Street.

https://kitchissippiward.ca/content/...l-applications

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Urbanarchit

176 parking spots for 230 units is 76.5%, literally right beside a rapid transit station in one of the most walkable neighbourhoods in this city. Really? Does no one understand TOD and why they're upzoning around transit stations?

First of all, that is 176 parking spots for 230 units and 222 square metre of ground floor commercial. Having said that, given that it is in Area Z on Schedule 1A, there is no minimum parking requirement for residents or commercial space; however, they are required to provide 0.1 visitor parking space per dwelling unit beyond the first 12, but no more than 30, which works out to between 22 and 30 visitor parking spaces .

That means between 146 and 154 parking spots to be shared between the commercial tenants and residents. How they will divide those up isn't clear, but even if you assume no parking assigned to the commercial tenants, that is between 63.5% and 67.0% per residential unit (not resident).

While I agree we don't want to build sprawling parking lots near transit stations, in this case, the vast majority of the parking (163 of the 176 spaces) will be underground, in what would otherwise be relatively useless space. Would you rather see that space not be used at all?

[Urbanarchit]

Originally Posted by roger1818

First of all, that is 176 parking spots for 230 units and 222 square metre of ground floor commercial. Having said that, given that it is in Area Z on Schedule 1A, there is no minimum parking requirement for residents or commercial space; however, they are required to provide 0.1 visitor parking space per dwelling unit beyond the first 12, but no more than 30, which works out to between 22 and 30 visitor parking spaces .

That means between 146 and 154 parking spots to be shared between the commercial tenants and residents. How they will divide those up isn't clear, but even if you assume no parking assigned to the commercial tenants, that is between 63.5% and 67.0% per residential unit (not resident).

While I agree we don't want to build sprawling parking lots near transit stations, in this case, the vast majority of the parking (163 of the 176 spaces) will be underground, in what would otherwise be relatively useless space. Would you rather see that space not be used at all?

Actually, if they weren't building underground parking these buildings would be built much faster because they wouldn't have to excavate to build the parking; they'd just drill for structure/ foundation piles. It would also be more cost-effective to not have to build underground parking (don't forget, below-grade parking is more expensive to build, too). So yes, I would prefer to see no parking, be it underground or on the surface. Are you familiar with Induced Demand? I recommend look it up and learning about it. Building parking underground or on the surface will have the same effect on the area anyway and contribute to more people choosing to drive despite this building being right across from a rapid transit station in one of the most walkable neighbourhoods in the city, which is also counter to intensification efforts, 15-minute neighbourhood plans and Transit-Oriented Development.

To clarify your numbers, they are providing 22 parking spots for visitors and 154 for residents. That is 67%, which is still far to high for this site and area.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Urbanarchit

Actually, if they weren't building underground parking these buildings would be built much faster because they wouldn't have to excavate to build the parking; they'd just drill for structure/ foundation piles. It would also be more cost-effective to not have to build underground parking (don't forget, below-grade parking is more expensive to build, too). So yes, I would prefer to see no parking, be it underground or on the surface.

Assuming that the soil/geological conditions allow them to build 25 floor tower on the surface by only drilling piles, and assuming that they can put the minimum 22 visitor parking spots on the surface without reducing the footprint of the building (the current design only has 13), then that could be a faster, cheaper option. However, if the developer feels that the cost in time and money of digging out a parking garage will be recouped by improved demand and parking fees, then those costs become a non-issue. This is private money after all.

Originally Posted by Urbanarchit

Are you familiar with Induced Demand? I recommend look it up and learning about it. Building parking underground or on the surface will have the same effect on the area anyway and contribute to more people choosing to drive despite this building being right across from a rapid transit station in one of the most walkable neighbourhoods in the city, which is also counter to intensification efforts, 15-minute neighbourhood plans and Transit-Oriented Development.

Yes I am familiar with Induced Demand. While excessive residential parking can have a small induced demand effect, I would argue that more/larger roads and excessive destination parking will have a much larger effect.

While going car free is admirable, people own cars for a variety of reasons. Maybe while they use transit for their commute, their spouse can't, maybe they frequently visit family/friends/places that aren't easily accessed by transit, or maybe they aren't quite ready to cut the cord and commit to being car free yet (in which case having a place to park a car could help wean them from needing a car).

If you were talking about a decade ago, when Ottawa didn't have different minimum parking requirements near transit stations, and this building would have been required to have significantly more parking than is currently proposed, then you would have a valid argument, but I don't see this as being the big problem you are claiming it is.

I am not sure what the exact rules were back then, but by comparison, if this same building were built in Area C, it would require at a minimum 276 parking spaces for residents plus 46 parking spaces for visitors plus however many would be needed for the commercial portion, depending what type of tenant it is planned to have. So that is more than 322 parking spaces, with the developer having the option to have over 400 parking spaces.

Originally Posted by Urbanarchit

To clarify your numbers, they are providing 22 parking spots for visitors and 154 for residents. That is 67%, which is still far to high for this site and area.

Where are you seeing that? Section 5.2.1 (Parking Supply) of the Transportation Impact Assessment says:

a minimum of 22 designated visitor parking spaces must be accommodated based on the prescribed ratio and no more than 30.

And as far as I can tell, the Architectrual Set doesn't seem to indicate which parking spots are for visitors and which are for tenants either.

Even if you are correct, when you consider that the average household in Ottawa has 2.5 people, that works out to 1 parking spot for every 3.7 people living in the building.

[Harley613]

I'm assuming this garage will be a direct connecting extension to the adjacent existing Holland Cross underground garage and that the amount of spaces for residents/public will be flexible. I also assume the second building will have it's own extension of the garage.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Harley613

I'm assuming this garage will be a direct connecting extension to the adjacent existing Holland Cross underground garage and that the amount of spaces for residents/public will be flexible. I also assume the second building will have it's own extension of the garage.

Looking at the the Architectrual Set (spelling mistake theirs, not mine) for P1-P4 of this development (pp. 3&4), it doesn't appear to be connected to the adjacent existing Holland Cross underground garage.

[Harley613]

Good find! I did a little digging and realized that this project is not being built by La Salle (the owners of Holland Cross). This is a Reid's Heritage Properties development.\

You guys are right: It just has too much parking.

[J.OT13]

Leiper's Open House.

• Video Link

[Williamoforange]

I don't get the obsession with having "declared" bike parking on a 1:1 for the residential units. Should they exist, YES. but I've never known these bike parking spots to be secure unless they get buried inside the building, as in behind multiple doors.

Would people not be able to store there bikes in there units? (or more likely to) because personally that is exactly where mine is and will always be stored and I don't think I'm alone in this. Provide a "freight" elevator and a wash station at the back door if dirt & damage are a concern.

https://www.reddit.com/r/toronto/com...ilding_have_a/

[SL123]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

I don't get the obsession with having "declared" bike parking on a 1:1 for the residential units. Should they exist, YES. but I've never known these bike parking spots to be secure unless they get buried inside the building, as in behind multiple doors.

Would people not be able to store there bikes in there units? (or more likely to) because personally that is exactly where mine is and will always be stored and I don't think I'm alone in this. Provide a "freight" elevator and a wash station at the back door if dirt & damage are a concern.

https://www.reddit.com/r/toronto/com...ilding_have_a/

I'm also a bike in my unit person! but my bike is also worth a pretty penny so maybe I'm a bad example.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by SL123

I'm also a bike in my unit person! but my bike is also worth pretty money so maybe I'm a bad example.

Yeah the idea you need 1 to 1 bike spots is just not reflected in reality. If free and secure storage is available it will fill up but from my experience close to half the bikes will be covered in dust with flat tires. The hard core recreational bikers will keep in their unit. The commuters will be few in number. A friend lives in a downtown building with 100 units that charges $50 a year for a bike spot and their 20 spots are under-utilized. Biking is to be encouraged I suppose but we should be realistic.

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

I don't get the obsession with having "declared" bike parking on a 1:1 for the residential units. Should they exist, YES. but I've never known these bike parking spots to be secure unless they get buried inside the building, as in behind multiple doors.

Would people not be able to store there bikes in there units? (or more likely to) because personally that is exactly where mine is and will always be stored and I don't think I'm alone in this. Provide a "freight" elevator and a wash station at the back door if dirt & damage are a concern.

https://www.reddit.com/r/toronto/com...ilding_have_a/

It seems to be the push in that area of the City.. Technically only 1 bicycle parking space for every 2 units but some in the area think everybody who moves in will have at least 1 bike per unit. If I had one with any value I'd keep it in my unit if there was room. On the balcony works especially if it can be kept dry.