WaterStreet | 14.5m | 5 fl | U/C

[McC]

not sure how the Forum has missed this proposal from Claridge for a fairly substantial-sounding mid-rise development in the NE-corner of Lowertown. Just heard about it on the CeeB, and it seems that this is another instance where the Lowertown community is being abandoned by their new rookie councillor; this time, because his pops apparently works for Claridge so he is in a conflict position to represent the Community's interest (not sure what the conflict was when he couldn't represent the community's interest on the King Edward file, but that's another thread).

Anyway here is the summary from the Community Association:

No-ReZone-Non

Claridge has acquired more land and increased the total footprint and size of the building it proposes to build. Claridge is amending their first proposal from an 8 storey and three townhouse development, with separate back yards, to one Bruyere-to-St.Andrew "T". They have gone from 101 units to 108. The deal remains conditional on the city approving rezones for height (from 14.5 to 16.5) and setbacks across several axes (the front, and chunks of the side).

The City will notify Will Murray when the proposal has been submitted, along with the latest time lines. He will forward these documents to you. In the meantime, do not hesitate to continue your individual efforts to contact the Councilor and Chairman Hume about your thoughts on the City's chaotic planning processes and how Claridge intends to unilaterally alter our neighbourhood. We remain strongly opposed to the proposal to rezone this section of land between Bruyere and St. Andrew streets in Lowertown East, demolish existing lowrise housing for about 20 families and build this block of enormous block condominiums with more than 100 units.

The proposed development ignores Ottawa city guidelines for this residential zone; is out of scale and out of character for the community; represents a level of overdevelopment of a site that is not compatible with the neighbourhood; would decrease street awareness and community connectedness in an area where street level vigilance is essential to neighbourhood safety.

It continues to misrepresent the sun shadow effect for residents along Rose, St. Andrew and Cathcart as well as on Bordelau Park through late autumn to early spring; raises environmental and infrastructure concerns due to increased building mass, traffic, increased people and decreased open space. We encourage all concerned residents to contact their councillor, the mayor and especially the members of the planning committee:

Contact your city councillor and members of the planning committee

Mayor Jim Watson

Read our submission. In addition to this group submission a number of individuals submitted their own letters focussing on individual concerns

You can also read a draft of our latest newsletter which will be distributed to residents of "The Wedge"

Current Bruyere Task Force contact info:
We expect to be adding many more names to this list very shortly. At the moment the key contacts are:
Will Murray - 274bruyere@gmail.com
Jodi Murray - jodi.murray@blood.ca
Ian Burgess - itburgess@rogers.com
John Chenier - john.chenier@gmail.com

Heritage matters

Four of the oldest buildings in the Wedge are threatened with demolition. Only after Claridge proposed its multi-storey condo tower did the community became aware that the affected houses on Bruyere and St Andrew were not protected by municipal heritage designation. The attached report (Lowertown East - Our Disappearing Heritage) outlines the significance of these buildings, in particular, their links to the working class French, Irish and Jewish communities unique to Lowertown East. It notes that only 10% of Lowertown East heritage buildings remain, largely due to the large scale "urban renewal" destruction in the 1960s and 1970s. The report also provides several options to the City and to Claridge to save or to incorporate the threatened buildings. Your comments, questions and thoughts about the options are welcome.

Please direct them to the heritage contacts:

Marc Aubin - m_s_aubin_esq@hotmail.com
Nancy Miller Chenier - nancy.millerchenier@gmail.com

http://www.bruyere.cathcartmuse.com/

and the PDF with the Community Association's detailed position on the proposal:
http://www.lowertown-basseville.ca/documents/BSRTF.pdf

[McC]

Originally Posted by McC

not sure how the Forum has missed this proposal from Claridge

Assuming this proposal was off the Forum's radar, and not just mine, of course!

[reidjr]

Only in ottawa would people get worked up over a 8 story building.

[McC]

Originally Posted by reidjr

Only in ottawa would people get worked up over a 8 story building.

you should get around more Reid, this does not only happen in Ottawa.

Anyway, some thoughts on the details of the building:
- why would fewer than 110 units need 150 parking spaces?
- this seems like an ideal location for a "Vancouver style" taller point-tower on a street-fronting townhouse base instead of a single T-shaped 8-storey block, which sounds like it would be quite massive on that very confined old streetscape.
- I've said it before, but is there any lot in this city that Claridge isn't trying to develop (before they make much of any progress towards finishing their sections of Beirut Lebreton Flats)?
- If this is the scale of development that goes into this little residential island-in-the-arterials (with several other potential development sites apparent), have the brilliant traffic engineers at the City ever given any consideration to how all of these potential residents will get in and out in the future? e.g. walk to the market? given their actions on crossings of King Edward, etc.

UPDATE: Kathleen Petty interviewed Councillor Fleury and a member of the Community Association:
- turns out the proposal has changed to 5-storeys, but sounds like it would be more massive than the 8-storey block would have been (no surprise there)
- Councillor Fleury is estranged from his dad who works for Claridge, which, IMHO, puts the good Councillor in a tough spot, since he can't be engaged on any development in the City (where every development is a Claridge development), all because of a non-existant relationship some guy who happened to sire him. In the meantime, his family's dirty laundry gets aired around fora like this by jerks like me ;-)

[kwoldtimer]

Fantastic site for this project, looking out over the park and the river. Not surprised that it seems to have gone from 8 to 5 stories.

[reidjr]

Sure it happens in other citys but not nearly as much as in ottawa if some got there way the city would have a height limit at 2 floors.

[rocketphish]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Fantastic site for this project, looking out over the park and the river. Not surprised that it seems to have gone from 8 to 5 stories.

The proposed building has indeed gotten shorter (8 to 5 stories) but it has also become much more massive. Whereas the original proposal called for an 8-story building on Bruyere and a separate much lower structure facing St. Andrew, the new proposal is for a single structure that spans across the block, taking up an extra lot on St. Andrew. The number of units has not dropped at all.


The development documents are here:
http://app01.ottawa.ca/postingplans/...appId=__7BT61G
http://app01.ottawa.ca/postingplans/...appId=__7BT6B2

[Ottawan]

Originally Posted by reidjr

Only in ottawa would people get worked up over a 8 story building.

This is well put.

[KyMc]

Originally Posted by reidjr

Only in ottawa would people get worked up over a 8 story building.

I also think it's unfortunate that people would object to a development that will bring so much to the neighborhood. Judging by the looks of the building (see: http://claridgecondos.com/waterstreet/), Claridge has put a lot of planning into the exteriors (and interiors) of this building... they look new-age and aesthetically pleasing. Let's just say it's not going to be an eyesore. I'm enthusiastic about the development

[McC]

Originally Posted by KyMc

I'm enthusiastic about the development

you don't say?

Three makes a trend; created a new thread for the phenomenon here http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...51#post6046451

[rocketphish]

The site:


And on Streetview:
http://goo.gl/maps/OmoNa
http://goo.gl/maps/B9X3r

[Ottawan]

Originally Posted by McC

Just heard about it on the CeeB, and it seems that this is another instance where the Lowertown community is being abandoned by their new rookie councillor; this time, because his pops apparently works for Claridge so he is in a conflict position to represent the Community's interest (not sure what the conflict was when he couldn't represent the community's interest on the King Edward file, but that's another thread).

There hasn't been too much that has come to my attention about Councillor Fleury for me to make a judgment about his performance one way or the other. However, I do feel one should take a more respectful tone - vitriolic or demeaning retoric such as calling him a "rookie" (what's wrong with new blood), "pops" (demeaning), "abandonment" (you need to back up the other examples of this before accusing it) and alleging conflicts of interest causing wrongdoing are not appropriate in informed debate.

[McC]

Originally Posted by Ottawan

There hasn't been too much that has come to my attention about Councillor Fleury for me to make a judgment about his performance one way or the other. However, I do feel one should take a more respectful tone - vitriolic or demeaning retoric such as calling him a "rookie" (what's wrong with new blood), "pops" (demeaning), "abandonment" (you need to back up the other examples of this before accusing it) and alleging conflicts of interest causing wrongdoing are not appropriate in informed debate.

Except for using "pops" as a colloquial synonym for "father" everything I wrote is informed, and a long way from vitriol:

1) He is a rookie councillor, it's his first year on the job, being rookie is a fact, how the reader interprets the word is for him or her.
2) He was accused of having abandoned his constituents in this case: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Ra...599/story.html
For perspective of members of the Community Association, see www.kingedwardavenue.com
- I am not alleging that he is in a conflict of interest, the Councillor recused himself from any involvement in this development because of the potential for a conflict of interest (he sought an opinion and followed it); while such accountable action is to be commended, it is also a HUGE problem for Rideau-Vanier constituents, since how many active, planned and proposed projects does Claridge have in this ward, and Rideau Vanier constituents will have no representation in any issues related to them.
UPDATE: some details here: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Fa...560/story.html

[citizen j]

I lived for 3 years on St. Andrew, in the block immediately west of this proposal, and I'm not surprised Claridge is eager to develop this site. Bordeleau Park is a largely undiscovered/underused gem and is contiguous with the parkland northward at Rideau Falls and New Edinburgh. Good views from the Bruyère side of the building. If I were still a resident, there's no way I would oppose this building; the area needs improvement! (Attention developers: there's a surface parking lot across from 292 St. Andrew.) What's a shame is that they're not tearing down the heinous 70s welcome-to-my-garage (carport) townhouses on either side of the St. Andrew facade.

[S-Man]

The quote from the community association makes it seem as if the whole neighbourhood is an untouched museum exhibit of period buildings, when Google Streetview says that isn't the case. There are original - old, but not architecturally stunning or unique - homes in the area, as are there 1950's walkups and even more hideous 1970's vacuum cleaner garage entrances posing as homes. A real housing mix - far more mixed than areas of Lowertown on the other side of King Edward.

The absence of landscaping makes for a more open feel to the area, too. I don't think the 5 storeys proposed for this area is inappropriate (especially the jut-out next to the garage homes), but I will agree that it is 'different' and 'new', which translates into 'incompatible' and 'out of character' in community association-speak.

This didn't seem to be a problem when non-architects entered the community in the 50s and 70s and put up those ugly dives.

[waterloowarrior]

7 aug 2011 aerial of the site by southfacing @ flickr


here's the staff report
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/cit...w%20Street.htm

[waterloowarrior]

modified version recommended for approval by PEC
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Lo...717/story.html

The committee approved a motion, presented by Harder, that would see some of the money the city would normally collect from the developer for neighbourhood parkland improvements instead put into an account to help residents who have lived in their homes for more than 20 years “find alternative accommodation.”
...................
The committee also approved a motion from Harder that amended earlier plans and dropped the allowable height along the majority of Bruyère Street from 16.5 metres to 14.5 metres, which is the amount permitted under current zoning. It also lowered the height of a small area on St. Andrew Street from 14.5 metres to 12.5 metres and increased setbacks along Bruyère.

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Lo...#ixzz1VAQ7JBSO

[kwoldtimer]

It will be interesting to see how the modified version compares to the rendering above. Dropping the allowable height by two metres in a couple of spots seems pretty trivial.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

It will be interesting to see how the modified version compares to the rendering above. Dropping the allowable height by two metres in a couple of spots seems pretty trivial.

But it dropped it down below the magical child-killing, traffic-inducing, property-value-reducing threshold, and that's all that counts!

It's sad to see the old row-houses go, but I wonder: why don't more such rowhouses, or modern versions modelled on them, get build in the burbs, in place of the total crap that the unimaginitive builders in Ottawa keep throwing up? If you're going to build semidetached or rows in the burbs anyway, why not give them a bit of 1920s cachet?

[waterloowarrior]

Waterstreet
http://www.househunting.ca/ottawa/Ci...megadrop_story