SoHo Westboro [403 Richmond Rd] | 34m | 9f | Approved

[Williamoforange]

Leiper & Chianello have come out against the new proposal, nimby going to nimby. Leiper can not become mayor for the sake of affordability in this city

https://kitchissippiward.ca/2026/02/...DVK7RV-vr4JzFg

[rocketphish]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

Leiper & Chianello have come out against the new proposal, nimby going to nimby. Leiper can not become mayor for the sake of affordability in this city

https://kitchissippiward.ca/2026/02/...DVK7RV-vr4JzFg

Yeah, I can understand why they would come out against this. Mastercraft Starwood are now floating the idea of tripling the height of their approved 9-storey building into a 27-storey tower, which goes against official plan zoning.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

Yeah, I can understand why they would come out against this. Mastercraft Starwood are now floating the idea of tripling the height of their approved 9-storey building into a 27-storey tower, which goes against official plan zoning.

At least they've gone with a podium design, which is nice to see in Ottawa.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

Yeah, I can understand why they would come out against this. Mastercraft Starwood are now floating the idea of tripling the height of their approved 9-storey building into a 27-storey tower, which goes against official plan zoning.

It does not go against the official plan, because as per the official plan everything within 600 meters should have been zoned hub, but the nimbys and hypocrites like Leiper did what they do best and had things downzoned through the introduction of secondary plans.

I had assumed this wouldn't get fought for at least 5 years after the new zoning bylaw, but more than happy for these Leiper & company to get what's coming to them. Hopefully with the province signs off.

Also, again if the city actually cared about housing affordablility & " protecting" main streets the land behind the main streets within 600m of mass transit would still have been zoned high density., but there not.

[rocketphish]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

It does not go against the official plan, because as per the official plan everything within 600 meters should have been zoned hub, but the nimbys and hypocrites like Leiper did what they do best and had things downzoned through the introduction of secondary plans.

I had assumed this wouldn't get fought for at least 5 years after the new zoning bylaw, but more than happy for these Leiper & company to get what's coming to them. Hopefully with the province signs off.

Also, again if the city actually cared about housing affordablility & " protecting" main streets the land behind the main streets within 600m of mass transit would still have been zoned high density., but there not.

I get your point, but the Official Plan isn't a standalone document, and can't be interpreted by itself. In Ottawa, Secondary Plans are extensions of the Official Plan, providing more detailed policy specificity in certain defined areas of the City.

https://documents.ottawa.ca/sites/do...on12_op_en.pdf

They exist all over the City, not just in Westboro.

https://ottawa.ca/en/planning-develo...econdary-plans
https://ottawa.ca/en/planning-develo...econdary-plans

That said, feel free to argue that the Richmond Road / Westboro Secondary Plan (or any other) should be updated to allow more height, but good luck with that.

[waterloowarrior]

They can propose an Official Plan Amendment, just like 1994 Scott (see the 1994 Scott Planning Rationale)... rationale will be that it's out of date
http://webcast.ottawa.ca/plan/All_Im...02-25-0097.PDF

The Richmond Road / Westboro Secondary Plan (the “SP”) was adopted in 2009 and amended and adopted as part of the new Official Plan in 2021.

The SP forms part of Volume 2A of the OP and is derived from the Richmond Road / Westboro Community Design Plan (the “CDP”), which was completed in 2007.

The provincial, municipal, and neighbourhood context has changed significantly from when the CDP and SP were first approved to now, with the most notable changes being the following:
- City of Ottawa population growth from approximately 870,250 to 1,100,000; - Provincial and municipal housing supply and affordability crisis;
- The introduction and expansion of Ottawa’s LRT system, including the conversion of Westboro Station from BRT to LRT with completion scheduled for 2026;
- Three new Provincial Policy Statements (2014, 2020, 2024) and one new Official Plan (2022) with increasingly clearer policy directives to support transit-oriented development and intensification;
- Numerous legislative changes to the Planning Act to address barriers to increasing housing supply, especially around rapid transit; and,
- Development and approval of high-rise buildings to the east and west of the site, some of which are on lands situated further from Westboro Station than the subject lands.

Section 2 of the SP contains direction of the SP’s unifying vision, overlying objectives, and principles, and states the following: The following unifying vision, overlying objectives and principles for the planning area, set out the desired future and broad policy direction for managing growth and achieving the vision over the 20-year timeframe of the secondary plan. It is clear from the above statement that the SP was intended to guide growth for a period of 20 years from when its vision was first established in 2007 through the CDP, meaning it is nearing the end of its planning horizon.

Coupled with the contextual changes noted above, it is clear that the SP, particularly as it relates to the subject lands adjacent Westboro Station, falls short in recognizing and planning for the growth and evolving conditions around Westboro Station.

This reality is in part why planning horizons exist, as plans, like communities, are not meant to exist in perpetuity without undergoing change to adapt to evolving community needs, municipal objectives, and provincial policy directives.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

I get your point, but the Official Plan isn't a standalone document, and can't be interpreted by itself. In Ottawa, Secondary Plans are extensions of the Official Plan, providing more detailed policy specificity in certain defined areas of the City.

https://documents.ottawa.ca/sites/do...on12_op_en.pdf

They exist all over the City, not just in Westboro.

https://ottawa.ca/en/planning-develo...econdary-plans
https://ottawa.ca/en/planning-develo...econdary-plans

That said, feel free to argue that the Richmond Road / Westboro Secondary Plan (or any other) should be updated to allow more height, but good luck with that.

As stated they should have never been adopted by the official plan, and it looks like them being fought is a possibility or this wouldn't have been put forward. Hopefully one of the other mayoral candidates is keeping tabs on how much Leiper is going to cost the city on this.

Also, neither the city or Leipers who's campaign is based around shared intensification , can't legitimately ask voters for a suburban ward with no planned mass transit to accept high rises if i city/him won't accept them within 300m of existing mass transit & billions of city paid infrastructure.

[J.OT13]

Would be a great proposal for Scott. Why propose this on a site that requires a fight with the City instead of buying a site where they can propose a tower that would have a near guaranteed rubber stamp?

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Would be a great proposal for Scott. Why propose this on a site that requires a fight with the City instead of buying a site where they can propose a tower that would have a near guaranteed rubber stamp?

It's a great proposal for within 300 meters of mass transit, that's why, regardless of what nimbys might think.

[Ottawacurious]

I'd rather the tower than the other design. Any attempt to create space be it cafe or chess boards along richmond would be great....meaning, greater setback to allow for cafe sprawl with comfortable sidewalk widths.

My assumption is the prices are going to be high no matter the height but maybe there can be more affordable housing with the higher unit count. Hopefully it doesn't become the westboro canyon.

[ponyboycurtis]

Meanwhile in the first pic of post #64 you can see the gravel lot of a site that is sitting on 15 gawd dang years of proposal. The ticky tacky back and forth on that Roosevelt proposal is classic Ottawa. At least in years past.

I can easily see why there is a pushback on a 27 floor building on Richmond. I'm happy with Richmond being a mostly midrise stretch. On the other hand I don't really care.

What do you figure they settle for something in the 16/18 range and have it step down a couple times into the existing neighbourhood?

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by ponyboycurtis

Meanwhile in the first pic of post #64 you can see the gravel lot of a site that is sitting on 15 gawd dang years of proposal. The ticky tacky back and forth on that Roosevelt proposal is classic Ottawa. At least in years past.

I can easily see why there is a pushback on a 27 floor building on Richmond. I'm happy with Richmond being a mostly midrise stretch. On the other hand I don't really care.

What do you figure they settle for something in the 16/18 range and have it step down a couple times into the existing neighbourhood?

If they compromise with 16/18, might as well build the 27. If the City rejects it, Mastercraft-Starwood can go get a rubber stamp at LPAT.

Honestly, if a developer wants to build a high-rise, buy land where high-rises are allowed. They only needed to purchase something a few blocks north.

We need a mix of housing; skyscrapers, high-rises, mid-rises and low-rises, so why is it such a bad thing to have zoning restrictions. Zoning exists to create step-backs from tall towers on the O-Train Line to the more human scale Richmond. This isn't the 2000s when the City just about only allowed 12 floors outside downtown. Zoning ahs opened up significantly since then. There are options for developers without having to get into expensive fights with the City and existing residents.

[Kitchissippi]

This proposal reminds me of what this ugly building did to Elgin Street. It is soul-less and bland and destroys the character of the village strip. People are attracted to this portion of Richmond road for its Main Street atmosphere and ruining it for the sake of cramming more units is akin to killing the goose that lays the golden egg.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

This proposal reminds me of what this ugly building did to Elgin Street. It is soul-less and bland and destroys the character of the village strip. People are attracted to this portion of Richmond road for its Main Street atmosphere and ruining it for the sake of cramming more units is akin to killing the goose that lays the golden egg.

Its a street in the core of a 1+ million person city, high rises aren't killing its village character because its not a village anymore.

Be it Richmond or Elgin, if you want that "Village" vibe its called the byward market the area that is setup to be "quant" the city doesn't need more of them.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

If they compromise with 16/18, might as well build the 27. If the City rejects it, Mastercraft-Starwood can go get a rubber stamp at LPAT.

Honestly, if a developer wants to build a high-rise, buy land where high-rises are allowed. They only needed to purchase something a few blocks north.

We need a mix of housing; skyscrapers, high-rises, mid-rises and low-rises, so why is it such a bad thing to have zoning restrictions. Zoning exists to create step-backs from tall towers on the O-Train Line to the more human scale Richmond. This isn't the 2000s when the City just about only allowed 12 floors outside downtown. Zoning ahs opened up significantly since then. There are options for developers without having to get into expensive fights with the City and existing residents.

They have land where high rises were as per the official plan supposed to be allowed, and NO purchasing a few blocks north would not have got them high density land.

Going farther north would result in less allowed density because again the city didn't properly implement the hub designation around mass transit stations. The nearest land that's not gov/city owned that would allow high density as of right is a couple of km away.

Or did you forget Leiper also opposed the only other possible high density in the area, that being 335 roosevelt ave which was reduced to a mere 14 stories.

The "Mix" comes from the rest of the land kitchissippi, and allowing high density within 300m of mass transit will not ruin it. What it might ruin is Nimby's idea of having there personal village sitting on top of billions of dollars worth of city infrastructure.

Lastly, what zoning was a decade ago is irrelevant to a discussion to what it should be at this site, Ottawa is a city get used to it.

[Kitchissippi]

This design is a joke, it's obviously a cut-and-paste from some other context. You can't have windows butting up against the property line like it has next to the Barley Mow building. Probably done by some college student not an architect.

[Lakeofthewood]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

And unsurprisingly to anyone that paid attention Chianello or Leiper both have outright stated they oppose the dev at 403 Richmond rd, well within the cities official plan MTSA

Nimby going to nimby, unfortunately Chianello is a comment on the article and I haven't figured it paying pictures yet

https://kitchissippiward.ca/2026/02/...DVK7RV-vr4JzFg

This development doesn't fall within a MTSA though. It's not NIMBY to oppose something that doesn't align with our very recently updated Official Plan. In this case they are proposing more than double what is allowed. Whether it should be a MTSA is another discussion entirely.

You seem to not follow how the process on development projects goes, as you just blanket call every councillor who opposes a development a NIMBY. Developers will always propose something that asks for more than is allowed. Councillors will oppose it, and then work with city staff to negotiate until it gets approved. Usually this results in things like improvements to sidewalks, cycling facilities, bus stops, etc. In this case, maybe they land on 16 stories being okay, but the developer has to rebuild the bus stop at the corner and provide a sidewalk along the west side of Roosevelt for some distance.

There's a lot of things wrong with politics in this city. This specific example isn't one of them.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by Lakeofthewood

This development doesn't fall within a MTSA though. It's not NIMBY to oppose something that doesn't align with our very recently updated Official Plan. In this case they are proposing more than double what is allowed. Whether it should be a MTSA is another discussion entirely.

You seem to not follow how the process on development projects goes, as you just blanket call every councillor who opposes a development a NIMBY. Developers will always propose something that asks for more than is allowed. Councillors will oppose it, and then work with city staff to negotiate until it gets approved. Usually this results in things like improvements to sidewalks, cycling facilities, bus stops, etc. In this case, maybe they land on 16 stories being okay, but the developer has to rebuild the bus stop at the corner and provide a sidewalk along the west side of Roosevelt for some distance.

There's a lot of things wrong with politics in this city. This specific example isn't one of them.

No whether this site should have been a MTSA is not another discussion, its entirely this discussion and the fact that this location is not an MTSA is a failure. A failure due in part because secondary plans were brought forward that severely limited growth & did not match the official plan language at large.

Secondly housing isn't/shouldn't be viewed as a cash cow that the city gets to milk for all they can take because nimbys think new residents owe them something other than property taxes & Ottawa already high dev fees.

Third hypocricy by Leiper is exactly what is wrong with city politics.

Lastly, if you oppose this dev that is within 300m of mass transit solely because politicking removed it from being a MTSA then yes you, Leiper & Chianello are nimbys.

[waterloowarrior]

Council adopted OPA 46 which designates the site as an MTSA (still with 7-9 storey height limit); it's awaiting provincial approval.

The province could modify the height/densities similar to what they did for Toronto's MTSA.

https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/025-0940
https://engage.ottawa.ca/official-pl...statement-2024

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

Council adopted OPA 46 which designates the site as an MTSA (still with 7-9 storey height limit); it's awaiting provincial approval.

The province could modify the height/densities similar to what they did for Toronto's MTSA.

https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/025-0940
https://engage.ottawa.ca/official-pl...statement-2024

Thank you for digging this and the note on the secondary plan date up.