History Ottawa (Live Nation venue) [47 Rideau St] | U/C

[SL123]

Sky’s the limit: Former Chapters location ‘prime’ spot for a mixed-use highrise, broker says

Michael Church, the managing director of Avison Young’s Ottawa office, called the former Chapters space at 47 Rideau St. a “prime” site for a highrise multi-residential project.

While Nordstrom’s imminent departure from the Rideau Centre has left downtown Ottawa’s biggest shopping mall in a state of flux, a prominent commercial space across the street is also poised to undergo a transformation. The former home of Chapters bookstore at 47 Rideau St. was put on the market in April, CBRE senior vice-president Jamie Boyce, whose firm is representing the vendor, told OBJ this week. The veteran broker said the building’s current owner is a Quebec-based entity that’s connected to an “international” company. He wouldn’t reveal any details about potential bidders or what stage the sale process is at. The two-storey building includes about 42,000 square feet of space above ground and 19,000 square feet below grade. Chapters occupied the property from 1996 until last year. Indigo Books & Music, which bought the Chapters chain in 2001, moved to a smaller location in the Rideau Centre last fall. Boyce said the ongoing shift to e-commerce means the company requires less storage space for books at individual stores. “It’s a continuously evolving industry based on what consumer demands are,” he said. While the site has been a major component of downtown Ottawa’s retail landscape for decades, one leading commercial broker thinks the property could find new life as part of a much larger mixed-use development. Michael Church, the managing director of Avison Young’s Ottawa office, called the former Chapters space a “prime” site for a highrise multi-residential project. “There’s got to be an opportunity there,” he said. “I would have to think that the buyer of that is going to be a build-to-suit apartment or condo user in the future.” Business leaders view the Rideau Street corridor as an important element of a broader campaign to revitalize the city’s core as downtown office towers have emptied out amid a widespread shift to hybrid work during the pandemic. Those efforts were in the spotlight Friday morning, when the Ottawa Board of Trade called on the federal government to provide “real and meaningful” support to downtown merchants as it begins to dispose of some of its aging office buildings in the core. As the city looks to create more “15-minute neighbourhoods” where people can live within walking distance of transit and amenities such as shopping and restaurants, properties like the Rideau Street space could be part of the solution. The former Chapters building is right in the heart of the central business district, Church noted, with a major shopping mall and light-rail station just steps away and a plethora of major tourist attractions in the vicinity. In a promotional brochure, CBRE describes the property as a “once-in-a-lifetime big-box opportunity for a brand.” Church agrees the site is well-suited to ground-floor retail, but he believes the next owner of the property will see even more opportunities looking skyward. “You’ll have that kind of a (retail) flavour to it, but I’ve got to think it’s residential above at some point,” he explained.

https://obj.ca/former-chapters-prime-spot-for-highrise/

I dont have full access to the article

[lrt's friend]

And the process of casting the market district into a massive shadow begins.

[Harley613]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

And the process of casting the market district into a massive shadow begins.

I think there's around zero chance that anything taller than 12 stories gets approved here, so it wouldn't cast too much of a shadow on anything aside from The Bay.

[originalmuffins]

I know it won't happen but .. give us 35 floors at least in that Chapters location. It is perfect for giving more life to Rideau Centre.

[vtecyo]

Originally Posted by SL123

Sky’s the limit: Former Chapters location ‘prime’ spot for a mixed-use highrise, broker says



https://obj.ca/former-chapters-prime-spot-for-highrise/

I dont have full access to the article

"HYPOTHETICALLY" - their site actually has the full article content in the page even when you're not logged in - but they just hide it with some styling.

If you know where to look in a browser you can get around the block. In this case just go to the source code view (ctrl-u in most browsers) then in the new tab that opens search (ctrl-f) and look for "expandable-paywall-premium-content" - and there it is.

The Ottawa Citizen does something similar when you reach your limit of free articles however for the Citizen you just use an ad blocking browser extension - like Ublock Origin - or anything that allows you to block Javascript.

I could post the full article here - but I don't know if that's some kind of rule violation...

[nredding]

I just found out that if you read the article in Safari on an iPad and select “Reader View” you see the entire article.

[YukonLlama]

Originally Posted by Harley613

I think there's around zero chance that anything taller than 12 stories gets approved here, so it wouldn't cast too much of a shadow on anything aside from The Bay.

Echo these sentiments. If anything were to be developed, I bet it would be more in the mid-rise range and likely on the higher end, given the area. That random little area by chapters is also a bit of a deadzone where a lot of uber drivers+homeless hang out. It would be great if they could repurpose it to make it less of a weird avoidable spot before heading to Rideau/Parliament etc

[613JL]

Originally Posted by YukonLlama

Echo these sentiments. If anything were to be developed, I bet it would be more in the mid-rise range and likely on the higher end, given the area. That random little area by chapters is also a bit of a deadzone where a lot of uber drivers+homeless hang out. It would be great if they could repurpose it to make it less of a weird avoidable spot before heading to Rideau/Parliament etc

It's already zoned for hi rise and the height plane allows for over 20 storeys. Not sure why you guys are debating this. There is also tons of room to have a tower separation of 11.5m with the Bay property to the east. The real question, who will do a MZO on this site. This is the only opportunity anyone will have to contest the height plane ceiling.

[Harley613]

Originally Posted by 613JL

It's already zoned for hi rise and the height plane allows for over 20 storeys. Not sure why you guys are debating this. There is also tons of room to have a tower separation of 11.5m with the Bay property to the east. The real question, who will do a MZO on this site. This is the only opportunity anyone will have to contest the height plane ceiling.

MZO would fail here. Too sensitive an area. Even a 20 story building here would be almost as tall as the Westin and, along with the Westin, would form a wall between the Market and the Parliamentary district. I`m a huge proponent of height where it makes sense, but I would want to see anything taller than 12 stories here.

Also, debate is kind of...what we do here, pretty much the whole point of a forum

[originalmuffins]

Originally Posted by 613JL

It's already zoned for hi rise and the height plane allows for over 20 storeys. Not sure why you guys are debating this. There is also tons of room to have a tower separation of 11.5m with the Bay property to the east. The real question, who will do a MZO on this site. This is the only opportunity anyone will have to contest the height plane ceiling.

We'll probably see something around 16-18 floors then, getting an amendment on this site will be almost impossible, unless it is one of Sutcliffe's friendly developers.

[613JL]

Originally Posted by originalmuffins

We'll probably see something around 16-18 floors then, getting an amendment on this site will be almost impossible, unless it is one of Sutcliffe's friendly developers.

The price expectation of the vendors don't work if it's 18 storeys. The reality is that if there isn't any significant density in a redev, the site won't sell as a dev site and it will be purchased as a cap play and we will all be disappointed.

[Harley613]

Originally Posted by 613JL

The price expectation of the vendors don't work if it's 18 storeys. The reality is that if there isn't any significant density in a redev, the site won't sell as a dev site and it will be purchased as a cap play and we will all be disappointed.

Where do you come up with this stuff? It's a large L shaped parcel with significant mixed used potential on the lower floors. There's no magic formula saying a certain height must be achieved to meet any price expectation. 700 Sussex is a successful mixed use development right next door, and it is only 10 floors.

[613JL]

Originally Posted by Harley613

Where do you come up with this stuff? It's a large L shaped parcel with significant mixed used potential on the lower floors. There's no magic formula saying a certain height must be achieved to meet any price expectation. 700 Sussex is a successful mixed use development right next door, and it is only 10 floors.

It's my expertise.

700 Sussex had a different economic environment. The cost of land psf was much much lower. Trades and materials were much much lower.

[OTSkyline]

If we can't get a bit of height here, I hope that at least we see something proposed with lots of windows and several step backs featuring terraces.

It would make the building feel more light and airy vs. bulky and dark.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by 613JL

The price expectation of the vendors don't work if it's 18 storeys. The reality is that if there isn't any significant density in a redev, the site won't sell as a dev site and it will be purchased as a cap play and we will all be disappointed.

That's one of the major issues nowadays. Lots don't sell based on the current zoning, but on what the developer thinks it can get. We often hear developers say, for example, we overpaid for this land zoned for 6 floors, so we have to build 20 floors to be profitable. Land should be sold based on current zoning, not on what the developer thinks it can get at Council or the OLT.

I think set-backs will be key here. Make it seem from street level that it's not taller than HBC on George and Rideau, or taller than the Plaza Building on Sussex, but try and fit in a few more floors near the middle. So it could be a 12 to 18 floor building with a generous set-back to its 6 storey podium.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

That's one of the major issues nowadays. Lots don't sell based on the current zoning, but on what the developer thinks it can get. We often hear developers say, for example, we overpaid for this land zoned for 6 floors, so we have to build 20 floors to be profitable. Land should be sold based on current zoning, not on what the developer thinks it can get at Council or the OLT.

I think set-backs will be key here. Make it seem from street level that it's not taller than HBC on George and Rideau, or taller than the Plaza Building on Sussex, but try and fit in a few more floors near the middle. So it could be a 12 to 18 floor building with a generous set-back to its 6 storey podium.

Not this again..... You like other nimbys wrongly assume that the current zoning is correct. The current zoning didn't match the old OP and it without question does not match the current one. Devs and the SELLER are going with the best use, which is what the official plan points towards, with the bare minimum being one where enough sq ft can be built to make a dev pencil.

[Harley613]

Originally Posted by 613JL

It's my expertise.

700 Sussex had a different economic environment. The cost of land psf was much much lower. Trades and materials were much much lower.

All this interesting debate about the Chapters site, and it seems we have some real estate expertise in here.

Honest and simple question from me: Do you really believe the NCC would rubber stamp their first exception to the view planes ever, just so a developer could extract enough ROI on this particular site that is surrounded by heritage buildings?

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

Not this again..... You like other nimbys wrongly assume that the current zoning is correct. The current zoning didn't match the old OP and it without question does not match the current one. Devs and the SELLER are going with the best use, which is what the official plan points towards, with the bare minimum being one where enough sq ft can be built to make a dev pencil.

Don't think I've ever said that zoning should be scripture (like it border line is in Gatineau), but developers should not assume they'll get approval for double+ the zoning.

And I do take offence with being called NIMBY all the time. For me, NIMBYs are people who want NOTHING built anywhere near them, or don't want people from a different social class in their area. I just believe there's a balance between giving developers the freedom to do whatever they want and locals who want no changes to their neighborhood or don't understand that redistributing allowed density in a tower is better than the alternative side-scraper.

[Harley613]

I have never thought of you as a NIMBY.. ever, not even for a second. You have always had constructive criticism and you believe in smart development, yes, but a NIMBY? Hell no. I criticize just about everything going up in Ottawa as well, just far less eloquently than you do

[shelltime]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

Not this again..... You like other nimbys wrongly assume that the current zoning is correct. The current zoning didn't match the old OP and it without question does not match the current one. Devs and the SELLER are going with the best use, which is what the official plan points towards, with the bare minimum being one where enough sq ft can be built to make a dev pencil.

The issue with that site is the High-Rise Zoning provisions recently approved. Anything above 9 Storeys requires to have a 7.5m tower setback. The odd shape of the site won't allow for anything above 9 within the current zoning. Also, the site is still in a special Area district that does not prescribe tall buildings there...