HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Downtown & Urban Ottawa


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #121  
Old Posted Aug 4, 2023, 4:28 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 28,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by Williamoforange View Post
Yeah, I get that done here don't really grasp how bad housing is in Ottawa, or how severely the city restricts where any growth can go (nvm, that some here argue 12 stories is too much for around a MTSA)

So as it stands the acceptance of this argument from agri-Canada will result in the possible cancellation of over 1218 units of housing amongst just 1081 Carling and 780 baseline rd.

And I'm fine if we accept this argument but if it is then the neighborhoods around it must accept the consequence, and that consequence is the removal of zoning restrictions to allow mid-rise throughout their neighborhoods. At those losses that will require ~19 other 9 story (62 units from the 1110 Fischer dev) towers to replace them. Cause somewhere else isn't where the demand is.

P.S this exact argument is being used against 780 baseline as per the "as we heard it report"
The housing crisis is not caused by the City. It's caused by inflation, labour shortages, and more recently, high interest rates and other factors. Thousands upon thousands of units are approved but not u/c. That's not the City's fault.

That aside, the housing emergency will eventually subside. Could take a few years, could take decades, but the climate emergency and it's effects are a much bigger threat to society as a whole. If, and only IF, the research is truly threatened by shadows that could skew the results do to inconsistent data year over year, then that's a conversation the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the City and Province have to have. And if that's the case, upzoning everything else (and it already has by the City partially, and the Province finished the job) won't help.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #122  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2023, 5:03 PM
Williamoforange's Avatar
Williamoforange Williamoforange is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2020
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 856
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.OT13 View Post
The housing crisis is not caused by the City. It's caused by inflation, labour shortages, and more recently, high interest rates and other factors. Thousands upon thousands of units are approved but not u/c. That's not the City's fault.

That aside, the housing emergency will eventually subside. Could take a few years, could take decades, but the climate emergency and it's effects are a much bigger threat to society as a whole. If, and only IF, the research is truly threatened by shadows that could skew the results do to inconsistent data year over year, then that's a conversation the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the City and Province have to have. And if that's the case, upzoning everything else (and it already has by the City partially, and the Province finished the job) won't help.
Housing was expensive long before the current round of inflation, labour shortage, & high interest rates. The city is to blame because it directly controls where housing can or can NOT be built, and has very much the ability to adapt its zoning such that new housing is actually profitable to build, but it doesn't. Other levels of Gov can do everything they have been asked of but that won't help if there is no where to build. Like seriously the current head of planning committee literally fights everything from triplexes/quadplexes, to mid-rise to high rise.....Including 12 stories near mass transit...and somehow its not at fault...

As for the rest:

1) paper after paper disagrees with the nimby talking point that upzoning doesn't help.

2) The demand for housing won't be going away until 2100 or later and denser housing (even high rises) are directly tied to our countries carbon footprint, as in the denser it is the less carbon/capita. So if ag-canada statements hold then either choice here is going to be bad for the environment unless the area is upzoned to meet demand.

note: the city HASN"T upzoned anything and won't be until 2025, which is why this is a ZBA, even though the official plan would likely allow it as is.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #123  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2023, 1:10 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,253
City staff recommending approval
https://pub-ottawa.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=139226

Quote:
Comments were also received from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) noting concerns related to the shadowing impact to the AAFC’s Central Experimental Farm (CEF) property created by the height of the towers. The shadow analysis provided in support of the proposed development shows that the new net shadow on the CEF does not exceed the criterion identified in the City’s Terms of Reference for Shadow Analysis for public spaces, which identifies that the new net shadow must not result in an average of 50 per cent of any public space being cast in shadow for 5 or more hourly interval times during the September test date only. The new net shadow on the CEF for the September test date (September 21) is not cast on 50 per cent of the property, and impacts are generally limited to between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM (2 hours).

Additional test dates yield similar results with new net shadows being cast generally in the two-to-three-hour range, but the small tower floorplates result in the shadows traversing local areas quickly - see Document 6 for details. Furthermore, the Official Plan designates the CEF as ‘Greenspace, with a sub-designation of ‘Open Space’, which is consistent with the shadowing terms of reference of impacts on a public space. As a result, staff have no concerns with the shadowing impact to the CEF.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #124  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2023, 2:25 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 26,131
Does that mean that AAFC does or does not have shadowing concerns?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #125  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2023, 3:04 PM
Harley613's Avatar
Harley613 Harley613 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Aylmer, QC
Posts: 6,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterloowarrior View Post
but the small tower floorplates result in the shadows traversing local areas quickly

Yet I bet 99.9% of the community would prefer 10+16 story chonky lot line to lot line slabs over these 16+27 story towers with narrow frontage on Carling here.
__________________
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/the.harleydavis/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #126  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2023, 3:29 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwoldtimer View Post
Does that mean that AAFC does or does not have shadowing concerns?
City staff are saying the shadows created by the proposal meets City planning policy on shadows for this type of area. The Ontario planning system is designed so that if an application meets policy it must be approved either by Council or through an appeal process. If there was no specific policy on shadowing the Experimental Farm, and the proposal meet existing policies, than it should not be refused based on AAFC concerns.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #127  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2023, 4:38 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 28,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by Williamoforange View Post
Housing was expensive long before the current round of inflation, labour shortage, & high interest rates. The city is to blame because it directly controls where housing can or can NOT be built, and has very much the ability to adapt its zoning such that new housing is actually profitable to build, but it doesn't. Other levels of Gov can do everything they have been asked of but that won't help if there is no where to build. Like seriously the current head of planning committee literally fights everything from triplexes/quadplexes, to mid-rise to high rise.....Including 12 stories near mass transit...and somehow its not at fault...

As for the rest:

1) paper after paper disagrees with the nimby talking point that upzoning doesn't help.

2) The demand for housing won't be going away until 2100 or later and denser housing (even high rises) are directly tied to our countries carbon footprint, as in the denser it is the less carbon/capita. So if ag-canada statements hold then either choice here is going to be bad for the environment unless the area is upzoned to meet demand.

note: the city HASN"T upzoned anything and won't be until 2025, which is why this is a ZBA, even though the official plan would likely allow it as is.
And developers weren't building all approved units even before the current inflation, labour shortage and high interest rates. And you talk like Leiper rejects everything. He mostly discusses with developers to get compromises between zoning and original proposals. The case of the 12 storey building, they had just finished a round of negotiations and compromise with the previous owner.

Ottawa has done far more than other cities when it comes to allowing more density in existing neighbourhoods, even though we have way more space to grow than others. And I'm not talking about sprawl, but parking lots and empty Federal land and campuses.

But anyway, we'll never agree, and that's fine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by waterloowarrior View Post
City staff are saying the shadows created by the proposal meets City planning policy on shadows for this type of area. The Ontario planning system is designed so that if an application meets policy it must be approved either by Council or through an appeal process. If there was no specific policy on shadowing the Experimental Farm, and the proposal meet existing policies, than it should not be refused based on AAFC concerns.
So they are going with City/Provincial policy and completely ignoring the Farms' argument. Stuck in a box of bureaucracy. City Staff should have spoken to AAFC to really understand and ask the Province for an exception.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #128  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2023, 7:18 PM
Landscape Lenny Landscape Lenny is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Posts: 34
Wouldn't be surprised to see this project nixed or redesigned to 4-6 storeys.

If the new Hospital project taught me anything it was that they don't mess around when it comes to the experimental farm.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #129  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2023, 11:28 PM
Williamoforange's Avatar
Williamoforange Williamoforange is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2020
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 856
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.OT13 View Post
And developers weren't building all approved units even before the current inflation, labour shortage and high interest rates. And you talk like Leiper rejects everything. He mostly discusses with developers to get compromises between zoning and original proposals. The case of the 12 storey building, they had just finished a round of negotiations and compromise with the previous owner.

Ottawa has done far more than other cities when it comes to allowing more density in existing neighbourhoods, even though we have way more space to grow than others. And I'm not talking about sprawl, but parking lots and empty Federal land and campuses.

But anyway, we'll never agree, and that's fine.
Kind of hard to build for a market that no longer exists when your finally allowed to build years after your proposal was first submitted (as this very forum shows). You know what would help not making every dev jump through hoops and tying them up in an expensive & time consuming process....

but again instead we get the nimby & hypocrite head of planning Jeff Leiper (and his defenders) trying to block much needed housing...such as that 12 story building within 400m of mass transit or a 6 story dev within the urban ward of a major city...

When the city stops spending thousands arguing over whether mid-rise is appropriate everywhere in an urban ward, or a high rise is appropriate within a MTSA....then Ottawa has gotten somewhere. Until then were 3 years past a housing emergency declaration, with 2 more before a Tall & sprawl zoning plan goes through....

Btw, that plan is allocating & counting on thousands of units being built next to the experimental farm, that they supposedly can no longer can be built next to....

Anyways, Yes we don't agree, I'm going to go with the data and you can keep backing Leiper, Menard & friends...

https://twitter.com/cayimby/status/1688585155341135872?s=20
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #130  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2023, 2:12 PM
Landscape Lenny Landscape Lenny is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Posts: 34
Have to agree with Williamoforange. It has gotten to the point where Toronto and Montreal investors I know no longer want to go in on City of Ottawa projects. One other thing that drives them nuts is holding up to 400k+ for landscape securities from the time of site plan approval to completion. Can't really blame them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #131  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2023, 2:18 PM
Innsertnamehere's Avatar
Innsertnamehere Innsertnamehere is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 12,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by Landscape Lenny View Post
Have to agree with Williamoforange. It has gotten to the point where Toronto and Montreal investors I know no longer want to go in on City of Ottawa projects. One other thing that drives them nuts is holding up to 400k+ for landscape securities from the time of site plan approval to completion. Can't really blame them.
What? Landscape securities are standard practice across Ontario at least and honestly make a lot of sense from a municipal perspective.

Developers LOVE to cut corners on landscaping as it's the last thing to happen on a project and often happens after a project reaches occupancy (i.e. they get paid and drop liability on the project). The City needs securities to ensure the work gets done otherwise developers can cut corners by not completing it.

Why build that expensive landscape design approved through site plan if they can just drop some sod down and move on? Landscape securities ensure what was approved actually gets delivered.

It's money developers don't even lose, they just have to put it into a trust until permit closure. They get it back, the only cost is the lost interest on it. The actual cost of setting aside that security is pretty minimal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #132  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2023, 2:33 PM
Landscape Lenny Landscape Lenny is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Posts: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere View Post
What? Landscape securities are standard practice across Ontario at least and honestly make a lot of sense from a municipal perspective.

Developers LOVE to cut corners on landscaping as it's the last thing to happen on a project and often happens after a project reaches occupancy (i.e. they get paid and drop liability on the project). The City needs securities to ensure the work gets done otherwise developers can cut corners by not completing it.

Why build that expensive landscape design approved through site plan if they can just drop some sod down and move on? Landscape securities ensure what was approved actually gets delivered.

It's money developers don't even lose, they just have to put it into a trust until permit closure. They get it back, the only cost is the lost interest on it. The actual cost of setting aside that security is pretty minimal.
Interesting - argument I've heard is it should be taken care of by the City of Ottawa building inspector once complete if there are deficiencies. I have no problem with them holding securities but I know it drives developers nuts.

If there's anything I've seen that never gets built as per the plan it's green roofs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #133  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2023, 3:06 PM
skyscraperaccount skyscraperaccount is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Posts: 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere View Post
What? Landscape securities are standard practice across Ontario at least and honestly make a lot of sense from a municipal perspective.

Developers LOVE to cut corners on landscaping as it's the last thing to happen on a project and often happens after a project reaches occupancy (i.e. they get paid and drop liability on the project). The City needs securities to ensure the work gets done otherwise developers can cut corners by not completing it.

Why build that expensive landscape design approved through site plan if they can just drop some sod down and move on? Landscape securities ensure what was approved actually gets delivered.

It's money developers don't even lose, they just have to put it into a trust until permit closure. They get it back, the only cost is the lost interest on it. The actual cost of setting aside that security is pretty minimal.
Can we get quality of materials and finish securities that match renderings too?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #134  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2023, 3:38 AM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is online now
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Greater Ottawa
Posts: 14,510
Highrise development that would shadow Experimental Farm lands to be considered this week

Catherine Morrison, Ottawa Citizen
Published Aug 13, 2023 • Last updated 6 hours ago • 4 minute read


A redevelopment proposal to permit two highrise residential apartment buildings at the corner of Carling and Parkdale avenues is to be considered by the planning and housing committee this week, though residents have concerns about how the plan would impact Experimental Farm lands.

On Wednesday, the committee will review the redevelopment proposal at 1081 Carling Ave. to replace an eight-storey building with two highrise towers — one at 16 storeys and the other at 27 storeys.

According to a report by Derrick Moodie, director of planning services, planning, real estate and economic development, the staff recommendation is that the committee recommends approval of the zoning bylaw amendment for 1081 Carling.

The application, by local developer Taggart Realty Management, alongside urban design and landscape architecture firm Fotenn Planning + Design, indicates that the two residential towers would contain 410 dwelling units. The development would also include an almost 430-square-metre park abutting Parkdale and a parking garage with more than 300 spaces for residents and visitors.

The report states that about 160 members of the public attended a virtual community information session about the project in October 2021, with approximately 100 comments submitted during the development review process — most in opposition of the proposed development.

“The community requested further consideration be given to the built form, density, height, transition to the abutting low-rise neighbourhood, traffic, parking, the existing traffic barrier on Hamilton Avenue South and environmental impacts (i.e., shadowing, wind, noise, loss of trees),” the report says.

Changes have since been made to the proposal to address concerns, including reducing the height of the buildings (from 28 and 22 storeys), increasing bicycle parking and providing greater separation between the property and that adjacent to it.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has written to the city with concerns about how shadowing from the building would impact research on the Experimental Farm lands.

The Civic Hospital Neighbourhood Association (CHNA) has also been advocating strongly against the Taggart 1081 Carling proposal, citing concerns both about shadowing the farm and about the transition of the building to the adjoining neighbourhood.

“The CHNA supports the need for intensification and smart density, but it must be done responsibly,” Karen Wright, president of CHNA, said in a news release. “The City’s decision on 1081 Carling Avenue could set a trend for unacceptable transition, height and density for future developments in established neighbourhoods. Councillors in other wards should understand that this decision could affect future rezoning requests to add high-rises in their communities. Additionally, this and future developments adjacent to the CEF will have a devastating effect on the Farm’s research and purpose.”

Corey Peabody, who does planning liaison for the Fisher Heights community board, said she is in support of the CHNA, given that a similar development application for three highrise towers is proposed in her neighbourhood, at 780 Baseline Rd.

“It’s got a lot of similarities to their situation on the other side of Carling,” said Peabody. “The concern is that if you start putting in these highrises all the way around the farm, where they shadow the farm, we’re worried that at some point Agriculture Canada might say, ‘Hey we don’t have enough farmland to do any more research, so we’re not going to keep the farm.’ ”

In an open letter on his website, Kitchissippi Ward Coun. Jeff Leiper said he will likely vote in favour of the development at the upcoming planning meeting, despite having reservations about the project.

“I don’t like the development, but I also can’t disagree with staff’s assessment,” Leiper said. “To date, Planning Staff have provided indications that the proposal in its current form meets the policies and guidelines that are supposed to guide development in Ontario and Ottawa.”

Leiper acknowledged concerns about the development’s impact on the Experimental Farm, noting Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s concerns about shadowing that would compromise experiments and “rob large greenhouses of passive heat,” increasing their bills.

“Bluntly, I believe that bigger concern being expressed is the future of the Farm,” Leiper said. “But as has been expressed to me, if the Farm’s research potential is nibbled away at how long will it be before its utility as a living lab is gone? When that day comes would the Farm simply be sold off for development? These are not wild-eyed questions. They are though, I believe, premature: even if the Taggart proposal is allowed to proceed it’s by no means inevitable that it will result in loss of the Farm.”

The report, however, stated that staff have “no concerns” with shadowing impacts to the farm.

“Overall, the proposed development is consistent with the Official Plan and demonstrates residential development in a manner that is supportive of the City’s intensification goals,” the report stated, noting that a shadow analysis was conducted. “Staff are satisfied that high density development is appropriate for the site, the proposed building heights are appropriate for the site, and that adequate transition to the abutting low-rise neighbourhood to the north has been achieved.”

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-new...al-farm-lands-to-be-considered-this-week
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #135  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2023, 3:52 AM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 26,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketphish View Post
[B]Highrise development that would shadow Experimental Farm lands to be considered this week
....

Leiper acknowledged concerns about the development’s impact on the Experimental Farm, noting Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s concerns about shadowing that would compromise experiments and “rob large greenhouses of passive heat,” increasing their bills.
...

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-new...al-farm-lands-to-be-considered-this-week
This is the first thing I've seen that confirms that the Experimental Farm is concerned about the potential impact. That should decide the matter, imho.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #136  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2023, 11:21 AM
Harley613's Avatar
Harley613 Harley613 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Aylmer, QC
Posts: 6,879



Rob greenhouses of their passive heat?!? The greenhouses to the South would be touched by a shadow for a handful of minutes just as the sun is setting in June and July, just as they would be now by the existing building on site, which also blocks the sun as it sets on the horizon.
__________________
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/the.harleydavis/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #137  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2023, 11:30 AM
skyscraperaccount skyscraperaccount is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Posts: 286
Although I personally think the greenspace of the Experimental Farm should stay, I don't think what is done there needs to be static. Perhaps its time to conclude that running experiments there is no longer compatible with the needs of the city and the experiments can be moved to a rural site or they can adjust the location of such experments to the other end of the property that would never be affected by tower shadows.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #138  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2023, 12:41 PM
roger1818's Avatar
roger1818 roger1818 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Stittsville, ON
Posts: 6,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyscraperaccount View Post
Although I personally think the greenspace of the Experimental Farm should stay, I don't think what is done there needs to be static. Perhaps its time to conclude that running experiments there is no longer compatible with the needs of the city and the experiments can be moved to a rural site or they can adjust the location of such experments to the other end of the property that would never be affected by tower shadows.
Just curios, do you work at the experimental farm and have evidence to support your opinion that the experiments there are obsolete and can easily be moved?
__________________
Pronouns: He/Him/His
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #139  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2023, 12:57 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 26,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyscraperaccount View Post
Although I personally think the greenspace of the Experimental Farm should stay, I don't think what is done there needs to be static. Perhaps its time to conclude that running experiments there is no longer compatible with the needs of the city and the experiments can be moved to a rural site or they can adjust the location of such experments to the other end of the property that would never be affected by tower shadows.
Many (me included) wonder the same thing, but I understand that the counter-argument is that this would result in the loss of continuity in much of their research.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #140  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2023, 1:19 PM
skyscraperaccount skyscraperaccount is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Posts: 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by roger1818 View Post
Just curios, do you work at the experimental farm and have evidence to support your opinion that the experiments there are obsolete and can easily be moved?
I did not state that the experiments are obsolete...I said, explicityly, that perhaps they need to move them. I also didn't say anything about it being 'easily' moved. Why are you making up arguments?
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Downtown & Urban Ottawa
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:29 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.