General Update/Rumour thread [Suburban Ottawa]

[Harley613]

I love that the Plateau is getting the best mid rise density of any suburb in the NCR by a country mile, but it's all based on future mass transit that is in jeopardy now. Can you believe all these units are under 3 years old, car based, and served by an overly busy two lane road?!? This is just a tiny piece of what has been built in the last three years, and there is so much more being built.

[OTSkyline]

Love the density, hate the layout. Imagine if they had actually built this with 1 main alley in the middle with ground floor retail, hidden underground parking, a little variety in height & design, patios, playgrounds, etc...

As it stands this is just as worst as a SFH new development in Farrhaven (just a couple of more stories taller). Garbage layout and unwalkable...

[Harley613]

It's a 1.6 km walk from the units at the back to the closest convenience store at Agora. Unbelievable to me that they didn't include a retail component.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Harley613

72 Units of affordable housing going up in the Plateau kitty corner to Agora

Good to see. Seems Gatineau lags behind in new affordable housing projects compared to Ottawa.

Originally Posted by Harley613

I love that the Plateau is getting the best mid rise density of any suburb in the NCR by a country mile, but it's all based on future mass transit that is in jeopardy now. Can you believe all these units are under 3 years old, car based, and served by an overly busy two lane road?!? This is just a tiny piece of what has been built in the last three years, and there is so much more being built.

I agree with OTSkyline, good density, terrible community layout. The school barely has a yard for the kids to play (though I blame the Province for that).

On transit, this seems typical in the NCR, high density development based on promised transit that will never come. Carling, Baseline, Kanata North. Meanwhile, Riverside South, which has rapid transit, is developing retail parking lots around the station, while two other stations are in rural areas.

[J.OT13]

Did they name Le Plateau de la Capitale after Le Plateau-Mont-Royal in Montreal? Like, did they think "density and walk-up apartments, it's EXCATLY like Plateau in Montreal!!" while forgetting everything that makes Plateau in Montreal awesome?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Did they name Le Plateau de la Capitale after Le Plateau-Mont-Royal in Montreal? Like, did they think "density and walk-up apartments, it's EXCATLY like Plateau in Montreal!!" while forgetting everything that makes Plateau in Montreal awesome?

Don't think so. It's kind of a plateau topographically, as it's a flat area at the top of a small hill (up St-Raymond) but that's also right at the bottom of where the hills of Gatineau Park begin.

[Harley613]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Don't think so. It's kind of a plateau topographically, as it's a flat area at the top of a small hill (up St-Raymond) but that's also right at the bottom of where the hills of Gatineau Park begin.

Correct. It's very much an actual plateau, hence the name.

[roger1818]

I figure this is too small a development to be worth its own thread (Moderators feel free to move this if I'm wrong).

The owners (Natalie Taite and Chuks Onwuachi) are requesting a zoning change from Residential First Density subzone D (R1D) to to Residential Fourth Density subzone Z with a site specific exception (R4Z[XXX]). The plan is to provide 5 units of affordable family housing (3 x 2 bedroom and 2 x 3 bedroom units) and are requesting an exemption to provide only 5 parking spaces instead of the required 6 (which seems reasonable for affordable housing).

I only watched about half of this meeting, as I got tired of all the NIMBY complaints (I wish I was watching live as I would have voiced my support and called out all of the Karens). I was very impressed with the owners, who seemed passionate about giving back by providing affordable housing to those who need it, and seemed very interested in listening to the resident's concerns. The owners seemed willing to put a lease requirement that the tenants are not allowed to own a car to keep all of the parking spaces available for visitors.

It seems to me to be an ideal missing middle development. My only concern is that the location isn't all that walkable right now, but that will hopefully change with both the planned and potential developments nearby. That is more of a concern for the viability of the development, and shouldn't be a concern for the city. I certainly beleive this block shouldn't be zoned R1.

• Video Link

The development application can be found here.

Glen Gower's page on the file is here.

[J.OT13]

Pretty modest development. Fits well with the area off the quickly densifying Stittsville Main. Not particularly pretty, but neither is anything else in the immediate area.

The owners (Natalie Taite and Chuks Onwuachi) are requesting a zoning change from Residential First Density subzone D (R1D) to to Residential Fourth Density subzone Z with a site specific exception (R4Z[XXX]). The plan is to provide 5 units of affordable family housing (3 x 2 bedroom and 2 x 3 bedroom units) and are requesting an exemption to provide only 5 parking spaces instead of the required 6 (which seems reasonable for affordable housing).

Was this not already done by the big guy at Queen's Park?

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Pretty modest development. Fits well with the area off the quickly densifying Stittsville Main. Not particularly pretty, but neither is anything else in the immediate area.



Was this not already done by the big guy at Queen's Park?

I think visitor parking requirements only got wiped out for singles, semis and maybe a triplex but not a 'low rise apartment'. Or maybe it was that where you need parking it only needs to be 1 space per single, semi or unit in a triplex province wide.

I watched this video off and on a day or so ago and the architect was impressive (and patient) and so were the owners.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Proof Sheet

I think visitor parking requirements only got wiped out for singles, semis and maybe a triplex but not a 'low rise apartment'. Or maybe it was that where you need parking it only needs to be 1 space per single, semi or unit in a triplex province wide.

I watched this video off and on a day or so ago and the architect was impressive (and patient) and so were the owners.

I meant the elimination of R1 for R4 minimum, not the parking. I guess I quoted a bit too much of Roger's post.

I do think Queen's Park should have banned parking minimums outright. That would have big huge to make housing easier and cheaper to build, and be a small win for the fight against climate change.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Pretty modest development. Fits well with the area off the quickly densifying Stittsville Main. Not particularly pretty, but neither is anything else in the immediate area.

That was my thought as well, but the architect said she tried to match the housing style of the area.

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Was this not already done by the big guy at Queen's Park?

I'm not sure. I thought the "More Homes Built Faster Act" only allows suites, duplexes and townhomes in R1 zoning, but not not low rise apartments.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Proof Sheet

I watched this video off and on a day or so ago

You have thicker skin than me. I started watching it late Tuesday night and I couldn't watch stand to hear anymore of the NIMBY complaints.

Originally Posted by Proof Sheet

and the architect was impressive (and patient) and so were the owners.

Agreed. It seemed to me (I could be wrong) as though Natalie started to tear up at one point (I couldn't blame her), but she pulled herself together which was very impressive. They seem to be good people.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by roger1818

(I wish I was watching live as I would have voiced my support and called out all of the Karens).

You could always post a comment on the YouTube in support of the project and thanking the owners and architect for their thoughtful proposal, and of course email and the City and Gower in support.

The people who make an effort to propose thoughtful intensification, those independent locals, but also the developers who propose things that aren't trash, need to know they have support and it's not all NIMBY jackasses.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by roger1818

You have thicker skin than me. I started watching it late Tuesday night and I couldn't watch stand to hear anymore of the NIMBY complaints.



Agreed. It seemed to me (I could be wrong) as though Natalie started to tear up at one point (I couldn't blame her), but she pulled herself together which was very impressive. They seem to be good people.

Finally had the chance to watch it all. Most was pretty tame; lack of sidewalks and lighting (which is fair, City should move on that asap) traffic light. Then a lot of assumptions that everyone has two cars, which is a very privileged way of thinking. One suggested the accessible spot will never be used, I guess because no one is actually mobility impaired in her entourage.

The second to last one though, accusing the owners of being disingenuous about the affordable housing component, first claiming they are just saying that now, but will flip when it's built, or sell, and then saying it's not actually affordable. If she has a problem with the definition of affordable housing, she should take it up with the Province and Feds. She was a piece of work and should have been booted out.

For what it's worth, I see a lot of people in suburbia with huge driveways that still park on the street. Those are probably the same who complain about lack of parking.

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Finally had the chance to watch it all. Most was pretty tame; lack of sidewalks and lighting (which is fair, City should move on that asap) traffic light. Then a lot of assumptions that everyone has two cars, which is a very privileged way of thinking. One suggested the accessible spot will never be used, I guess because no one is actually mobility impaired in her entourage.

The second to last one though, accusing the owners of being disingenuous about the affordable housing component, first claiming they are just saying that now, but will flip when it's built, or sell, and then saying it's not actually affordable. If she has a problem with the definition of affordable housing, she should take it up with the Province and Feds. She was a piece of work and should have been booted out.

For what it's worth, I see a lot of people in suburbia with huge driveways that still park on the street. Those are probably the same who complain about lack of parking.

Lots of examples in the suburbs of double car garages and double car driveways and a three car household and guess what one car ends up being on the road as the garage is full of junk

[harls]

Originally Posted by Proof Sheet

Lots of examples in the suburbs of double car garages and double car driveways and a three car household and guess what one car ends up being on the road as the garage is full of junk

I bought a semi-detached in Aylmer in 2007, built in 1966.. and the garage is a joke. You'd have to watch your mirrors scraping the sides. I don't think it was ever made for a car... especially the big boats they built in the mid-60's.

Not one person on my street uses their garage for a car-hole. Ski gear, bicycles, racks of camping gear, spare tires.. maybe thow in a tool box.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by harls

I bought a semi-detached in Aylmer in 2007, built in 1966.. and the garage is a joke. You'd have to watch your mirrors scraping the sides. I don't think it was ever made for a car... especially the big boats they built in the mid-60's.

Not one person on my street uses their garage for a car-hole. Ski gear, bicycles, racks of camping gear, spare tires.. maybe thow in a tool box.

We had a townhouse built in 89 with a very small garage. We would park the Yaris in there over the winter, but it was impossible to get out through the passenger side, and difficult from the driver side. Even worse the few times we parked my two door Focus. A modern mid-sized would not have fit unless you got out through the sunroof.

[roger1818]

Glen Gower wrote an FAQ titled "WHY ARE THERE SO MANY APPLICATIONS FOR APARTMENTS IN STITTSVILLE THESE DAYS?" While it is obviously Stittsville focused, it is still well worth a read. It is long so I won't copy the entire thing, but here are some points I though were interesting:

Recently-approved projects include:

• Lépine’s René’s Court on Robert Grant Avenue (500 apartments);
• Broadstreet Properties’ Blackstone Village (400 apartments);
• North American Development Group’s pair of buildings on Huntmar (350 apartments); and
• Bayview Group’s 71-unit building under construction next to Papa Sam’s on Stittsville Main.

(Reformatted by me to add bullets)

AFAIK, only the last (and smallest) has a thread in this forum (The Landing [1364-1370 Stittsville Main St] | 14m | 4f | Approved)

EDIT: Broadstreet Properties’ Blackstone Village is 360 Bobolink Ridge | 19m | 4 x 6f | Proposed

and under Question 9, he actually admits:

Lower density suburban neighbourhoods, such as Crossing Bridge or Cypress Gardens, typically don’t generate enough tax revenue to pay for services. In newer suburban neighbourhoods with a higher density such as Westwood, Bradley Commons, or Edenwylde the taxes collected come closer to covering the cost of services delivered. You could say that across the entire city, higher-density neighbourhoods “subsidize” the lower tax revenue of lower-density neighbourhoods. (See Hemson Consulting Report, 2021)

[MountainView]

I noticed that some site prep is underway here... shrub/vegetation has mostly been cleared and is currently flat dirt:

Riverside South Business Park