265 Catherine St [Former Greyhound terminal] | 110/117/127m | 32/34/36f | Site Prep

[Williamoforange]

https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/three-apar...tawa-1.6936259

And to the surprise of no one who's paying attention, Troster takes issue with the height of the building, among other things. Is it really so hard to ask for a Urban "Progressive" councilor that isn't a hypocrite.

[DesignerGuy]

The heights have already been reduced. IMO i think the new heights of each building are more balanced as a whole. It's the perfect spot for height and density and is within walking distance of The Glebe, Lansdowne, The Market, Bank and Elgin. Living at SOBA, i know Catherine gets busy at rush hour but it's such convenient access to the Queensway and about a 15-20 min walk to Queen /Parliament LRT stations.

[Westbro]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/three-apar...tawa-1.6936259

And to the surprise of no one who's paying attention, Troster takes issue with the height of the building, among other things. Is it really so hard to ask for a Urban "Progressive" councilor that isn't a hypocrite.

I think when it comes to whole city planning and outside their wards they can be progressive etc. But from a purely democratic health standpoint councilors should represent their constituents on local issues.

I would prefer if they changed their language a bit and made it more obvious that the concerns are of citizens not necessarily their office, but if a councilor doesn't represent constituents at all we shouldn't bother with council and just hand over the whole of planning power to the bureaucrats and technocrats.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by Westbro

I think when it comes to whole city planning and outside their wards they can be progressive etc. But from a purely democratic health standpoint councilors should represent their constituents on local issues.

I would prefer if they changed their language a bit and made it more obvious that the concerns are of citizens not necessarily their office, but if a councilor doesn't represent constituents at all we shouldn't bother with council and just hand over the whole of planning power to the bureaucrats and technocrats.

See I keep hearing local nimbys councillors defend themselves with that type of B.S statements...to which my reply is then 1) Council should be removed from the process and it sent to the province or 2) wards themselves should be removed and a "at-large" system instituted

They represent the needs of the city AT large just as much as the local wards, and the view of the vocal minority does not equal the view of the ward at large, to which Menard, Troster, & leiper should remember. Less they only care about those that donate to them.


https://www.thecgo.org/research/ward...ly-and-nimbys/

[ponyboycurtis]

I think at the end of the day, no matter you propose for 'grey field' or vacant lots like this people will complain. A 40 story building or a row of townhouse you will have some opposition.

Aside from an adjacent connection to LRT this is a pretty obvious spot for densification. It doesn't even have to be 40+ floors but it needs to be high rise buildings of some sort. You have the 6,7 on Bank st. The 10 on Bronson and the 14 on Gladstone so in theory it's well served by transit.

There are so many vacant pieces of land within the city proper that only make sense for high density and we need building on them. Heck. Half of them don't even need to have anything torn down like the Lonestar location. Just look at Bank st south of the Rideau.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

See I keep hearing local nimbys councillors defend themselves with that type of B.S statements...to which my reply is then 1) Council should be removed from the process and it sent to the province or 2) wards themselves should be removed and a "at-large" system instituted

They represent the needs of the city AT large just as much as the local wards, and the view of the vocal minority does not equal the view of the ward at large, to which Menard, Troster, & leiper should remember. Less they only care about those that donate to them.


https://www.thecgo.org/research/ward...ly-and-nimbys/

Even if someone doesn't officially represent an area, they will still have bias based on where they live. And such a system could further reduce urban representation (though I'm sure that would be a positive for you).

On the project, I was ok with the initial reduction in height of the taller towers that came with an increase of the shortest, which looked out of place in the initial proposal.

I'm disappointed to hear some people still oppose the height, but I don't think it will stop the project. These will still be the two tallest towers in Centretown and could set a new precedent, in a good way.

This is exactly the kind of site we should develop with taller, denser projects that also bring plenty of retail and green space. No heritage lost, and it will add a lot to the community.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Even if someone doesn't officially represent an area, they will still have bias based on where they live. And such a system could further reduce urban representation (though I'm sure that would be a positive for you).

On the project, I was ok with the initial reduction in height of the taller towers that came with an increase of the shortest, which looked out of place in the initial proposal.

I'm disappointed to hear some people still oppose the height, but I don't think it will stop the project. These will still be the two tallest towers in Centretown and could set a new precedent, in a good way.

This is exactly the kind of site we should develop with taller, denser projects that also bring plenty of retail and green space. No heritage lost, and it will add a lot to the community.

I'm perfectly happy if it means less nimbyism in the Urban area of Ottawa, if you think that applies mostly to Urban councillors being the nimbys.....well...

We needed more housing a decade ago, we declared an housing emergency 4 years ago, and were still deciding that in the new ZBL that the core should be limited to 4-6 stories.... So screw heritage designations this is a city not a museum and any councillor that defends low-rise zoning for the core

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

I'm perfectly happy if it means less nimbyism in the Urban area of Ottawa, if you think that applies mostly to Urban councillors being the nimbys.....well...

We needed more housing a decade ago, we declared an housing emergency 4 years ago, and were still deciding that in the new ZBL that the core should be limited to 4-6 stories.... So screw heritage designations this is a city not a museum and any councillor that defends low-rise zoning for the core

Your focus seems mostly set on urban Councillors' real or perceived NIMBYism, that's why I presented it as such. You never seem to take issue with suburban Councillors' overt NIMBYism. That says more about you.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Your focus seems mostly set on urban Councillors' real or perceived NIMBYism, that's why I presented it as such. You never seem to take issue with suburban Councillors' overt NIMBYism. That says more about you.

I go after Brockington, devine, Johnston, Kavanaugh/Cullen as well as other suburban councillors when they oppose density, there are just less projects out that way. The far flung suburban/rural councillors also don't normally run on platforms calling for intensification and oppose suburban sprawl, while then opposing intensification, such as menard/Leiper and other Urban councillors.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

I go after Brockington, devine, Johnston, Kavanaugh/Cullen as well as other suburban councillors when they oppose density, there are just less projects out that way. The far flung suburban/rural councillors also don't normally run on platforms calling for intensification and oppose suburban sprawl, while then opposing intensification, such as menard/Leiper and other Urban councillors.

So your list only includes progressive Councillors. How about Tierney, who's so passionate about housing until he gets his colleagues to vote against a tower project at Blair and Montreal? Or Dudas who killed road improvements at Convent Glen Station because it would slow down cars? Or Luloff who delayed an affordable housing project in Orleans because of parking?

And in your book, it's ok to be against intensification in your own neighbourhood, as long as your transparent about it and vote in favour of projects within the Greenbelt, literal NIMBYism? But it's not ok for urban Councillors to work with a developer to make a project a little bit smaller to make it more palatable to the people who elected them?

Your positions seem to be more partisan than anything.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

So your list only includes progressive Councillors. How about Tierney, who's so passionate about housing until he gets his colleagues to vote against a tower project at Blair and Montreal? Or Dudas who killed road improvements at Convent Glen Station because it would slow down cars? Or Luloff who delayed an affordable housing project in Orleans because of parking?

And in your book, it's ok to be against intensification in your own neighbourhood, as long as your transparent about it and vote in favour of projects within the Greenbelt, literal NIMBYism? But it's not ok for urban Councillors to work with a developer to make a project a little bit smaller to make it more palatable to the people who elected them?

Your positions seem to be more partisan than anything.

I've gone after them all when they go against housing, so I don't know what your getting at.

And there's nothing progressive about any of them, if there opposing housing in there ward after campaigning for growth through intensification and not Greenfield development. It's not progressive to fight to increase the cost of housing, nor progressive to saddle new immigrants/new residents with the cost of infrastructure for infills via inflated dev fees.

Almost nobody on council is doing good on housing. The loudest nimbys just happen to be the Urban ones.

P.S and no in the middle a housing crisis no councillor should be trying to stop units from being built specifically on infill.

[Davis137]

I dunno, as a constituent of Mr. Brockington, I haven't seen any outright examples of him being opposed to development and intensification...quite the opposite actually.

I say this, considering that the 2nd phase of the Revalie on Brookfield is currently above grade, Brigil has begun the excavation and shoring up of their project on Ridgewood, the Docks on Riverside project that started in the last couple of weeks...that is a LOT of redevelopment in a small area.

From my interactions with him, and other staff from the city, it would seem that infill projects for housing and amenities within the urban boundaries of the city is of greater importance/value than the suburban sprawl outside the greenbelt.

[YOWflier]

Mr. Brockington has either outright opposed or materially contributed to the shittification of developments involving the airport/lands. You can thank him in no small part for the scaled back Alt Hotel, and he vehemently opposed the clearing of useless “trees” on Hunt Club that is now a parcel offered for development.

[zzptichka]

Originally Posted by Davis137

I dunno, as a constituent of Mr. Brockington, I haven't seen any outright examples of him being opposed to development and intensification...quite the opposite actually.

I say this, considering that the 2nd phase of the Revalie on Brookfield is currently above grade, Brigil has begun the excavation and shoring up of their project on Ridgewood, the Docks on Riverside project that started in the last couple of weeks...that is a LOT of redevelopment in a small area.

From my interactions with him, and other staff from the city, it would seem that infill projects for housing and amenities within the urban boundaries of the city is of greater importance/value than the suburban sprawl outside the greenbelt.

Some people here see anything other than rubber-stamping applications as opposition to densification.

Then we end up with the Great Wall of Rideau urbanism and Claridge quality, where people don't want to live and run as soon as they save enough for a down payment in the suburbs.

[Davis137]

Originally Posted by YOWflier

Mr. Brockington has either outright opposed or materially contributed to the shittification of developments involving the airport/lands. You can thank him in no small part for the scaled back Alt Hotel, and he vehemently opposed the clearing of useless “trees” on Hunt Club that is now a parcel offered for development.

Most of us are aware that originally Otto's BMW wanted to buy and repurpose the land for expanded inventory, which they tried to more than once and failed. This was the main reason he was against the proposal(s), he was respecting the concerns of the people in the Uplands and Huntclub neighborhoods who were of the opinion the proposal would turn into a bait and switch for something else. Further, as far as I am aware, after additional inspection, it was determined that the trees in that location genuinely needed to be felled due to issues with their health (bugs, disease, and the last few major storms that we have encountered in recent years have all shortened their lifespan). A lot of trees have had to come down in Confederation Heights and Mooney's bay too, due to similar factors (bugs, disease, weather bombardment), as well as they were also at end of life

Anyways, this has drifted off topic for the thread...

The former Greyhound terminal site has been a target for high-rise development for a LONG time. I think as others mentioned, it would make sense to have setbacks from the north frontage of the property, towards the south, with the taller structures facing Catherine and the 417.

There are lots of people that agree (at least in-part) that Catherine has been a dogs breakfast of various small office buildings, brownfields and neglected houses and apartment buildings from Kent to Bronson, and developments like this, if executed properly would be a step in the right direction for enticing more residents to consider midtown and downtown living...

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Davis137

I dunno, as a constituent of Mr. Brockington, I haven't seen any outright examples of him being opposed to development and intensification...quite the opposite actually.

I say this, considering that the 2nd phase of the Revalie on Brookfield is currently above grade, Brigil has begun the excavation and shoring up of their project on Ridgewood, the Docks on Riverside project that started in the last couple of weeks...that is a LOT of redevelopment in a small area.

From my interactions with him, and other staff from the city, it would seem that infill projects for housing and amenities within the urban boundaries of the city is of greater importance/value than the suburban sprawl outside the greenbelt.

Originally Posted by zzptichka

Some people here see anything other than rubber-stamping applications as opposition to densification.

Then we end up with the Great Wall of Rideau urbanism and Claridge quality, where people don't want to live and run as soon as they save enough for a down payment in the suburbs.

I agree with you both. Other than maybe Menard, and former Councillors like Diane Holmes, I haven't seen any overtly NIMBY urban Councillors . They support some projects, they oppose others, but mostly they try to work with the developer to find something that will add density while respecting existing residents (sometimes to the dismay of those residents who are truly NIMBY).

Rural Councillors aside, Hubley might be the only overtly NIMBY Councillor, voting against very reasonable proposals oin his own Ward. Tierney's votes go with his strongest supporters (and donors). Probably similar with a few others. Gower is probably the most balanced of the suburban Councillors. He's a good one to have on Planning.

For me NIMBY isn't "not in my backyard" as much as "Nothing in my backyard". It's those who opposed ANYTHING and EVERYTHING, even when it's within zoning. City - "Do you want the sidescraper within zoning, or this slim tower that has the same amount of units allowed but will cast a faster moving, narrower shadow?" NothingIMBY "I want neither !!!"

Someone who says "I see what you're proposing, but would you consider these concessions to meet in the middle" is not NIMBY in my book.

But I digress. We will never be able to convince William, and that's just fine.

Back on topic, this is a terrific project for the area and the City, and I sincerely hope it passes unanimously.

[SL123]

Approved by Planning and Housing Committee

[DesignerGuy]

Originally Posted by SL123

Approved by Planning and Housing Committee

Great news! Any idea when we will see shovels in ground?

[DTcrawler]

Originally Posted by Westbro

I think when it comes to whole city planning and outside their wards they can be progressive etc. But from a purely democratic health standpoint councilors should represent their constituents on local issues.

I would prefer if they changed their language a bit and made it more obvious that the concerns are of citizens not necessarily their office, but if a councilor doesn't represent constituents at all we shouldn't bother with council and just hand over the whole of planning power to the bureaucrats and technocrats.

The problem is which constituents are they supposed to advocate for? I live in her ward and supported the original height, which I noted to her office. The problem is the vast majority of people don’t vehemently advocate for things they’re in support of, only things they’re against. Not to mention old retired NIMBYs have much more free time on their hands.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by DesignerGuy

Great news! Any idea when we will see shovels in ground?

Brigil said they wanted to break ground this year. It will be a phased project.