General Update/Rumour thread [Urban Ottawa]

[waterloowarrior]

Maria Cook has a blog post with some more drawings of the QED triplex and some commentary
http://communities.canada.com/ottawaciti.../is-there-a-right-to-views-part-two.aspx

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

Maria Cook has a blog post with some more drawings of the QED triplex and some commentary
http://communities.canada.com/ottawaciti.../is-there-a-right-to-views-part-two.aspx

Thanks for the link...you can be rest assured this item will get lots of interest at the C of A....I've seen the architect/designer before at the C of A and he is very well prepared.

[k2p]

The article below was in the Citizen, by Michael Polowin. Exactly. Once more, Clive Doucet proves himself incapable of consistent thought. First off, Paris has highrises. They are in the suburbs, where the race riots are. Second, if the solution to Ottawa's sprawl is to build Paris heights around six storeys, that means no having single-family dwellings in places like the Glebe, Centretown, Sandy Hill, Westboro, Hintonburg etc.

Anyway, good article...


Last week, while waiting for one of my own matters to be heard, I had the questionable pleasure of watching much of another development proposal go before the city's planning and environment committee.

The issue is one previously written about in these pages, but for me it represented a window into the ongoing battle over intensification and development in our city.

It was a proposal by the Regional Group to place a development near the western end of Baseline Road, adjacent to the Qualicum neighbourhood. Composed of towers ranging from four to 12 storeys, the proposal attracted a great deal of heat and light.

Representations were made about the impact on micro-climates, affordable housing, traffic and many other matters, all led by the ward councillor.

Great debate then ensued among the councillors, many attempting to reduce the height of the proposal far below that desired by the developer.

For me, the only really memorable remark of the entire episode came from Councillor Gord Hunter, who posed a question along these lines: "If we are going to put 60,000 more people inside the Greenbelt, where are we going to put them if not in towers of eight and 12 storeys?"

In fact, that is the essential question, isn't it? In recent years, our council has voted to promote intensification in the Official Plan and has passed another Official Plan prohibiting in large measure the expansion of the urban boundary, all in an effort to prevent urban sprawl and create a denser city -- and then, time after time, has voted down the very projects that would accomplish exactly that.

Inevitably, city staff support the development proposals, since the proposals conform with the Official Plan council has passed. By the time the proposal reaches planning committee and council, staff have already spent hours wringing concessions from the developer in an attempt to make the plan more palatable to the community and council.

We then witness the spectacle we did last week, of our politicians, with no training in planning or development, trying to substitute their judgment for that of the developers and staff. That exercise inevitably involves ignoring the Official Plan policies.

Often, council votes the proposal down knowing that the Ontario Municipal Board will rule otherwise, thereby allowing council to avoid taking responsibility for development in its own city.

The situation has reached the point that on controversial proposals, staff now include an estimate of cost to the city of an OMB appeal if the proposal is turned down.

One city document indicates that we will have to accommodate at least 260,000 more people and 146,000 more housing units over the next 20 years.

Given recent council decisions, it appears we are going to have to do so without an increase in land to do it and without building any towers.

Councillor Clive Doucet likes to cite Paris as an example of a city in which buildings are only two to six storeys in height.

Someone needs to do a study to determine exactly how many neighbourhoods in Ottawa will have to fall under the wrecking ball to create that many new housing units at that low a density.

Remember, Ottawa is largely a city of single-family homes. Do the study I have described, and I suspect much of the support for positions like that of Councillor Doucet will disappear, even in his own ward.

Will the Glebe Community Association support the destruction of hundreds of homes to accommodate Doucet's vision of Paris on the Rideau?

Our parochial band of councillors, all dancing to the NIMBY tune, are going to have to figure out, and quickly, that we have real choices to make. Not all density can be assigned to someone else's neighbourhood.

We are going to have to do some combination of allowing more highrise development and expansion of the urban boundary, or we are going to end up with a city where the only single-family homes are in the Glebe and Rockcliffe.

For three years, our councillors have taken what appears to them to be the easy road, caving in to the NIMBYs among us.

Next year is an election year and it's not going to get any better. I call on our Planning Committee to ask staff to do the study that I have suggested, since it seems to me that it may be the only way that our elected representatives will ever get any backbone on the subject of intensification.

Only when our councillors understand that fighting every large-scale development inevitably leads to the destruction of their own communities will this nonsense stop.

Michael Polowin practises municipal and commercial real property law.

[ty7er]

I read an article today in the Ottawa Sun about the pedestrian underpass at Rideau and Colonel By Drive winning some award, but I didn't even know that it had been changed. When did they do that? What did they do? Does anybody have a pic? I'd love to see what they've done.

[Kitchissippi]

It's the same dingy hole, with some signage and tables for selling trinkets. I guess the city decided that it was better to populate and animate the "Underpass", as it is now called, with vendors rather than let it become a bleak hangout for unsavoury characters. In other words, it's lipstick on a pig but the place is no longer a wild bore

[rakerman]

It's quite true that the time has long passed to Haussmann-ize Ottawa. Ottawa is never going to be Paris. It's never going to be New York. In general we can only look to European (and successful North American) cities for inspiration, not for models to copy. It's a long way from low-density single-family with wide streets and fast-moving cars to six-stories as far as the eye can see on narrow streets served by transit. Effectively we need to invent a new 21st century model that makes sense for our climate and situation. This is NOT just building towers. You want to see towers? Walk west down Laurier from Lyon. You won't have any trouble making it down the sidewalk, as there is zero foot traffic, despite the fact there must be thousands of people jammed in those hideous concrete towers. We can't do that again. We need unzoned, mixed-use, life on the street and we need a city that is aiming for street life. Copenhagen had zero tradition of cafes and cycling. They spent 40 years making a pedestrian and cyclist-friendly, outdoors city. That's what we need to do. 'When all this started 40 years ago, there was no culture of public space and public life. Everybody said: "We are not Italians, we are Danes. It will never work here. It's for the Southern Europeans, and here the mentality is not for mingling in the streets," all this kind of stuff.' http://www.metropolismag.com/html/content_0802/ped/index_b.html Clive is justifiably frustrated in seeing (generally) nothing but developer big-box and generic condo tower. But the residents of the city are frustrated that there's no coherent plan to get us from zoned logging town to functioning city of cafes, cyclists and pedestrians.

[harls]

Dead 2001 condo proposal in Hull that has found life again - Cartier Wellington (14 fl), at Wellington and Leduc (currently a parking lot).



Le story.

[Mille Sabords]

Originally Posted by rakerman

It's quite true that the time has long passed to Haussmann-ize Ottawa. Ottawa is never going to be Paris. It's never going to be New York. In general we can only look to European (and successful North American) cities for inspiration, not for models to copy. It's a long way from low-density single-family with wide streets and fast-moving cars to six-stories as far as the eye can see on narrow streets served by transit. Effectively we need to invent a new 21st century model that makes sense for our climate and situation. This is NOT just building towers. You want to see towers? Walk west down Laurier from Lyon. You won't have any trouble making it down the sidewalk, as there is zero foot traffic, despite the fact there must be thousands of people jammed in those hideous concrete towers. We can't do that again. We need unzoned, mixed-use, life on the street and we need a city that is aiming for street life. Copenhagen had zero tradition of cafes and cycling. They spent 40 years making a pedestrian and cyclist-friendly, outdoors city. That's what we need to do. 'When all this started 40 years ago, there was no culture of public space and public life. Everybody said: "We are not Italians, we are Danes. It will never work here. It's for the Southern Europeans, and here the mentality is not for mingling in the streets," all this kind of stuff.' http://www.metropolismag.com/html/content_0802/ped/index_b.html Clive is justifiably frustrated in seeing (generally) nothing but developer big-box and generic condo tower. But the residents of the city are frustrated that there's no coherent plan to get us from zoned logging town to functioning city of cafes, cyclists and pedestrians.

This is an excellent point you make. I think we are readier than we think here. We've been given a taste and we like it. Why would we deprive ourselves of things we like?

[k2p]

I totally agree, too. That wasteland along Laurier has given high-rise buildings a bad name in Ottawa, rightly so. But things have come a long way in 30 years and I can think of many cities that beautifully integrate height with human-scale, lively street life.

These are mostly American, but Toronto and Vancouver do it well in parts, as do some cities in Australia/NZ.

The problem is the places where it could really work -- mainly in Centretown -- are hostage to people who fundamentally dislike lively cities. So we're stuck with the Doucets/Holmes of the world who for excellent reasons like European cities without much height, and try to recreate them while protecting the high number of single-family dwellings in Ottawa's core.

As Milles said, the first greenshoots of North American urban life are sprouting. And it's so frustrating to see them fought in the name of some Paris utopia (and Paris is anything but utopian in the places tourists don't visit) just because Laurier/Lyon was ruined in the 1970s.

[Richard Eade]

It sounds like Councillor Bedard has it in mind that there should be no cars/trucks on the roads, and in order to achieve that end, he wants to cause as much disruption for drivers as possible. From the agenda for the Transportation Committee Meeting of Oct. 7, 2009:

COUNCILLOR / CONSEILLER G. BÉDARD

12. REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO ENCROACHMENT BY-LAW 2003-446

DEMANDE DE MODIFICATION AU RÈGLEMENT 2003-446 SUR LES DROITS D’EMPIÈTEMENT

ACS2009-CCS-TRC-0012 city wide / à l’échelle de la ville 132

That the Transportation Committee recommend that Council direct Planning and Growth Management staff to amend the Encroachment By-law in order to permit the placement of small tables and chairs on municipal highways, and to report back to Committee and Council before the end of 2009.

Que le Comité des transports recommande au Conseil d’ordonner au personnel de la Direction de l’urbanisme et de la gestion de la croissance de modifier le Règlement municipal sur les droits d’empiètement de façon à permettre l’installation de petites tables et de chaises le long des routes municipales, et de faire rapport au Comité et au Conseil avant la fin de 2009.

I wonder how many points you get for hitting a small table or chair?

Of course, he might just be trying to get those two chairs and table to be allowed out on the sidewalk bordering Sussex again.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

It sounds like Councillor Bedard has it in mind that there should be no cars/trucks on the roads, and in order to achieve that end, he wants to cause as much disruption for drivers as possible. From the agenda for the Transportation Committee Meeting of Oct. 7, 2009:


I wonder how many points you get for hitting a small table or chair?

Of course, he might just be trying to get those two chairs and table to be allowed out on the sidewalk bordering Sussex again.

"le long" translates to "along", not "on".

[waterloowarrior]

Limited sale of Bayview property in works
Councillor, group hail plan, but critic opposed to land speculation
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Limited+sale+Bayview+property+works/2065998/story.html

By Kate Jaimet, the Ottawa CitizenOctober 4, 2009 10:07 PM




Photograph by: Dennis Leung, The Ottawa Citizen


OTTAWA — The city is preparing to sell part of the former Bayview Public School lands for private housing, under a restrictive contract that would prevent developers from building highrise towers on the prime site near Mooney’s Bay and would keep part of the land as a public soccer field.

The sale, if approved by council, will be the culmination of work begun two years ago by River Councillor Maria McRae, who convinced her colleagues on council to buy the 10-acre property for $8 million when the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board decided to close the school and sell the property.

McRae, who has the support of the Riverside Park Community Association, said if council had not stepped forward in 2007 with an offer to purchase the site, a developer could have bought it and filled it with condo towers.

“Many, many developers are licking their chops over that site,” McRae said.

“It’s a prime infill development. I’m very happy that so far we have had, as a city and as a community, the opportunity to control the future of that property.”

But some nearby residents feel that since the city bought the property, it shouldn’t sell the land for private housing.

“All of us would love to see an old people’s home or something that would benefit the whole community,” said Corina Simon, who lives in the neighbourhood. “It’s also an issue of principle, that the city uses public money to essentially speculate in the property market. I don’t think public money should be used by the city to make a huge profit that doesn’t go to benefit the community.”

The issue dates back to June 2007, when the school board notified the city that it intended to sell the property. Under Ontario Education Act regulations, the board must offer the property for sale to other public entities, including the municipal government, before accepting offers from private bidders.

After a long negotiation, complicated by contamination from a furnace-oil spill on the property, the city bought the land in October 2008. The school was demolished as part of the de-contamination.

Prior to the purchase, a number of public delegations appeared before council’s corporate services committee to argue that the site should be kept in public hands. Proposed uses for the site included playing fields, a recreation centre, and an old-age home. However, there was also acknowledgement during the discussion that part of the site could be sold to allow council to recoup its costs.

After a community meeting in May, city staff presented a proposal at a second meeting last month. According to the draft development concept, about a quarter of the property would become a sports field and fieldhouse, with a skating rink in the winter. A green perimeter would buffer the site from adjacent properties. Inside that perimeter would be a mix of low-density housing (possibly townhouses or semi-detached units) and medium-density housing (four- to six-storey condominiums or apartment buildings). McRae said an old-age home would also be a possibility, if someone came forward with a proposal to build and fund it.

Bill Smith, president of the Riverside Park Community Association, acknowledged that residents are divided over the city’s proposal, but the association supports it.

“We don’t have issues with it so far,” Smith said.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

Here's the site (school in the foreground just above the world 'air') from globalairphotos.com


(click to enlarge)

[Kitchissippi]

McRae, who has the support of the Riverside Park Community Association, said if council had not stepped forward in 2007 with an offer to purchase the site, a developer could have bought it and filled it with condo towers.

It's sad when councillors themselves play the anti-intensification game just to score points. The city should have no business in promoting low density residential especially within the Greenbelt

[bikegypsy]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

It's sad when councillors themselves play the anti-intensification game just to score points. The city should have no business in promoting low density residential especially within the Greenbelt

I agree. The lowest density constructions that should be permitted within the greenbelt are townhouses. Having said that, we should really be aiming at medium density in most areas.

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

It's sad when councillors themselves play the anti-intensification game just to score points. The city should have no business in promoting low density residential especially within the Greenbelt

This happens all the time with local Councillors.....they are just trying to appease those people who put them into their jobs.....there is a constant battle between City Planner/Landowners who often want more density that conforms with the OP and PPS versus the homeowners/Councillors who want low density residential just like their own homes....often time the final answer comes courtesy of the OMB.

[bikegypsy]

On the subject of sprawl... Ottawa seriously has to start looking at options not to lose out in the core. It's as if we hooked ourselves years ago.



Public Works sets timeline for Elgin property redevelopment
By Peter Kovessy, Ottawa Business Journal Staff
Mon, Oct 5, 2009 12:00 AM EST

Click to Enlarge
The Lorne Building on Elgin Street. (Etienne Ranger, OBJ)Federal government falling behind provinces in building P3 capacity, observer says

The federal government plans to tear down one of its aged downtown office buildings and erect a new structure by 2014, Public Works officials say.

The redevelopment project will take place on the site of the seven-storey Lorne Building, located on Elgin Street beside the Lord Elgin Hotel, and the 32,000-square-foot surface parking lot behind it.

The Crown-owned lot is one of the last remaining downtown building sites, and its pending development is renewing calls to review current height restrictions that limit density in Ottawa's core.

The 48-year-old Lorne Building, formerly home of the National Gallery of Canada, could be completely or partially demolished as part of the project, said Public Works spokesperson Nathalie Betote Akwa.

The mechanical systems inside the 195,000-square-foot building have reached the end of their useful life and it is becoming increasingly difficult for the federal government to ensure it meets accommodation standards for public servants.

Public Works said earlier this year that the office building would be vacated by the summer. The department now says the several hundred bureaucrats working in the Lorne Building will be relocated by the middle of next year.

While the federal government has not yet defined the scope of the project, pressure is already building on Public Works to ensure the new building is befitting of its prestigious address, just steps away from East Block and the National War Memorial.

"This is prime real estate," said Geoffrey Gilbert, a business law partner at Ogilvy Renault.

"This is on Elgin, the gateway to our downtown ... One would think there are lots of interesting opportunities for development there."

The level of private-sector involvement in the project will depend on the procurement model selected by Public Works. It could be as straightforward as a hiring a general contracting firm to construct a new building, or a more complex public-private partnership, or P3, where more risk is passed to developers.

The federal government demonstrated its increasing interest in P3 developments earlier this year when it announced plans to build an 890,000-square-foot building in Gloucester for Canada's national cryptologic agency.

The new headquarters for Communications Security Establishment Canada will be built on a sprawling 89-acre, Crown-owned greenfield site at Blair and Ogilvie roads using a P3 model known as "design-build-finance-maintain."

CSEC, which collects foreign intelligence and protects the government's electronic information and communications, will pay an annual fee to the successful vendor for the 30-year contract. The Crown will own all the buildings constructed under the agreement.

Mr. Gilbert said the CSEC project is well-suited for a P3 development because the tenant, and its needs, is clearly identified. For example, it may not be appropriate to have large, open exterior windows, given the clandestine nature of CSEC's operations.

"I don't think in the generic office space world, it is that easy," said Mr. Gilbert.

"If they want it to be a success, they've got to talk early and often and plan this thing out so it is going to meet somebody's need and not just be a faceless building."

In this case, Mr. Gilbert said the federal government is falling behind some provinces in establishing a Crown corporation or agency dedicated to public-private partnerships. While PPP Canada is in its early stages – a $1.2-billion fund was established last month to support public infrastructure projects – the federal government lacks a single vision and defined set of rules found elsewhere, such as Infrastructure Ontario and Partnerships British Columbia, he said.

Such organizations can talk to the ministry clients that will occupy the building to ensure plans reflect their needs, and then find the best resources and uses for a site.

"It is unfortunate that Public Works is not really there," said Mr. Gilbert.

Although Public Works is still working to define the scope of the Elgin Street project, municipal zoning rules offer a hint of the site's potential. The city's new comprehensive zoning bylaw caps building heights on the property to approximately 150 metres above sea level. Ottawa is roughly 114 metres above sea level, creating an effective height limit of 36 metres or 12 storeys, assuming each floor is three metres high.

This height is keeping with the rest of the buildings on the block, including the 12-storey NavCan Building at Albert and Metcalfe streets and the 12-storey Capital Hill Hotel. However, it is shorter than some of the other buildings in the vicinity, such as the 22-storey Sixty-Six Slater building to the south and the 16-storey Manulife Place to the north.

"The height restrictions we have right now are a hindrance to development in the downtown," said Kelvin Holmes, managing director of commercial real estate service firm Colliers International Ottawa.

"We are running out of development sites in the core and, if we want to continue the growth of the core, you have to build up."

Mr. Holmes said the new building is unlikely to have a significant impact on the federal government's ongoing need for office space, noting Public Works is starting to take a serious look at expanding outside the core.

They are already leasing some space in Kanata and are advancing a strategy of creating public-sector employment "nodes." Earlier this year, the federal government purchased a 29.6-acre development site at St. Laurent Boulevard and Highway 417 and released initial solicitation documents to plan the redevelopment of the Tunney's Pasture complex. The federal government is also widely expected to eventually occupy Nortel Networks's massive Carling Avenue campus.

"They will always have a certain requirement to be (close) to the Hill," said Mr. Holmes.

"But I wouldn't be surprised if we start to see more departments move out of the downtown core ... It is very expensive to build downtown and it's a lot easier to pick up a site in the suburbs and develop out there."


---


SIZING UP THE PROSPECTS


Location: Elgin Street, between Slater and Albert streets, owned by the federal government


Lorne Building: Currently seven storeys with a total of 195,000 square feet


Adjacent surface parking lot: 32,355 square feet


Height restrictions: Approximately 150 metres above sea level (official city website lists Ottawa being 114 metres above sea level)


Timeline: Project is to be completed by 2014

[bikegypsy]

By the way, check out the little survey about downtown height limits at www.ottawabusinessjournal.com

[Kitchissippi]

"The height restrictions we have right now are a hindrance to development in the downtown," said Kelvin Holmes

Is he Diane Holmes' opposite twin?

[k2p]

Originally Posted by bikegypsy

"Diane Holmes: But I wouldn't be surprised if we start to see more departments move out of the downtown core ... It is very expensive to build downtown and it's a lot easier to pick up a site in the suburbs and develop out there."

So, the councillor for one of the country's most under-used downtowns is unperturbed by jobs and people moving to the suburbs? This, from someone also, allegedly, opposed to sprawl?

Applying the price of building downtown to housing, absurdly clinging to the 12-storey limit only makes the per-floor price higher. Which makes affordable housing more difficult to build, yet Holmes also wants more of that, too.

In other words, vibrancy, density and affordability are all hurt by this 12-storey silliness. I can't think of another city in North America that actively fights revitalization of the core. And apart from the Prairies, can think of no city in more dire need of it.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Is he Diane Holmes' opposite twin?

Yep, and that's why we love him.