General Update/Rumour thread [Urban Ottawa]

[Ryersonian]

I agree the snow is going to be a pain, along with other issues. The roof is slanted to the front to keep water away from the neighbours also the carport will let light cut into the neighbours at certain angles, but if you do a sun and shadow analysis the impact is quite minimal.

What burns me are the comments though TRASHING the neighbours...Anybody can hide behind a user name I guess.

Oh, I agree, any more of these would be nasty but I've been there and it has a sort of charm to it...I say wait to see what goes on with the siding; then we can really rip on it!

[k2p]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Imagine if the entire block was done that way and all you see from the sidewalk is car-stuffed carports. yuck.

That's a brilliant point. Let's talk about a one-off, anorexic house but imagine its spawn stretched over the entire block. Along those lines, imagine if all of Wellington Street were that cathedral thingy...nobody would be out except Sunday morning. Ghastly!

It's a great house. Individual. Funky. Folks on the street seem okay with it. Good for him. The city needs a bit more quirkiness.

[jchamoun79]

Originally Posted by k2p

What a great house!

And what a classic response (from the article)...

Linda Hoad, of the Hintonburg Community Association, unsuccessfully asked the committee to restrict Castro from building a secondary unit, typically a basement apartment.

What purpose do these "community associations" actually serve? Have they ever supported any development or new construction?

It seems all they ever do is whine, complain, and try to block development - wasting everyone's time in the process.

[RTWAP]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

..

I really like what they're proposing for the campus. The details come together nicely into an attractive and functional overall vision.

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by jchamoun79

What purpose do these "community associations" actually serve? Have they ever supported any development or new construction?

It seems all they ever do is whine, complain, and try to block development - wasting everyone's time in the process.

Often times the person as the head of a Community Association is on a stepping stone for running for City Council. I can see at least one head of a CA running for Council in addition to the guy in Beacon Hill who I think already declared.

Many of the CA's do a lot of whining and complaining and they do their best to stop development and claim to represent the entire community.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by k2p

That's a brilliant point. Let's talk about a one-off, anorexic house but imagine its spawn stretched over the entire block. Along those lines, imagine if all of Wellington Street were that cathedral thingy...nobody would be out except Sunday morning. Ghastly!

It's a great house. Individual. Funky. Folks on the street seem okay with it. Good for him. The city needs a bit more quirkiness.

Unfortunately the way things work is that it sets a precedent and that's used to justify all kinds of other stuff later on, e.g. "But he did it; why can't I? That's unfair! I'm being discriminated against!". And off it goes to the OMB where such legalistic arguments ("unfair!"), rather than design arguments ("one adds character but a whole block of them disrupts the streetscape"), will win the day.

As for the cathedral, that's a red herring. It's on differently zoned land so it can't be used as a precedent.

[Ryersonian]

1

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Proof Sheet

Often times the person as the head of a Community Association is on a stepping stone for running for City Council. I can see at least one head of a CA running for Council in addition to the guy in Beacon Hill who I think already declared.

That's one way of putting it. A more charitable way might be that the head of the CA gets sick of what he/she sees as poor representation by their councillor and decides to run, often with the support of the rest of CA board and sometimes the support of other CA boards. I know for example that Maria McRae has managed to piss off a good number of the CAs in her ward.

Many of the CA's do a lot of whining and complaining and they do their best to stop development and claim to represent the entire community.

Unfortunately I think all that whining and complaining to stop development generally is representative of the entire community. On the flip side, the development industry often seems to go out of its way to piss of CAs. Spacing Ottawa has been running a series written by a couple of environmentalists (at least one is a planner) in the Island Park & Wellington/Richmond area detailing their travails with a developer of the property in the northeast corner (an automotive-related property, rather like all the other properties at this intersection unfortunately). This developer is trying to get variances on many of the provisions designed to encourage better urban design, like stepping back at upper levels.

Just once I'd like to see a developer come along on the Wellington/Richmond corridor and put forth a proposal that actually sticks to the provisions governing building design. Every single time there is something, usually intended to make the end result more of a taller, bigger box.

[amanfromnowhere]

Top Ottawa construction permits in December

Published on January 27th, 2010
OBJ Staff

Ottawa Business Journal The city issued 443 construction permits in December with a total value of $136.97 million. The top projects by value are:

Topics : EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CANADA , Broccolini Construction , Dolyn Developments , Ottawa , HAZELDEAN , CANADA

EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CANADA (150 SLATER ST.)
Contractor: Broccolini Construction Ont. Inc.
Description: Superstructure only – ground-to-roof concrete and structural steel for a 19-storey commercial office building.
Value: $70,403,852
Square footage: 511,302

Z6 URBAN LOFTS (9 BALSAM ST. and 386-394 BOOTH ST., even)
Contractor: Dolyn Developments Inc.
Description: Construct a four-storey condominium building with one level of underground parking.
Value: $4,700,000
Square footage: 8,644

ALBION TOWERS – PHASE TWO (25 NICHOLAS ST.)
Contractor: To be let
Description: Tenant fit-up on the 10th through 22nd floors of a 22-storey commercial building.
Value: $3,502,758
Square footage: 12,000

UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA (150 LOUIS PASTEUR PVT.)
Contractor: To be let
Description: Construct a sheet metal shop attached to a four-storey institutional building and interior alterations to the sub-basement, basement and ground-floor levels.
Value: $3,000,000
Square footage: 1,119

KANATA RECREATION CENTRE (100 WALTER BAKER PL.)
Contractor: To be let
Description: Interior alterations for construction of two fire-rated exit stairs and partial renovations to the first and second floors in a two-storey institutional building.
Value: $1,900,000
Square footage: 22,605

LCBO – JACKSON TRAILS (6065 HAZELDEAN RD.)
Contractor: To be let
Description: Construct a one-storey retail building.
Value: $1,709,370
Square footage: 12,174

CITIPLACE (384-394 CITIPLACE DR., even, and 101-111 QUITO PVT., odd)
Contractor: Ashcroft Homes
Description: Construct a block of 12 three-storey back-to-back rowhouses with attached garages.
Value: $1,163,400
Square footage: 16,620

ACCREDITATION CANADA (1148-1150 CYRVILLE RD.)
Contractor: Giffels Corp.
Description: Tenant fit-up to a four-storey office building.
Value: $1,000,000
Square footage: 36,878


Source: City of Ottawa

http://www.obj.ca/Real-Estate/Non-reside...ttawa-construction-permits-in-December/1

[reidjr]

Is there any way to find a full list of all permits handed out.

[k2p]

Originally Posted by Dado

Unfortunately the way things work is that it sets a precedent and that's used to justify all kinds of other stuff later on, e.g. "But he did it; why can't I? That's unfair! I'm being discriminated against!". And off it goes to the OMB where such legalistic arguments ("unfair!"), rather than design arguments ("one adds character but a whole block of them disrupts the streetscape"), will win the day.

As for the cathedral, that's a red herring. It's on differently zoned land so it can't be used as a precedent.

For pity's sake, all I was saying was it's silly to oppose one building because of how a block might look if every building was like it.

Carrying your logic through, we shouldn't have any character buildings on any street -- even if they work -- because they'll create precedent down the road. We should stick with bland and banal just to prevent someone saying "He did it! Why can't I?"

Far better to stop original thinking in the first place lest it spread. As for the OMB, give me its thinking over the NIMBYs anyday.

[Kitchissippi]

I'd hardly call that house a "character building", and the precedent it does set is that the rest of the block may eventually be scaled the same way. Why? because this house has effectively devalued the adjacent properties down to lot value since the old buildings no longer fit in. If they are to come down eventually, they should have just been co-developped as more energy-efficient townhouses instead of having useless spaces in between that waste heat.



Maria Cook, The Citizen

This lot seems to have been the driveway of the property to the left, which appears to now park cars on its front lawn (against bylaws unless grandfathered). This is part of the precedents being set.

There's nothing really revolutionary about this house, it's just a slice of a townhouse built as a single. I just don't think it's something to rave about like its the coolest thing in that part of the city.

A friend of mine bought a nice townhouse in the Distillery district in Toronto. now this is cool:

[Dado]

Here is the site in question on Streetview. It very much appears to be the former driveway. The 'standard' lots here are 33' wide and 100' deep (10x30 m), whereas this one is about half of that (the 12' refers to the width of the house, not the lot). The street, by the way, is only 40' wide, much narrower than the typical 60' & 66' widths found elsewhere.

The intriguing thing is that this isn't the only whacked-out property in the area; directly across the street you'll notice a red pick-up truck. Well that truck is occupying pretty much the entire width of his property - at the street. The red house at the back is on the same plot, but there the property is wider, reaching around behind the driveway of the house to the right.

At any rate, I expect the novelty of this house will soon wear off in the neighbourhood and that in all likelihood its two neighbours will one day be knocked down and turned into clones of this place.

Maria Cook's article quotes the neighbour (I think the one to the right/east) saying that she doesn't mind since it blocks the wind and snow, but looking at this pair together I'd have to conclude that the eddying of air over this house will actually end up dumping extra snow on her roof, increasing the risk of a roof collapse (this is actually a serious issue for some infills and in some places has led to a developer having to reinforce the roof of a neighbour).

[rodionx]

If the guy had dispensed with the parking, he could have built something unique that also fit in well. Trying to squeeze a suburban sized house AND parking onto an itsy bitsy urban lot.... well, the results speak for themselves.

Speaking of skinny houses, here's a StreetView of a skinny house on Cooper street that I've always liked. It's somewhat wider than the one in Hintonburg, and it integrates parking nicely. http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s...RHiF43vqZ-HG3oYDuw&cbp=12,343.65,,0,1.05

[Kitchissippi]

Actually, not too far away from that Armstrong house, I find this narrow infill on Grant Street far more interesting and creative. It has parking in front but has really good translucency in its composition. This is a great character building.

[rodionx]

Funky. I like it. Can't really top it, but in the spirit of posting pictures of skinny houses in Ottawa, and further highlighting the lameness of the first skinny house, here's a fairly skinny house in the Glebe.

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Actually, not too far away from that Armstrong house, I find this narrow infill on Grant Street far more interesting and creative. It has parking in front but has really good translucency in its composition. This is a great character building.

Same Street (Grant)...what is going on at this house....are those easter decorations?

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s...72,-75.727939&spn=0.002927,0.006968&z=18

I'll have to go to Grant Street.....

[Mille Sabords]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Actually, not too far away from that Armstrong house, I find this narrow infill on Grant Street far more interesting and creative. It has parking in front but has really good translucency in its composition. This is a great character building.

It is funky and it does a great job, in fact a superhuman effort, at overcoming its parking blemish, but the parking blemish remains. No matter what you do, either you have parking in front or you don't. I will always prefer those that don't. This infill wouldn't have to "work as hard to look good" if it didn't have to accommodate a car as its face to the world.

[Ryersonian]

Originally Posted by rodionx

If the guy had dispensed with the parking, he could have built something unique that also fit in well. Trying to squeeze a suburban sized house AND parking onto an itsy bitsy urban lot.... well, the results speak for themselves.

Speaking of skinny houses, here's a StreetView of a skinny house on Cooper street that I've always liked. It's somewhat wider than the one in Hintonburg, and it integrates parking nicely. http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s...RHiF43vqZ-HG3oYDuw&cbp=12,343.65,,0,1.05

I think this garage is hideous...in fact I think all garages are nasty...You get in your car open the door drive away...you get home...open the door drive in close it behind you...you never see or interact with your neighbours...Grant and Armstrong are wonderful examples of how you can build interaction with your neighbours...

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Actually, not too far away from that Armstrong house, I find this narrow infill on Grant Street far more interesting and creative. It has parking in front but has really good translucency in its composition. This is a great character building.

How about this for the opposite affect

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s...vKuQq3pDGzwHiqnOQ&cbp=12,96.36,,0,-14.05