General Update/Rumour thread [Urban Ottawa] - Page 107

S-Man · #**2121** Posted **Apr 20, 2012, 6:30 AM**

Go figure, Diane Holmes doesn't like it. Views will be blocked and parking lots developed. And the height!
Diane hates height, loves parking and abhors anything different.

Jamaican-Phoenix · #**2122** Posted **Apr 20, 2012, 1:51 PM**

I'd like to see some more info like site plans, conceptual drawings, etc. before I pass judgement.

Luker · #**2123** Posted **Apr 20, 2012, 3:11 PM**

Regardless of preliminary renderings; it sounds great. I'm certainly in favour of the idea, funny Holmes brings her normal height rationalization but cannot proceed with her normal screeching on green-space due to the sight being converted into a (free{and maintained}) park. At-least she is finding it tougher and tougher to convince citizens and colleagues of her dribble about seven story height limits...

Even when I try to to be open or sympathetic to the thought, I can't! All I can think about is how it is DOWNTOWN, 1KMish to Parliament hill, .5km to CBD, and is on a road, which is a main one-way throughfare leaving the core of a metropolitan area of 1.4M for a 400 series highway approachment. She really needs to learn her how to be more pragmatic and efficient with her (and the peoples) time, energy, and resources. I mean Central I II III, Beaver Barrack, SOBA, Gotham, Cathrine greyhound Station Redev, The Merit, Soho Lisgar, Soho Italia, Galleria II, Bay st Richcraft, 1050 Somerset Claridge, all come to mind and are in the mid-center town area or right outside of it and are all (of course) going to be over 7 stories and rightfully so. Now this doesn't mean I agree with 1050 Somerset being 28fl, or a few of the others. Its just so hard to imagine she believes shes doing her job to the best of her abilities, all she does is send out the same fax screaming about height, shadows, wind, grass, and the babies ear drums who will be destroyed through construction etc...

Okay rant over..

Just wondering, how high are the odds she runs or gets re-elected again next term?

kevinbottawa · #**2124** Posted **Apr 20, 2012, 3:18 PM**

I think it's odd that Councillor Holmes opposed the SoBa proposal, that lined up with the CDP, stating the CDP wasn't officially approved yet, but is now referencing that same unapproved document in opposition to this new proposal.

Luker · #**2125** Posted **Apr 20, 2012, 3:23 PM**

Good point. More proof of her NIMBY stall & stare tactics, this dinosaur needs to go, even her own colleague are turning on her and starting to ignore her opinion/stances.

ThaLoveDocta · #**2126** Posted **Apr 20, 2012, 7:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luker

Regardless of preliminary renderings; it sounds great. I'm certainly in favour of the idea, funny Holmes brings her normal height rationalization but cannot proceed with her normal screeching on green-space due to the sight being converted into a (free{and maintained}) park. At-least she is finding it tougher and tougher to convince citizens and colleagues of her dribble about seven story height limits...

Even when I try to to be open or sympathetic to the thought, I can't! All I can think about is how it is DOWNTOWN, 1KMish to Parliament hill, .5km to CBD, and is on a road, which is a main one-way throughfare leaving the core of a metropolitan area of 1.4M for a 400 series highway approachment. She really needs to learn her how to be more pragmatic and efficient with her (and the peoples) time, energy, and resources. I mean Central I II III, Beaver Barrack, SOBA, Gotham, Cathrine greyhound Station Redev, The Merit, Soho Lisgar, Soho Italia, Galleria II, Bay st Richcraft, 1050 Somerset Claridge, all come to mind and are in the mid-center town area or right outside of it and are all (of course) going to be over 7 stories and rightfully so. Now this doesn't mean I agree with 1050 Somerset being 28fl, or a few of the others. Its just so hard to imagine she believes shes doing her job to the best of her abilities, all she does is send out the same fax screaming about height, shadows, wind, grass, and the babies ear drums who will be destroyed through construction etc...

Okay rant over..

Just wondering, how high are the odds she runs or gets re-elected again next term?

The more young condo owning "whipper snappers" move into these new-fangled sky towers, the lower her percentage of crotchety old supporters in her ward....

Perhaps she has realized this??

McC · #**2127** Posted **Apr 20, 2012, 8:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThaLoveDocta

The more young condo owning "whipper snappers" move into these new-fangled sky towers, the lower her percentage of crotchety old supporters in her ward....

Perhaps she has realized this??

don't worry, young people don't vote.

m0nkyman · #**2128** Posted **Apr 20, 2012, 10:19 PM**

I'll be somewhat consistent and say that I oppose this as it really does run counter to the mid centretown design plan. SOBA complied with it, and I support it, but plonking a 20 something tower at this location is basically taking the official plan, which many of us have spent the last couple of years debating and working on, and using it for toilet paper.

S-Man · #**2129** Posted **Apr 20, 2012, 11:29 PM**

Quote:

don't worry, young people don't vote.

LOL, it's true.

Either way, she ain't protecting Stonehenge or the Pantheon. Those 4-7 storey brick rectangles from the 1950s are no gems and don't warrant keeping people out of the area.

And yes, her stance on SoBa was purely a reflex stall tactic.

The only reason she approved of Beaver Barracks is because she's Chair or CEO of the social housing provider that planned it. Subsidized, just like she is.

Davis137 · #**2130** Posted **Apr 21, 2012, 2:19 AM**

Eventually I'd like to see the 30 storey threshold crossed more frequently. Not really at a location like this, but most of downtown and centertown looks like it's almost the same height from certain vantage points.

This proposal does sound a little different than others...

rocketphish · #**2131** Posted **Apr 24, 2012, 5:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rocketphish

Decrepit Rideau Street buildings slated for demolition

By David Reevely, The Ottawa Citizen April 17, 2012

From: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Decrepit+Ri...olition/6472626/story.html#ixzz1sJm0e8KC

Planning committee backs demolition of vacant Rideau Street buildings

Time is running out for several vacant buildings on Rideau Street near Charlotte. The buildings are to come down for a temporary park on a spot where condos are to be built.

By David Reevely, The Ottawa Citizen April 24, 2012

OTTAWA - A group of vacant buildings on Rideau Street got a step closer to demolition Tuesday morning, with approval from city council’s planning committee to replace them with a temporary park.

They’re on a property at Rideau and Charlotte streets owned by Richcraft, which intends to build a mid-rise condo building, but not yet.

The tenants, mostly small restaurants and stores, are all gone and the buildings themselves are falling apart, but Richcraft and the city spent years discussing what could replace them until it’s time to build the condominium.

Tuesday, the planning committee agreed to a deal that’s to see Richcraft build a small corner park and pay the city to maintain it, in exchange for which the company will likely see its $14,000 or so in property taxes on the land forgiven — making the deal roughly a wash for both sides. The park will feature a sign warning that eventually the owner plans to develop the land.

Councillors on the committee approved the plan unanimously. If city council rubber-stamps it in turn, work is supposed to be done by Oct. 15.

From The Ottawa Citizen
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Planni...ildings/6509762/story.html#ixzz1syjx1p6g

phil235 · #**2132** Posted **Apr 24, 2012, 9:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rocketphish

Planning committee backs demolition of vacant Rideau Street buildings

Time is running out for several vacant buildings on Rideau Street near Charlotte. The buildings are to come down for a temporary park on a spot where condos are to be built.

By David Reevely, The Ottawa Citizen April 24, 2012

From The Ottawa Citizen
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Planni...ildings/6509762/story.html#ixzz1syjx1p6g

Is it too much to dream that this will set some kind of precedent?

jchamoun79 · #**2133** Posted **Apr 25, 2012, 1:40 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rocketphish

Planning committee backs demolition of vacant Rideau Street buildings

Those buildings can't come down soon enough. That whole corner is one of Ottawa's worst eyesores.

McC · #**2134** Posted **Apr 25, 2012, 1:48 AM**

Richcraft: our city's finest!

kevinbottawa · #**2135** Posted **Apr 25, 2012, 2:07 AM**

Quote:

Planning chairman cool to idea of 25-storey O’Connor Street condo

By David Reevely, The Ottawa Citizen April 24, 2012

OTTAWA — An unusual elevated condominium proposed for O’Connor Street downtown is probably too tall to even merit serious consideration, says the chairman of city council’s planning committee.

“I can’t conceive of an argument that would say how a 25-storey building in an area designated for nine makes sense,” Hume said Tuesday. He’s open to hearing one, he said, but it’s going to have to be amazingly good.

The proposal is more an idea at this stage, with nothing formal filed with the city, but representatives of Charlesfort Developments and landowner Brian McGarry made the rounds of planning committee members last week. They’re trying to sell the idea of a tower built atop two-storey stilts, allowing a large garden with to be built on the ground floor. It would replace the large parking lot of a Hulse, Playfair and McGarry funeral home at O’Connor and McLeod; McGarry would use some of the proceeds to build a covered garage on the other side of the funeral home and expand the downtown building to fit more receptions and visitations.

But first, the city would need to sign off.

The land is now zoned for residential buildings that top out at four storeys. Under a community design plan the city hopes to formally approve in late spring, most of the O’Connor Street corridor would be changed to allow seven-storey buildings. An existing condo across the street from the McGarry site is already nine floors high, but under the plan nothing taller than that would be allowed between Catherine Street to the south and Cooper Street well to the north.

And, said Hume, that’s a significant problem. As the city’s designated big thinker on urban-planning problems, Hume’s invested a lot of political capital in community design plans as a way of channelling downtown intensification in a way existing residents can accept; the Centretown plan is the result of years of consultations and intense labour by expensive consultants. Which brings him back to the central question Hume has about the McGarry-Charlesfort idea: “How does what he’s proposing fit the community design plan?”

Last week, in an interview with the Citizen, Charlesfort president Doug Casey pointed out the Asian-influenced garden would add plants and a public amenity to the harsh environment of O’Connor Street, and also go some way toward replacing the parkland the nearby Museum of Nature intends to replace with a parking lot, both of which are problems for the Centretown plan.

[email protected]

ottawacitizen.com/greaterottawa

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Planning+ch...t+condo/6510994/story.html#ixzz1t0wgBXG3

Uhuniau · #**2136** Posted **Apr 25, 2012, 3:17 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by phil235

Is it too much to dream that this will set some kind of precedent?

That "TEMPORARY PARK" sign better be friggin' huge.

citizen j · #**2137** Posted **Apr 25, 2012, 3:23 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

That "TEMPORARY PARK" sign better be friggin' huge.

Wait for it. That sign could be made with fireworks and body parts and someone would still feign surprise ('shock'!!) when the time comes to develop the lot.

MountainView · #**2138** Posted **Apr 25, 2012, 3:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

That "TEMPORARY PARK" sign better be friggin' huge.

They might as well name the park "Temporary Park" - similar to what they did in Barrhaven before Kennevale was extended to Strandherd; there they had "Temporary Road".

gjhall · #**2139** Posted **Apr 25, 2012, 4:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MountainView

They might as well name the park "Temporary Park" - similar to what they did in Barrhaven before Kennevale was extended to Strandherd; there they had "Temporary Road".

Agreed. Naming it would give it too much standing in the minds of the lunatics that run Action Sandy Hill. Did anyone have the misfortune of reading last weekend's IMAGE? Apparently everything is terrible, who knew? Also, in breaking community news, university students drank on St. Patrick's Day.

Chris-R · #**2140** Posted **Apr 25, 2012, 7:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by gjhall

Agreed. Naming it would give it too much standing in the minds of the lunatics that run Action Sandy Hill. Did anyone have the misfortune of reading last weekend's IMAGE? Apparently everything is terrible, who knew? Also, in breaking community news, university students drank on St. Patrick's Day.

RE: St. Partrick's

That's what I thought at first, then I saw what the students actually did on the occasion and I realized that ASH was right for one of the first times. Of course, obnoxiously loud parties was one of the reasons I left Sandy Hill in the first place, so I may be biased.