HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Downtown & Urban Ottawa


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #3301  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2013, 12:19 PM
Harley613's Avatar
Harley613 Harley613 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Aylmer, QC
Posts: 6,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.OT13 View Post
As for the people mover idea, I'm sorry but elevated rail looks like shit!
It doesn't have to!




Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3302  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2013, 5:48 PM
c_speed3108 c_speed3108 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,858
Heard two interesting things this morning for along Montreal Rd.

1) Belisle Chevrolet site is owned by Phoenix homes and basically think along the lines of 3 or 4 towers of like 20 stories.

2) Eastview Plaza site (that's the one on the right just after you come over the bridge) will likely be some sort of mixed residential, office and retail development.

I also heard but can't confirm the application has actually been submitted but is not yet up on the development application website.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3303  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2013, 5:57 PM
Harley613's Avatar
Harley613 Harley613 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Aylmer, QC
Posts: 6,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by c_speed3108 View Post
Heard two interesting things this morning for along Montreal Rd.

1) Belisle Chevrolet site is owned by Phoenix homes and basically think along the lines of 3 or 4 towers of like 20 stories.

2) Eastview Plaza site (that's the one on the right just after you come over the bridge) will likely be some sort of mixed residential, office and retail development.

I also heard but can't confirm the application has actually been submitted but is not yet up on the development application website.
Excellent. Eastview plaza is SO ripe for development, it could be a jewel in the rough and change the whole vibe of Vanier.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3304  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2013, 11:57 PM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is offline
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Greater Ottawa
Posts: 14,660
Plan to make Montreal Road a walkable ‘main street’ passes committee

By David Reevely, OTTAWA CITIZEN September 24, 2013 6:01 PM


OTTAWA — A new plan to prepare Vanier to become a denser, more walkable neighbourhood got approval from city council’s planning committee Tuesday morning.

Although redevelopment there hasn’t yet taken off in the same way as it has west of downtown, the city’s urban-planning department expects it will before long and the plan is meant to get out ahead of demand for taller buildings. It scraps an old urban plan for the area that produced box stores as Vanier’s commercial core, narrow sidewalks for pedestrians, and big lots that are hard to redevelop, in favour of new rules that are supposed to make Montreal Road in particular feel more like a “main street,” a Vanier version of Richmond Road in Westboro or urban Bank Street.

It also points to a handful of “gateways” at Vanier’s edges, particularly where Montreal Road begins at the east end of the Cummings Bridge, as good places for tall buildings. Developers have moved in on big properties such as the defunct Belisle car dealership and Eastview Shopping Centre.

Setting the stage for future battles, the plan leaves the zoning on those sites to be decided when a specific proposal comes from a property developer. The idea is not to get too bossy about what can and can’t be built before the city even has an idea of what builders want. The plan sets a maximum height of 28 storeys, a little shorter than the tallest buildings in the downtown core. It says such proposals will have to come with detailed ideas about how they’ll blend into their surroundings, but otherwise it isn’t very specific.

“This document is less prescriptive than other documents for elsewhere in the city,” enthused Miguel Tremblay, a private urban-planning consultant who works for developers. “This is the right way to do policy.”

Yet it leaves important things unresolved.

“We have this nagging fear,” said Mike Bulthuis, the president of the Vanier Community Association. The group is eager for most of the things the plan is supposed to promote, he said, but is also insistent that it be involved when serious decisions need to be made about the marquee sites.

The planning committee approved the plan unanimously. City council still has to sign off on it before it become official.

[email protected]

ottawacitizen.com/greaterottawa
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/co...ing+less+centric+more/8953870/story.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3305  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2013, 1:51 AM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 29,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by c_speed3108 View Post
Heard two interesting things this morning for along Montreal Rd.

1) Belisle Chevrolet site is owned by Phoenix homes and basically think along the lines of 3 or 4 towers of like 20 stories.

2) Eastview Plaza site (that's the one on the right just after you come over the bridge) will likely be some sort of mixed residential, office and retail development.

I also heard but can't confirm the application has actually been submitted but is not yet up on the development application website.
Belisle was sold to Brigile, not that it inspires much more confidence.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3306  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2013, 11:53 AM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is offline
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Greater Ottawa
Posts: 14,660
Plan for new Centretown park on McGarry property collapses

City doesn’t understand basics of the business world, Brian McGarry says

By David Reevely, OTTAWA CITIZEN September 25, 2013




OTTAWA — Plans to turn a downtown parking lot into a city park are dead because the city won’t pay anything like what the land is worth, says its owner, funeral mogul Brian McGarry.

“I was astounded, quite frankly. It came by letter, through our lawyers. I guess dumbfounded would be the best way to put it,” McGarry said Tuesday. The city offered $4 million for the parking lot at McLeod and O’Connor streets, adjacent to the flagship Hulse, Playfair & McGarry funeral home, McGarry said. He said he has been offered $8 million for it by property developers and although he didn’t expect the city to pay quite that much, $4 million is simply insulting.

“The McGarrys didn’t mind taking something less than market value. We didn’t expect market value. But this is ridiculous,” he said.

The city’s unwillingness to tighten the gap speaks to a basic misunderstanding of how private business works, said McGarry, a former school-board trustee and regional councillor, and sometime candidate for the Conservatives.

“I’m not talking just this year or Jim Watson in particular, I’m talking councils several years back. They’ve lost a sense of corporate Ottawa. I just don’t think they’re treating corporate Ottawa very well. There seems to be an attitude — not from 100 per cent of councillors, but a lot of them — that when corporate Ottawa comes in, they’re always asking for more than they should get.”

The property has been the main chapel for Hulse, Playfair & McGarry for 88 years and McGarry loves it, but he thinks more and more that it’s time to move, as the value of the property goes up and the convenience of holding funerals in the middle of downtown goes down.

“They’re cutting the parking back all the time. The bulldozers are out on Gladstone right now,” McGarry said, reconstructing the crumbling street but also reducing the number of parking spots on the street.

He has his eye on another downtown spot that could be a new headquarters, more accessible and yet cheaper. He was willing to sell the whole McGarry property to the city if that deal would have worked better, he said.

The funeral home, which is a heritage building, could have been turned into a community centre or a daycare. A park that at least covered the existing parking lot might have gone some way to replacing the land the nearby Museum of Nature now intends to take up with a new parking lot of its own.

“We saw it as a bit of a donation, really,” McGarry said.

The idea of selling the land to the city arose after a development plan with builder Charlesfort Developments fell through last year. The company envisioned a condominium on stilts, with a publicly accessible garden below. But it would have had to have been tall, much taller than the city’s plan for the neighbourhood allows.

The latest version of the plan identifies McGarry’s property as a site for a landmark building, potentially suited for the tallest building in the city, but only if it has a very major public amenity or a big new home for a cultural institution at ground level. A small park or garden wouldn’t cut it: it would have to be something more like the headquarters of the Toronto International Film Festival, which is at the base of a 46-storey luxury condo tower.

The Citizen couldn’t reach Somerset Coun. Diane Holmes to talk about the collapse of the McGarry proposal; when the idea first came up last November, she said it would be “very difficult, but possible” to pull off.

Given the city’s budget for parks, even $4 million is a lot of money. Parkland is built into new suburban developments, but it’s hard to retrofit into long established neighbourhoods, so the city charges builders of things like condominiums a fee that’s supposed to go to either buying new parkland or total renovations to existing parks to make them suitable for new residents. It’s divided up ward by ward, though, and a recent reckoning of the various funds had $1 million in the one for Somerset ward, which includes the McGarry property. The ward that had the most unspent money, Kitchissippi, had $2 million. McGarry offered to let the city spread payments out over many years, he said, knowing how little money is available.

McGarry said his property isn’t actively for sale, though he’s been getting offers for it for 10 years. Its value just goes up, so although he’s turning 70 and wants to see something sorted out, McGarry’s not in a rush.

[email protected]

ottawacitizen.com/greaterottawa
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/ottawa...ry+property+collapses/8958874/story.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3307  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2013, 11:36 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 29,044
Let's make a deal; Keep two plain brick walls and you can tear down the rest! Why? The school is nothing but a brick shell. No detailing, no nothing. Easy to replicate. The only thing that's remotely interesting is the green door (or is it a window) on the western façade and that will probably be lost.

As for the old townhomes, nicer buildings but not salvageable.

Instead of "saving" two walls, the City should just learn from years of historical neglect and implement proper by laws and fines to people who let buildings, any buildings, rot.

Quote:
Deal in bitter fight over crumbling Lowertown schoolhouse

By Jon Willing, Ottawa Sun
First posted: Thursday, September 26, 2013 02:46 PM




The city has struck a deal with a developer while fighting in court over the future of an old schoolhouse in Lowertown.

Groupe Claude Lauzon owns the heritage properties at 287 Cumberland St., which is the old Our Lady’s School, and the neighbouring building at 207-209 Murray St.

The schoolhouse was built in 1904. The Murray St. building was built in the 1870s.

The city deemed the schoolhouse unsafe last winter and ordered Lauzon to encase it and the neighbouring building with hoarding.

Lauzon wanted to tear down the schoolhouse but the city wanted the developer to try repairing the heritage building.

The quarrel ended up in court.

According to a new report to the city’s built heritage subcommittee, engineers for the developer and city have concluded the schoolhouse wasn’t salvageable, except for the south and west walls.

The Murray St. building, which was further damaged by fire, is beyond repair, the engineers concluded.

City planners want to allow Lauzon to demolish the Murray St. building and partially raze the schoolhouse, keeping the south and west masonry walls.

The city is even offering to waive a $47,000 encroachment fee for the work because the building is currently a public safety hazard.

The city wants Lauzon to supply a set of photos and plans for “historical reference.”

The subcommittee will consider the plan Monday before it rises to the planning committee and council.

[email protected]
http://www.ottawasun.com/2013/09/26/deal-in-bitter-fight-over-crumbling-lowertown-schoolhouse
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3308  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2013, 12:21 PM
Harley613's Avatar
Harley613 Harley613 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Aylmer, QC
Posts: 6,896
What the heck could one build here anyways? This is literally the worst block in the city for development of any kind.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3309  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2013, 12:31 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 26,235
Most likely development for that location would probably be assisted housing of some sort.

M. Lauzon is smiling today, I suspect. Unless he actually wants the two walls gone as well, in which case there will be no redevelopment of the site. He's not a young man however.......
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3310  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2013, 4:58 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 29,044
Yup, social housing or a homeless shelter would be a good option.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3311  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2013, 5:08 PM
Harley613's Avatar
Harley613 Harley613 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Aylmer, QC
Posts: 6,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.OT13 View Post
Yup, social housing or a homeless shelter would be a good option.
A homeless shelter is the absolute last thing I want to see there. I want the existing shelters moved, the market is a horrible location for them. These people need rehabilitation, not a downtown nexus for all things bad.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3312  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2013, 5:33 PM
phil235's Avatar
phil235 phil235 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harley613 View Post
A homeless shelter is the absolute last thing I want to see there. I want the existing shelters moved, the market is a horrible location for them. These people need rehabilitation, not a downtown nexus for all things bad.
Yeah, concentrating all of the shelters in one area is a terrible idea. A mix of housing is the way you want to go.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3313  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2013, 7:18 PM
gjhall's Avatar
gjhall gjhall is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwoldtimer View Post
Most likely development for that location would probably be assisted housing of some sort.

M. Lauzon is smiling today, I suspect. Unless he actually wants the two walls gone as well, in which case there will be no redevelopment of the site. He's not a young man however.......
Where do you get this idea? It's been on the forum here before, but have you all missed the fact that 1) there is development in the area, 2) housing prices in the market are high, not low, 3) just because it's near the Shepherds doesnt mean it wouldnt make a good market rate development site, see: The St George, the East Market, Claridge Plaza, all next to social services.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3314  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2013, 10:29 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 29,044
Does anyone have a suggestion as to where the homeless shelters and social housing should go. It's one thing to criticize, it's another to offer an alternate suggestion.

That said, the homeless aren't just downtown because of the shelters, but because it's the best place to panhandle.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3315  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2013, 12:35 AM
phil235's Avatar
phil235 phil235 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.OT13 View Post
Does anyone have a suggestion as to where the homeless shelters and social housing should go. It's one thing to criticize, it's another to offer an alternate suggestion.

That said, the homeless aren't just downtown because of the shelters, but because it's the best place to panhandle.
Not criticizing the fact that homeless shelters are downtown. Criticizing the idea that they should all be in one place.

It is well established that a mix of income levels and types of housing is far superior to creating low income ghettos. The idea is that the shelters need to be spread out, maybe in the broader central area where transit and services are better, but intermingled with higher quality housing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3316  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2013, 12:46 AM
1overcosc's Avatar
1overcosc 1overcosc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 12,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by phil235 View Post
Not criticizing the fact that homeless shelters are downtown. Criticizing the idea that they should all be in one place.

It is well established that a mix of income levels and types of housing is far superior to creating low income ghettos. The idea is that the shelters need to be spread out, maybe in the broader central area where transit and services are better, but intermingled with higher quality housing.
People often get emotional and ignore logic when it comes to dealing with the homeless and the poor. Like with the whole kerfluffle over safe injection sites. It is proven without dispute that safe injection sites are a really good thing, dramatically reducing deaths and significantly improving the rehabiliation rate for drug addicts, but people still get all upset at them. I really wish the government would step out of these issues and let the psychologists & social workers handle them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3317  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2013, 1:01 AM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 29,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by phil235 View Post
Not criticizing the fact that homeless shelters are downtown. Criticizing the idea that they should all be in one place.

It is well established that a mix of income levels and types of housing is far superior to creating low income ghettos. The idea is that the shelters need to be spread out, maybe in the broader central area where transit and services are better, but intermingled with higher quality housing.
Say, have one homeless shelter in each corner of the central city, say one in Hintonburgh, one in Centretown and one in the market or whatever. Makes sense. maybe I jumped the gun when suggesting a homeless shelter on that site. I suppose spreading social housing and shelters around might be in everyone's interest as long as they stay downtown where people have easy access to services such as medical clinics, transit and other governmental social aid facilities. I would never build social housing/shelters in suburban areas.

Safe injection sites and needle "exchange" programs I don't support. Why is it a drug addict can come in City Hall and get hundreds of syringes for free and drop (if they feel like it) used ones while diabetics have to pay for their syringes and have to dispose of the used ones on their own? As for safe injection sites, skip that step and just put those people in methadone programs or detox programs right off the bat. Government should not fund illegal activity.

As a productive tax payer, I feel I should get the same services as people using social assistance programs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3318  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2013, 5:10 AM
1overcosc's Avatar
1overcosc 1overcosc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 12,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.OT13 View Post
Say, have one homeless shelter in each corner of the central city, say one in Hintonburgh, one in Centretown and one in the market or whatever. Makes sense. maybe I jumped the gun when suggesting a homeless shelter on that site. I suppose spreading social housing and shelters around might be in everyone's interest as long as they stay downtown where people have easy access to services such as medical clinics, transit and other governmental social aid facilities. I would never build social housing/shelters in suburban areas.

Safe injection sites and needle "exchange" programs I don't support. Why is it a drug addict can come in City Hall and get hundreds of syringes for free and drop (if they feel like it) used ones while diabetics have to pay for their syringes and have to dispose of the used ones on their own? As for safe injection sites, skip that step and just put those people in methadone programs or detox programs right off the bat. Government should not fund illegal activity.

As a productive tax payer, I feel I should get the same services as people using social assistance programs.
The problem with detox programs is that they don't work. People will almost always get re-addicted as soon as they leave detox. Once a person is truly addicted, quitting is near-impossible. Look at the very low success rate for people quitting smoking, for example (important thing to keep in mind when discussing drugs--tobacco & alcohol are 'drugs' just like marijuana, cocaine, heroin, etc.--don't think them as scientifically different because they are legal).

For this reason, getting addicts to go bone-dry is not realistic or possible. Think about drug addiction for a second. It's not the drugs themselves that create problems for society & the addicts. It's all the stuff associated with it. People who are on drugs go broke, are forced into the streets, become a source of income for gangs, commit crime because of their poverty and desperation for more drugs. Ultimately, all these things are problems because drugs are illegal, not because of the drugs themselves. Think about it. People who are addicted to cigarettes or alcohol often live fairly normal lives.

Safe injection sites help stop addicts from massively harming themselves and society, even though they still take drugs. Ideally you'd get them to not take drugs, but as I mentioned earlier, that's not practical.

Data collected from safe injection sites in Switzerland (the first country to introduce such programs) found that detox programs will only cure 10% of addicts, and leave the remaining 90% to cause havoc. A safe injection site would stop most of the harmful effects to society from 75% of addicts, while leaving only 25% to cause havoc. Thus, a safe injection site approach will have greater net benefit to society than a detox program approach.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3319  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2013, 6:18 PM
adam-machiavelli adam-machiavelli is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,246
A few years ago I helped carry out a survey determining the characteristics of people who support and oppose safe injections sites. Overall we found most people from every province and territory supported them. There was only a small hardcore group who opposed them. Unfortunately this group was composed almost entirely of Conservative Party supporters who collectively gave a lot of money to the Party.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3320  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2013, 3:36 AM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 29,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam-machiavelli View Post
A few years ago I helped carry out a survey determining the characteristics of people who support and oppose safe injections sites. Overall we found most people from every province and territory supported them. There was only a small hardcore group who opposed them. Unfortunately this group was composed almost entirely of Conservative Party supporters who collectively gave a lot of money to the Party.
I'm actually a member of the Liberal Party and have only once voted differently, and that was for Layton in 2011. I just don't believe in supporting drug usage.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Downtown & Urban Ottawa
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:45 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.