900 Albert St | 234/203/105m | 65/56/23fl | Approved

[OTownandDown]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

To a degree, they are trying to avoid ghettoizing poor people. The old way of segregating poor people into separate neighbourhoods was a good way of promoting gang problems. Perhaps, requiring each building to offer housing for lower income people is not entirely practical, but we need to mix people of different income levels as much as possible.

Sure, I completely agree. But that's a neighbourhood level. For instance, building 20 or 30 low-income housing blocks within a 10 block radius (a la Beausoleil) is a terrible, terrible idea.

Calling people 'elitest' by not including low-income housing in the tallest building in Ottawa is probably a correct statement, but its definitely not the correct argument. Sure, it's an elite building. And so what? We live in a capitalist society. Should we insist that 25% of the spaces at Ashbury College become 'affordable'? People like to be elite, and we have income inequality, and business loves money. That's the society that's been handed down from the baby boomer generation.

Again, when we speak of mixed-income neighbourhoods, are we talking about within individual buildings, or are we talking about within neighbourhoods? A mixed income neighbourhood is the best option, the most vibrant, and definitely the correct approach to development.

People keep claiming that this building is the poster child for not including affordable housing, and that construction should not be allowed, until the developer takes responsibility for being elitist. This is incorrect.

How about a model to fund affordable housing starts that is actually sustainable and makes sense? There's a huge swath of land exactly 200m south of this building that is just waiting for funding, and three whole blocks at Rochester/Gladstone ready for redevelopment. How do we get these over the finish line and start construction? It's important to have the entire system funded, rather than complain that developers aren't inclusive. It's not the developer's fault that our affordable housing system is broken.

And for that matter (rant continues) why should CCOC be granted the ENTIRE block of housing at all these lands? Why do we not have development corporations providing guidance and truly mixed-use developments? As far as I know, Beaver Barracks was a success, but why can't we develop our brownfields using European models of development corporations?

[phil235]

Originally Posted by OTownandDown

Again, when we speak of mixed-income neighbourhoods, are we talking about within individual buildings, or are we talking about within neighbourhoods? A mixed income neighbourhood is the best option, the most vibrant, and definitely the correct approach to development.

People keep claiming that this building is the poster child for not including affordable housing, and that construction should not be allowed, until the developer takes responsibility for being elitist. This is incorrect.

How about a model to fund affordable housing starts that is actually sustainable and makes sense? There's a huge swath of land exactly 200m south of this building that is just waiting for funding, and three whole blocks at Rochester/Gladstone ready for redevelopment. How do we get these over the finish line and start construction? It's important to have the entire system funded, rather than complain that developers aren't inclusive. It's not the developer's fault that our affordable housing system is broken.

I'll just say that there are two separate issues here - getting the units built, and long term funding to keep them affordable.

I absolutely think that a large complex like this should include an affordable housing component. Including affordable housing in market-rate projects is a great model for integrating communities, and the affordable component can be required as a condition for increased height or density. There are lots of successful examples of this, including several buildings at Harbourfront in Toronto. That is generally preferable to having entire buildings of subsidized units.

In terms of long term funding, it's no more difficult to fund units in mixed complexes than units in dedicated buildings. In a lot of ways it is easier, as the management is the responsibility of someone else. But I agree that the system needs to be better.

[OTownandDown]

So, say, in a condo, you'd have a smattering of units 'donated' by the builder to CCOC, who would then become the owner, to be managed and condo fees paid for in perpetuity?

Or in a rental apartment, does the builder/owner need to manage the low-income units and receive low rent in perpetuity? Does the government pay the difference? How does that work?

Originally Posted by phil235

I'll just say that there are two separate issues here - getting the units built, and long term funding to keep them affordable.

I absolutely think that a large complex like this should include an affordable housing component. Including affordable housing in market-rate projects is a great model for integrating communities, and the affordable component can be required as a condition for increased height or density. There are lots of successful examples of this, including several buildings at Harbourfront in Toronto. That is generally preferable to having entire buildings of subsidized units.

In terms of long term funding, it's no more difficult to fund units in mixed complexes than units in dedicated buildings. In a lot of ways it is easier, as the management is the responsibility of someone else. But I agree that the system needs to be better.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by OTownandDown

So, say, in a condo, you'd have a smattering of units 'donated' by the builder to CCOC, who would then become the owner, to be managed and condo fees paid for in perpetuity?

Or in a rental apartment, does the builder/owner need to manage the low-income units and receive low rent in perpetuity? Does the government pay the difference? How does that work?

There are various ways it can work, but the ongoing costs are
most often a government subsidy (administered by the local housing provider) that supplements the monthly payment and allows the provider to keep it to a percentage of income.

In the case of the condo, the housing agency could buy the units at a discount and rent them out at a reduced rate the same way that the rent out other units that they own. There are also schemes that allow lower income people to buy the units at a reduced cost, (there is typically a restriction on the resale price so they don’t flip them at market price for a big profit).

In almost all cases, the social housing agency remains involved to administer the subsidy.

[OTownandDown]

I have two issues.

1. The issue of increased ongoing administrative costs, especially for a 'decentralized' system where only a handful of units are in each building.

2. The CCOC buildings that I've been in are actually quite good, and the staff working full time at each building provide tremendous support to the occupants.

Most of the time, a client who needs CCOC supported living also requires some form of social stability/social support/or actual government assisted support system. The building supers are actually really good at providing the informal support structures necessary to maintain residents within some sort of community, and CCOC has setups in place to provide the more formal framework for government assisted support.

How does this look when residents are spread throughout the community, and is there an increased cost?

To me, there's nothing wrong with an entire building of supportive housing. Entire neighbourhoods should be avoided, but an entire building is fine. Lets set up plots of land, get the design going, and get the shovels in the ground rather than bicker about elite condos/condo apartments being built (which, by the way, are also in high demand due to the general lack of housing downtown, driving up costs for everyone).

Originally Posted by phil235

There are various ways it can work, but the ongoing costs are
most often a government subsidy (administered by the local housing provider) that supplements the monthly payment and allows the provider to keep it to a percentage of income.

In the case of the condo, the housing agency could buy the units at a discount and rent them out at a reduced rate the same way that the rent out other units that they own. There are also schemes that allow lower income people to buy the units at a reduced cost, (there is typically a restriction on the resale price so they don’t flip them at market price for a big profit).

In almost all cases, the social housing agency remains involved to administer the subsidy.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by OTownandDown

I have two issues.

1. The issue of increased ongoing administrative costs, especially for a 'decentralized' system where only a handful of units are in each building.

2. The CCOC buildings that I've been in are actually quite good, and the staff working full time at each building provide tremendous support to the occupants.

Most of the time, a client who needs CCOC supported living also requires some form of social stability/social support/or actual government assisted support system. The building supers are actually really good at providing the informal support structures necessary to maintain residents within some sort of community, and CCOC has setups in place to provide the more formal framework for government assisted support.

How does this look when residents are spread throughout the community, and is there an increased cost?

To me, there's nothing wrong with an entire building of supportive housing. Entire neighbourhoods should be avoided, but an entire building is fine. Lets set up plots of land, get the design going, and get the shovels in the ground rather than bicker about elite condos/condo apartments being built (which, by the way, are also in high demand due to the general lack of housing downtown, driving up costs for everyone).

I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing. Affordable housing isn't necessarily supportive housing. Most affordable housing is rent geared to income housing, with no other support being provided.

I fully agree that where you have supportive housing with onsite support staff, then the administrative costs of decentralization would be a consideration. But in the case of most affordable housing, the administrative costs of decentralization are not necessarily a factor. And the advantages of mixed income housing are significant when compared with full buildings of social housing.

[OTownandDown]

Originally Posted by phil235

I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing. Affordable housing isn't necessarily supportive housing. Most affordable housing is rent geared to income housing, with no other support being provided.

I fully agree that where you have supportive housing with onsite support staff, then the administrative costs of decentralization would be a consideration. But in the case of most affordable housing, the administrative costs of decentralization are not necessarily a factor. And the advantages of mixed income housing are significant when compared with full buildings of social housing.

I've never been inside a geared to income housing building without having a small crowd of people in the 1st floor common areas. Supportive housing is substantially different, agreed. But most geared to income clients also require social community support.

[DogsWithJobs]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

To a degree, they are trying to avoid ghettoizing poor people. The old way of segregating poor people into separate neighbourhoods was a good way of promoting gang problems. Perhaps, requiring each building to offer housing for lower income people is not entirely practical, but we need to mix people of different income levels as much as possible.

Do you actually think the city cares about that? They approved a homeless shelter on Vanier's main street, and earmarked the baseball stadium for future affordable housing, despite Overbrook already containing an extremely high concentration of subsidized housing.
If they really want to promote mixed income neighbourhoods they have a funny way of showing it.

I'd rather they sell off their more dilapidated properties in these over concentrated areas, than take a cash in lieu from new developments.

[rocketphish]

Planning committee strikes $6.25M affordable housing deal with developer Trinity

By: OBJ staff
Published: Oct 10, 2019 1:11pm EDT

Trinity Development Group has struck a deal to pay $6.25 million towards the city’s affordable housing fund, but there’s no guarantee any such units will end up in the firm’s proposed three-tower development next to Bayview Station.

Ottawa’s planning committee approved the agreement with Trinity on Thursday, but council still needs to sign off on the deal at its next meeting on Oct. 23.

Trinity’s contributions are related to its proposed mixed-use development at 900 Albert St., a stone’s throw from Bayview Station where the two O-Train lines now meet. Trinity and partners InterRent REIT and PBC Real Estate Advisors received initial approval in July 2018 for the ambitious development, which would see three towers of 65, 56 and 27 storeys rise above the 3.6-acre parcel of land.

Though Somerset Coun. Catherine McKenney said previously she’d like to see 25 per cent of the 1,200-unit development set aside for affordable housing, Thursday’s deal does not require a minimum number of units in the 900 Albert project itself to be below market rates. While the Bayview secondary plan includes language for affordable housing provisions such as Trinity’s funding agreement as conditions for development approval, council doesn’t currently have the power to require a specific project to hit a certain minimum target of affordable units.

McKenney did secure an agreement Thursday to ensure the $1.25-million sale price of adjacent lands to the Trinity development would also go towards the city’s affordable housing coffers. Trinity’s $6.25-million contribution is in addition to $975,000 the developer has already pledged to affordable housing and greening projects in Somerset Ward.

Meanwhile, Trinity and co. have been going back and forth with the city’s urban design review panel on final plans for their monumental project and recently resubmitted updated designs to city staff for comments. The developer will file its final plans for committee and council approval in the near future, according to a staff report.

https://obj.ca/article/planning-committee-strikes-625m-affordable-housing-deal-developer-trinity

[Harley613]

I'm going to hold my breath until those final plans become public and hopefully approved. The 'back and forth' with the city scares me a little bit, I am worried the child killing shadows might cause the city to ask for a cut in height. Heaven forbid a developer build a tall building at the nexus of two light rail lines (in Ottawa). Hopefully we get lucky and this gets built the way it is or better!

[waterloowarrior]

https://app01.ottawa.ca/postingplans/appDetails.jsf?lang=en&appId=__0E83LN

August 2019 plans
office tower is down from 29 to 23 floors, about 109m

Tower 2 is 211m tall from the retail grade, but 218.3 metres tall on one side due to the grade change on the west side against the O-Train.
Tower 1 is 233.9m at grade, but about 241.1m on the west side.

[J.OT13]

Too bad the office tower was reduced.

As long as construction starts under Watson't reign, the height of the two tallest towers will not be reduced. He's already lost two of his opponents in Deans and Chiarelli.

[AuxTown]

I would love to see a rendering viewing this from the West (with the CBD in the background) and from the 417 in the South. Despite the elevation change of the escarpment will it still be quite prominent against the CBD?

[Harley613]

Originally Posted by AuxTown

I would love to see a rendering viewing this from the West (with the CBD in the background) and from the 417 in the South. Despite the elevation change of the escarpment will it still be quite prominent against the CBD?

Absolutely. The tallest tower is 300 feet taller than Place de Ville, even with the escarpment it'll still have a roof height 220 feet or so higher than the tallest in the CBD.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Too bad the office tower was reduced.

As long as construction starts under Watson't reign, the height of the two tallest towers will not be reduced. He's already lost two of his opponents in Deans and Chiarelli.

I don't think it is politics leading to the height reductions, it is economics.

[Harley613]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I don't think it is politics leading to the height reductions, it is economics.

I disagree. I believe most height reductions in this city are completely arbitrary and based on a powerful 'NIMBY' culture that has festered in this city for generations.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Harley613

I disagree. I believe most height reductions in this city are completely arbitrary and based on a powerful 'NIMBY' culture that has festered in this city for generations.

They have approvals for a 65, 56 and 27. If they are building less then that it is not for political reasons.

[AuxTown]

Originally Posted by acottawa

They have approvals for a 65, 56 and 27. If they are building less then that it is not for political reasons.

Or could it be for design reasons???? God forbid a developer in Ottawa actually build something with a purpose/vision rather than lot line to lot line with maximum allowed height. The fact that they haven't dropped the height of the two taller towers is encouraging. Here's hoping....

[kwoldtimer]

No, acottawa has it right. A reduction in height of the apartment towers would not be a surprise, especially if Ottawa has a downturn under a new government.

[Kitchissippi]

The floorplate of the smallest tower has increased from a variable 1194-1614 square metres to a consistent 2000 sqm. I think the lower height is just to keep the volume consistent with the older submitted plan.