265 Catherine St [Former Greyhound terminal] | 110/117/127m | 32/34/36f | Site Prep

[Harley613]

Originally Posted by phil235

Why exactly do you think that people in the Glebe would oppose this? I've never seen any opposition from the Glebe to a project in Centretown.

That said, there are single family houses on the blocks north of the site (and for about 12 blocks north of that) and a school across the street, so transition will be an issue. It's a big enough site that it should be workable, but we'd need to finally embrace actual podium design for that to happen.

You REALLY don't think the Glebe Nimbys will have anything to say about supertall mega skyscrapers within view of their homes?!? A 27 story building here might even...heaven forbid...cast a short late afternoon shadow on a few houses in the Glebe...

[J.OT13]

I noticed the article uses the pronoun "she" instead of "they" for McKenney. Surprised to see that.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Harley613

You REALLY don't think the Glebe Nimbys will have anything to say about supertall mega skyscrapers within view of their homes?!? A 27 story building here might even...heaven forbid...cast a short late afternoon shadow on a few houses in the Glebe...

Nope, I don’t. Sure there are NIMBYs everywhere, so I’m sure a reporter can find someone willing to complain for an article. But organized opposition, I really doubt it. There’s a 27-storey building just down the street that got essentially no opposition from the Glebe.

[Harley613]

Originally Posted by phil235

Nope, I don’t. Sure there are NIMBYs everywhere, so I’m sure a reporter can find someone willing to complain for an article. But organized opposition, I really doubt it. There’s a 27-storey building just down the street that got essentially no opposition from the Glebe.

Where is this 27 story building? I know of a 23 story building nearby (Soba) that is well under the CDP guidlines, and a 21 story building at Lansdowne...

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Harley613

Where is this 27 story building? I know of a 23 story building nearby (Soba) that is well under the CDP guidlines, and a 21 story building at Lansdowne...

Sorry, meant Soba.

[GeoNerd]

Not sure why McKenney wouldn’t support an amendment for an increase in height. It's already zoned for 27 storey towers, what's the difference whether they're 27 storeys or 37 storeys? Shadowing differences would be minimal.

I like McKenney, but they need to rethink their mentality of keeping centretown small, low-rise houses. This isn't Kingston or Cornwall. Downtown needs tens of thousands of more people. We are never going to get 60% intensification, not even close.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by GeoNerd

Not sure why McKenney wouldn’t support an amendment for an increase in height. It's already zoned for 27 storey towers, what's the difference whether they're 27 storeys or 37 storeys? Shadowing differences would be minimal.

I like McKenney, but they need to rethink their mentality of keeping centretown small, low-rise houses. This isn't Kingston or Cornwall. Downtown needs tens of thousands of more people. We are never going to get 60% intensification, not even close.

I agree that on this site, it really doesn't matter if buildings are 27 floors or 37+. It would be amazing to have a landmark development in the south end of Centretown to draw more people north-south through the core.

Side bar, I do wonder how many tourists the Museum of Nature draws considering it's in a location with little to no other attractions and poor transit.

[YOWflier]

I don't have data but I'm positive it's well visited just by virtue of being on the long distance and local tour bus circuits.

[passwordisnt123]

Originally Posted by GeoNerd

Not sure why McKenney wouldn’t support an amendment for an increase in height. It's already zoned for 27 storey towers, what's the difference whether they're 27 storeys or 37 storeys? Shadowing differences would be minimal.

I like McKenney, but they need to rethink their mentality of keeping centretown small, low-rise houses. This isn't Kingston or Cornwall. Downtown needs tens of thousands of more people. We are never going to get 60% intensification, not even close.

Agreed. I really like McKenney and I'll happily keep voting for them but I really don't get why they would stand in the way of this. I hope it's a strategy to express disapproval at first in order to extract more community benefits from the developer in exchange for the height and density they want. I'd be on board with that.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by passwordisnt123

Agreed. I really like McKenney and I'll happily keep voting for them but I really don't get why they would stand in the way of this. I hope it's a strategy to express disapproval at first in order to extract more community benefits from the developer in exchange for the height and density they want. I'd be on board with that.

That's a perverse strategy and an incentive for council to under zone property so they can extract rewards for there wards. It's the same strategy that is brought forward to keep single family home zoning minimums for be suburbs.

Also, to any one else that has the idea that this site will get a tower over 27 stories, let this tweet dispel any notion of that happening:

https://twitter.com/cmckenney/status...589981696?s=20

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

That's a perverse strategy and an incentive for council to under zone property so they can extract rewards for there wards. It's the same strategy that is brought forward to keep single family home zoning minimums for be suburbs.

Also, to any one else that has the idea that this site will get a tower over 27 stories, let this tweet dispel any notion of that happening:

https://twitter.com/cmckenney/status...589981696?s=20

I see it as the City zoning based on what they think is appropriate for the site and developers push for more, sometimes far more. Developers are even ready to over pay for parcel of land assuming they will get what they want.

That said, even if urban Councillors oppose additional height, chances are the additional height will be approved none the less. In this case, additional height on Catherine is acceptable IMO.

[AuxTown]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I see it as the City zoning based on what they think is appropriate for the site and developers push for more, sometimes far more. Developers are even ready to over pay for parcel of land assuming they will get what they want.

That said, even if urban Councillors oppose additional height, chances are the additional height will be approved none the less. In this case, additional height on Catherine is acceptable IMO.

I am not sure why we need to buffer single family homes in Centretown?? This is a large site 50 feet from the largest/busiest highway in Ottawa with excellent transit connections and easy walking distance to 3 different main streets (Bronson, Bank, Elgin) and the CBD. If this isn't the place for intensification, I don't know what is. It doesn't need to be 60 stories, though, and thoughtful design can help it transition to it's lower-density neighbours in a comfortable way. Looking forward to seeing proposals for this site.

[Urbanarchit]

Originally Posted by AuxTown

I am not sure why we need to buffer single family homes in Centretown?? This is a large site 50 feet from the largest/busiest highway in Ottawa with excellent transit connections and easy walking distance to 3 different main streets (Bronson, Bank, Elgin) and the CBD. If this isn't the place for intensification, I don't know what is. It doesn't need to be 60 stories, though, and thoughtful design can help it transition to it's lower-density neighbours in a comfortable way. Looking forward to seeing proposals for this site.

I disagree. It's actually incredibly poorly served by transit. There aren't any buses that go to or near this site except for some small, overcrowded buses on Bank Street that don't run that frequently. The only thing it has going for it is it's right at the off-ramp for the Queensway. Bank is also the only Main Street it is near, at around 225m from the site. Bronson isn't really a Main Street as there are barely any businesses on it (a couple of businesses by Carling), is 670m from the site and what's there is less than appealing. Elgin is 818m from this site, and what you get isn't much either. The good part of Elgin and downtown are at least 1km from this site.
The only real reason this site is ideal for intensification is because it's an entire block right beside the Queensway in a shabby area with industrial buildings and parking lots that are zoned to allow highrise buildings.

Truthfully, a building of 15-25 floors (maybe 30) would be better for this. The original proposal from when Larry O'Brien wanted to move the bus terminal showed two towers in the 20-storey range with a 3-floor podium was actually quite ideal. It's hard to provide a transit to the lowrise residential to the North, East, West considering how much space highrises take up relative to the size of the site (in this case, the dimensions are around 60m x 171m). Anything taller would be too much, and isn't needed in this area. Highrises of those heights should be reserved for LRT stations and parts closer to downtown or larger tracts of land. Not to mention that the taller the building the more the shadow would stretch over Centretown. I think SoBa is a good height for this area.

[J.OT13]

I could see something similar to Tribeca, massing-wise. Flip the towers to Catherine, maybe have them taller (30 and 40 floors) and add more retail space on the Catherine side and street facing townhomes on Arlington.

EDIT: I guess the massing or Tribeca is similar to the O'Brien era proposal for the bus station site. Just add height to the towers (30-40 total) and the Catherine side of the podium (4-6 floors). Podium can be retail and offices, one tower a hotel and the other residential. I would prefer two taller point towers to two chunky towers.

[Urbanarchit]

For Reference, here are the massing models for the original propose for the bus terminal. Source with more images and information: Reinventing Ottawa. They show these slim towers as 23 floors. I think something like this is appropriate for the site.



I'll come up with a mock-up model tonight.

[GeoNerd]

Originally Posted by Urbanarchit

For Reference, here are the massing models for the original propose for the bus terminal. Source with more images and information: Reinventing Ottawa. They show these slim towers as 23 floors. I think something like this is appropriate for the site.

I'll come up with a mock-up model tonight.

But what is the difference between a 23-27 storey tower and a say a 34-37 storey tower? It would be an unrecognizable difference at street level and shadowing differences minimal.

[Urbanarchit]

Originally Posted by GeoNerd

But what is the difference between a 23-27 storey tower and a say a 34-37 storey tower? It would be an unrecognizable difference at street level and shadowing differences minimal.

Several.

- 10 floors is a significant difference in height. It's taking this and then stacking it on top of this in an area that looks like this for about a kilometer. And for what reason other than, "Why not"? It would already stand out as a landmark being 25 floors, but good urban planning and design isn't about how it looks at a distance. An additional 10 floors is noticeable to people on the street. It is definitely not "minimal". The contrast between a 30+ floor building next to 2-3 floor houses is like the Minto Metropole beside the lowrise townhouses at Westboro Station.

- Increased height results in increased costs for construction and engineering as there are great loads placed on the building. The higher it goes the more wind effects it that needs to be engineered to withstand and designed so the wind isn't affecting the street. These increased costs get downloaded onto the person buying the unit, meaning increased cost of housing in a city where housing is already too expensive.

- The shadows cast will stretch over a greater distance the higher it goes.

- Studies find that the higher up people live, the less contact and and more detachment from urban life.

- More people living in this building will result in more traffic. It is a site that is not properly served by public transit and is in an area that is noticeably hostile to pedestrians and cyclists, unless one day the Province is willing to demolish the Queensway and rethink this area. It's not near any jobs as it's in the middle of a low-rise residential neighbourhood 1km from the downtown offices.

- There are better parts of the city where 30+ buildings would be more appropriate, but this is not one of them. What is a good reason despite the above for a 30+ storey building here other than "because"? It's not like Brigile is known for doing good quality, landmark architecture. This is their building on Parkdale that's 32 floors, and it's not "landmark architecture". There first proposal in Gatineau wasn't even much of a landmark. They more of Claridge kind of developer. Frankly, even something under 20 floors would be more than suitable for this site - it gets the job done.

[GeoNerd]

Originally Posted by Urbanarchit

Several.

- 10 floors is a significant difference in height. It's taking this and then stacking it on top of this in an area that looks like this for about a kilometer. And for what reason other than, "Why not"? It would already stand out as a landmark being 25 floors, but good urban planning and design isn't about how it looks at a distance. An additional 10 floors is noticeable to people on the street. It is definitely not "minimal". The contrast between a 30+ floor building next to 2-3 floor houses is like the Minto Metropole beside the lowrise townhouses at Westboro Station.

- Increased height results in increased costs for construction and engineering as there are great loads placed on the building. The higher it goes the more wind effects it that needs to be engineered to withstand and designed so the wind isn't affecting the street. These increased costs get downloaded onto the person buying the unit, meaning increased cost of housing in a city where housing is already too expensive.

- The shadows cast will stretch over a greater distance the higher it goes.

- Studies find that the higher up people live, the less contact and and more detachment from urban life.

- More people living in this building will result in more traffic. It is a site that is not properly served by public transit and is in an area that is noticeably hostile to pedestrians and cyclists, unless one day the Province is willing to demolish the Queensway and rethink this area. It's not near any jobs as it's in the middle of a low-rise residential neighbourhood 1km from the downtown offices.

- There are better parts of the city where 30+ buildings would be more appropriate, but this is not one of them. What is a good reason despite the above for a 30+ storey building here other than "because"? It's not like Brigile is known for doing good quality, landmark architecture. This is their building on Parkdale that's 32 floors, and it's not "landmark architecture". There first proposal in Gatineau wasn't even much of a landmark. They more of Claridge kind of developer. Frankly, even something under 20 floors would be more than suitable for this site - it gets the job done.

I would argue that your points are a bit misleading.

- Adding 10 storeys to a 25 storey building is not like adding 10 storeys onto a 10 storey building at all. It's more adding 10 stories to this. Almost unrecognizable at street level.

- The cost difference between 25 storeys and 35 usually benefits the higher tower. If you're already building 25 storeys, it is usually cost effective to go higher. Hence why most developers push for height increases.

- The distance at which the shadow differences would affect would likely be lost in trees and existing buildings anyway. The difference in shadows would be minimal.

- We're not talking a 98 storey tower here. I would think the "detachment from urban life" would be almost identical to the approved 27 storeys. I've never heard this argument used in opposition to a 10-15 storey increase. Maybe that may come into play on a 40 storey increase. But again, this is a strange argument that I've never heard used on an existing zoned tower site.

- More traffic created by this development is not a bad thing. Perhaps Catherine Street wouldn't be used as a drag strip service road for freeway commuters. People out walking, biking, driving in the area would slow down this area. The traffic argument is redundant. Again there is already zoning for two 27 storey towers. A slight increase in height will not make a major difference.

- The arguments for height in this area is the city has deemed the Catherine Street corridor a high-rise area. The city wants 60% intensification. This is an ideal landmark tower site. Infrastructure is likely already in place to handle the increase. Downtown needs a massive increase in residential units. The 27 storey height limit is an arbitrary number. Two bookend towers on an entire downtown block is under development. What are the real arguments for staying at 27 storeys besides "because"?

[Urbanarchit]

Originally Posted by GeoNerd

I would argue that your points are a bit misleading.

- Adding 10 storeys to a 25 storey building is not like adding 10 storeys onto a 10 storey building at all. It's more adding 10 stories to this. Almost unrecognizable at street level.

- The cost difference between 25 storeys and 35 usually benefits the higher tower. If you're already building 25 storeys, it is usually cost effective to go higher. Hence why most developers push for height increases.

- The distance at which the shadow differences would affect would likely be lost in trees and existing buildings anyway. The difference in shadows would be minimal.

- We're not talking a 98 storey tower here. I would think the "detachment from urban life" would be almost identical to the approved 27 storeys. I've never heard this argument used in opposition to a 10-15 storey increase. Maybe that may come into play on a 40 storey increase. But again, this is a strange argument that I've never heard used on an existing zoned tower site.

- More traffic created by this development is not a bad thing. Perhaps Catherine Street wouldn't be used as a drag strip service road for freeway commuters. People out walking, biking, driving in the area would slow down this area. The traffic argument is redundant. Again there is already zoning for two 27 storey towers. A slight increase in height will not make a major difference.

- The arguments for height in this area is the city has deemed the Catherine Street corridor a high-rise area. The city wants 60% intensification. This is an ideal landmark tower site. Infrastructure is likely already in place to handle the increase. Downtown needs a massive increase in residential units. The 27 storey height limit is an arbitrary number. Two bookend towers on an entire downtown block is under development. What are the real arguments for staying at 27 storeys besides "because"?

It's actually not more cost effective. It's more expensive period the higher you go and requires more specialized engineering to support the height and weight and to provide services needed to make the building more livable (not to mention the higher one goes the more air conditioning is need. It's usually only every several floors in increase that make up for the additional cost. In the case of this project, the City has set a very clear standard of what they expect, one that neighbours already may be opposed to. The developer would then have to spend 10s of thousands of dollars in a legal fight with the City to ask for that increased height, and they don't have a good justification for why this site should get it. This increased cost ends up built in their project. Heck, even the building by the Odawa Native Friendship Centre was not approved at the height they asked for, and it sits between two LRT stations. Soho Italia even fought a few times to get increased height by 5 floors and it's beside an o-train station where 45-55 floor buildings are approved.

More people in buildings does not make streets safer for pedestrians and cyclists. If that were the case Rideau would be among the safest streets in the city. It's up to the City to redesign Catherine to make it less busy with cars and provided better, safer, more comfortable room for pedestrians and cyclists. But a building like this will only add 100s of cars on the roads, making it dangerous and more congested.

The only people who claim this site should be a landmark are people on this board, and that's because they have boners for highrises without much concern for the street or neighbourhood or even how appropriate the area is, and think there's justification because this is an entire block to be developed. Ironically, some people in this thread opposed 267 O'Connor's proposal because of where it's located - and it's got a better site than this project and is closer to downtown.. The City doesn't care, nor is there even a reason this should be a landmark. Highrise =/= landmark, and this developer doesn't do landmark buildings. Why should this site by 27? Because that's what the City decided on after consultation and planning for years. I think even that is too tall, and should be shorter. but why does it need to be higher? It's not served by transit and likely won't ever be, is not central, and is surrounded by lowrise houses. Why should it be taller? It already would stand out.

[GeoNerd]

Originally Posted by Urbanarchit

It's actually not more cost effective. It's more expensive period the higher you go and requires more specialized engineering to support the height and weight and to provide services needed to make the building more livable (not to mention the higher one goes the more air conditioning is need. It's usually only every several floors in increase that make up for the additional cost. In the case of this project, the City has set a very clear standard of what they expect, one that neighbours already may be opposed to. The developer would then have to spend 10s of thousands of dollars in a legal fight with the City to ask for that increased height, and they don't have a good justification for why this site should get it. This increased cost ends up built in their project. Heck, even the building by the Odawa Native Friendship Centre was not approved at the height they asked for, and it sits between two LRT stations. Soho Italia even fought a few times to get increased height by 5 floors and it's beside an o-train station where 45-55 floor buildings are approved.

More people in buildings does not make streets safer for pedestrians and cyclists. If that were the case Rideau would be among the safest streets in the city. It's up to the City to redesign Catherine to make it less busy with cars and provided better, safer, more comfortable room for pedestrians and cyclists. But a building like this will only add 100s of cars on the roads, making it dangerous and more congested.

The only people who claim this site should be a landmark are people on this board, and that's because they have boners for highrises without much concern for the street or neighbourhood or even how appropriate the area is, and think there's justification because this is an entire block to be developed. Ironically, some people in this thread opposed 267 O'Connor's proposal because of where it's located - and it's got a better site than this project and is closer to downtown.. The City doesn't care, nor is there even a reason this should be a landmark. Highrise =/= landmark, and this developer doesn't do landmark buildings. Why should this site by 27? Because that's what the City decided on after consultation and planning for years. Why does it need to be higher? It's not served by transit and likely won't ever be, is not central, and is surrounded by lowrise houses. Why should it be taller? It already would stand out.

I don't know what kind of projects you've worked on, but it is WAY more cost effective to increase the height. The increase in "engineering costs" is a drop in the bucket on a projects like this. Air-conditioners? Again, a drop in the bucket. There's a reason developers will shell out hundreds of thousands to gain 5-10 extra floors. The profit return far offset the costs. Developers are going to charge what the market dictates. The units are not going to be magically cheaper at 25 storeys vs. 35 storeys.

I didn't say more buildings make streets safer for pedestrians and cyclists. I said more people can make a street safer. More people can bring in needed road/pedestrian upgrades and added people slow drivers down. Rideau Street is an inter-provincial truck route, and not comparable.

The debate is not no-tower site vs. tower site. It's a tower site period. It's whether 25 storeys or 35 storeys really makes a difference. I say no, you say yes.