Building LeBreton Flats - Master Planning

[rocketphish]

NCC board approves development concept for LeBreton Flats, hopes library parcel 'sets the tone'
The NCC board of directors on Thursday OK'd the final concept plan and learned the identities of three development teams.

Jon Willing, Ottawa Citizen
Publishing date: Apr 22, 2021 • 1 hour ago • 4 minute read



The National Capital Commission board of directors on Thursday approved the final concept plan for LeBreton Flats and learned the identities of three development teams competing to build the first part of the modern-day redevelopment of the key federal site.

The concept plan sets the development areas and parkland that will be established over 35 years on the 29-hectare land. The mixed-use plan estimates about 7,500 people will live in homes at the redeveloped LeBreton Flats at full build-out, with 12.5 hectares of land dedicated to park space. Twenty-five per cent of homes will be considered affordable.

It’s the first overarching game plan for the development of LeBreton Flats after the previous attempt to anchor the transformation with an NHL-calibre entertainment facility failed.

Now, the NCC is taking a measured approach to development at LeBreton Flats, first by holding a contract competition to build on the so-called “library parcel” at 665 Albert St. at Booth Street, near Pimisi Station. The site is beside the future super library.

The NCC has shortlisted three project teams from an entry list of five teams to compete for the right to develop the library parcel:
• Dream LeBreton (Dream Asset Management Corporation, Dream Impact Master LP, KPMB Architects, Perkins & Will, Two Row Architect, Purpose Building, PFS Studio, EllisDon and Innovation Seven)
• One Planet Living LeBreton (Windmill Development Group, Epic Investment Services, Centretown Citizens Ottawa Corp., Diamond Schmidt Architects, DTAH Landscape Architects and Ledcor Projects Eastern)
• Team Central (Trinity Development Group, Hobin Architecture, Morley Hoppner, Ottawa Community Housing and the Good Companions)

The minimum number of residential units that will be built in the development of the library parcel is 600. At least 30 per cent of the units will be considered affordable housing. The NCC intends to announce the winning development team in January 2022.

Only when the market conditions are right will the NCC consider developing other parts of LeBreton Flats, but CEO Tobi Nussbaum said there will be “further procurement elements” within the next 12 months.

“We want this first parcel to set the tone,” Nussbaum said after the NCC board meeting.

The concept plan provides broad development timelines divided into three phases for the first decade, second decade and third decade.

It was no coincidence that the NCC announced on the same day the final concept plan LeBreton Flats and the development teams competing for a chunk of it.

Nussbaum said the NCC wants to show people that the planing portion of LeBreton Flats has tangible results.

In fact, the agency will be in construction mode at LeBreton Flats this year as it builds pathways connecting Bayview Station, Pimisi Station and the Ottawa River pathway.

NCC board chair Marc Seaman said the LeBreton Flats blueprint isn’t an abstract concept, but instead, a “doable” plan.

For residents still hoping for a downtown NHL arena, the plan offers a faint hope.

The blueprint allows for a major event centre along Albert Street between City Centre Avenue and Preston Street, but it also includes an alternative for a continuation of the mixed-use neighbourhood to the east if the event centre doesn’t work out.

In a separate approval, the NCC board endorsed the design of the $192.9-million super library, a joint project between the Ottawa Public Library and Library and Archives Canada. It will be the first new institutional facility in the redevelopment of LeBreton Flats.


<snip>


[email protected]
twitter.com/JonathanWilling

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-new...flats-hopes-library-parcel-sets-the-tone

[AuxTown]

Anyone else super happy that the plans still leave room for an arena? If done well, this could turn into one of the nicest destinations in Ottawa to live/work/enjoy. Such a prime location for an entertainment venue.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by AuxTown

Anyone else super happy that the plans still leave room for an arena? If done well, this could turn into one of the nicest destinations in Ottawa to live/work/enjoy. Such a prime location for an entertainment venue.

Absolutely. There is no other site that comes remotely close to being as good. Just think, if it gone as planned, we could have been coming out of the pandemic with a new downtown arena.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by kevinbottawa

I see it includes air rights to build over the station. How does that work? Does that mean they could demolish the upper floor of the station and build a condo right on top?

it might also be possible for someone to buy the air rights to swap and build something taller elsewhere around it.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by AuxTown

Anyone else super happy that the plans still leave room for an arena? If done well, this could turn into one of the nicest destinations in Ottawa to live/work/enjoy. Such a prime location for an entertainment venue.

Yes, but I'm not confident we'll ever see it built. Between the pandemic and the owner who killed the previous deal only a few years ago still around, I have very little faith it will happen.

Unless we get a new owner and the City/Feds are willing to kick in some funding within the next 10 years, the project has no chance.

[LeadingEdgeBoomer]

The NCC approves a Lebreton Flats Master Concept Plan.

https://ottawa.citynews.ca/local-news/ncc-approves-lebreton-flats-master-concept-plan-3659411

[Arcologist]

I think that, we respect to the NHL arena, the NCC should be smart and leave that parcel open for future use. Melnyk won't own the team forever, and a new owner will likely want the team closer to downtown / out of Kanata.

As far as the rest of the plan goes, it's not bad, but certainly nothing inspiring.

And I can't quite understand why there is no development at Bayview Station. IMO, given the intersection of two mass transit lines, this would be a prime spot for ultra-high density development; a massing of tall, multi-use buildings with air-rights overtop the station. Seems like a huge wasted opportunity.

[Arcologist]

Also, 30% affordable housing seems high to me. Don't get me wrong, I know we're in desperate need for more of it, but often to achieve those numbers, building designs get ''dummed'' down in order to reduce costs. I fear that with such a high target for social housing here, the building designs will suffer, and we'll end up with a neighbourhood of drab designs on the doorstep of Parliament and our country's national institutions (Supreme Court, LAC, Confederation Blvd, statues & memorials, etc.)

Especially with Ottawa Community Housing building out a whole new social housing neighbourhood just down the Trillium Line near Somerset/Gladstone, is Lebreton really the place to push for these high targets?

[J.OT13]

I fear there's a better chance we lose our NHL team than there is for a new downtown arena.

For the Bayview area being a park, the argument is that the land is infill and it would be exorbitantly expensive to build solid foundations. It's also a way to make the "we want a giant park" group happy. A compromise I guess.

For the affordable housing piece, I don't think the 30% is necessarily social housing. It's just affordable. For example, a single mother making $50k a year might be eligible to get an apartment at rent-to-income. I believe that's the concept of the Centretown Citizens Ottawa Corp.

[Williamoforange]

Its likely just going to be affordable housing to that definition

https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/professio...ble-housing/affordable-housing-in-canada

If its some local groups definition then, yeah it will likely look similar or worse then Claridge condos in that area.

As for losing the sens I don't think the NHL would allow it them to be moved, at least not in the next 20 years

[silvergate]

Originally Posted by Arcologist

Also, 30% affordable housing seems high to me. Don't get me wrong, I know we're in desperate need for more of it, but often to achieve those numbers, building designs get ''dummed'' down in order to reduce costs. I fear that with such a high target for social housing here, the building designs will suffer, and we'll end up with a neighbourhood of drab designs on the doorstep of Parliament and our country's national institutions (Supreme Court, LAC, Confederation Blvd, statues & memorials, etc.)

Especially with Ottawa Community Housing building out a whole new social housing neighbourhood just down the Trillium Line near Somerset/Gladstone, is Lebreton really the place to push for these high targets?

I mean, who cares? We have ugly buildings already crowding the CBD, what's a few more on lebreton going to change? I'd rather see them put affordable housing ahead of starchitecture. Besides, nice looking buildings don't make a city, the people in it do.

[kevinbottawa]

Originally Posted by silvergate

I mean, who cares? We have ugly buildings already crowding the CBD, what's a few more on lebreton going to change? I'd rather see them put affordable housing ahead of starchitecture. Besides, nice looking buildings don't make a city, the people in it do.

BOTH buildings and people make a city. Buildings are a part of the identity of a city. Is Ottawa the same without the Peace Tower? Is Toronto the same without the CN Tower?

Ottawa has a severe city branding problem. We're known for being drab and boring which ultimately affects our ability to attract talent, new residents, companies and tourism. We're all function and no ambition. Even on the national Skyscraper forum, nobody is interested in discussing anything Ottawa related, which is sentiment people I know in other cities share. People are more impressed with Edmonton, Calgary, Halifax, Surrey and Mississauga than Ottawa. The capital city is at the bottom of the totem pole. Since there are other affordable housing projects in the works as someone else said, I'd gladly take some tasteful starchitecture at Lebreton.

[J.OT13]

The entire Board was super enthused about the project, and I'm a little puzzled. Concept is good, but not miles ahead of RVL. If anything, that project offered a lot this one doesn't, like better connectivity and an enclosed train line, key reasons why they won. The new concept has an additional aqueduct and a larger park. Otherwise, both are quite similar.

More puzzling is their enthusiasm for the Library parcel bidders. One comment was that the 2015 competition could not have produced such great groups of companies. To that I say, yes, it could have. And it did in fact, it did. Trinity put in a bid (that again included Hobin, and CCOC who are now partnering with another project), won, and failed to deliver. Melnyk is often sited as the reason for the miserable failure, but Trinity had a part in it as well.

On top of that, I'm unimpressed with Trinity's work overall. They are a big box store developer. Their experience in urban redevelopment produced a dense big box mall with underground parking. Residential built so far is bland and uninspiring.

Really hoping Dream or Windmill come out on top. Their track record is miles ahead.

[silvergate]

Originally Posted by kevinbottawa

BOTH buildings and people make a city. Buildings are a part of the identity of a city. Is Ottawa the same without the Peace Tower? Is Toronto the same without the CN Tower?

Ottawa has a severe city branding problem. We're known for being drab and boring which ultimately affects our ability to attract talent, new residents, companies and tourism. We're all function and no ambition. Even on the national Skyscraper forum, nobody is interested in discussing anything Ottawa related, which is sentiment people I know in other cities share. People are more impressed with Edmonton, Calgary, Halifax, Surrey and Mississauga than Ottawa. The capital city is at the bottom of the totem pole. Since there are other affordable housing projects in the works as someone else said, I'd gladly take some tasteful starchitecture at Lebreton.

Meh, most of those cities are nothing special once you're in the downtown core. Sauga, Calgary and Edmonton especially, are nice to look at from far away but on the ground they're nothing special. Dynamic? Hardly... Also aside from the library, what's impressive about Halifax??

We're falling behind when it comes to affordable housing, we probably need 4-5 Gladstone villages to start making a real dent in the housing crisis.

A city's identity doesn't have to include the nicest buildings. It's businesses, culture, and the people who make them. Berlin is similar to Ottawa in that the architecture for the most part is nothing special, but the city itself is vibrant and alive. If we give more people the chance to pursue their dreams rather than just needing to make money to get by, I think we'll see a much more exciting city overall.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by silvergate

Meh, most of those cities are nothing special once you're in the downtown core. Sauga, Calgary and Edmonton especially, are nice to look at from far away but on the ground they're nothing special. Dynamic? Hardly... Also aside from the library, what's impressive about Halifax??

We're falling behind when it comes to affordable housing, we probably need 4-5 Gladstone villages to start making a real dent in the housing crisis.

I’d agree. Mississauga and Surrey may have a few landmark buildings, but they are nothing we’d ever want to emulate as far as urban design goes. I’d also argue that Edmonton and Calgary are behind us in a lot of ways.

There’s no reason that we can’t incorporate decent design into affordable housing. I’d argue that any investment in quality brings strong returns in a general pride of place that impacts all facets of life. And when compared to land costs for transit accessible sites, quality design is really pretty minimal.

[HighwayStar]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

Its likely just going to be affordable housing to that definition

https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/professio...ble-housing/affordable-housing-in-canada

If its some local groups definition then, yeah it will likely look similar or worse then Claridge condos in that area.

Check out 9 DeKalb going up in downtown Brooklyn... beautiful rental building.. 1066 ft tall... with 30% affordable housing..

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=212048&page=68

Somehow, it is possible to have it all 😳

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by HighwayStar

Check out 9 DeKalb going up in downtown Brooklyn... beautiful rental building.. 1066 ft tall... with 30% affordable housing..

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=212048&page=68

Somehow, it is possible to have it all ������

What definition of affordable are they using? Also, note the height compared to what will be allowed at LeBreton.....

Yes it can be accomplished when the economics of it work out, I somehow doubt that in Ottawa. As someone will have to pay for those affordable units, so the with 70% will need to be priced to subsidize the cost of the other 30%..

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

What definition of affordable are they using? Also, note the height compared to what will be allowed at LeBreton.....

Yes it can be accomplished when the economics of it work out, I somehow doubt that in Ottawa. As someone will have to pay for those affordable units, so the with 70% will need to be priced to subsidize the cost of the other 30%..

The criteria for affordable housing is typically based on a percentage of average income. Since average incomes in Ottawa are high, and land costs are lower than the GTA, it should be easier to build decent affordable housing here.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by phil235

The criteria for affordable housing is typically based on a percentage of average income. Since average incomes in Ottawa are high, and land costs are lower than the GTA, it should be easier to build decent affordable housing here.

I literally asked for the definition that they are using so that a proper comparison can be made

Because as anyone who's followed this subject should know by now advocacy groups that are demanding this adorable housing have differing definition then that of say CHMC, which is what I linked to earlier.

Land costs are not that much lower, and again no matter what the market most be able to bear whatever the increased price is for the remaining 70% if it can't then the cost of the whole building must decrease until it is within the price range.

In this case it may work out due to the NCC possibly giving the land away in return for the 30% affordable units, but will have to wait and see on that.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

I literally asked for the definition that they are using so that a proper comparison can be made

Because as anyone who's followed this subject should know by now advocacy groups that are demanding this adorable housing have differing definition then that of say CHMC, which is what I linked to earlier.

Land costs are not that much lower, and again no matter what the market most be able to bear whatever the increased price is for the remaining 70% if it can't then the cost of the whole building must decrease until it is within the price range.

In this case it may work out due to the NCC possibly giving the land away in return for the 30% affordable units, but will have to wait and see on that.

Well, we don’t know what program this affordable housing will fall under, so it would be hard to provide a definition at this stage. But the relevant definition is set by the program, not what advocacy groups may say. Odds are it will be one of the CMHC programs, cost shared by the province.

The way these programs generally work is that the household pays a set percentage of income, and then the program makes up the difference based on market rents, so the project owner isn’t penalized financially. There are also adjustments or caps based on average income in the market. Based on Ottawa’s relatively high incomes and rents relative to land costs (a ratio which is dramatically different than the GTA), it’s actually quite well positioned to get good affordable housing projects.