HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #321  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2020, 2:30 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 25,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aylmer View Post
Although you've gotta be careful with high density zoning. Very long story short, when you zone high, the land shoots up. The profit of any project becomes increasingly marginal, and both sellers and developers will sit on the land for years, awaiting the highest possible yield. This is especially true of concrete and steel construction (anything above 5-6 storeys) because it's ridiculously expensive to build. It makes more sense to sit on valuable land with potential (which you can sell or leverage) than to build something that might lose you money.

TLDR: Zoning for high density as of right slows development to a crawl. You've removed the regulatory barriers, but put up a higher economic barrier to development.

This isn't a problem in an area which is already built up because it's already built up. But when you're starting from scratch (as we are in most non-downtowns), developing at a rate of 2% of lots per decade (a generous rate) is too slow to make the place feel not completely empty. But 5-6 storey zoned-areas develop at 10-15% per decade. You end up in this counter-intuitive situation where zoning for 40 storeys gives you more potential density, but lower actual density than 5 storeys.

Before Cities zone for height, they need to make sure that it's going to serve to actually build.
Doesn't have to be towers. Montreal or Paris are prime examples of density without towers. Agora in Gatineau's Le Plateau offers both density and community feel without the towers. That development is far better than the towers in a parking lot proposed all over Ottawa.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #322  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2020, 4:01 PM
foolworm foolworm is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00 View Post
Debatable. I'm sick of my tax dollars going to substitute sprawl. At least with some TOD standards that can be marginally minimized.
I am staunchly against my tax dollars being used to woo property developers and enable speculation, especially if it's in the form of billion dollar transit projects.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #323  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2020, 4:39 PM
Truenorth00 Truenorth00 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 25,770
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolworm View Post
I am staunchly against my tax dollars being used to woo property developers and enable speculation, especially if it's in the form of billion dollar transit projects.
This line of thought leads to no higher order transit capital investment at all. Because every major transit investment is going to attract some developer interest.

If we are going to build higher order transit, let's at least ensure there's a ridership base there. What's the point of using transit to facilitate sprawl as we see in the GTA and now in Ottawa. You think developers aren't happy to see a transit line built to the suburbs where they're putting up low density homes? They don't need to be beside the station to profit. They'll use the lift from that line to pad their profits while happily leaving the transit authority with yet another low density neighborhood to run low frequency bus service through and the city with yet more roads to maintain and buildings to service, driving up taxes for everyone while providing shitty services.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #324  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2020, 6:18 PM
Aylmer's Avatar
Aylmer Aylmer is offline
Still optimistic
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Montreal (C-D-N) / Ottawa (Aylmer)
Posts: 5,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.OT13 View Post
Doesn't have to be towers. Montreal or Paris are prime examples of density without towers. Agora in Gatineau's Le Plateau offers both density and community feel without the towers. That development is far better than the towers in a parking lot proposed all over Ottawa.
Exactly. Projects like Agora wouldn't be possible if those lands were zoned for height. It's the counter-intuitive trap which has sterilized so many station areas across the country. And honestly, I wish I knew how to put that toothpaste back in the tube...
__________________
I've always struggled with reality. And I'm pleased to say that I won.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #325  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2020, 6:24 PM
Aylmer's Avatar
Aylmer Aylmer is offline
Still optimistic
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Montreal (C-D-N) / Ottawa (Aylmer)
Posts: 5,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolworm View Post
I am staunchly against my tax dollars being used to woo property developers and enable speculation, especially if it's in the form of billion dollar transit projects.
I agree, but watch out that you don't mistake this for a zero-sum game. If a developer profits, it doesn't mean the public loses. In fact, most of the urban places we cherish today were, at some point, a money-making venture for developers. BUT it's not because something is good for developers that it's good for the public either. Land speculation is a classic example of that - great for the bottom line, but the public is left with empty fields and decrepit "coming soon!" signs.

It's important to build transit projects in ways which will enable the public to benefit not just from transportation, but also from new services and urban spaces and housing options around the lines. To oppose it on the only basis that it's profitable for developers is to cut off our nose to spite our face.
__________________
I've always struggled with reality. And I'm pleased to say that I won.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #326  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2020, 8:10 PM
Truenorth00 Truenorth00 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 25,770
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aylmer View Post
Exactly. Projects like Agora wouldn't be possible if those lands were zoned for height. It's the counter-intuitive trap which has sterilized so many station areas across the country. And honestly, I wish I knew how to put that toothpaste back in the tube...
Make funding conditional on density within a certain distance of the station. Want funding for your LRT or subway line? Need 10 000 residents or FTE jobs within an 800m radius of every station of your line. Or zoning to achieve this in 15 years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #327  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2020, 6:02 PM
foolworm foolworm is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00 View Post
If we are going to build higher order transit, let's at least ensure there's a ridership base there. What's the point of using transit to facilitate sprawl as we see in the GTA and now in Ottawa.
This line of thought leads to no higher order transit capital investment at all. Because every major transit investment is going to draw ridership from some area of sprawl. The 'built it and they will come' mentality went down in flames decades ago. Build to where we know the ridership is, not where we think they 'may be' after a couple rounds of scalping and speculation.

Transit is not some sexy toy to enable urban revitalization, it is a public service that nobody is willing to pay face value for due to tragedy of the commons. I say this as someone who kept paying for my monthly transit pass even when the local agency made it free during the first wave of COVID.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #328  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2020, 7:52 PM
Innsertnamehere's Avatar
Innsertnamehere Innsertnamehere is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 11,917
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aylmer View Post
Although you've gotta be careful with high density zoning. Very long story short, when you zone high, the cost of land shoots up. As the profit of any project becomes increasingly marginal, and both sellers and developers will sit on the land for years, awaiting the highest possible yield. This is especially true of concrete and steel construction (anything above 5-6 storeys) because it's ridiculously expensive to build. It makes more sense to sit on valuable land with potential (which you can sell or leverage) than to build something that might lose you money.

TLDR: Zoning for high density as of right slows development to a crawl. You've removed the regulatory barriers, but put up a higher economic barrier to development.

This isn't a problem in an area which is already built up because it's already built up. But when you're starting from scratch (as we are in most non-downtowns), developing at a rate of 2% of lots per decade (a generous rate) is too slow to make the place feel not completely empty. But 5-6 storey zoned-areas develop at 10-15% per decade, enough to fill an area in a reasonable time drame. You end up in this counter-intuitive situation where zoning for 40 storeys gives you more potential density, but lower actual density than 5 storeys. There are exceptions to this, such as when a developer buys the land before it gets rezoned, such as Ottawa's Zibi.

Before Cities zone for height, they need to make sure that it's going to serve to actually build.

I wouldn't argue this at all. Hamilton recently pre-zoned it's downtown core for new development and has seen an unprecedented increase in development applications. Pre-zoning has lowered the cost of doing business and made it a much simpler process, attracting developers. Same thing with Vaughan and Mississauga - both downtowns are pre-zoned and are seeing much faster growth rates than other areas that aren't.

Land prices do increase to reflect the new entitlements coming from pre-zoning, but many developers actually prefer it as it minimizes risk. There are many developers that specialize in high risk sites and attaining entitlements (Kingsett Capital is a big one in Toronto, they zone sites and almost always flip them), but most builders just want to do exactly that, build. Pre-zoned sites allow them to do that.

Speculation in real estate is mostly for small time meddlers. Sitting on land generates no value, you are relying on others to generate the value for you through either surrounding infrastructure improvements or the tightening of the market. Value is created by making the land more valuable - either by developing it or increasing it's potential to be developed.

Pre-zoning also doesn't have to be for 30+ storey buildings. Toronto's avenues are mostly pre-zoned and have seen an uptick in mid-rise construction, which is normally a very expensive form of development. But developers do it because of the existing entitlements.


Possibly my favourite pre-zoned site storey is in Stoney Creek, where a site has gone undeveloped from the 1970's when a developer got zoning approvals for unlimited height and density (how tall would someone really have built in that area back then?). Now there is an application in for three 50 strorey buildings. As of right. On the side of the QEW. Nobody would even think of trying to build that kind of density in the area if the entitlements didn't already exist.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #329  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2020, 7:56 PM
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
Nouvellecosse Nouvellecosse is online now
Volatile Pacivist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 9,665
I don't think there should be an either/or approach, as in "transit should only be built based on what does/will exist under current trends and shouldn't attempt to shape development patterns" vs "transit should solely be built as a planning exercise to induce desired development patterns, add density, etc." Obviously it's challenging to do, but we should recognise the role transit plays in both areas. Yes transit is a public service including in areas that are hard to serve, and yes the type and location of infrastructure does affect where people locate homes and businesses and the lifestyle choices they make.
__________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
Don't ask people not to debate a topic. Just stop making debatable assertions. Problem solved.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #330  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2020, 10:52 PM
Truenorth00 Truenorth00 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 25,770
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolworm View Post
This line of thought leads to no higher order transit capital investment at all. Because every major transit investment is going to draw ridership from some area of sprawl. The 'built it and they will come' mentality went down in flames decades ago. Build to where we know the ridership is, not where we think they 'may be' after a couple rounds of scalping and speculation.
I think we may be talking past each other. I have no issues with building transit to where the ridership is. But given that this is rarely politically acceptable in our substantially suburbanized metros, the second best thing is to ensure that what is built will have a ridership base develop around it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foolworm View Post
Transit is not some sexy toy to enable urban revitalization, it is a public service that nobody is willing to pay face value for due to tragedy of the commons.
Agreed. But being doctrinaire about how transit is built isn't going to change anything in a world where it's mostly suburban politicians deciding what transit infrastructure gets built.

Let's take Ottawa. I have argued that the LRT shouldn't have left the greenbelt. But that's clearly not a politically tenable position for most politicians in the region. The second best solution is at least to ensure there's plenty of density and good built form around the line. Putting up towers in a park near these suburban stations isn't exactly great at improving the urban form.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #331  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2021, 8:07 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 25,112
Blair station, Ottawa. The current terminus of the Confederation Line, until 2021.

First TOD tower complete. The second, which would be behind the first, is near completion. The third, which has been approved, will be in the parking lot at the right of the image, with direct connection to the station via the existing red pedestrian bridge.


https://twitter.com/allthingshomeot/...31267603148801
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #332  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2021, 9:35 PM
vanman's Avatar
vanman vanman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver BC
Posts: 6,394
Looks good.

The pedestrian bridges and bus shelter look a bit dated now in comparison to the sleek station and tower.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #333  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2021, 9:49 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
Unapologetic Occidental
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Province 2, Canadian Empire
Posts: 70,081
REM trains have begun doing test runs on the south shore of Montreal, in the Brossard area.
__________________
No, you're not on my ignore list. Because I don't have one.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #334  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2021, 5:05 AM
youngregina's Avatar
youngregina youngregina is offline
Edan
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Victoria Park, Calgary
Posts: 975
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.OT13 View Post
Blair station, Ottawa. The current terminus of the Confederation Line, until 2021.

First TOD tower complete. The second, which would be behind the first, is near completion. The third, which has been approved, will be in the parking lot at the right of the image, with direct connection to the station via the existing red pedestrian bridge.


https://twitter.com/allthingshomeot/...31267603148801
It’s strange how I immediately assumed this was Calgary when scrolling through, and then questioned why I couldn’t recognize the station... Well, that’s because it’s Ottawa! Haha. Crazy similar form in many ways (Minus the obvious of a station not in the middle of highway in Ottawa’s case). Brentwood, Anderson, Heritage came to mind. I know they aren’t exactly the same, but similar, yes. Maybe it was the red livery.
__________________
#YYC
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #335  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2021, 2:05 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 25,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by youngregina View Post
It’s strange how I immediately assumed this was Calgary when scrolling through, and then questioned why I couldn’t recognize the station... Well, that’s because it’s Ottawa! Haha. Crazy similar form in many ways (Minus the obvious of a station not in the middle of highway in Ottawa’s case). Brentwood, Anderson, Heritage came to mind. I know they aren’t exactly the same, but similar, yes. Maybe it was the red livery.
For anyone unfamiliar with Ottawa's system, a quick glance at Blair could remind someone of the red Stampede/Victoria Park station as well.

Stage 2 will include a few highway median stations, but most will be under road overpasses. Trim and Place d 'Orleans might have more similarities to Calgary, both having overhead walkways.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #336  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2021, 7:04 AM
youngregina's Avatar
youngregina youngregina is offline
Edan
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Victoria Park, Calgary
Posts: 975
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.OT13 View Post
For anyone unfamiliar with Ottawa's system, a quick glance at Blair could remind someone of the red Stampede/Victoria Park station as well.

Stage 2 will include a few highway median stations, but most will be under road overpasses. Trim and Place d 'Orleans might have more similarities to Calgary, both having overhead walkways.
Haha, I can see that too. My condo faces Vic Park Stampede Station in Calgary. I’m directly across from it.
__________________
#YYC
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #337  
Old Posted Feb 9, 2021, 2:21 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 25,112
Scott Street along the Transitway (O-Train by 2025) trench, with the Westboro tower cluster near the top left.

Six towers (around 1,500 units) are proposed along a 1 kilometer stretch between Westboro and Kitchi Sibi (today Dominion) stations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ott902 View Post
Houses on Tweedsmuir were demolished today

The lot cleared in the foreground will be a 26 storey tower.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketphish View Post
Site:




Renderings & Changes:




The curling building will be replaced with a new tower of undetermined height, with a new curling club to be built at the back of the lot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by waterloowarrior View Post
Directly west (next lot up on picture) will be a 30 floor tower and at the end of Scott at Churchill , a 25 floor tower has been approved.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketphish View Post
...as well as:

Updated renderings:







At the corner of Churchill will be a 25 storey tower.


https://obj.ca/index.php/article/dev...r-scott-street

Between Churchill and the existing tower cluster, at Roosevelt, two towers (18+21 fl) and four low-rises (4 floors each) are proposed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketphish View Post

Development application:
https://app01.ottawa.ca/postingplans...appId=__B93T6U

Siteplan:




Renderings:


Reply With Quote
     
     
  #338  
Old Posted Feb 9, 2021, 4:04 PM
Chadillaccc's Avatar
Chadillaccc Chadillaccc is offline
ARTchitecture
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Cala Ghearraidh
Posts: 22,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.OT13 View Post
For anyone unfamiliar with Ottawa's system, a quick glance at Blair could remind someone of the red Stampede/Victoria Park station as well.

Stage 2 will include a few highway median stations, but most will be under road overpasses. Trim and Place d 'Orleans might have more similarities to Calgary, both having overhead walkways.
Calgary also has stations under road overpasses. With such a massive system built over the span of decades, I don't think Calgary has a "type" of station that is most prominent. Highway median stations are probably the most numerous, but all of them look different except the ones in the central northeast.
__________________
Strong & Free

Mohkínstsis — 1.6 million people at the Foothills of the Rocky Mountains, 400 high-rises, a 300-metre SE to NW climb, over 1000 kilometres of pathways, with 20% of the urban area as parkland.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #339  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2021, 6:43 PM
Chadillaccc's Avatar
Chadillaccc Chadillaccc is offline
ARTchitecture
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Cala Ghearraidh
Posts: 22,842
A newly UC quasi-TOD in Calgary's Dalhousie neighbourhood about 10 km from downtown. The towers are only 300 meters walk from the station platform, but I say "quasi-TOD" because it offers no new retail, and sits next to the Park-and-Ride lot for the station, opposite from the amenities of the station area (grocery store, Chapters, restaurants, etc).


The Dells - Dalhousie Station, Calgary - 15 storeys x 2 - 48 meters x 2




By Kōsō on SRC
__________________
Strong & Free

Mohkínstsis — 1.6 million people at the Foothills of the Rocky Mountains, 400 high-rises, a 300-metre SE to NW climb, over 1000 kilometres of pathways, with 20% of the urban area as parkland.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #340  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2021, 12:04 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 25,112
Love the design of the design of those Calgary towers.
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
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:12 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.