327 Richmond Rd | 30m | 9f | Approved

[CityTech]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

The project would replace a two story red brick building. The parking lot and garage next door would remain. The height of the building and lack of set-backs would also hurt the charterer of the area.

Didn't see that. That's unfortunate.

[eltodesukane]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

The project would replace a two story red brick building. The parking lot and garage next door would remain. The height of the building and lack of set-backs would also hurt the charterer of the area.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

It's developments like this I'm referring to. There's more and more of them popping up along Richmond.

Personally, I would like to see more development like this.

The difference being... ?

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

The difference being... ?

The amount of set-backs on the upper floors. Q West is just a 6-10 storey canyon along the street, blocking out the sun. It doesn't have that human scale. Not particularly inviting.

The second example continues the line of low-scale main-street shops. It allows light to reach street-level. It doesn't have that over-barring presence. It maintains the character of the area while still allowing for a slight increase in density.

Granted, their wasn't as much "character" wroth saving where Q-West stands today, at least from the street. Ashcroft could have put in more effort to try and bridge the gap between Westboro and Wellington West with a development that better replicates the traditional main-street feel we enjoy at both ends today instead on trying to maximize profits.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

The amount of set-backs on the upper floors. Q West is just a 6-10 storey canyon along the street, blocking out the sun. It doesn't have that human scale. Not particularly inviting.

The second example continues the line of low-scale main-street shops. It allows light to reach street-level. It doesn't have that over-barring presence. It maintains the character of the area while still allowing for a slight increase in density.

Granted, their wasn't as much "character" wroth saving where Q-West stands today, at least from the street. Ashcroft could have put in more effort to try and bridge the gap between Westboro and Wellington West with a development that better replicates the traditional main-street feel we enjoy at both ends today instead on trying to maximize profits.

Honestly, the buildings at Q-West on the north side of Wellington are fine, its just the south side that creates the "canyon" feel. If they had substantial set-backs at the 5th floor I think you'd hardly see anyone complaining.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

The amount of set-backs on the upper floors. Q West is just a 6-10 storey canyon along the street, blocking out the sun. It doesn't have that human scale. Not particularly inviting.

Six to ten storeys isn't that many storeys, and Westboro, like everywhere else on the surface of the earth, rotates about the planet's axis of rotation. The heart of old Centretown's classic apartment building zone along and near Metcalfe is largely of the same height, and it's some of the most walkable and pleasant real estate in Ottawa.

As long as the building functions well at street level, what difference does the height or orientation or verticality of its upper floors matter?

The second example continues the line of low-scale main-street shops.

The first example also has ground-level retail, no?

It allows light to reach street-level.

I can't say that I've noticed Wellington West being especially dark since condos started going up, but Ottawan's are prone to hysterics about such things. (Cf. "WIND TUNNEL!!!!!!")

Granted, their wasn't as much "character" wroth saving where Q-West stands today, at least from the street. Ashcroft could have put in more effort to try and bridge the gap between Westboro and Wellington West with a development that better replicates the traditional main-street feel we enjoy at both ends today instead on trying to maximize profits.

What concern is it of anyone other than the property owner how maximal or minimal the profits are?

[J.OT13]

Listen Uhuniau. Richmond Road and Wellington West are traditional main streets. They have this charm that makes them popular for citizens across the City to come and enjoy the unique experience they have to offer. One day, with the help of the O-Train lines, we might get some tourists down here too, the way St-Laurent is popular in Montreal or Spadina in Toronto.

Elgin has this too, between the historic mid-rise residential neighborhood and high-rise office district. Same with Bank, or Preston and a few others, on a lesser level.

If you were to start destroying those human scale retail buildings along our traditional main streets in favour of generic mid-rise residential towers, it would destroy the character of those neighborhoods. They won't attract people the same way they have in the past. Some things are just worth preserving.

If you can't see that, I'm very sorry. No use in arguing with you about the merits of maintaining our best urban neighborhoods if you don't get it. If you can't even try to understand our perspective.

I do hope you might one day start to appreciate the traditional main streets for what they are and understand that we have plenty of other areas in the city that can accommodate taller buildings without negatively impacting those that deserve to be maintained.

Curious to hear if you think we have anything in this city that is worth preserving. Does the ByWard Market have enough historic value to restrict development?

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

Honestly, the buildings at Q-West on the north side of Wellington are fine, its just the south side that creates the "canyon" feel. If they had substantial set-backs at the 5th floor I think you'd hardly see anyone complaining.

I agree, buildings on the north side have less of an impact. I still don't think they would fit with the character of the heart of Westboro.

[caveat.doctor]

This article is a nice summary of improving streetscapes and avoiding those dead zones: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/...e-wrong-things

The unfortunate truth is that most development codes still regulate the wrong things aggressively, and the right things not well enough...

3 Things We Should Be Regulating More Aggressively

1. Pedestrian Comfort: Shade. If you want to encourage a lively street full of people walking, you need to make it comfortable to walk.
2. Avoiding Monotony: Granular Streetscapes. One of my favorite suggestions ever for how we could operationalize sidewalk-level variety in the zoning code is Sam Newberg’s Gehl Door Average, inspired by the work of Danish architect Jan Gehl. Frequent doors mean activity: people coming and going, or at least the sense of possibility from knowing that there’s something there and someone could appear.
3. Preventing Huge "Gaps" in the Urban Fabric

3 Things We Could Stand to Regulate Less

We tend to regulate what is easy to quantify. It’s an unfortunate but understandable impulse. You can put a number on building height, in feet or stories. You can put a number on density, in dwelling units per acre. But to the extent that the goal of development regulations is to control for the negative impacts of new development on its neighbors, these things are often very poor proxies for impact.

1. Height
2. Density
3. Land Use

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

Honestly, the buildings at Q-West on the north side of Wellington are fine, its just the south side that creates the "canyon" feel. If they had substantial set-backs at the 5th floor I think you'd hardly see anyone complaining.

The difference between the two is the ground floor ceiling height. It’s much lower on the north side giving it a more intimate feel. It also gives the impression that you could communicate with someone on the second floor balconies or windows. QWest on the south side feels more detatched with its almost double height ground floor retail space.

The same effect is noticeable between the old Glebe storefronts and Lansdowne. The signage fixtures on the new buildings are mounted so high that they seem more directed at drivers than pedestrians.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

The difference being... ?

J.OT13, explained the difference very well - probably better than I ever could - so I won't bother repeating it. I just want to ask: how can you not see the difference? Q West is overly imposing and makes no effort to incorporate the traditional style and scale of buildings you see further down the street along Richmond and Wellington. On the other hand, the building at the corner of Eden and Richmond clearly makes an effort to mimic the storefront character that you typically see along the rest of the street, and the upper floors are set back from the street and clad in material that makes them less conspicuous.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by CityTech

On further reflection, yeah I can agree. As long as the city ensures that adequate lands along Scott Street have generous zoning to allow large scale redevelopment, I'd be all in favour of a strict six story height limit on the traditional mainstreet portion of Richmond (from Tweedsmuir to Golden). It makes more sense to concentrate large scale development closer to the future LRT stations anyways.

Yup, I think that would provide a nice balance of increasing the amount of transit-oriented housing units in the area and preserving the traditional look and feel of Richmond

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by Urbanarchit

While I'm not a huge fan of the current Q West development (it's not that bad but the design and material colours could be better), it's a lot better than what was there before. I don't miss what it used to be (small Canadian Tire with half the site as a parking lot, an empty lot of a former Canadian Tire gas station, and a 10 foot concrete wall across the street.

That is certainly true. It is an improvement in that regard. In this case, though, the proposed development at Richmond and Churchill would not be an improvement IMO.

[Urbanarchit]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

That is certainly true. It is an improvement in that regard. In this case, though, the proposed development at Richmond and Churchill would not be an improvement IMO.

Regarding the former proposal for Churchill/Richmond, we are in agreement. I don't think it would have been good. There are smaller buildings on Richmond that I think we should try to keep. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be allowed taller (midrise) buildings on commercial mainstreets. I think there are some decent buildings that make the area more interesting. Examples like:

Wellington and Caroline (7 stories)

Holland and Wellington (5 stories) and maybe the GCTC with it's podium works as a "gateway" building.

Wellington and Carleton (6 stories), although I wish there were real instead of real estate offices in the other retail spaces.

Westboro Station phase 1 and 2 (9 stories, with setbacks). Although I'm critical of the solid materials of phase 2 along Richmond.

Seattle (4 stories)

Seattle again (4) stories

But even Broadway in Vancouver does a good job. I invite you to google map up and down the street and look at the buildings along it and around it. Midrise buildings like this one (7 stories), with many that are 4 floors or under and others that are no taller than 12 with setbacks or podiums. It's quite interesting. I think this points to the importance of architectural design more than height as being integral for the street character. There are several streets in Vancouver you can travel around to see how they do buildings on retail streets (here's a 4 storey building that's nice)

With that being said, should commercial main streets be the only ones to be preserved as they are to "preserve the character"? Are they being "ruined" by new buildings? I would disagree, and as someone who grew up and still lives in the area, they actually make the street better and more successful than before. Even in elementary school and middle school, the streets weren't as popular as they are now (they seemed more drab, in fact). The 9-storey Q West building on the south side is not good, in fact. The floor height for the retail is far too tall, and its signage is located in a way to be ideal to be seen from the middle of the street (in a car) and not by pedestrians on foot. I'm fine with 4-7 storey heights, with exceptions for 8-12. I'm more concerned with architectural design than height, and how many apartments/ condo units and offices we can build in an area to meet the need - as we are a growing and changing city, and should not be trying to quell development. Everything is already too expensive, and it's going to get worse. Our zoning already favours preserving our yellow belt (lowrise houses in "urban" and suburban areas), why would we try to do the same on commercial streets? We have to build somewhere!

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

If you were to start destroying those human scale retail buildings along our traditional main streets in favour of generic mid-rise residential towers, it would destroy the character of those neighborhoods. They won't attract people the same way they have in the past. Some things are just worth preserving.

In a lot of cases, the new buildings that have cropped up along that stretch aren't replacing functional and nice old buildings; they are replacing empty lots or buildings that are past their natural life-cycle replacement date.

If you can't see that, I'm very sorry. No use in arguing with you about the merits of maintaining our best urban neighborhoods if you don't get it. If you can't even try to understand our perspective.

I can pretty well guarantee you I'm as big a fan of preserving good old stuff as you are. But I fail to see the sky-is-falling scenario that is constantly being painted by west-end NIMBY types, and have never once encountered the eternal darkness or perpetual windiness that is supposed to be the new normal in NIMBYtown West.

I do hope you might one day start to appreciate the traditional main streets for what they are and understand that we have plenty of other areas in the city that can accommodate taller buildings without negatively impacting those that deserve to be maintained.

What on earth needs to be "accommodated" about a 6- or 8-storey mixed-use building? The only thing that should be a matter of public concern is that it functions well at street level: transparent, fine-grained, truly capable of being mixed use.

Curious to hear if you think we have anything in this city that is worth preserving. Does the ByWard Market have enough historic value to restrict development?

You seem to have me confused with someone who wants to tear down old buildings for fun.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by caveat.doctor

This article is a nice summary of improving streetscapes and avoiding those dead zones: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/...e-wrong-things

Shade!?!!? That's crazy talk! If you listen to any community association in Ottawa, you can't get enough sun! Tear down all the buildings so that people can feel the burn, any time! Even on a December night!

In all seriousness, do people never watch other people? Go out on a summer lunch hour and watch folks walking along Sparks Street, or Bank. The shadier side of the street is generally the busier one.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

The difference between the two is the ground floor ceiling height. It’s much lower on the north side giving it a more intimate feel. It also gives the impression that you could communicate with someone on the second floor balconies or windows. QWest on the south side feels more detatched with its almost double height ground floor retail space.

The same effect is noticeable between the old Glebe storefronts and Lansdowne. The signage fixtures on the new buildings are mounted so high that they seem more directed at drivers than pedestrians.

This seems like an awfully thin objection to me. There are some retailers who would kill to have more height in their retail space, for either practical or esthetic reasons; I see no principled objection why a property developer shouldn't be free to offer that product.

One of my favourite Ottawa retail spaces of yore was the old McGahern Books location in the Glebe. So very tall. Ladders, even.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

The difference between the two is the ground floor ceiling height. It’s much lower on the north side giving it a more intimate feel. It also gives the impression that you could communicate with someone on the second floor balconies or windows. QWest on the south side feels more detatched with its almost double height ground floor retail space.

The same effect is noticeable between the old Glebe storefronts and Lansdowne. The signage fixtures on the new buildings are mounted so high that they seem more directed at drivers than pedestrians.

I would also add, that the north side does a slightly better job at tricking my eye into thinking it is multiple smaller buildings (obviously the fact that it IS two buildings helps with this).

But I really think the biggest issue is that the south side breaks the "building height to corridor width ratio" rule as described by the City of Ottawa's Traditional Mainstreet Design Guideline 10:

Guideline 10

Design street sections with a ratio of building height to road corridor width of between 1:1 and 1:3. A ratio of 1:1 is appropriate for urban core areas, while a ratio of 1:2 to 1:3 is ideal for other traditional mainstreets (Figures 7 and 8).

1 (in this example 18m represents 1) for building height to right-of-way width produces a comfortable sense of enclosure.

Figure 7: A ratio of 1:1 (in this example 18m represents 1) for building height to right-of-way width produces a comfortable sense of enclosure.

1 as a street intensifies.

Figure 8: Street section ratios evolve from 1:3 to 1:1 as a street intensifies.

https://ottawa.ca/en/city-hall/plann...ign-guidelines

The south side makes the ratio closer to 1.25:1 or 1.5:1. Its a building that would have been a perfect fit for a slightly wider road corridor like Scott-Albert or Merivale.

It also breaks Guideline 12 and 15 with regards to shading the street. The City should amend Guideline 15 to make a distinction (as many other Cities do) between building heights on the north side of traditional main-streets versus the south side. The north side should be permitted to be taller (before set-back) than the south side, as buildings on the south side are the ones actually casting shadows on the street. I don't think shadows are the end of the world, but a continuous tall street wall shading the street for the entire day does make it feel a little gloomy.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

I don't think shadows are the end of the world, but a continuous tall street wall shading the street for the entire day does make it feel a little gloomy.

I am really trying to wrap my head around this astronomical concept of a building or group of building which can cast shade on a street for an entire day.

The buildings in question are no taller (and generally shorter) than the residential and mixed-use buildings in Centretown and the Golden Triangle areas, which are not, to my eyes, noticeably gloomy. Then again, I don't really have the same Ottawa goggles which finds streets plunged into perpetual darkness by four-storey buildings.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

I am really trying to wrap my head around this astronomical concept of a building or group of building which can cast shade on a street for an entire day.

The buildings in question are no taller (and generally shorter) than the residential and mixed-use buildings in Centretown and the Golden Triangle areas, which are not, to my eyes, noticeably gloomy.

Some of these areas are "less gloomy" because the buildings are broken up and don't occupy as much continuous length of the street. There are other areas where there are continuous, tall buildings blocking the sun, where I DO find the street to gloomy and in a state of continual darkness - for example Laurier between Bay and Lyon.

Then again, I don't really have the same Ottawa goggles which finds streets plunged into perpetual darkness by four-storey buildings.

A four story building would block light to the closest sidewalk, but for most of the day it would still allow light to the far sidewalk. So, no - a four-story building would not plunge the street into perpetual darkness, but we were talking about a bulky 8-9 story building that occupies an entire block.