HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Downtown & City of Ottawa


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Nov 24, 2011, 9:24 PM
Nepean Nepean is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 141
I attended a board meeting of the Centrepointe Community Association this past Tuesday that discussed this project. I would estimate that roughly 30 people attended, including Coun. Chiarelli who was there in listening mode.

After this meeting I was left with two main impressions. First, many residents in Centrepointe have the same concerns as other neighbourhoods in the city who are facing development: i.e. worries about increased parking, impact on property values, concerns about the height of the proposed building, etc.

Second, notwithstanding these concerns, it appears that a good part of the community realizes that something is going to be built at this site regardless of what they think, so instead of fighting a losing battle, they will start imposing demands on the developer in order to ensure that the community gets some benefit out of this project. To this end, a discussion on s. 37 benefits took place during the meeting.

A key word in the meeting was "negotiation." Without a doubt, some participants at the board meeting didn't like the development at all, and expressed full-blown NIMBY sentiments. Others, however, seem to feel that a better approach was to work with the developer.

For instance, one participant said that the community had to "get over itself" and to accept that something was going to be built on this site. So instead of simply saying "no," a better approach was to list the community's concerns, pass them on the developer, and then see if the project could bring greater benefits to the community.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2012, 11:06 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,244
appealed to the OMB
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2012, 6:20 AM
S-Man S-Man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,639
Jesus. Is there some divine rule that anything new in Ottawa must be appealed to the OMB? Maybe the province is in the red the way it is because it has to staff that thing day and night to handle the appeals coming in from Ottawa.

No, seriously - I just did a tour of the updated threads on this site, and with the exception of two projects already underway, absolutely everything had been appealed to the OMB.

Three storeys in Westboro. OMB
14 storeys in Westboro. OMB.
23 storeys in Centretown. OMB
And so on and so forth.

Then again, Kennie Greygrey wrote a great column last year about the impending destruction of this valuable low-density suburban heritage extremifiplosionification blah blah blah......
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2012, 2:37 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by S-Man View Post
Jesus. Is there some divine rule that anything new in Ottawa must be appealed to the OMB? Maybe the province is in the red the way it is because it has to staff that thing day and night to handle the appeals coming in from Ottawa.

No, seriously - I just did a tour of the updated threads on this site, and with the exception of two projects already underway, absolutely everything had been appealed to the OMB.

Three storeys in Westboro. OMB
14 storeys in Westboro. OMB.
23 storeys in Centretown. OMB
And so on and so forth.

Then again, Kennie Greygrey wrote a great column last year about the impending destruction of this valuable low-density suburban heritage extremifiplosionification blah blah blah......
Anyone can appeal to the OMB... all you need is your $125 cheque well actually you need to participate at some point in the process as well.

This Centrepointe one was likely appealed by the applicant for a lack of decision by the City within the planning act timeframe... same with Soho Italia.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2012, 3:03 AM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,244
registration page... fancy top is gone
http://www.richcraft.com/condos_centrepointe.html

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2012, 4:27 AM
MountainView MountainView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,894
It's so bland. I prefer the old proposal with the two towers. I guess this one is shorter but has more units overall?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2012, 1:37 PM
kevinbottawa kevinbottawa is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,230
The previous proposal was a lot better. They really changed it for the worse.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2012, 1:43 PM
McC's Avatar
McC McC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,057
that often happens with Richcraft.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2012, 2:31 PM
Ottawan Ottawan is offline
Citizen-at-large
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Expat (in Toronto)
Posts: 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinbottawa View Post
The previous proposal was a lot better. They really changed it for the worse.
Absolutely. A very concrete example of obsession over height can have a real negative impact. There is little doubt in my mind that this will cast more shadows and obstruct more views than the taller proposal. It also makes the podium townhouses appear more fake.

That said, I still am a fan of the townhouse design. Hopefully the execute that well, as it is a redeeming feature of the development.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2012, 3:16 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 24,608
It's fine for the area, bland but not ugly (in terms of architecture).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Jan 7, 2013, 11:45 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,244
recommended for approval .. revised height of 49m / 15 fl * 3
http://app05.ottawa.ca/sirepub/mtgvi...&itemid=122489

revised drawings are also up on devapps
http://app01.ottawa.ca/postingplans/...appId=__8UV7EU
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2013, 12:08 AM
MountainView MountainView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,894
I still prefer the idea of 24&26fl towers over 3 X 15fl towers. The architecture and look was much nicer in the previous concept. Plus 3 towers will block much more sunlight / cast shadows / views. Sigh...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2013, 3:58 PM
Nepean Nepean is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 141
Last night, I went to the AGM of the Centrepointe Community Association (CCA), where this project was discussed. Councillor Chiarelli made a presentation and the CCA President also spoke. As expected, residents raised many traditional concerns: e.g. parking problems; increased traffic; height; a decrease in property values in homes in the immediate vicinity of this project. (The latter was a concern, given that Richcraft has esimated that all three buildings could take up to five years to build from start to finish).

What seemed to be unique, however, was that the CCA did not start from an inflexible position. Don't get me wrong, if most local residents had their way, they would opt for the full implementation of the Centrepointe Community Design Plan that was passed by council several years ago. For many, the Richcraft project goes against the spirit of the CDP.

However, the CCA also went out of its way to say that Richcraft had taken their concerns seriously, and that discussions were productive. While this was not a kumbaya session in praise of developers, local residents seemed to realize that development would occur, and that they had to be constructive in their feedback, rather than yelling "No!" at the top of their lungs.

My takeaway is that many local residents are opposed to this project, while realizing that it is not productive to fight a pointless battle. As such, the CCA actively engaged with the developer this fall and made several productive suggestions. For instance, they have requested that a pathway link the buildings to Baseline Station, in order to promote the use of public transit, which would address concerns about traffic. As well, the CCA has asked that any paths be open to the public.

According to Coun. Chiarelli, this project is a model for how a community and a developer should engage. This doesn't mean everyone got what the wanted (in fact, nobody got 100%) but at least it seems that everyone was left with the feeling that their voices were heard and taken into account. In short, an interesting meeting.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2013, 4:03 PM
McC's Avatar
McC McC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,057
glad to hear it, we've been trying to work towards a similar approach in Mechanicsville, but it is very very difficult! And on all sides: there are residents who want to fight and WIN, developers who may value "presenting" more than "listening" in their "community engagement," and not least of all, City planning staff who have seemed to be very un-interested in working with the people who live in the part of the city being "planned" by a never-ending series of one-off zoning requests. Politics!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2013, 5:51 PM
Dado's Avatar
Dado Dado is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ottawan View Post
Absolutely. A very concrete example of obsession over height can have a real negative impact. There is little doubt in my mind that this will cast more shadows and obstruct more views than the taller proposal. It also makes the podium townhouses appear more fake.

That said, I still am a fan of the townhouse design. Hopefully the execute that well, as it is a redeeming feature of the development.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainView View Post
I still prefer the idea of 24&26fl towers over 3 X 15fl towers. The architecture and look was much nicer in the previous concept. Plus 3 towers will block much more sunlight / cast shadows / views. Sigh...
Given the location, there's not too much to shadow most of the time, and what impacts of shadowing there are is likely to be reduced with three shorter buildings (i.e. long morning shadows). It's an SSP fiction that fewer taller buildings always have fewer shadow impacts than more shorter ones. If there is little in the immediate vicinity, then the shadow impacts are related to shadow length and not shadow girth.

Three buildings also means less useless "parky" stuff at ground level.

I suspect that the reduction in architectural features is due to the developer discovering more interest in the development than anticipated, but probably at the mid-price level where aesthetics are less of a selling feature. Developers only add architectural flourishes if they think they need them to make the building more profitable; if a developer can make more profit by not having architectural flourishes then that is what they will build. The idea that taller buildings result in extra architectural flourishes is another one of those SSP fictions that is not grounded in any kind of economic rationality. In other words, the developer may first have proposed extra architectural flourishes initially because this site is out at Centrepointe where they anticipated less latent demand, so the flourishes (and height) were added because that's what they thought they needed to attract buyers, especially high-end buyers. But if they subsequently found out that the extras were not helping at all as most of the interest was from mid-price point buyers and may just have been driving up costs, then out they went.

That may also partly explain the switch from two to three buildings: you're not selling views of the Ottawa River ensconced in Westboro, after all. You're likely selling to people interested in better transit service to downtown, proximity to major retail and maybe the opportunity for student rental accommodations. Taller buildings aren't costless and if high-end buyers are not interested, then reducing the height while adding an extra building could make a lot of sense. Moreover, three buildings rather than two allows for the construction to be phased over a longer period.
__________________
Ottawa's quasi-official motto: "It can't be done"
Ottawa's quasi-official ethos: "We have a process to follow"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2013, 11:17 AM
first-time-buyer first-time-buyer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 16
Can't wait for this one to go live.
Richcraft has made some beautiful projects.
I think location is ideal and I like the idea of more affordable condos near transit hubs. If they can provide decent space (550-700 squarefeet) from the low to mid 200s then they should get a decent response.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2013, 12:48 PM
trhgr's Avatar
trhgr trhgr is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Downtown Ottawa
Posts: 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterloowarrior View Post
registration page... fancy top is gone
http://www.richcraft.com/condos_centrepointe.html

Yuk! Reminds me of these horrible Claridge towers on Vanier Parkway (aka La Tiffany).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Sep 12, 2013, 12:45 AM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 24,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterloowarrior View Post
Developer: Richcraft
Architect: Roderick Lahey
Planning Consultant: FoTenn

http://app01.ottawa.ca/postingplans/...appId=__8UV7EU

Original designs were way better. But hey! who wants two nice slime towers near their house? Three shorter bland towers are so much better.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Jul 1, 2016, 1:09 AM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is offline
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Greater Ottawa
Posts: 12,638
Centrepointe CDP area exempt from new parking minimums once bylaw passes
Ottawa committee approves changes to parking bylaw for inner urban core

By Jennifer McIntosh
Ottawa East News, Jun 29, 2016


A new City of Ottawa bylaw that would reduce the number of parking spots required for developments in the inner urban core, won’t apply to areas within the boundaries of the Centrepointe Community Design Plan, said College Coun. Rick Chiarelli.

The city’s planning committee approved changes to the minimum-parking bylaw on June 28. It’s the first time the city has altered the bylaw since the 1960s. The changes will be considered by council on July 13.

Under the new rules, developments within a 400-800-metre walk from light rail stations would not have to provide parking – except apartment buildings that have more than 12 units.

“There’s so much going on at Centrepointe that it makes sense for us to do minimum parking requirements at the same time as maximums,” Chiarelli said.

The community design plan for Centrepointe has been in the works for the last seven years. Chiarelli said 200 residents attended the last public meeting.

He added that a city staffer at the meeting said the city would be looking at parking maximums over the next few months.

At the planning committee meeting, staff wouldn’t commit to a timeline.

Aside from the community design plan, a development is proposed for 19 Centrepointe Dr., at the intersection of Constellation Drives.

“With the Centrepointe CDP looking for new, targeted zoning in the place of parking lots, it’s best to wait to deal with parking,” Chiarelli said, adding the exemption from the bylaw change would mean Centrepointe adheres to the original minimums set out 50 years ago.

Planning committee chair Jan Harder said there is a lot of pressure for parking spots in that area, and any reduction to minimums would drive cars to residential roads.

The committee carried his motion – which will keep the parking requirements status quo in Centrepointe for the time being – but Chiarelli said he had two dozen speakers on hand who were willing to make a pitch to committee.

The committee also approved a motion by Kanata South Coun. Allan Hubley that clarifies the rules around visitor parking. The motion also clarified that the rules will apply to the urban core, not the suburban and rural areas.

“You can imagine the overflow on residential streets if developers got an exemption from parking requirements in the suburbs,” Harder said.

Some of the highlights of the bylaw changes include:

* Near rapid transit stations outside the core, parking rates on non-residential properties could be reduced by up to 50 per cent.

* In the inner urban area, small-scale development both residential and commercial, would be exempt from parking minimums. Non-residential properties parking requirements could be reduced by half.

Jennifer McIntosh is the political reporter for Metroland Media¹s Ottawa papers. She can be reached at jennifer.mcintosh@metroland.com.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2020, 9:44 PM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is offline
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Greater Ottawa
Posts: 12,638
19 Centrepointe Dr | 69m, 75m, 81m | 22f, 24, 26f | Proposed

Richcraft has resubmitted their proposal for 19 Centrepointe Drive. The proposed development now consists of three (3) towers standing at 22, 24, and 26 storeys each. The towers are identified as Tower A proposed at 22-storeys (69m), Tower B proposed at 26-storeys (81m), and Tower C proposed at 24-storeys (75m). Tower A is proposed to include 188 dwellings units while Tower B is proposed to include 219 dwelling units, and Tower C will feature 178 dwelling units for a total of 585 dwelling units. The units are a mix of one-bedroom, one-bedroom with den, and two-bedroom units in addition to a small number of studio units. Units on the ground floor are directly accessible from the exterior at grade. Richcraft continues to evaluate the market conditions to determine the type of tenancy for each tower but it is anticipated that a significant portion will be rental.

Access to the site is proposed via a driveway from Gemini Way leading to the interior of the development and each tower’s respective main entrance. A small loop is proposed to permit easy drop off for residents in addition to a ten (10) surface parking spaces for delivery or visitors. Three (3) levels of underground parking are proposed and will be shared between all three (3) towers. A total of 552 vehicle parking spaces (slightly less than 1 per unit) and 312 bicycle parking spaces are proposed for the site. The parking garages also include bicycle tune up and maintenance spaces in addition to garbage rooms and storage space for residents.

Architect: rla architecture

Development application:
http://app01.ottawa.ca/postingplans/...appId=__BRA9GP

Location:




Siteplan:






Renderings:





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 > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Downtown & City of Ottawa
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:46 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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