178-200 Isabella St | 62m | 19f | Proposed

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by passwordisnt123

Yes I know. That's my point. It'd be better if we forced or incentivised more developers to acquire adjacent lots fronting on at least two streets (in this case, the adjacent lots to the south).

Good luck with 'forcing' developers to acquire adjacent lots. If they meet the minimum lot frontage and lot area requirements, not much that can be done.

[OTownandDown]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

That might have been better...



You're comment reminds me of the Bowery, the "T" shaped tower in Centretown with two small heritage buildings on the corners. Faces three streets, but they still managed to create an awkward situation.


https://www.mattrichling.com/the-bow...ondos-for-sale

You can't win. NIMBY's want their heritage, builders want their full-on new builds. Facadism is dumb, streets need their daylight. In certain situations, such as street corners, let the heritage remain, it adds character!

Also, good luck with Glebe NIMBY's on 'acquiring' 10 large heritage-area homes, demolishing them, and putting up a tower across the street from single-family residential properties. The buffer of this row of homes is exactly what's required here. Maybe its a bit 'abrupt', but the highway cutting a swath of noise and dirt is also abrupt.

[Marshsparrow]

The Glebe NIMBY elites will protest that their view from the Queensway of their enclave will be ruined...

[phil235]

Originally Posted by passwordisnt123

Yes I know. That's my point. It'd be better if we forced or incentivised more developers to acquire adjacent lots fronting on at least two streets (in this case, the adjacent lots to the south).

These half developments end up stymying future development around them, particularly when they're as massive as this one. Don't get me wrong, some development is better than no development. But by extension, more development is better than some development.

I see. I guess you are suggesting a Bank St. frontage, although the Randals and Clocktower buildings are pretty new and the right scale for Bank. Given the nature of this lot, I don't think it will have a negative impact on much of anything, but as people have mentioned, it is uniquely situated on what is a highway service road.

[passwordisnt123]

Originally Posted by phil235

I see. I guess you are suggesting a Bank St. frontage, although the Randals and Clocktower buildings are pretty new and the right scale for Bank. Given the nature of this lot, I don't think it will have a negative impact on much of anything, but as people have mentioned, it is uniquely situated on what is a highway service road.

In this case, I was referring to the lots to the south fronting on Pretoria Ave.

[passwordisnt123]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

That might have been better...



You're comment reminds me of the Bowery, the "T" shaped tower in Centretown with two small heritage buildings on the corners. Faces three streets, but they still managed to create an awkward situation.


https://www.mattrichling.com/the-bow...ondos-for-sale

I actually like how the Bowery building turned out. I'd happily take another two or three just like it if it meant two or three fewer low-quality Claridge developments.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by passwordisnt123

I actually like how the Bowery building turned out. I'd happily take another two or three just like it if it meant two or three fewer low-quality Claridge developments.

The Bowery isn't a bad building. Fairly plain design, but quality materials and well executed. I just find the two heritage buildings (+shitty 70s building) on the corners, blank walls exposed, look odd. The large expanse of asphalt between all of them doesn't help.

In contrast, Gotham, with houses on the corner (so no blank walls), in closer proximity with a little more landscaping doesn't look as awkward.


https://www.mattrichling.com/gotham-...-sale-ottawa-1

That said, it doesn't apply with this Isabella proposal since it sits on a regular rectangular lot, but the drop off to Randalls on Bank or the houses at the back may be a bit jarring. Maybe a Randall's height podium with taller point towers that are more on the inside of the lot might have been better.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

The Bowery isn't a bad building. Fairly plain design, but quality materials and well executed. I just find the two heritage buildings (+shitty 70s building) on the corners, blank walls exposed, look odd. The large expanse of asphalt between all of them doesn't help.
...

That said, it doesn't apply with this Isabella proposal since it sits on a regular rectangular lot, but the drop off to Randalls on Bank or the houses at the back may be a bit jarring. Maybe a Randall's height podium with taller point towers that are more on the inside of the lot might have been better.

And yet the Bowery didn't sell well, because people thought it was overpriced. I see why Ottawa developers cheap out on materials - they know their market.

As for the point towers vs. one wide tower, in this unique site, I'd actually prefer the current design as it creates a full barrier between the houses on Pretoria and the highway. Oddly, these sections of Queensway that pass through densely populated areas are the ones that don't have noise barriers. Not saying that developments are a substitute for noise barriers, but I think that this will make a big difference in the neighbourhood, both in terms of noise and visual pollution.

[passwordisnt123]

Originally Posted by Proof Sheet

Good luck with 'forcing' developers to acquire adjacent lots. If they meet the minimum lot frontage and lot area requirements, not much that can be done.

"Force" maybe isn't the right word but there are definitely ways to create overlays or other zoning schemes that make life easy and lucrative for developments that meet certain criteria like fronting on 2, 3 or 4 streets. The converse is also true in terms tools available to make life difficult and significantly less profitable for these sort of half developments that only front onto a single street.

The number of street frontages has already been used as a rationale by the development community in several cases made before the former OMB and elsewhere when they were arguing to remove or raise existing height restrictions. I'm all for that. I'm just saying there's benefit codifying it in broad daylight.

[OTownandDown]

Originally Posted by phil235

And yet the Bowery didn't sell well, because people thought it was overpriced. I see why Ottawa developers cheap out on materials - they know their market.

As for the point towers vs. one wide tower, in this unique site, I'd actually prefer the current design as it creates a full barrier between the houses on Pretoria and the highway. Oddly, these sections of Queensway that pass through densely populated areas are the ones that don't have noise barriers. Not saying that developments are a substitute for noise barriers, but I think that this will make a big difference in the neighbourhood, both in terms of noise and visual pollution.

I think large dense developments like this are exactly what a highway needs, if the glazing and insulation are designed to dampen sound within the units facing the highway. Noise barriers would help a bit too, but I think it doesn't hold a candle to a large building like this. I bet the houses backing onto this building will notice a night-and-day sound attenuation.

In this case, keeping the houses on the south will keep the street 'whole' with single-family homes.

Now we just need the long-awaited Phase 2 of 150 Isabella, and the redevelopment of the Loblaws into a condo with a Loblaws on the bottom, the redevelopment (hopefully) of the wastewater tunnel shaft site, and we're all set for this side of the highway.

[11a2b3]

Originally Posted by movebyleap

It's kind of...dreadful.

Agreed. An unremarkable bland wall.

[UrbOttawa]

Considering the design is by Quadrangle, I find this to be a pretty disappointing proposal. The massing/proportions of the tower combined with the precast concrete cladding feels like they're drawing far too much inspiration from the 60s and 70s apartment blocks that already dominate the city (and not in a particularly good way).
Their work in Toronto and the Scott st proposal in Ottawa looks exceptional though, so here's to hoping we see some significant improvements on this one!


https://urbantoronto.ca/database/pro...1071-king-west


https://urbantoronto.ca/database/projects/510-yonge

[Harley613]

This site is now fenced off

[SL123]

I think its been fenced off for like a year almost

[Harley613]

Originally Posted by SL123

I think like its been fenced off for like a year almost

I need to get out more

[rocketphish]

Updated submission (August 2023)

No renderings yet, unfortunately, but the plans and elevations indicate a pretty substantial change and a height increase to 19 floors. It also looks like the commercial component has all but disappeared:

[J.OT13]

Slightly taller, in exchange for a slight reduction in bulk, it seems. Might as well do twin 25 storey towers.

And of course retail was removed. Who needs retail, right?

[Harley613]

Damn, I like the previous design. It looks like they really dumbed it down and changed the windows to the classic Ottawa puncholes.

[OTownandDown]

Yes, I fail to see how this is slab is better for the neighbourhood than two 25 storey slender towers.

[J.OT13]

Going to Planning November 1.