1081 Carling Ave | 57+89m | 16+27f | Approved

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by phil235

Agreed, in addition to the generic ugliness of the building, this is far from a transit-oriented development. The theoretical designation of Carling as a priority transit corridor is being used to justify a lot of development, but I don't see any prospect of significant improvement in that regard for decades. Also, if we have clear language about appropriate transitions in our official plan, I'm not sure why we would keep approving these projects that provide absolutely no transition to adjacent residential.

Did you check to see if this does or does not meet those transition requirements?.....

Also are you taking it in context of what can be built or what is currently built or what the zoning for an urban areas of a city should be.... Also note the zoning in the area only allows amenities along Carling so kind of a chicken vs the egg situation.

https://twitter.com/BrentToderian/status/1197168153475854339?s=20

https://twitter.com/g_meslin/status/1356346226241896450?s=20

As for movement on the Carling LRT development which pays thousands in fees to the city may be forcing there hand to provide the service there plan spells out.

[Urbanarchit]

Originally Posted by OTownandDown

Hospital rental parking is extremely lucrative. Hence the 340. Anybody know how many levels of underground parking were included in the next-door retirement residence?

The amount of parking provided on this site has nothing to do with the hospital though. It's not commercial parking, it's specifically for the residents. I'm sure there are by-laws restricting people from renting out their private spots to the public in a private residential building. Not to mention the hospital plans to move 1.5 Km away and is already proposing a giant controversial 4-storey parking garage. It's just another car-centric design that the City requires due to their minimum parking standards.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

Did you check to see if this does or does not meet those transition requirements?.....

Also are you taking it in context of what can be built or what is currently built or what the zoning for an urban areas of a city should be.... Also note the zoning in the area only allows amenities along Carling so kind of a chicken vs the egg situation.

https://twitter.com/BrentToderian/status/1197168153475854339?s=20

https://twitter.com/g_meslin/status/1356346226241896450?s=20

As for movement on the Carling LRT development which pays thousands in fees to the city may be forcing there hand to provide the service there plan spells out.

You make a fair point, and admittedly I was just assuming that a 30-storey building beside an R3 lot does not follow the rules. According to the application, the maximum height in that scenario is 11m, and they are asking for 8 times that height, so they are not in compliance with the bylaw. I also believe that transitional provisions are more principles-based than quantitative, and it's really hard to see how this could be consistent with those principles, even if the R3 is upzoned at some point.

As for the transit, that would be good in theory, but given the current plan out to 2030, I can't realistically see higher order transit on Carling for 15-20 years.

[OTownandDown]

Originally Posted by Urbanarchit

The amount of parking provided on this site has nothing to do with the hospital though. It's not commercial parking, it's specifically for the residents. I'm sure there are by-laws restricting people from renting out their private spots to the public in a private residential building. Not to mention the hospital plans to move 1.5 Km away and is already proposing a giant controversial 4-storey parking garage. It's just another car-centric design that the City requires due to their minimum parking standards.

The residential building adjacent has hundreds of rental spots available, most to hospital staff, not to mention the above-ground private parking garages also adjacent, and people's driveways that are also rented out in the neighbourhood. The hospital already owns and operates several surface lots AND a 10 storey parking garage behemoth and it's still not enough parking. Private parking is rented all the time in all sorts of settings. I rented a condo parking spot downtown for a few years, it was cheaper than the other private garages, but it was still close to $200/month. At 340 parking spots, thats $68000/month, $816,000/year and that's just monthly parking. Go to hourly and you're up to about $300k/month, $3.6M/year. Which is why people keep their crappy downtown parking garages when other options are available for development.

Also I don't understand why the Hospital can't make the $300M underground garage work, financially, when we already pay an arm and a leg to park at hospitals. Sure there's an upfront cost, but there's millions to be made each year in parking fees. Some needs to be reinvested to pay for repairs, some goes to the hospital for equipment, and some should be able to pay off the loan to build the thing.

Heck, at Tunney's, people rent spots over on Bayswater and walk/transit over, and Tunney's is literally one giant parking lot.

People wax poetic about transit, but nobody's going to take transit from Carp or Kars or wherever, its just not convenient.

[kevinbottawa]

Originally Posted by Harley613

At this point Hobin is just Lahey with a dash of pepper.

This made my night.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by phil235

You make a fair point, and admittedly I was just assuming that a 30-storey building beside an R3 lot does not follow the rules. According to the application, the maximum height in that scenario is 11m, and they are asking for 8 times that height, so they are not in compliance with the bylaw. I also believe that transitional provisions are more principles-based than quantitative, and it's really hard to see how this could be consistent with those principles, even if the R3 is upzoned at some point.

As for the transit, that would be good in theory, but given the current plan out to 2030, I can't realistically see higher order transit on Carling for 15-20 years.

Might want to check page 39 to 41, specifically section 5.7.3 of the planning rational and design brief for this project. From what I gather from that and the bylaw changes in question this project meets the requirements.

https://app05.ottawa.ca/sirepub/cache/2/3aovremh5uuev4wducp2dpjs/60725109232021085253516.PDF

the bylaw seems to based on distance not just based around the lot itself having a tower on it....

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

Might want to check page 39 to 41, specifically section 5.7.3 of the planning rational and design brief for this project. From what I gather from that and the bylaw changes in question this project meets the requirements.

https://app05.ottawa.ca/sirepub/cache/2/3aovremh5uuev4wducp2dpjs/60725109232021085253516.PDF

the bylaw seems to based on distance not just based around the lot itself having a tower on it....

I'm not sure how to read that part of the report. It seems inconsistent with the application summary, which says the following:

The applicant seeks to rezone the Subject Site to permit the following requested relief:
• To add the land use “Apartment Dwelling, High Rise” on the list of permitted land uses in the exception.
• To permit a Maximum Building Height of 89m, whereas a maximum of 11m is permitted in any area up to and including 20 metres from a property line abutting a R1, R2 or R3 residential zone or 30m in all other cases.

They are asking for a re-zoning rather than a variance, which I think is significant. On the other hand, they do seem to meet the 20m requirement.

They also seem to make a lot of the idea that the R3 lot abutting the site should be up-zoned to mid-rise, so that is clearly important to their application.

[J.OT13]

Taggart's two-tower Carling Avenue proposal too much for councillor

David Sali, OBJ
September 24, 2021



A plan to tear down an office building near the Ottawa Hospital’s Civic campus and replace it with a pair of residential highrises is too much of a stretch for the local councillor, who says the additional density would cause traffic headaches and overshadow nearby homes.

Taggart Realty Management recently filed a proposal with the city to construct two towers of 22 and 28 storeys at 1081 Carling Ave., just east of Parkdale Avenue, that would include more than 460 residential units.

The one-acre property, which Taggart bought outright from its previous partners in 2019, is occupied by an eight-storey office building that includes a pharmacy, medical laboratory and other health-care tenants.

Current zoning rules limit buildings on the site to nine storeys. But in its development application, Taggart argues that the property is “underutilized” and is large enough to accommodate its project.

“While we understand this is a big change from the existing site use, we feel the site warrants the proposed development,” Taggart senior vice-president of development Jeff Parkes said in an email to OBJ.

Parkes said the property is tailor-made for residential highrises due to its location on a main arterial road and its proximity to multiple transit stops and a potential future LRT station at the intersection of Carling and Parkdale. He said the site “offers the opportunity for a level of intensification that is rare in the core of the city.”

But Kitchissippi Coun. Jeff Leiper, who represents the area, said he’s worried a development of that scale would have a “major shadow impact” on the neighbourhood directly north of the site, which consists mostly of single and semi-detached houses.

“I’m having a really difficult time imagining two towers of that height,” he said. “We all know additional density along Carling is coming, but it doesn’t have to be the sky is the limit. This would be a different discussion if they were proposing a single, 15-to-20-storey tower with some substantial buffering to the adjacent lowrise neighbourhood.”

Taggart’s plan calls for a 28-storey highrise next to Parkdale Avenue with 258 residential units and a 22-storey tower near Hamilton Avenue South that would feature 204 suites. A four-level underground parking garage would provide spots for 340 vehicles, with 47 spaces reserved for visitors.

Leiper said nearby residents already complain about traffic congestion on Parkdale Avenue. The addition of more than 300 cars to the area would compound those woes, he said, adding that another builder is proposing an 18-storey highrise with 240 housing units and more than 130 parking spaces just a few blocks north at the corner of Parkdale and Wellington Street West.

Parkland 'buffer' zone

“You’re bookending these two ends of a very, very congested Parkdale with very dense developments, and I expect that we’re going to hear a lot about that,” Leiper said.

Parkes defended the proposed design, saying a park planned for the north end of the property would act as a “buffer” between the two highrises and surrounding homes. He added that the builder is also planning to create another “nicely landscaped public space” at the corner of Carling and Parkdale.

“We think improving this corner will be a big benefit to the site and provide more free moving space for the existing and future transit stops in the area,” Parkes said.

Leiper said he’s already told Taggart he won’t support the plan in its current form. The councillor is hosting a virtual open house on Oct. 12 to get feedback on the proposal from residents.

Parkes said Taggart will “consider” Leiper’s views as it works through the proposal, adding the developer plans to get input from representatives of the Civic Hospital Neighbourhood Association.

Many aspects of the project – including whether the housing units will be rentals or condominiums and whether the site will include a retail component – have yet to be determined, Parkes said.

The development is still “many years away” from being launched, he explained, noting that tenants in the existing office building still have leases in place and will need time to relocate.

“We intend to continue to operate the building for some time,” he said.

https://obj.ca/index.php/article/real-es...ling-avenue-proposal-too-much-councillor

“offers the opportunity for a level of intensification that is rare in the core of the city.”

Seriously!? Half the projects in the core are of this scale. Then you have Tunney's, LeBreton, and all other empty patches of grass that could accommodate high-rises around rapid transit stations that actually exist or u/c.

[J.OT13]

Leiper's open house. Presentation 6:05 to 38:15. They showed some higher quality renderings. Looks good. Classic Hobin, but with more refinement. Still don't support the proposed height in this location.

• Video Link

I haven't watched the open house yet. Just skipped to the renderings for a quick look.

[11a2b3]

...

Renderings:

Mmmm charcoal coloured brick.

[postingaboutottawa]

New massing and design ahead of September's UDRP with at least a dozen angles of renderings.

http://webcast.ottawa.ca/plan/All_Image%...20818%20Package%20-%20D02-02-21-0093.PDF

[SL123]

Looks pretty good and I love the height variation.

[J.OT13]

This is an improvement for sure. That was too much density for an area with no amenities or transit (beyond City concept plans that will never materialize).

[SL123]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

This is an improvement for sure. That was too much density for an area with no amenities or transit (beyond City concept plans that will never materialize).

No amenities?? its more or less 2km from Shoppers at Westgate or the Foodbasic, also 2k from dows lake station, the farm/arboretum is right in front in terms of park space. there's is also a bus stop right in front.

It not downtown but its not in the middle of a amenities desert. its actually closer to groceries and pharmacy than anything in Little Italy like the Icon

[ponyboycurtis]

Looks decent. I like the notch on the north side of the taller tower. More appropriate massing.

I would have been fine with the original height though. The roofline on the taller tower was also more interesting.

[Dzingle Bells]

Pretty bummed that this still doesn't have any sort of commercial at-grade. The very first point in the "What We Heard" section is "Desire for commercial/retail, mixed use". There has been no inclusion of this.

In the renderings of the public realm in the UDRP package, they show patio tables and lots of people out in the central pathway area. Not sure who these people are supposed to be or what they are doing.

Amenity space at grade (theater? office area?) will hardly contribute to an exciting public realm, especially with no exterior doors as it is being shown now. The three amenity spaces along Carling should become retail.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by SL123

No amenities?? its more or less 2km from Shoppers at Westgate or the Foodbasic, also 2k from dows lake station, the farm/arboretum is right in front in terms of park space. there's is also a bus stop right in front.

It not downtown but its not in the middle of a amenities desert. its actually closer to groceries and pharmacy than anything in Little Italy like the Icon

Pretty much anyone within the built-up areas of Ottawa are within 2 kilometers of a grocery store or Shoppers. That doesn't make an area walkable.

The bus here is just as much a game of "will it or won't it" as Montreal Road, despite being on a mostly empty 6-8 lane highway.

Other than the Farm, which would be a huge detour, there's no proper bike infra.

Sure Dow's Lake/Little Italy lacks some amenities, but it's right on a (now closed and under-built) transit station. The area has good bike infra and and it's always lively. It's an exciting place to be, unlike the car dependent Civic Hospital area.

I wish they would have included at least one retail space for a convenience store, Shoppers or even a Starbucks.

[Harley613]

The original proposal was for towers 22+28floors, but those renders look like 30+35ish. Now the new renders look like 16+28ish.

[ponyboycurtis]

Originally Posted by Harley613

The original proposal was for towers 22+28floors, but those renders look like 30+35ish. Now the new renders look like 16+28ish.

Shows you what a render is worth. The Carling ave. vantage point is a shorter tower. 25 fl vs 27/28. Am I crazy? I'm positive I am counting two different floor heights on updated renders.

If the area is a badly serviced as it is I don't see what the difference is in trimming a couple floors either way.

The shorter and taller tower is visually interesting for whatever that's worth.

[Dzingle Bells]

This project is at the UDRP this morning at 9:40am. Link to watch here - https://ottawa-ca.zoom.us/j/85607562801

Passcode is 823199