History Ottawa (Live Nation venue) [47 Rideau St] | U/C

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Harley613

I have never thought of you as a NIMBY.. ever, not even for a second. You have always had constructive criticism and you believe in smart development, yes, but a NIMBY? Hell no. I criticize just about everything going up in Ottawa as well, just far less eloquently than you do

[Harley613]

Let's just suppose for a moment that the NCC all of a sudden became more more interested in a developer's ROI than their mandate to protect the prominence of Parliament and the beautification of the capital, and imagine what a 35+ story building would look like on the Chapters lot. Absolutely ludicrous is what it would look like. If you think the pitchforks came out in force for the Chateau Laurier addition, imagine how the public would react to a tall building in this location hovering over the Chateau, the Locks and Parliament.




Edit: Mods, is it time to have a thread for discussion and debate about the Chapters site? I have a feeling it's going to be a popular discussion for us over the next couple of years. 47 Rideau St. is the civic address.

[Harley613]

Visualizing a 35 or so story building from the control viewpoint at the Hull end of the Portage Bridge:

[originalmuffins]

Originally Posted by Harley613

Visualizing a 35 or so story building from the control viewpoint at the Hull end of the Portage Bridge:

Now to be fair, the chaotic energy we would have from having a 35 floor tower right there on the Chapters lot... would be entertaining.

And good revenge for NIMBYs and BANANAs.

I'm still hoping Lansdowne towers hit 45 floors and that greyhound terminal goes for something crazy like 65 floors lol

[Harley613]

I would like to see the podiums of the Lansdowne towers chopped from 8 to 5 floors, and taller thinner towers above. Same number of units, less shade and hulking mass. I really really doubt we'll see anything taller than the currently tallest proposed tower of 40 floors though. The Glebeites (and all Ottawa NIMBY/BANANAs) only care about floor count, they don't understand logic or science.

That Greyhound Terminal lot is a fantastic place for 65 story towers.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Don't think I've ever said that zoning should be scripture (like it border line is in Gatineau), but developers should not assume they'll get approval for double+ the zoning.

And I do take offence with being called NIMBY all the time. For me, NIMBYs are people who want NOTHING built anywhere near them, or don't want people from a different social class in their area. I just believe there's a balance between giving developers the freedom to do whatever they want and locals who want no changes to their neighborhood or don't understand that redistributing allowed density in a tower is better than the alternative side-scraper.

Yes, you have, and your again implying it in this very comment....zoning is out of date and is irrelevant to what the price of the land is. The dev and the SELLER (the party your ignoring again & again) go by what they view the official plan allows until such a time that zoning is up to date (which currently wont be until 2025 or later). To put it simple for you the Dev is rightly assuming the OFFICIAL PLAN derives what can be done with the site.

Nimbys covers more then just people who don't want anything near them, it can be as simple as advocating for intensification and then fighting it when built near you or where your don't like it, like Leiper, Menard, and company. Also, if your looking for examples of your nimbyism just look through any thread about a dev on a mainstreet. Ex: 979 wellington st... fighting for 9 stories on a site within 400m of mass transit, where the OP now allows 40

Also, in no way shape or form is ottawa giving developers the freedom to do w.e they like, the official plan points to what and where, and etc.

So, to me if your constantly deriding homes getting built in areas the official plan states they should be built because of some sense of vanity or appeals to neighbourhood character then your a nimby.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by shelltime

The issue with that site is the High-Rise Zoning provisions recently approved. Anything above 9 Storeys requires to have a 7.5m tower setback. The odd shape of the site won't allow for anything above 9 within the current zoning. Also, the site is still in a special Area district that does not prescribe tall buildings there...

I'm aware, and yeah likely nothing is going to be developed here in the short term, they will probably wait for a bigger land assembly and redev then.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by Harley613

Visualizing a 35 or so story building from the control viewpoint at the Hull end of the Portage Bridge:

Harley, the guy isn't saying the NCC will do that, they are saying that without higher heights being allowed the site won't be redeveloped into anything anytime soon.

Also, this thread is quite ironic considering the claims that the city lets devs do w.e they want....while we have people arguing the city and the NCC won't let them build higher then what 9-18 stories here....

[AuxTown]

Originally Posted by originalmuffins

Now to be fair, the chaotic energy we would have from having a 35 floor tower right there on the Chapters lot... would be entertaining.

And good revenge for NIMBYs and BANANAs.

I'm still hoping Lansdowne towers hit 45 floors and that greyhound terminal goes for something crazy like 65 floors lol

50 at Greyhound would slide right into the skyline from many popular vistas and will still look quite tall despite being multiple km away.

[Harley613]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

Harley, the guy isn't saying the NCC will do that, they are saying that without higher heights being allowed the site won't be redeveloped into anything anytime soon.

Also, this thread is quite ironic considering the claims that the city lets devs do w.e they want....while we have people arguing the city and the NCC won't let them build higher then what 9-18 stories here....

I'm just adding to the discussion, mostly visually, as I'm apt to do with my photography and shitty Paint 3D building maps. I stopped debating about the economics of the Chapters site when 613JL claimed to be an expert on the subject (although I do not personally believe that this 21,209.62 sq. ft. parcel requires over 18 floors to give a developer ROI because of the cost of the land when these costs would be passed on to all tenants, residential and commercial, due to the prime location).

I see no irony as suggested in your second comment. The city lets devs 'do what w.e they want' constantly in Ottawa, but this isn't up to the city. This parcel is part of the NCC's National Capital Core Area Sector Plan and Canada's Capital Views Protection. The City has no say about excessive heights here, nor could the Province issue a Ministry's Zoning Order.

[Harley613]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

Yes, you have, and your again implying it in this very comment....zoning is out of date and is irrelevant to what the price of the land is. The dev and the SELLER (the party your ignoring again & again) go by what they view the official plan allows until such a time that zoning is up to date (which currently wont be until 2025 or later). To put it simple for you the Dev is rightly assuming the OFFICIAL PLAN derives what can be done with the site.

Nimbys covers more then just people who don't want anything near them, it can be as simple as advocating for intensification and then fighting it when built near you or where your don't like it, like Leiper, Menard, and company. Also, if your looking for examples of your nimbyism just look through any thread about a dev on a mainstreet. Ex: 979 wellington st... fighting for 9 stories on a site within 400m of mass transit, where the OP now allows 40

Also, in no way shape or form is ottawa giving developers the freedom to do w.e they like, the official plan points to what and where, and etc.

So, to me if your constantly deriding homes getting built in areas the official plan states they should be built because of some sense of vanity or appeals to neighbourhood character then your a nimby.

This seems like borderline aggressive name calling. I don't see the need to pigeonhole any of our members in this forum. I, for one, constantly change my opinions about a development. I can flip flop three times in three pages, and I'm proud of that. I'm not beholden to one opinion, nor should any of us be on discussion forum...our opinions are constantly evolving. I love how we calmly debate and discuss, share opinions, and learn from each other on SSP Ottawa. I would never go back through a fellow member's post history in order to call them out and accuse them of being an acronym we consider negatively on this forum. No need for it. Frankly, it's quite rude and unnecessary. I'm not sure what you get out of this kind of tone and behaviour, but I for one don't appreciate it.

Edit: I just did a quick scan of J.OT13's comments in the 979 Wellington for examples of so called 'NIMBYism' , and I see no 'NIMBYism'. He was fighting the exact same fight I always fight. If we are going to new heights in this city, especially in prominent locations, we need to demand at least a modicum of quality design. They wanted an exception to go tall, cheap, and ugly in a spot that would form a visual gateway. No thanks. I guess you can pigeonhole me as a NIMBY too.

[613JL]

Originally Posted by Harley613

I'm just adding to the discussion, mostly visually, as I'm apt to do with my photography and shitty Paint 3D building maps. I stopped debating about the economics of the Chapters site when 613JL claimed to be an expert on the subject (although I do not personally believe that this 21,209.62 sq. ft. parcel requires over 18 floors to give a developer ROI because of the cost of the land when these costs would be passed on to all tenants, residential and commercial, due to the prime location).

I see no irony as suggested in your second comment. The city lets devs 'do what w.e they want' constantly in Ottawa, but this isn't up to the city. This parcel is part of the NCC's National Capital Core Area Sector Plan and Canada's Capital Views Protection. The City has no say about excessive heights here, nor could the Province issue a Ministry's Zoning Order.

Now I know why I never comment.

[Harley613]

Originally Posted by 613JL

Now I know why I never comment. You have no idea...

Are you seething with rage at my layman's knowledge due to the expertise you clutch so close to your heart?

Honestly, I'd love to hear more from you! My comments contain a lot of conjecture, I'm just an armchair development analyst who loves to talk about buildings and things.

[613JL]

Originally Posted by Harley613

Are you seething with rage at my layman's knowledge due to the expertise you clutch so close to your heart?

Honestly, I'd love to hear more from you! My comments contain a lot of conjecture, I'm just an armchair development analyst who loves to talk about buildings and things.

No harsh feelings. Believe me, your skin gets very thick in RE. But everyone oversimplifies everything on here, especially the transaction part of such a purchase. The development model is incredibly simple yet incredibly complicated. It is very easy to make it pencil out on the back of a napkin but the current state of building cost, cost of money, Ottawa's inability to pay premium market rental rates in prime locations, dealing with the NCC, the building on the corner, the state of the homeless in the market make this a complicated transaction for the buyer. Someone will make it work but it won't happen quickly.

Current height is 20 storeys at 3m/storey. No setbacks/podium are needed in the current bylaw except the northern portion of the lot line where the zoning schedules have lower height limits. Tower setback is 11.5m on your side of the property above 9 storeys.

Developers never pay what they think it will be worth if they rezone. They'll pay what the current zoning allows and maybe a bit more through in a density bonus structure upon SPA/BZA/ Sellers always want to be paid on the new density that comes out of rezoning. So lots of properties never trade because of this imbalance. The risk is too high. Currently the market has very few buyers for dev lands but the sellers of dev sites aren't acting that way so we haven't yet seen a price adjustment on land values. Simply cause they aren't trading. Montreal just saw its first month without a dev site transaction. BTW, no developper ever takes a flyer in their proforma and BZA/OPA/SPA. It's just a waste of time and money.

[originalmuffins]

Originally Posted by AuxTown

50 at Greyhound would slide right into the skyline from many popular vistas and will still look quite tall despite being multiple km away.

I'd love it!

[originalmuffins]

Originally Posted by 613JL

No harsh feelings. Believe me, your skin gets very thick in RE. But everyone oversimplifies everything on here, especially the transaction part of such a purchase. The development model is incredibly simple yet incredibly complicated. It is very easy to make it pencil out on the back of a napkin but the current state of building cost, cost of money, Ottawa's inability to pay premium market rental rates in prime locations, dealing with the NCC, the building on the corner, the state of the homeless in the market make this a complicated transaction for the buyer. Someone will make it work but it won't happen quickly.

Current height is 20 storeys at 3m/storey. No setbacks/podium are needed in the current bylaw except the northern portion of the lot line where the zoning schedules have lower height limits. Tower setback is 11.5m on your side of the property above 9 storeys.

Developers never pay what they think it will be worth if they rezone. They'll pay what the current zoning allows and maybe a bit more through in a density bonus structure upon SPA/BZA/ Sellers always want to be paid on the new density that comes out of rezoning. So lots of properties never trade because of this imbalance. The risk is too high. Currently the market has very few buyers for dev lands but the sellers of dev sites aren't acting that way so we haven't yet seen a price adjustment on land values. Simply cause they aren't trading. Montreal just saw its first month without a dev site transaction. BTW, no developper ever takes a flyer in their proforma and BZA/OPA/SPA. It's just a waste of time and money.

I'd love if they can go higher, to be honest. It's a great location right there beside the metro station, would be important to inject direct life into the mall and station.

[Harley613]

Originally Posted by 613JL

No harsh feelings. Believe me, your skin gets very thick in RE. But everyone oversimplifies everything on here, especially the transaction part of such a purchase. The development model is incredibly simple yet incredibly complicated. It is very easy to make it pencil out on the back of a napkin but the current state of building cost, cost of money, Ottawa's inability to pay premium market rental rates in prime locations, dealing with the NCC, the building on the corner, the state of the homeless in the market make this a complicated transaction for the buyer. Someone will make it work but it won't happen quickly.

Current height is 20 storeys at 3m/storey. No setbacks/podium are needed in the current bylaw except the northern portion of the lot line where the zoning schedules have lower height limits. Tower setback is 11.5m on your side of the property above 9 storeys.

Developers never pay what they think it will be worth if they rezone. They'll pay what the current zoning allows and maybe a bit more through in a density bonus structure upon SPA/BZA/ Sellers always want to be paid on the new density that comes out of rezoning. So lots of properties never trade because of this imbalance. The risk is too high. Currently the market has very few buyers for dev lands but the sellers of dev sites aren't acting that way so we haven't yet seen a price adjustment on land values. Simply cause they aren't trading. Montreal just saw its first month without a dev site transaction. BTW, no developper ever takes a flyer in their proforma and BZA/OPA/SPA. It's just a waste of time and money.

You see! This is great insight. Please don't be a lurker

[harls]

Originally Posted by Harley613

I can't imagine anything this tall being built here.

[OTownandDown]

Originally Posted by harls

I can't imagine anything this tall being built here.

What does 18-20 storeys look like? This is 35, right?

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by OTownandDown

What does 18-20 storeys look like? This is 35, right?

It would be roughly the height of the shorter part of the Westin. I think that would be doable, as long as they provide a generous set-back from a 6 to 8 floor podium.