[Stittsville] 6310 Hazeldean Road | 42+71m | 12+21f | Proposed

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by skyscraperaccount

And the developments at March/Terry Fox will have multiple over this height ... approval when?

Completely forgot about the Kanata Tech Park proposals.

[ponyboycurtis]

[QUOTE=roger1818;10284841]While I totally agreee, one has to understand the Kyle Ave was built in the 90's, when Stittsville was part of Goulbourn Township (prior to amalgamation). Rural Townships weren't very good at city planning unfortunately.


Fair point. Interconnectivity across neighborhoods in the city is a mixed bag unfortunately. Looking at some neighborhood maps it's like.. yep, I'm just going to take my car even though my destination is less than 500m as the crow flies.

So many people are prewired to take a car and we don't do them many favors. My wife. Jesus. We used to live less than 100m from Montreal rd. on Miss Ottawa st. which is right next to that Hung Fatt chinese food place by Blair. Had the big sign. If you know it, you know it. She would want to drive to the Metro at the corner. Just based on the two left turns that's a no for me.

Easily under 1km walk both ways including walking through the store itself.

[urbanforest]

Did this thing ever go to Council for final approval? There's another NIMBY/BANANA petition calling to scrap it: Change.org: Stop 25 story high-rise development in Stittsville (Amberway)

This is not just a potential eyesore; it is a direct threat to the sense of community and tranquility that residents hold dear. The proposed high-rise developments threaten to permanently alter the character of this neighborhood, bringing in increased traffic, put strain on existing infrastructure, and a flood of new residents that the area simply isn't equipped to handle.

It's not just about preserving the aesthetics; it's about maintaining the safety, friendly feel, and social fabric of the community. Statistics show that massive developments such as these can lead to increased congestion, noise and light pollution, and even a rise in crime rates. They often lead to unintended environmental consequences, affecting local wildlife and green spaces that contribute to the well-being of all residents.

These people are absolutely insufferable.

[ponyboycurtis]

Originally Posted by urbanforest

Did this thing ever go to Council for final approval? There's another NIMBY/BANANA petition calling to scrap it: Change.org: Stop 25 story high-rise development in Stittsville (Amberway)



These people are absolutely insufferable.

You know what leads to increased congestion, noise and light pollution? Endless sprawl.

These people are vapid morons.

[Harley613]

Originally Posted by ponyboycurtis

You know what leads to increased congestion, noise and light pollution? Endless sprawl.

These people are vapid morons.

My favourite was 'The proposed high-rise developments threaten to permanently alter the character of this neighborhood, bringing in increased traffic, put strain on existing infrastructure, and a flood of new residents that the area simply isn't equipped to handle..'

This is about a high density proposal in Stittsville...where the city has spent incalculable amounts of money extending services far beyond the greenbelt for tracts of single family homes on massive lots. The mental gymnastics are stunning. The strain on infrastructure are the folks who started this petition.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by ponyboycurtis

You know what leads to increased congestion, noise and light pollution? Endless sprawl.

These people are vapid morons.

I certainly do not disagree. Sprawling, car dependant single family homes, where transit is difficult to provide and you can't conveniently walk anywhere useful does far more to sprawl than an apartment building on an arterial with regular bus service.

Having said that, this development does seem overkill for the western most edge of the suburbs. Something along the lines of 10-15 floors would be far more appropriate (though the NIMBYs would balk just as loud at that). Heck I'm hearing complaints about The Station [1518-1526 Stittsville Main St] | up to 13m | 2+4f (which is now under construction).

[Harley613]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I certainly do not disagree. Sprawling, car dependant single family homes, where transit is difficult to provide and you can't conveniently walk anywhere useful does far more to sprawl than an apartment building on an arterial with regular bus service.

Having said that, this development does seem overkill for the western most edge of the suburbs. Something along the lines of 10-15 floors would be far more appropriate (though the NIMBYs would balk just as loud at that). Heck I'm hearing complaints about The Station [1518-1526 Stittsville Main St] | up to 13m | 2+4f (which is now under construction).

The developer wants 431 units. If it gets shrunk arbitrarily to 10-15 floors it becomes even more of a sidescraper. We've seen this played out so many times. What harm would a 21s tower doing to the neighbourhood that a 10-15s sidescraper wouldn't?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Having said that, this development does seem overkill for the western most edge of the suburbs. Something along the lines of 10-15 floors would be far more appropriate (though the NIMBYs would balk just as loud at that). Heck I'm hearing complaints about The Station [1518-1526 Stittsville Main St] | up to 13m | 2+4f (which is now under construction).

If the developer can make the business case, why stop them? Especially when we badly need more housing everywhere.

[roger1818]

Sorry for the late reply. I started to reply months ago, but got busy.

Originally Posted by Harley613

The developer wants 431 units.

And my daughter wants a pony (well not really, but you get my point). As the philosopher Jagger once said, "You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you might find, you get what you need." I highly doubt that 431 units are actually needed at this location to make it viable. More likely it is greed is making them want that many units.

Originally Posted by Harley613

If it gets shrunk arbitrarily to 10-15 floors it becomes even more of a sidescraper. We've seen this played out so many times.

I am not sure that a sidescraper would be a bad thing in this location. Hazeldean is a highway, not a street.

Originally Posted by Harley613

What harm would a 21s tower doing to the neighbourhood that a 10-15s sidescraper wouldn't?

I think a larger, midrise building (with fewer units) would be more appropriate for this location than a skyscraper. This is the westernmost edge of the suburbs, and there are no plans to extend further west (there are many more infill developments planned first). We should be focusing on higher density in those infill developments and the removal of R1 Zoning on existing residential land.

For reference, this is the view "west" down Hazeldean Rd. from this location.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

If the developer can make the business case, why stop them?

From Density levels from the city centre, by Urban Age

I'm not so much of a capitalist to let developers do whatever they want as long as they can make a business case.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Especially when we badly need more housing everywhere.

Highrise buildings are very slow and expensive way to build housing. If we really wanted to quickly build housing, we would focus primarily on building hundreds (if not thousands) of low rise apartments, which are relatively quick and easy to build and will get homes on the market sooner.

Highrise buildings are best built where land is scarce but demand is high. There isn't a shortage of land in Stittsville (not that I am suggesting that we encourage more sprawl)

The most successful cities have the highest density in the city centre and a decrease in density as you get further from the core. Big spikes in density out in the suburbs (especially the furthest most reaches of the suburbs) is not good urbanism.

[ponyboycurtis]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Sorry for the late reply. I started to reply months ago, but got busy.



And my daughter wants a pony (well not really, but you get my point). As the philosopher Jagger once said, "You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you might find, you get what you need." I highly doubt that 431 units are actually needed at this location to make it viable. More likely it is greed is making them want that many units.



I am not sure that a sidescraper would be a bad thing in this location. Hazeldean is a highway, not a street.



I think a larger, midrise building (with fewer units) would be more appropriate for this location than a skyscraper. This is the westernmost edge of the suburbs, and there are no plans to extend further west (there are many more infill developments planned first). We should be focusing on higher density in those infill developments and the removal of R1 Zoning on existing residential land.

For reference, this is the view "west" down Hazeldean Rd. from this location.




From Density levels from the city centre, by Urban Age

I'm not so much of a capitalist to let developers do whatever they want as long as they can make a business case.



Highrise buildings are very slow and expensive way to build housing. If we really wanted to quickly build housing, we would focus primarily on building hundreds (if not thousands) of low rise apartments, which are relatively quick and easy to build and will get homes on the market sooner.

Highrise buildings are best built where land is scarce but demand is high. There isn't a shortage of land in Stittsville (not that I am suggesting that we encourage more sprawl)

The most successful cities have the highest density in the city centre and a decrease in density as you get further from the core. Big spikes in density out in the suburbs (especially the furthest most reaches of the suburbs) is not good urbanism.

I really like the points you make but on the other hand you have a developer with a cash in hand proposal to build something here and now and we are going to slough it off for years on end only to build it with 2 floors lopped off sometime in the future?

The real arguments here should be some type of functional N/S transitway in Kanata to working hubs and then also a junction if not an outright outlet to the actual city itself on LRT.

We love to make terrible arguments here in Ottawa. We can't do XYZ cuz XYZ... thats great. Let's never examine what XYZ is.

It's going to bring traffic!!! .. .. meanwhile for a thousand reasons we are adding something in the region of 20k residents a year.

Pick a lane man. Try to build this same project on Baseline rd. next to the never will happen BRT and you will get the same arguments.

We have all lost our minds and objectivity.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by ponyboycurtis

I really like the points you make

Thanks.

Originally Posted by ponyboycurtis

but on the other hand you have a developer with a cash in hand proposal to build something here and now and we are going to slough it off for years on end only to build it with 2 floors lopped off sometime in the future?

Not sure your definition of here and now, but I highly doubt if they are shovel ready. Even if it was approved today, construction likely wouldn't start for several years and then it would take many more years to build, utilizing resources that could be used to build dozens of low to mid rise apartments in the same timeframe. The problem is no one really wants to do what it takes to actually solve the housing crisis, they just want to look like they are doing something, and make big bucks in the process.

Originally Posted by ponyboycurtis

The real arguments here should be some type of functional N/S transitway in Kanata to working hubs and then also a junction if not an outright outlet to the actual city itself on LRT.

I'm confused how a "N/S transitway in Kanata" will help connect to a development west of Kanata. I do agree that we should be focusing on more transit infrastructure instead of building more roads, but the general public still seems convinced that one more road will solve traffic.

Originally Posted by ponyboycurtis

We love to make terrible arguments here in Ottawa. We can't do XYZ cuz XYZ... thats great. Let's never examine what XYZ is.

We also seem convinced that big projects that take decades to complete will solve todays problems.

Originally Posted by ponyboycurtis

It's going to bring traffic!!! .. .. meanwhile for a thousand reasons we are adding something in the region of 20k residents a year.

Did I say anything about traffic? Yes it will be a highly car dependant building, but what do you expect from a tower at the furthest edge of the "urban transit area."

If we are adding approx.. 20k residents a year, we probably need to be building about 10k units a year. 431 units 10 years from now will hardly be a dent. Granted we need to do something, but no one seems to be doing an analysis of how best to build those units quickly. We are just accepting whatever the developers propose.

Pick a lane man. Try to build this same project on Baseline rd. next to the never will happen BRT and you will get the same arguments.

Not really a valid comparison. At least there is a plan to build Baseline BRT. There are no plans for any Transit priority within 3 km of this development. Baseline is also much closer to downtown, so it would make sense for there to be more development there. Having said that, the time to market argument still does apply.

Originally Posted by ponyboycurtis

We have all lost our minds and objectivity.

I agree! We seem to be stuck in the argument that bigger is better without stopping to think if it actually is, and how best to build more units now, not a few units in a decade.

[rocketphish]

Revised proposal (Nov 2025)

Les Proprietes Scalia is proposing to develop the subject property with two high-rise buildings that are 21 and 12 storeys in height. The proposed development will be purpose-built rental buildings with a range of unit types and amenities. The proposed development was approved by City Council in September 2024; however, through the advancement of the design of each building and detailed engineering, the approved built form is proposed to be modified while still maintaining the general intent of the previously approved Zoning By-law Amendment.

The previously Zoning By-law Amendment for the subject property received approval for two (2) high-rise buildings, 12 and 21 storeys in height, consisting of 441 units in varying sizes. A total of 389 resident parking spaces (0.8 spaces/unit), 86 visitor parking spaces (0.2 spaces/unit), and 446 bicycle parking spaces (1.03 spaces/unit) were proposed. The resulting site-specific schedule established building stepbacks to the rear property line to provide an appropriate transition to the abutting low-rise residential neighbourhood.

The revised proposal continues to propose two (2) high-rise buildings, 12 and 21 storeys height. The unit mix has been adjusted as the design of the buildings have been advanced, with a total of 457 units ranging from studio units to three-bedroom units now proposed. To accommodate larger units in terms of size and number of bedrooms, the 21-storey tower floorplate has been increased, resulting in a reduced tower separation to 17 metres from the 12-storey tower.

A total of 461 resident parking spaces (1 space/unit), 92 visitor parking spaces (0.2 spaces/unit), and 462 bicycle parking spaces are proposed (1 space/unit), located within two (2) levels of underground parking, two (2) levels of above-ground structured parking, and surface parking. The proposed development has adjusted the maximum building heights as a result of a detailed grading analysis of the site. While the majority of the development complies with the maximum permitted building heights established in Schedule 501, relief is required for the three-storey portion of the development and the rear yard/landscaped area. The details of the relief being requested are addressed in later sections of this Report.

https://devapps.ottawa.ca/en/applica...5-0063/details

[SkeggsEggs]

not a huge fan of white buildings, but this seems nice enough.

golf simulators seem all the rage nowadays

[BlueJay]

Originally Posted by SkeggsEggs

not a huge fan of white buildings, but this seems nice enough.

golf simulators seem all the rage nowadays

Don't forget the pickleball court!