Confederation Line West LRT Extension (Stage 2) [Tunney's to Baseline/Moodie] | U/C

[HighwayStar]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Also agreed. However you can't just let developers build whatever they want under the guise of progress is good. One needs to evaluate what fits in with the neighbourhood currently and, more importantly, what is the vision for the neighbourhood for the future. One also has to see if the infrastructure supports the development (and the overall plan). That stretch of Richmond Rd is only 2 lanes. Since not everyone will be taking LRT and there will need to be trucks and buses using the road, so consideration of how the road can be widened to 4 lanes while keeping reasonable sidewalks should be considered (and not just steal it all from the green space between Byron and Richmond). This plan assumes Richmond remains 2 lanes.

Ok.... so the "build big and tall" folks need to be reasonable about overall aesthetics and traffic patterns... and the "high buildings kill children with shadows" people need to be reasonable about the negative impacts of height.

... there.. now we can all live in harmony

[rocketphish]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Are you trying to say building Ottawa's largest tower (by a wide margin) on a postage stamp sized lot in the outskirts of the city, dwarfing all of the surrounding buildings would be reasonable?

It's not unreasonable for Burnaby and New Westminster, BC. See the dense clusters of towers that follow the Skytrain line?


from: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...postcount=3391

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

It's not unreasonable for Burnaby and New Westminster, BC. See the dense clusters of towers that follow the Skytrain line?

Metropolitan Vancouver has twice the population of Metropolitan Ottawa and most of the tallest towers in Burnaby (mostly in Metrotown) were built within the past 5 years (and all towers over 30 storeys within the last 20 years). Also real estate is double if not triple the cost (it sky rocketed shortly before Hong Kong returned to China in 1997).

One day we may want to build 50 story towers in the outskirts, but we aren't ready yet, especially since we don't have any downtown yet. Take things one step at a time.

Maybe the proposed 16 storeys is fine. Maybe it should be limited to 12 or 14 storeys. The discussion needs to be had though about what we want the neighbourhood to look like and all concerns should be considered without being dismissed offhand. Once it is built, it will be there for a long time.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

It's not unreasonable for Burnaby and New Westminster, BC. See the dense clusters of towers that follow the Skytrain line?

Oh and I checked and Vancouver's tallest building is 62 storeys and Burnaby's is only 46 (if you rank by number of storeys), so you are wrong and Burnaby's towers aren't taller (let along significantly taller) than downtown Vancouver's.

[AndyMEng]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Are you trying to say building Ottawa's largest tower (by a wide margin) on a postage stamp sized lot in the outskirts of the city, dwarfing all of the surrounding buildings would be reasonable?

If the market demands it, by all means, put up 10 of them.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by AndyMEng

If the market demands it, by all means, put up 10 of them.

IMHO, any city where the market requires significantly larger towers in the outskirts than in the central core is broken and is in need of revitalization of its downtown.

[1overcosc]

^ Or it's a city with overly restrictive height limits in its core.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

^ Or it's a city with overly restrictive height limits in its core.

And such a city wouldn't be broken?

[rocketphish]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Oh and I checked and Vancouver's tallest building is 62 storeys and Burnaby's is only 46 (if you rank by number of storeys), so you are wrong and Burnaby's towers aren't taller (let along significantly taller) than downtown Vancouver's.

I'm not following your logic... what exactly am I wrong about? A 50-story tower would not be Ottawa's tallest proposed tower - that honour goes to The Sky, at 55 stories (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=204605).

My point is, and it looks like you completely missed it, that TOD like this beckons density, and where land is at a premium, be it Metrotown or Cleary Station, this often takes the form of clusters of towers. As mentioned by AndyMEng, it's the market that drives this, as long as zoning permits it.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

I'm not following your logic... what exactly am I wrong about? A 50-story tower would not be Ottawa's tallest proposed tower - that honour goes to The Sky, at 55 stories (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=204605).

The key word is proposed. Who knows if or when it will be built. According to Wikipedia, Ottawa–Gatineau's tallest tower (in floors) is only 32 storeys.

My point is, and it looks like you completely missed it, that TOD like this beckons density, and where land is at a premium, be it Metrotown or Cleary Station, this often takes the form of clusters of towers. As mentioned by AndyMEng, it's the market that drives this, as long as zoning permits it.

I didn't miss it. I was strictly responding to the statement that a 50 storey tower at this exact location would be perfectly reasonable. I agree that TOD beckons density, but density should first appear downtown. IMHO, a donut of towers with a big hole in the middle doesn't make sense. I also believe that consideration of the surroundings is important, and the reach for the skies should be an evolution not a revolution.

In the end it is totally irrelevant as there isn't (and never has) been a proposal for such a tower. The proposal is for a 16 storey building.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by roger1818

IMHO, any city where the market requires significantly larger towers in the outskirts than in the central core is broken and is in need of revitalization of its downtown.

Um, Paris. The areas where the towers are in that city are the worst areas of Paris

[zzptichka]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

http://ottawa.ca/en/city-hall/public...ctivity-public

Stage 2 Light Rail Transit (LRT) Connectivity Public Consultations
Let's get connected!
As part of the LRT Stage 2 project – which extends the O-Train Confederation Line east and west, and Trillium Line farther south – The City of Ottawa has undertaken a Stage 2 Station Connectivity Study to ensure that community connections are preserved and enhanced along the expanded O-Train system. The study outlines a series of mobility enhancements, including bicycle facilities, multi-use pathways and crosswalks.

West Stations:

Queensview, Pinecrest and Bayshore – August 9, 2016 - All Saints Lutheran Church, 1061 Pinecrest Road
Iris and Baseline – August 10, 2016 – Algonquin College ACCE Building, 1385 Woodroffe Avenue, Room CA105, 1st floor

Does anyone have any information from this week's consults?
Any new materials/proposed plans?

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Um, Paris. The areas where the towers are in that city are the worst areas of Paris

In what way do you consider La Défense to be bad? True it doesn't have the history, but it fits well with juxtaposition of modern and old in Paris (like the Pyramid at the Louvre and the architecture of the Centre Pompidou). As a major business district, I would consider La Défense to be a second downtown core.

[Buggys]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

Does anyone have any information from this week's consults?
Any new materials/proposed plans?

They were set up with about 3-4 tables in the room, each with a circle of chairs and a big map of the area. People wrote/drew comments on the table.

It seemed that most of the time someone suggested something, the City/consultants responded with reasons for not doing it.

Nothing struck me as being a new proposed plan, compared with what we've already seen through this forum. It seemed like more of a chance for people to voice concerns & ask questions.

I really liked how close the locations were to the stations being discussed.

[AndyMEng]

Originally Posted by roger1818

In what way do you consider La Défense to be bad? True it doesn't have the history, but it fits well with juxtaposition of modern and old in Paris (like the Pyramid at the Louvre and the architecture of the Centre Pompidou). As a major business district, I would consider La Défense to be a second downtown core.

When I was younger, I didn't understand the height restriction in downtown Ottawa. I thought, 'if we want to be a 21st century city, we need tall towers smack dab in the middle of downtown.'

After reading through decades of reporting from the NCC, I have started to see things from their perspective (pun intended). I tend to agree with their core height restrictions and the benefits and respect afforded to the parliamentary precincts.

Having said that, if the length of Scott Street, Richmond Road, Montreal Road, South Bank, Centretown between Bank and Elgin, and Preston South would like to begin construction of supertall towers (because of the free market) then they should go ahead and start. HOWEVER, central, pedestrian-oriented, 'neighbourhood' sections of those streets should be maintained (central westboro Wellington, for instance, should be maintained less than 6 stories. Rideau Street for 5 blocks around the rideau centre should be 6 stories. Bank Street and Elgin Streets should be limited to 6 or less) This creates focal areas for pedestrians, shopping, gathering, sun-lit streets (new buildings in these districts can easily be stepped back to heights greater than 6 stories. Outside of these focal zones, such as western Richmond road, for instance, Montreal Road east of the parkway, one-block in from the Bank Street storefronts downtown, need densification. This allows for the greater population densities required for Ottawa to actually be successful at becoming a modern city with successful business districts, instead of sleepy, empty storefronts (or as the case with Richmond Road..some grass) bordering large houses on large lots filled with people jealously guarding their downtown, living-too-large lifestyle (cue newspaper blowing in the wind).

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by AndyMEng

Having said that, if the length of Scott Street, Richmond Road, Montreal Road, South Bank, Centretown between Bank and Elgin, and Preston South would like to begin construction of supertall towers (because of the free market) then they should go ahead and start. HOWEVER, central, pedestrian-oriented, 'neighbourhood' sections of those streets should be maintained (central westboro Wellington, for instance, should be maintained less than 6 stories. Rideau Street for 5 blocks around the rideau centre should be 6 stories. Bank Street and Elgin Streets should be limited to 6 or less) This creates focal areas for pedestrians, shopping, gathering, sun-lit streets (new buildings in these districts can easily be stepped back to heights greater than 6 stories. Outside of these focal zones, such as western Richmond road, for instance, Montreal Road east of the parkway, one-block in from the Bank Street storefronts downtown, need densification. This allows for the greater population densities required for Ottawa to actually be successful at becoming a modern city with successful business districts, instead of sleepy, empty storefronts (or as the case with Richmond Road..some grass) bordering large houses on large lots filled with people jealously guarding their downtown, living-too-large lifestyle (cue newspaper blowing in the wind).

You can achieve this by requiring that on any tower build on a pedestrian mainstreet, a 3-4 story podium is up against the sidewalk but the tower part only rises in the back half of the lot. I believe Toronto requires this on streets like Yonge and Queen.

Or alternatively, require high rise development in areas **near** the mainstreet, but not quite on it. So for example, in Centretown, set a height limit of 6 stories on Bank but permit, say, 40, stories on Kent and O'Connor.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by AndyMEng

When I was younger, I didn't understand the height restriction in downtown Ottawa. I thought, 'if we want to be a 21st century city, we need tall towers smack dab in the middle of downtown.'

After reading through decades of reporting from the NCC, I have started to see things from their perspective (pun intended). I tend to agree with their core height restrictions and the benefits and respect afforded to the parliamentary precincts.

Having said that, if the length of Scott Street, Richmond Road, Montreal Road, South Bank, Centretown between Bank and Elgin, and Preston South would like to begin construction of supertall towers (because of the free market) then they should go ahead and start. HOWEVER, central, pedestrian-oriented, 'neighbourhood' sections of those streets should be maintained (central westboro Wellington, for instance, should be maintained less than 6 stories. Rideau Street for 5 blocks around the rideau centre should be 6 stories. Bank Street and Elgin Streets should be limited to 6 or less) This creates focal areas for pedestrians, shopping, gathering, sun-lit streets (new buildings in these districts can easily be stepped back to heights greater than 6 stories. Outside of these focal zones, such as western Richmond road, for instance, Montreal Road east of the parkway, one-block in from the Bank Street storefronts downtown, need densification. This allows for the greater population densities required for Ottawa to actually be successful at becoming a modern city with successful business districts, instead of sleepy, empty storefronts (or as the case with Richmond Road..some grass) bordering large houses on large lots filled with people jealously guarding their downtown, living-too-large lifestyle (cue newspaper blowing in the wind).

I'm the same way. I used to always want big skyscrapers in the city's downtown like, say, Toronto or Calgary. But now I wish the height limits had remained in place forever, at least in the CBD and central core. Most likely, the suburbs (and transit nodes outside downtown) would also have denser development in that situation as well.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Metropolitan Vancouver has twice the population of Metropolitan Ottawa and most of the tallest towers in Burnaby (mostly in Metrotown) were built within the past 5 years

When Vancouver started building its SkyTrain network, its metropolitan population was, then, about what Ottawa-Gatineau's is now.

The time to build a real transit system (not bus crappid transit) and to start adapting your land-use policies to build around it, is about a decade before you "need" it.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

When Vancouver started building its SkyTrain network, its metropolitan population was, then, about what Ottawa-Gatineau's is now.

The time to build a real transit system (not bus crappid transit) and to start adapting your land-use policies to build around it, is about a decade before you "need" it.

So are you saying that Vancouver is a bad example since they didn't do what you are suggesting we should? Also, their Expo line has they same flaws that you are complaining about with the Confederation line in that it panders to suburbia more than the urban core and then they kept extending it further and further. In a way it follows the Peter Principle in that it was extended further and further until it was ineffectively long. Once it reached that point, they split it in New Westminster and extended that split. It took them over 20 years to construct a second line downtown. Even worse, their lines all terminate downtown. I never understood why they haven't extended the Expo line east along Powel and Hastings to the PNE grounds and Kootenay Loop. With the Confederation line, at least the tunnel downtown can be used by trains from both the east and west, doubling the effective usage of the downtown track and stations.

[roger1818]

The more I think about it, the more I don't like the route the Phase 2, Bayshore extension is using. The proposed 2 intermediary stations on that leg (Queensview and Pinecrest) are almost completely useless. They don't (and likely won't ever) serve any major bus routes, high density housing, or major retailers (unless you consider Leon's and Giant Tiger major retailers).

IMHO, a much better option would be to have it run along Carling (possibly in the median) from Lincoln Fields to just before Bayshore Dr. and then swing south to Bayshore (I have a map here, on the same map as my alternate Kanata routes). It would be more expensive, but I think the benefits outweigh the extra cost.

There would still be two intermediary stations: Olde Forge (in the triangle between Richmond, Carling and Pinecrest) and Britannia West (near the Colosseum theater). The former is at a major 3-way intersection where 2 major crosstown routes intersect. It also has several large apartment buildings within easy walking distance. The beyond the obvious theater and retail presence of the later stop, it is also close to a few large apartment buildings.