Quote:
Originally Posted by J.OT13
I got around to watching the open house and I'm even more irritated than I was before.
The building approved two years ago was appropriate for the site. The architecture was unique, providing a modern flair that contrasted well with the area’s older stock. The tower provided the step-down from the high-density TOD at Bayview towards the traditional main street. The green roof was an extra delight that is sorely lacking in Ottawa. Changes were made to satisfy the community and the City.
Today, this new developer has consolidated the entire block and throwing away the work previously done to propose this eyesore, more than twice the height of the previous proposal and nearly four times the allowed height of the original zoning. Lahey had the audacity to justify the extra height on the cost of consolidating the block. Developers overpaying for properties is not the City or the community’s problem. Quite frankly, I find it insulting. Such irresponsible behaviour is partially to blame for the housing affordability crisis.
The only redeeming feature of this proposal is that they are consideration making a few townhouses facing Armstrong family oriented, affordable units.
I will be emailing Mr. Leiper and, once the project is assigned, the City to express my displeasure.
|
When I heard that bit being re-emphasized I was a bit pissed. He claims they wanted to close off Wellington in front; so, in order to do that they purchased the other properties so they had the whole block. But apparently those properties were
so expensive for the developer that in order to recoup the cost they felt they had to make it this highrise. Part of making that bit of the street a plaza had to do with providing the businesses in front some outdoor patio space.
Of course, never mind that Wellington at this section could have been closed even if they had only a portion of the block, and as you said, it's the developer's problem it cost so much.
I'm frustrated that developers and architects don't seem to get what TOD is all about. As shown in the presentation, they think it's just building "high density" near transit stations. Higher density is one element to help pay for transit, the more important part is that parking is reduced/ not included because people would be using transit instead of cars and walk/ biking around to businesses. If you provide so much parking, you defeat the purpose - people will just choose to drive instead because they have their car. Not only does this increase traffic, it means fewer people will even be using transit, therefore giving less funds. This project has 50% parking spaces to units. 283 units to something like 142 parking spots. That's a lot! If their justification for height is proximity to transit aka TOD, then they contradict themselves and should be rejected.
I also emphasize the choice of materials is terrible! It seems lately all the projects RLA propose are using the same bad materials. 1960 Scott, Westgate redevelopment, Best Western, this project all have the grey brick and white IMP (or composite architectural panel). Visit 1960 Scott if you want to see what all these buildings will look like.
Also, only 9 of the 283 units are low income, which are supposed to be the rear units along Armstrong. There doesn't seem to be too much of a differentiation of these units from the rest of the podium to make it seem like the houses belong with the rest of the area.
Prev
Linear Mode
