327 Richmond Rd | 30m | 9f | Approved

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

A four story building would block light to the closest sidewalk, but for most of the day it would still allow light to the far sidewalk. So, no - a four-story building would not plunge the street into perpetual darkness, but we were talking about a bulky 8-9 story building that occupies an entire block.

It could be 4,000 storeys and it's still not going to cast the adjacent street into perpetual gloom (or even temporary gloom.)

Ottawa still revolves around the earth's axis of rotation once every 24 hours, just like everywhere else other than the poles.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

It could be 4,000 storeys and it's still not going to cast the adjacent street into perpetual gloom (or even temporary gloom.)

Ottawa still revolves around the earth's axis of rotation once every 24 hours, just like everywhere else other than the poles.

"Gloom" does not mean complete darkness, it just means perpetual shade.
Yes, Ottawa still revolves around the earth's axis of rotation. However it is also subject to the earth's tilt, and therefore any block-length building that is on the south side of the street and is much taller than twice the street width will - in fact - result in perpetual shade for said street during the fall and winter months.

Again, I'll re-iterate that shade from buildings is not anywhere close my number one issue when it comes to urban design, but I Do enjoy the feeling of the winter sun, and therefor block-length buildings on the south side of east-west streets slightly inhibit my ability to enjoy the street for half the year.

[Admiral Nelson]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

It could be 4,000 storeys and it's still not going to cast the adjacent street into perpetual gloom (or even temporary gloom.)

Ottawa still revolves around the earth's axis of rotation once every 24 hours, just like everywhere else other than the poles.

You're being deliberately obtuse here, and frankly I don't know why any urbanist would pick the westboro canyon as a hill to die on.

You can be in favour of densification without giving a blank check to lackadaiscally-designed and monolithic development proposals on main streets featuring little by way of main street urban design best practices, such as height with proportionate stepbacks and narrow/fine grained storefronts. Surely we can ask for higher standards. Isn't that why we're all here, with our shared interest in the design of the city?

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

"Gloom" does not mean complete darkness, it just means perpetual shade.

Yes, Ottawa still revolves around the earth's axis of rotation. However it is also subject to the earth's tilt, and therefore any block-length building that is on the south side of the street and is much taller than twice the street width will - in fact - result in perpetual shade for said street during the fall and winter months.

This is astronomically impossible at Ottawa's latitude.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Admiral Nelson

You're being deliberately obtuse here, and frankly I don't know why any urbanist would pick the westboro canyon as a hill to die on.

In part because the "canyon" epithet is another typical example of Ottawa exaggeration and NIMBYism. There is nothing remotely "canyon"-esque about Westboro.

You can be in favour of densification without giving a blank check to lackadaiscally-designed and monolithic development proposals on main streets featuring little by way of main street urban design best practices, such as height with proportionate stepbacks and narrow/fine grained storefronts. Surely we can ask for higher standards. Isn't that why we're all here, with our shared interest in the design of the city?

I totally agree about fine-grained storefronts, varegiation, etc.

I am ambivalent at best about setbacks, especially since the Ottawa attitude seems to always be about arbitrary setbacks for the sake of arbitrary setbacks, as if people have never once walked any of the fine old streets of centretown or Sandy Hill in all their setback-less glory. (Cf. open space for the sake of open space, green space for the sake of green space, an X-story cap for the sake of an X-storey cap, etc., etc.)

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

This is astronomically impossible at Ottawa's latitude.

No, it is very possible. Look at this link: http://davidmdelaney.com/Ottawa-sola...ther-data.html

In the winter months the sun rises and sets at about an angle of about 55 or 60 degrees from south (I.e. it rises in the southwest and sets in the southeast). It also never rises above 30 degrees from the horizon.

I get that NIMBYs often use shade as a standard argument against development, often to an exaggerated and comical effect, but your counter-reaction to deny that it has any impact is equally obsurd.

In part because the "canyon" epithet is another typical example of Ottawa exaggeration and NIMBYism. There is nothing remotely "canyon"-esque about Westboro

Again, just because others exagerate doesn't mean we can't acknowledge things could have been done slightly better. Would you ever feel a building is too tall for a street? What if they was a row of 20 story buildings and the street was only 10 m wide? Would that not feel constrained? We are only human and have certain instincts. Some spaces make people uncomfortable. Maybe you have a high tolerance for these sorts of urban "canyons", that doesn't mean the negative feelings of others are invalid.

[acottawa]

It does seem like the footprint is too small for the building being proposed. If the developer also purchased the garage next door and there was a podium on the same scale as the rest of the street then I think it would look fine.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

I totally agree about fine-grained storefronts, varegiation, etc.

I am ambivalent at best about setbacks, especially since the Ottawa attitude seems to always be about arbitrary setbacks for the sake of arbitrary setbacks, as if people have never once walked any of the fine old streets of centretown or Sandy Hill in all their setback-less glory. (Cf. open space for the sake of open space, green space for the sake of green space, an X-story cap for the sake of an X-storey cap, etc., etc.)

You're absolutely correct that Sandy Hill and Centretown are very nice areas however, they are very different from Westboro. The former are mostly medium density residential neighborhoods. People walk the streets to get around, not to shop or sit at patios. Bank is a main street like Westboro, but much wider. Elgin is a main street, but the commercial stretch of it has set-backs and/or lower commercial buildings for the most part, anchored by medium density residential and the high-rise CBD.

If something works in one spot, doesn't mean it's appropriate in another. Every neighborhood is unique, and we should keep it that way.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Bank is a main street like Westboro, but much wider.

Do you have a reference for this comment? Just curious, as I wouldn’t have guessed that.

[Kitchissippi]

I have no objections to the taller condos that have gone up in Westboro, but I do feel that there should be something like a 100 metre radius around the old town hall where nothing should be taller than the bell tower to preserve the ambiance of the village core. Beyond that, maybe a 4 storeys for another 100 metres then 8 storeys after that, but with some setbacks or visual cornice lines that trace out the traditional one to two storey heights of storefronts.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by phil235

Do you have a reference for this comment? Just curious, as I wouldn’t have guessed that.

I was basing it more on my experience walking those streets. Measuring on Google Maps though, it seems they're both about the same. I guess narrower sidewalks on Bank make it seem wider to me. My bad.

Both still have different characters historically. Bank is more mid-density downtown while Richmond (Westboro) has always been a more low-scale main street. Both should have their respective scales.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Both still have different characters historically. Bank is more mid-density downtown while Richmond (Westboro) has always been a more low-scale main street. Both should have their respective scales.

I disagree that "historic character" should guide our development going forward. Do we want our neighborhoods to always be stuck imatating their past? IMO, these are both traditional mainstreets, and a development that is a good fit for one is probably a good fit for the other (taking into account local street layout, lot shape, east-west vs. north-south street considerations as discussed in prior posts, etc...).

*edit, I will concede proximity to downtown should make a difference. Bank street north of approx. Gloucester should be treated slightly differently. I'm more thinking of Westboro vs. South-centretown / the globe / OOS

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

In the winter months the sun rises and sets at about an angle of about 55 or 60 degrees from south (I.e. it rises in the southwest and sets in the southeast). It also never rises above 30 degrees from the horizon.

But it still moves from one side of the sky to the other. The area that is shaded for the whole day is a relatively small angle. It's also not darkness.

I get that NIMBYs often use shade as a standard argument against development, often to an exaggerated and comical effect, but your counter-reaction to deny that it has any impact is equally obsurd.

I still don't know what the impact is. What's the impact?

Would you ever feel a building is too tall for a street?

For a street, no. For some particular context, sure. But there is nothing that makes a building inherently too tall for a street.

What if they was a row of 20 story buildings and the street was only 10 m wide?

If that were a problem for a person, I would recommend that they not move to that street.

Would that not feel constrained?

To some, sure. Others might feel a certain comfort in enclosure: that's why a lot of European cities have such a comfortable feel; streets are short and blocks are short, terminating in views of buildings that are themselves tight to the street.

If someone would feel "constrained", the solution is to live in a different kind of place.

We are only human and have certain instincts. Some spaces make people uncomfortable. Maybe you have a high tolerance for these sorts of urban "canyons", that doesn't mean the negative feelings of others are invalid.

A six-storey building on a four-lane street does not a "canyon" make.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

You're absolutely correct that Sandy Hill and Centretown are very nice areas however, they are very different from Westboro. The former are mostly medium density residential neighborhoods. People walk the streets to get around, not to shop or sit at patios.

I'm sorry - which neighbourhood is it where people don't walk the streets to get around?

Bank is a main street like Westboro, but much wider.

That depends on which part of which street innit?

Elgin is a main street, but the commercial stretch of it has set-backs

Which parts of the commercial stretch of Elgin are set back? Other than that little divot in the building that the Lieutenant's Pump is in, pretty well all the old stock commercial and retail buildings from Lisgar to Gladstone are tight to the street.

and/or lower commercial buildings for the most part, anchored by medium density residential and the high-rise CBD.

And also (by Ottawa standards) high-rise 60s-era apartment buildings.

If something works in one spot, doesn't mean it's appropriate in another. Every neighborhood is unique, and we should keep it that way.

The principles of good urbanity are pretty universal.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I was basing it more on my experience walking those streets. Measuring on Google Maps though, it seems they're both about the same. I guess narrower sidewalks on Bank make it seem wider to me. My bad.

Both still have different characters historically. Bank is more mid-density downtown while Richmond (Westboro) has always been a more low-scale main street. Both should have their respective scales.

Why should any neighbourhood be fossilized in amber?

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

But it still moves from one side of the sky to the other. The area that is shaded for the whole day is a relatively small angle. It's also not darkness.

This was addressed by my comment that the sun rises in the SOUTHeast and sets in teh SOUTHwest. The area of the street in the middle of a long building never sees sun.

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

I still don't know what the impact is. What's the impact?

The impact is one cannot walk down the street in sunlight, which on a cold day makes walking down that street less enjoyable. A big deal - no. A minor impact to me, yes. An impact to to you, apparently not, that's fine.

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

For a street, no. For some particular context, sure. But there is nothing that makes a building inherently too tall for a street.

Agree to disagree I guess. *edit - assuming said building is a long, bulky, tall building... I generally have no problem with more slender tall buildings in most contexts*

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

If that were a problem for a person, I would recommend that they not move to that street.

That person would need consistent planning decisions to make informed decisions about what height of buildings will be permitted on the street they are planning to move to. Unfortunately that consistency with CDPs and the like only sort of exists in Ottawa

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

A six-storey building on a four-lane street does not a "canyon" make.

As far as I was aware, we were still discussing the 9-story portion of Q West. If it was six stories we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

I'm sorry - which neighbourhood is it where people don't walk the streets to get around?

You miss-understood what I said. In medium-density residential Centretown, residents are walking from their homes to other places where they can work, shop or grab a bite while in places like Westboro, lined with 1-3 storey retail buildings, people are actually sitting down outside on terraces and hanging out. Though Centretown is a beautiful area, it is not being enjoyed in the same way as Westboro which has a more human scale.

That depends on which part of which street innit?

I was talking about Centretown, but I've already established that I was mistaken.

Which parts of the commercial stretch of Elgin are set back? Other than that little divot in the building that the Lieutenant's Pump is in, pretty well all the old stock commercial and retail buildings from Lisgar to Gladstone are tight to the street.

Most of the taller buildings have set-backs, whether at street level or at the upper floors, mostly on the east side. Churches, Fox and Feather, the mid-century apartment block at Gilmore, the building between Waverley and Frank, to name a few.

And also (by Ottawa standards) high-rise 60s-era apartment buildings.

Fronting Elgin, there is just one on the commercial stretch.

The principles of good urbanity are pretty universal.

Principals of good urbanity includes promoting distinct neighborhoods. We can all agree that the mid-century principal of raising entire areas in order to build dozens, sometime hundreds of the same row-house or apartment block was not good urbanity. Lining what used to be a human scale traditional main street with a few dozen fairly similar mid-rise buildings isn't whole lot better.

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Why should any neighbourhood be fossilized in amber?

Who said we need to fossilize neighbourhoods? I encourage the redevelopment of vacant lots, parking lots, gas stations and big-box stores. I'm just saying we need to stay consistent with the scale of the rest of the street that's preserved. Build your two-three floors along the retail main street and set-back an extra two-three floors for extra density/revenue that won't negatively affect the existing character of the area.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

This was addressed by my comment that the sun rises in the SOUTHeast and sets in teh SOUTHwest. The area of the street in the middle of a long building never sees sun.

I don't see an area that doesn't see sun as being a problem. It's not like we're trying to grow citrus trees in such spots.

The impact is one cannot walk down the street in sunlight, which on a cold day makes walking down that street less enjoyable.

That's entirely subjective.

As far as I was aware, we were still discussing the 9-story portion of Q West. If it was six stories we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Also: nine storeys does not a canyon make.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

You miss-understood what I said. In medium-density residential Centretown, residents are walking from their homes to other places where they can work, shop or grab a bite while in places like Westboro, lined with 1-3 storey retail buildings, people are actually sitting down outside on terraces and hanging out. Though Centretown is a beautiful area, it is not being enjoyed in the same way as Westboro which has a more human scale.

I don't see old centretown, streets like Somerset or Metcalfe, the area around the dinosaur museum, etc., as having an inhuman scale.

Lining what used to be a human scale traditional main street with a few dozen fairly similar mid-rise buildings isn't whole lot better.

The only thing that really truly matters is the functionality and granularity at street level.

Who said we need to fossilize neighbourhoods? I encourage the redevelopment of vacant lots, parking lots, gas stations and big-box stores. I'm just saying we need to stay consistent with the scale of the rest of the street that's preserved.

Why?

A lot of the blessèd sacred two- and three-storey environments that are now supposedly beyond ever changing used to be one- and two-storey ones. Why is the "scale" something that has to be permanently consistent and unchanging? I really do not understand this.

Build your two-three floors along the retail main street and set-back an extra two-three floors for extra density/revenue that won't negatively affect the existing character of the area.

Is there no way in which some extra floors, even without being stepped back, can never POSITIVEDLY affect the character of an area?

I truly do not understand the allergy to height, density, good urban streetwalls, etc., that infests Ottawa. I don't.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

I don't see old centretown, streets like Somerset or Metcalfe, the area around the dinosaur museum, etc., as having an inhuman scale.

The only thing that really truly matters is the functionality and granularity at street level.

Why?

A lot of the blessèd sacred two- and three-storey environments that are now supposedly beyond ever changing used to be one- and two-storey ones. Why is the "scale" something that has to be permanently consistent and unchanging? I really do not understand this.

Is there no way in which some extra floors, even without being stepped back, can never POSITIVEDLY affect the character of an area?

I truly do not understand the allergy to height, density, good urban streetwalls, etc., that infests Ottawa. I don't.

I'm going to step out of this conversation. It's hard to continue if you're incapable of seeing the point of view others.

I'll leave you with one last example. Vieux Québec. Would you allow a modern 15 storey tower in the middle of Vieux Québec. Demolish a few historic 4 floor stone buildings and replace it with more density. Or even just a vacant lot between two lines of historic stone buildings. I wager you would not allow that.

Now we don't have our own version of Vieux Québec, but main streets like Richmond in Westboro, or Wellington West or Bank north of the canal, the ByWard Market, those are areas that Ottawa's population, most of us at least, hold dearly. There are some spots where taller buildings are acceptable. I'm thinking of a few corners where we already have one or two taller buildings, or the edges of the ByWard Market, or gateways into neighborhoods like Island Park at Richmond or Richmond at Golden. But when we have a row of mostly intact low-scale main street for a few blocks, it's nice to preserve that. In exchange, we can build taller on Scott along Line 1.