New subdivision developments - Page 37

TransitZilla · #**721** Posted **Jun 22, 2013, 7:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack

Charlemagne in Orleans is actually the best (or worst) example of this. It's all backyard fences on both sides for almost its entire length.

Gatineau does have a few roads like this (much of La Vérendrye for example) but seems to be moving away from them. Something which Ottawa does not seem to be doing.

Ottawa's definitely moving away from this but sadly there are still some examples being built from time to time.

But there are lots of examples where this has been avoided...

Orleans- Chaperal
https://maps.google.ca/?ll=45.449399...36.43,,0,-2.74

Leitrim- Findlay Creek
https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=bank+%...1.46,,0,-13.68

and

https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=Findla...,63.01,,0,0.29

Barrhaven- Strandherd
https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=Strand...31.47,,0,11.95

Barrhaven South- Greenbank
https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=Strand...128.41,,0,0.98

Uhuniau · #**722** Posted **Jun 23, 2013, 4:52 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack

Charlemagne in Orleans is actually the best (or worst) example of this. It's all backyard fences on both sides for almost its entire length.

Just a vile piece of stinking suburban garbage, and planned and built about four official plans into the era in which such stinking suburban garbage was officially deprecated.

Which goes to show you how much precatory, aspirational, urban planning documents count for.

We might as well just get rid of the planning documents and let the suburban speculators do whatever the hell they want. It's what ends up happening anyway; why continue to pay for the charade?

Uhuniau · #**723** Posted **Jun 23, 2013, 4:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bradnixon

Ottawa's definitely moving away from this but sadly there are still some examples being built from time to time.

But there are lots of examples where this has been avoided...

Orleans- Chaperal
https://maps.google.ca/?ll=45.449399...36.43,,0,-2.74

Having the houses serviced by a local service road, separated from the arterial by token trees and a grass median, is functionally no different from a complete separation by hedge or fence or sound barrier. It's still a crap suburban street that will never serve anything but free-moving car traffic and hourly buses.

TransitZilla · #**724** Posted **Jun 23, 2013, 9:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Having the houses serviced by a local service road, separated from the arterial by token trees and a grass median, is functionally no different from a complete separation by hedge or fence or sound barrier. It's still a crap suburban street that will never serve anything but free-moving car traffic and hourly buses.

It's actually way better, because it allows for a direct pedestrian connection to transit service on the arterial, in addition to being a big step up aesthetically.

When houses are rear-lotted to the arterial, it usually means a long circuitous detour for pedestrians to access transit in addition to being ugly.

Uhuniau · #**725** Posted **Jun 24, 2013, 4:32 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bradnixon

It's actually way better, because it allows for a direct pedestrian connection to transit service on the arterial, in addition to being a big step up aesthetically.

When houses are rear-lotted to the arterial, it usually means a long circuitous detour for pedestrians to access transit in addition to being ugly.

It's not "way" better, it's marginally better, and then only for the people who live on what would be those rear-lotted properties and their further-in neighbours.

From the point of view of city-building it's still overbuilt arterial, over-generous to single-passenger auto commuting, which will never be allowed to evolve into anything other than monocultural suburban crap.

Pure crap. It's all Ottawa knows how to build any more. Junk-food suburban crap.

Acajack · #**726** Posted **Jun 24, 2013, 11:18 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bradnixon

It's actually way better, because it allows for a direct pedestrian connection to transit service on the arterial, in addition to being a big step up aesthetically.

When houses are rear-lotted to the arterial, it usually means a long circuitous detour for pedestrians to access transit in addition to being ugly.

I am not sure that it is way better. The buffer has a psychological effect on drivers which gives them the illusion the can drive as fast as they want, and this in turn means that pedestrians are less likely to find it to be a desirable place to walk.

There is something psychological about the effect of buildings as close as possible to the road that has an effect on both driving and pedestrian use.

Uhuniau · #**727** Posted **Jun 25, 2013, 4:56 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack

I am not sure that it is way better. The buffer has a psychological effect on drivers which gives them the illusion the can drive as fast as they want, and this in turn means that pedestrians are less likely to find it to be a desirable place to walk.

There is something psychological about the effect of buildings as close as possible to the road that has an effect on both driving and pedestrian use.

But this is Ottawa, and building things close to the road KILLS ALL OF THE CHILDREN.

canabiz · #**728** Posted **Jun 27, 2013, 1:40 AM**

Out for a run earlier and I saw a City of Ottawa Zoning Sign for 3872 Greenbank Road. There will be 494 residential units with 1 elementary school and 2 parks. Public meeting was held on December 11, 2012 so I assume the sign has been there for a number of months.

Does anyone know which builder is going to build here? I know the adjacent lots have Tamarack and Mattamy homes. This is directly Kilbirnie Drive which is part of Stonebridge and Monarch. I live a few blocks down the street so this project will definitely add some traffic and noise to the area but the elementary school and parks are always welcome.

waterloowarrior · #**729** Posted **Jun 27, 2013, 3:09 AM**

^ Minto http://app01.ottawa.ca/postingplans/...appId=__8AQJXZ

OTSkyline · #**730** Posted **Jun 27, 2013, 8:49 PM**

Ottawa keeps building out and out and out and out...
Soon (pretty soon) Barrhaven will blend in with Manotick. And we all know how Manotick residents love their "small community feel"... We will never head the end of this when they start building subdivisions, parking lots and Wal-Marts all around Manotick...

canabiz · #**731** Posted **Jun 27, 2013, 9:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by OTSkyline

Ottawa keeps building out and out and out and out...
Soon (pretty soon) Barrhaven will blend in with Manotick. And we all know how Manotick residents love their "small community feel"... We will never head the end of this when they start building subdivisions, parking lots and Wal-Marts all around Manotick...

Yep, it's coming to the 'Tick! I know those residents tried to fight Minto and their new subdivision called Mahogany but money talks!

I was just going thru the Nepean-Barrhaven community newspaper earlier and Minto is already advertising their lots with plenty of *free* upgrades e.g. brick or stones on all sides, interlocking stone walkway, granite countertops in kitchen, powder room and master ensuite, and main staircase in hardwood.

The 'Tick will never be the same, I remember driving through that quaint little town not too long ago and said to myself: This is not a bad place for retirement. Fast forward 5 years...

waterloowarrior · #**732** Posted **Sep 11, 2013, 3:31 AM**

New website for Minto Mahogany in Manotick.. I've heard ads on the radio too
http://mahoganybyminto.com/

rocketphish · #**733** Posted **Sep 11, 2013, 5:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

New website for Minto Mahogany in Manotick.. I've heard ads on the radio too
http://mahoganybyminto.com/

Some overall scenes from the new site:

teej1984 · #**734** Posted **Sep 11, 2013, 5:59 PM**

Oh doesnt that look lovely... lots of meandering roads to soothe the soul as you're driving home from the nearest park and ride...

J.OT13 · #**735** Posted **Sep 12, 2013, 12:49 AM**

It's going to be HELL driving to work for those suckers!

waterloowarrior · #**736** Posted **Nov 8, 2013, 12:55 AM**

City opposing 1,000 unit subdivision in Richmond due to stormwater/servicing issues, layout and lack of financial info
http://app05.ottawa.ca/sirepub/mtgvi...&itemid=304476

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Ci...544/story.html

info on the developer - Caivan Communities - former Mattamy employees who seem to be partnering with their old bosses
http://www2.canada.com/ottawacitizen...4-bda1a8699761

J.OT13 · #**737** Posted **Nov 8, 2013, 5:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

City opposing 1,000 unit subdivision in Richmond due to stormwater/servicing issues, layout and lack of financial info
http://app05.ottawa.ca/sirepub/mtgvi...&itemid=304476

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Ci...544/story.html

info on the developer - Caivan Communities - former Mattamy employees who seem to be partnering with their old bosses
http://www2.canada.com/ottawacitizen...4-bda1a8699761

If developers want to keep building in Richmond, they should pay to bring in City water.

eternallyme · #**738** Posted **Nov 8, 2013, 6:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by J.OT13

If developers want to keep building in Richmond, they should pay to bring in City water.

They should have to pay for all the necessary services to turn a town of 4,000 into a town of 7,000.

One thing I think they might do is abandon the project and just build them outside the City of Ottawa...

1overcosc · #**739** Posted **Nov 8, 2013, 10:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by J.OT13

If developers want to keep building in Richmond, they should pay to bring in City water.

They brought in city water for Embrun/Russell, and the existing water customers paid for it, not developers. Don't get your hopes up.

Dado · #**740** Posted **Nov 9, 2013, 4:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

City opposing 1,000 unit subdivision in Richmond due to stormwater/servicing issues, layout and lack of financial info
http://app05.ottawa.ca/sirepub/mtgvi...&itemid=304476

Oooh... 3 m front setbacks. What a tragedy. And 6 m rear yard setbacks... wait, isn't like every infill in Westboro doing pretty much the same thing?

Then there's the 16.5 m RoWs... apparently such a "narrow" RoW combined with the 3 m front setbacks means that no trees can be planted. Perhaps a visit to Hintonburg/Mechanicsville is in order, where, if I'm not mistaken, the streets are narrower than 16.5 m, the soil is clay and there are trees.

Or, as always, to the Netherlands.

http://goo.gl/r1VVGu

Here's a suburban street in Groningen where the RoW looks to be 12.5 m and the setbacks 3 m. And would you look at all those trees.

Ok, granted, the trees are in the sidewalks reducing their effective width, but that street also has on-street parking on both sides. With 4 m more width and possibly banning parking on one side (or alternating it), there'd be enough room for two full sidewalks and change. And that's before we consider woonerf solutions, which this suburban Dutch street doesn't employ but which would seem especially applicable to a small subdivision in a village.