95-101 Norman St | 34m | 9f | Completed

[McC]

Originally Posted by Beedok

The 45 story developments will help with all that though. Sticking large numbers of residents in a neighbourhood boosts local businesses and pushes those sitting on parking lots to develop as their taxes go up and parking lot profit margins go down.

I dunno, what form of supply fills up more under-developed properties in the process of meeting the same level of demand: one 45-storey tower or a half dozen or so 6-storey blocks with equivalent FSI? I say it all the time, high rises don't create demand, Icon won't conjure the number of purchasers required to get Richcraft's Sky towers built, and I expect that one or two highrises surrounded by under-developed lots is exactly what you'll see for some time.

[little italian]

Originally Posted by McC

I expect that one or two highrises surrounded by under-developed lots is exactly what you'll see for some time.

I, sadly, second this. Just look at how Domicile pulled Nuovo as soon as the Icon started building, fating this site on Rochester for many more years as a parking lot. If the Icon had been a more reasonable height we could have had two nice buildings in here rather than one sore thumb.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by McC

I dunno, what form of supply fills up more under-developed properties in the process of meeting the same level of demand: one 45-storey tower or a half dozen or so 6-storey blocks with equivalent FSI? I say it all the time, high rises don't create demand, Icon won't conjure the number of purchasers required to get Richcraft's Sky towers built, and I expect that one or two highrises surrounded by under-developed lots is exactly what you'll see for some time.

Obviously mid-rises fill things faster if everything else is equal, but the fact that highrises are being built here shows everything else is not equal.

Also highrises do create demand. The people moving into the tower want to go to restaurants and shops and otherwise enjoy the neighbourhood. More customers means shops can improve and new shops can open. New shops and demand for retail space means that people sitting on parking lots will want to cash in on the demand (and need to as the cost taxes for the land the parking lot is sitting on grows ever closer to the profits made from the parking lot). As more amenities exist in the neighbourhood to cater to new residents more people will want to live in the area.

It might be ideal to get midrises only, but the developers can compare parking lot profits to midrise profits to see what they want to build. A highrise in the neighbourhood sparking more shops and demand means the parking lot profits go down and the midrise profits go up as people are willing to pay more to live in the up and coming neighbourhood.

[passwordisnt123]

Originally Posted by little italian

I stand corrected. I should have written that it is going from a predominantly 2-story neighbourhood to one filled with 45-story buildings. But I also stand behind my view that this is excessive.

The term NIMBY is thrown around here, and elsewhere far too often, as an attempt to shut criticism down rather than engage in actual discussion. I am actually all for densification in my backyard. I recognize that this is the way forward, and that done properly it can come with lots of benefits including increased facilities and more walkability. But that does not mean that bigger is always better and might is always right. I don't agree with the extreme way in which development is being done here, or feel that developers and city planners even have community (current and future) interests front and centre. (See huge amount of surface parking and vacant buildings blighting this neighbourhood because developers would rather wait 10 years to build a 45-story building rather than put in a lower rise now; see the fact that a 10-story building is going up at the end of a super narrow dead end road with no consideration for the traffic consequences will be as annoying for current residents as it will be for future residents of said high rise, etc).

People use NIMBY to dismiss local expertise and experience out of hand, but the people who live in the neighbourhood and who know what is wrong with these streets bring valid concerns that, if listened to, can help make sure that this community will work well when all those high-rise residents do inevitably become our neighbours.

Maybe I just don't get it but what exactly is "extreme" (to use your words) about this proposal? So far as I can tell, this is a 9 storey building close to a rail transit station, it's located centrally in the city and it's in a neighbourhood identified by both the city and developers as prime for intensification.

Granted, I'm not as familiar with this proposal as some others so it's possible I'm simply not aware of some particularly "extreme" aspect of this proposal. I'd be curious to hear what is so extreme here because I'm at a loss right now.

[McC]

Originally Posted by Beedok

Also highrises do create demand. The people moving into the tower want to go to restaurants and shops and otherwise enjoy the neighbourhood. More customers means shops can improve and new shops can open.

it's the same number of people in either scenario.

[little italian]

Originally Posted by passwordisnt123

Maybe I just don't get it but what exactly is "extreme" (to use your words) about this proposal? So far as I can tell, this is a 9 storey building close to a rail transit station, it's located centrally in the city and it's in a neighbourhood identified by both the city and developers as prime for intensification.

Granted, I'm not as familiar with this proposal as some others so it's possible I'm simply not aware of some particularly "extreme" aspect of this proposal. I'd be curious to hear what is so extreme here because I'm at a loss right now.

My take on this is that context counts. The rest of the side streets in this area are zoned for 4 stories. These are also very narrow streets. There was a commenter on here previously saying that the "standard width of a Road allowance has always been 66 ft" and that complaints about road width are therefore "just Ludicrous", and yet the city map shows that Norman Street is in fact only 50ft wide, 25% narrower than standard. It gets very hairy in the winter months when the snow piles up. To more than double the zoning height on this one side of a side street just because a developer asks for it -- and to make no considerations for all the extra cars that this will bring, who already pull into neighbours driveways to do U-turns on this dead end road -- is in my view extreme.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by McC

it's the same number of people in either scenario.

How? One scenario is nothing gets built because the demand isn't there to make mid-rises profitable vs. sitting on a parking lot. The other is hundreds of new residents showing up because of highrise construction spurring further development.

[little italian]

Originally Posted by Beedok

It might be ideal to get midrises only, but the developers can compare parking lot profits to midrise profits to see what they want to build.

But are they comparing mid-rise now to parking lot now? Or, mid-rise now to high-rise in 15 years? And if things were zoned differently, would that change the economics in favour of faster development?

[Urbanarchit]

Originally Posted by Beedok

How? One scenario is nothing gets built because the demand isn't there to make mid-rises profitable vs. sitting on a parking lot. The other is hundreds of new residents showing up because of highrise construction spurring further development.

It depends on how expensive the properties are and the cost of construction that would influence if a midrise is financially feasible. Like say, would a 6-storey building for middle-class peoe in New York be possible or only a highrise? Being completely ignorant about the cost of buying and building in Little Italy presently, I can't say if a midrise is impossible. But I'm wont to believe it's not possible to build midrises.

The difference between a highrise and a midrise is that one needs fewer people to purchase units before construction in midrises compared to Condos, so those are more likely to start construction sooner. More people would be moving into the area earlier than those in the high-rises and having an impact in that neighbourhood which could spurn more development and more retail, etc. I think in Little Italy's case, the highrises are too ambitious currently considering there is little demand currently in the area. Aside from. Hōm and Soho, the only other two are being because it's a student residential building or because the developer is self-financing becauss the couldn't sell enough (Icon).

I kind of wish that instead of waiting for demand to increase in Little Italy that developers would focus on smaller, midrises first to actually drive interest and activity into the neighbourhood so that it can actually be good, and therefore make more people want to live there (which would be a boon if they wanted those few highrises).

For Norman, if one of the problems is about vehicular traffic, then what the City should have done is reconsidered the number of parking spaces permitted in a building of any size on these side streets. No matter if it's 4 storeys or 20 there will still be too many cars and too little space to accommodate them there. If these streets are far narrower than average, then trying to fit something oversized and unnecessary here is. If cars can't fit, then rejecting this building shouldn't have been the answer, but a reduction or elimination of parking should have been recommended/ demanded (don't throw the baby out with the water).

You know... those who live on these side streets might not like it, but why not ban cars on the streets (if there is apparently no space for them) altogether. They could do away with sidewalks and pedestrianise the entire street, making it a level plaza or woonerf, and put bollards at the end so cars can't park on them. Then there would be more room for winter maintenance, less traffic, and then whether the building is 9-storeys or 4 you can have some nice landscaping, quiet side streets and even allow retail along them. They'd have a nice connection to the O-train MUP and offer respite from traffic. The businesses that like cars or use the side streets for parking wouldn't be happy and residents who drive wouldn't like it, but it might make for a different urbanism that differentiates little Italy from others and make it more and interesting and pleasant, further spurring development and desire to live there.

[little italian]

Originally Posted by Urbanarchit

You know... those who live on these side streets might not like it, but why not ban cars on the streets (if there is apparently no space for them) altogether. They could do away with sidewalks and pedestrianise the entire street, making it a level plaza or woonerf, and put bollards at the end so cars can't park on them. Then there would be more room for winter maintenance, less traffic, and then whether the building is 9-storeys or 4 you can have some nice landscaping, quiet side streets and even allow retail along them. They'd have a nice connection to the O-train MUP and offer respite from traffic. The businesses that like cars or use the side streets for parking wouldn't be happy and residents who drive wouldn't like it, but it might make for a different urbanism that differentiates little Italy from others and make it more and interesting and pleasant, further spurring development and desire to live there.

Banning cars altogether from Norman seems like adding salt to a wound. Nearly all (if not all) of the residents of Norman have driveways and cars. Even if they don't use their cars very often, they paid the right to use these cars and driveways.

But a slight tweak of your suggestion could work: ban on-street parking from Norman and add street calming features to further reduce traffic and semi pedestrianize it (and other nearby streets). This would alleviate some of my concerns, and the worst of the winter problems. While local businesses might protest, the reality is that much of the street parking here is taken up by local government workers who don't want to pay for parking, who move their cars every three hours to evade bylaw, and who aren't bringing new business to the area anyway.

The only downside that I can think of on this is that it might increase the profitability of all the surface parking lots.

[coladin]

Originally Posted by little italian

Banning cars altogether from Norman seems like adding salt to a wound. Nearly all (if not all) of the residents of Norman have driveways and cars. Even if they don't use their cars very often, they paid the right to use these cars and driveways.

But a slight tweak of your suggestion could work: ban on-street parking from Norman and add street calming features to further reduce traffic and semi pedestrianize it (and other nearby streets). This would alleviate some of my concerns, and the worst of the winter problems. While local businesses might protest, the reality is that much of the street parking here is taken up by local government workers who don't want to pay for parking, who move their cars every three hours to evade bylaw, and who aren't bringing new business to the area anyway.

The only downside that I can think of on this is that it might increase the profitability of all the surface parking lots.

Ultimately the City has to do a better job of servicing Norman, which I drive on everyday. Winter is a joke, I just go around it.

[Marcus CLS]

Two Bins on site. Workers would only confirm emptying the buildings of contents while I was walking by today.

[Marcus CLS]

Full Safety fencing is now installed and some demolition with salvaging is well under way.

[Urbanarchit]

It took them quite a while to demolish the buildings on the site, but the site is mostly empty now.

[FutureWickedCity]

Does anyone have the latest rendering since it got shortened to 9 storeys?

[Davis137]

I recall parking right beside this site the last time my family went to Pub Italia...they only had about 30% of it torn down. I get the feeling we will see more and more pockets of Ottawa have single homes and former businesses get torn down for infill redevelopment as time goes by.

[OTownandDown]

Originally Posted by FutureWickedCity

Does anyone have the latest rendering since it got shortened to 9 storeys?

Check post #37. It's a 9 storey building in that rendering.

[J.OT13]

Taggart revives plan for nine-storey apartment complex in Little Italy

OBJ, March 30 2021



A prominent Ottawa real estate developer has resurrected a plan to build a nine-storey apartment complex near the intersection of Preston Street and Carling Avenue in Little Italy.

Taggart Realty Management has submitted a proposal for a mid-rise structure at 93 Norman Ave., just west of Preston about four blocks north of Carling. Taggart Group vice-president Derek Howe said the plan currently calls for 127 rental apartments in a mix of studio, bachelor, one- and two-bedroom units.

The design from Roderick Lahey Architects features two tiers ​– a nine-storey tower on the west side and a five-storey podium with a rooftop terrace on the eastern portion of the property. An underground parking garage would contain 79 spaces for residents and 10 spots for visitors.

The project is similar to a proposal Taggart subsidiary Tamarack Developments submitted in 2013 for a nine-storey building with 117 apartment suites on the same property. That plan also proposed a series of two-storey townhomes along Norman Street.

After city council approved Official Plan and zoning bylaw amendments for that project, the Dalhousie Community Association appealed the changes to the Ontario Municipal Board. The OMB approved the zoning provisions in 2015, and Taggart is not requesting any further amendments in its new proposal.

Howe said the plan is one of three rental projects in various stages of development at Taggart.

The company is currently constructing a nine-storey apartment building with 114 units at the corner of Bank and Flora streets in Centretown, with completion targeted for mid-fall. Meanwhile, Taggart has also submitted plans for a pair of highrises with a total of 541 apartment units at 267 O’Connor St., between Gilmour and MacLaren streets, a property currently occupied by a six-storey medical office.

Howe said Taggart is “looking to build a portfolio of high-quality rental apartment buildings” in Ottawa’s core. He said the firm hopes to start construction at the Norman Street site before the end of the year and is aiming to launch the O’Connor Street project in 2022.

https://obj.ca/article/real-estate/r...x-little-italy

[rocketphish]

The revived proposed development consists of a new mid-rise apartment building with 127 residential units. The eastern portion of the building is five storeys in height, with the western portion nine storeys in height. A rooftop terrace above the five-storey element is accessed from the western section of the building. An enclosed amenity area with a party room and gym is included at the mechanical level. Access to the rooftop terrace is provided through the amenity room.

All resident and visitor parking is provided in an underground parking garage, accessed by a ramp at the east end of the building. Resident vehicle parking is provided at a rate of approximately 0.5 spaces per unit, while resident bicycle parking is provided at a rate of approximately 1.3 spaces per unit. A total of 10 visitor parking spaces are provided, in compliance with the approved zoning.

Development application:
https://devapps.ottawa.ca/en/applica...9XA2JJ/details

Siteplan:




Some more high-quality renderings from our friends at RLA:

[J.OT13]

Another "meh" RLA design, but good scale and proportions. Seems relatively easy to build with quality materials. Ground level townhome units will liven up the street and make it feel safer. As a shorter background building, the plain design isn't too much of an issue.