979 Wellington St | 43.5m | 12f | Demolition

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by silvergate

Well, yeah. A community association is essentially volunteers, competing against extremely well-funded developers.

I'm on the CA side for this one, unless the developer could bring some actual "wow" factor to their box.

Agreed. If a developer wants to propose something more than twice the allowed height (three times the allowed height three years ago), better come up with an amazing design.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Agreed. If a developer wants to propose something more than twice the allowed height (three times the allowed height three years ago), better come up with an amazing design.

Sorry but that assumes that the current zoning is valid in terms of the current or future official plan, and I fully doubt that.

R4 zoning and 9 story max within walking distance of multiple mass transit stations on the path of a frequent bus route with hectares of "greenspace" (by your definition) nearby, on the route of the trunk water main and trunk sewer main.

The tall portion is setback to the corner of the lot nearest Bayview and away from the TM which has a 6 story podium.

As for the CA character of the neighborhood is entirely subjective, less you forget what that excuse used to be used for....

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

Sorry but that assumes that the current zoning is valid in terms of the current or future official plan, and I fully doubt that.

R4 zoning and 9 story max within walking distance of multiple mass transit stations on the path of a frequent bus route with hectares of "greenspace" (by your definition) nearby, on the route of the trunk water main and trunk sewer main.

The tall portion is setback to the corner of the lot nearest Bayview and away from the TM which has a 6 story podium.

As for the CA character of the neighborhood is entirely subjective, less you forget what that excuse used to be used for....

So in your opinion, based on what the developer and some people assume the zoning should be, it's perfectly fine that they overpaid for the lot on speculation and propose a bland tower more than twice the height of zoning that had already been increased three years ago when Confederation Line was under construction? And that at the gateway of one of the most beloved urban man streets? You're all for bland designs where zoning should be higher than it currently is?

[J.OT13]

It doesn't matter what developers, politicians, the City or members of the public think the zoning should be. What matters is what the zoning is. And the zoning for part of this parcel of land wasn't determined 20 years ago, it was changed just over 3 years ago when the Confederation Line was under construction.

Developers are always buying land and older buildings based on speculation. And for that, they overpay assuming they'll get what they want. This contributes to the affordability crisis by driving up the value of every other property around.

The City should make an example of this developer and reject their proposal. Not just because they are screwing with the market and proposing a building twice the height that's allowed, but because the former developer, the City and locals agreed on an acceptable height in 2017. There needs to be a certain level of certainty for everyone involved.

Yes, transit will inevitably result in taller buildings, and this is what happened here in 2017. That's what's happening on Scott, directly across from the Confederation Line, where buildings are sometimes approved 3+ the allowed height.

[JayBuoy]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

Sorry but that assumes that the current zoning is valid in terms of the current or future official plan, and I fully doubt that.

R4 zoning and 9 story max within walking distance of multiple mass transit stations on the path of a frequent bus route with hectares of "greenspace" (by your definition) nearby, on the route of the trunk water main and trunk sewer main.

The tall portion is setback to the corner of the lot nearest Bayview and away from the TM which has a 6 story podium.

As for the CA character of the neighborhood is entirely subjective, less you forget what that excuse used to be used for....

I think the zoning makes sense here, or at least I think the design is bad given the context. There's basically no circumstance where I think its appropriate to build a tower with essentially no setback from the street, least of all where the existing context is low-rise. Look at the atrocity that is Rideau/King Edward, Cumberland/besserer block. Absolute disaster of urban planning.

Sometimes this forum needs to be reminded you can have high-density without high-rises.

[OTownandDown]

I see where they're going, trying to 'step down' the heights from the o-train.

If this was anything but a bland cookie-cutter condo, I'd have more support for height. Its the 'gateway' feature that is missing.

Somebody call Mizrahi stat.

[Harley613]

Originally Posted by OTownandDown

I see where they're going, trying to 'step down' the heights from the o-train.

If this was anything but a bland cookie-cutter condo, I'd have more support for height. Its the 'gateway' feature that is missing.

Somebody call Mizrahi stat.

I really really really hope Mizrahi continues to build in the Ottawa market after 1451 Wellington. Ottawa has so much to learn about quality, examples must be set.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by JayBuoy

I think the zoning makes sense here, or at least I think the design is bad given the context. There's basically no circumstance where I think its appropriate to build a tower with essentially no setback from the street, least of all where the existing context is low-rise. Look at the atrocity that is Rideau/King Edward, Cumberland/besserer block. Absolute disaster of urban planning.

Sometimes this forum needs to be reminded you can have high-density without high-rises.

There is a set back from the main Street, the only Street that's not getting a setback is Hilda.

To everyone mentioning the existing context all I can say is why does what there matter for the future? In a couple of decades or so it's going to be medium and high density surrounding it towards Bayview.

Lastly zoning is not and never has been set in stone, and in no way shape or form will this building have a negative effect of the health or safety of those living nearby. Also areas around mass transit station have had and will further face the master plan for them rewritten by both the province and the city so the CDP and that current zoning are meaningless in the context of the current plan.

So with that aside look at the actual context of the site and what it can actually service. Now can you honestly argue that the site can only have 9 stories on main and only 4 stories offer the rest of the site? Do I think 27 is appropriate not really but it's a hell of alot more inline then max 9 and 4 for the rest.

Lastly, yes, high density does not mean high rise but when zoning limits the majority of the city to low density, when even progressive councillors will not vocally support R4 reform and when people constantly use neighborhood context as to why this or that should not be allowed..... Well I won't hold me breath waiting for that reality to come true, and is rather take what's actually being presented.

P.S Christ sakes even Kavanagh wouldn't support 33 maple grove, and I doubt that the FCA does either (but it's leader won't answer that question)

[jt-mtl]

Originally Posted by silvergate

Well, yeah. A community association is essentially volunteers, competing against extremely well-funded developers.

I'm on the CA side for this one, unless the developer could bring some actual "wow" factor to their box.

Curious, what would be the "wow" factor in your POV?

[Harley613]

Originally Posted by jt-mtl

Curious, what would be the "wow" factor in your POV?

For me it would be ANY kind of Architectural merit for what could be considered a community gateway project. The current proposal has zero.

[silvergate]

Originally Posted by jt-mtl

Curious, what would be the "wow" factor in your POV?

There's so many things you can do to make a building stand out these days. This isn't a full list by any means, but
- green the exterior with trees and plants
- unique design: lots of examples in Toronto/Vancouver etc. on how to do that
- Different housing styles inside: I think this one is most often overlooked, but there's obviously a disconnect somewhere as developers continue to make out condos at 2 beds (and maybe a den), while people continue trying to move to houses in the burbs with much more space. So a final "wow" factor, would be a developer breaking those rules. Build 2 and 3 floor condos. Build 4-5 bedroom units with ample space. Convince people that they could have a family and room in the urban core. I think of this like building a stack of townhouses.

Honestly, if one of these developers did the last one, I could live with the boxy exterior.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by jt-mtl

Curious, what would be the "wow" factor in your POV?

Well, the original proposal had a "wow" factor. Most Zibi buildings have the "wow" factor. The Eddy (a Windmill development not too far from this proposal) has a "wow" factor. And of course the Mizrahi project has a huge "wow" factor. That "wow" factor isn't so hard to achieve in Ottawa. In this case, RLA and the developer didn't even try. The podium is slightly better than average while the tower portion is as bland and generic as it gets.

[UrbOttawa]

Height reduced to 12 storeys with a 9 story podium. Open house this coming Monday where they'll present the new design.


http://kitchissippiward.ca/content/979-w...ment-redesign-open-house-monday-april-19

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by UrbOttawa

Height reduced to 12 storeys with a 9 story podium. Open house this coming Monday where they'll present the new design.


http://kitchissippiward.ca/content/979-w...ment-redesign-open-house-monday-april-19

979 Wellington West Redesign Open House - Monday April 19th

In February 2018, Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments were approved for 979 Wellington Street West. These amendments permitted the development of a nine-storey mixed-use building that generally focussed the nine-storey portion of the building along the Wellington Street West frontage with the building stepping down in height to a six-storey mass along the rear of the site facing Armstrong Street.

The current owner of the site has recently acquired the properties within the block at 26, 36, and 40 Armstrong Street and 961, 967, 969 and 973 Wellington Street West, and submitted Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law applications for the development of a 22-storey mixed-use building. We hosted a open house to discuss the proposal with the community in September 2020. The feedback from the community was very clear that seeking additional height beyond what was permitted in 2018 would not be favourable. The City planners were also pushing back on the increase in height, and as a result the applicant has redesigned their project.

The applicant is now proposing a 12-storey building (plus a mechanical) with a 9-storey podium. The reduction of 10-storeys removes 50 residential units, making the total in the redesign 250 units, where it was previously 306 units. More details on the redesign will be shared during the open house.

Full details of the application can be found on DevApps: Zoning By-Law Amendment + Site Plan Control however the redesign has not yet been submitted.

We are hosting an open house with the community to discuss this redesign development further:

Monday, April 19 at 7:00pm

Please click the link below to join the webinar:

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82457187575

Password: 183491

During the open house webinar, the applicant and their team will run through the proposed development in more detail, and we will take questions from those watching. In order to join, you just need to download Zoom and click the link provided. You will then be prompted to use the password and sign in with your name and e-mail address.

We will be recording the webinar and posted it online afterwards for anyone who is unable to attend on April 19.

Please consider sending us feedback on the proposed development via [email protected] and / or [email protected] as well as to the lead planner on the file, Simon at [email protected].

[J.OT13]

Happy to see that the developer is coming back with a lower building. The height of 12 floors seems like it could be a decent compromise from the 2018 approval of 9 floors.

Looking forward to seeing the new design, but not getting my hopes up.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

It doesn't matter what developers, politicians, the City or members of the public think the zoning should be. What matters is what the zoning is. And the zoning for part of this parcel of land wasn't determined 20 years ago, it was changed just over 3 years ago when the Confederation Line was under construction.

Developers are always buying land and older buildings based on speculation. And for that, they overpay assuming they'll get what they want. This contributes to the affordability crisis by driving up the value of every other property around.

The City should make an example of this developer and reject their proposal. Not just because they are screwing with the market and proposing a building twice the height that's allowed, but because the former developer, the City and locals agreed on an acceptable height in 2017. There needs to be a certain level of certainty for everyone involved.

Yes, transit will inevitably result in taller buildings, and this is what happened here in 2017. That's what's happening on Scott, directly across from the Confederation Line, where buildings are sometimes approved 3+ the allowed height.

Zoning must be defensible in terms of its defining documentation (OP), and 9 and 4 stories wasn't, which is why the new proposal is still above that at 12 and 9. Which btw the new OP, will change zoning for mainstreets like Wellington to max at 9 stories (god I hope the recent 2nd plans for this area are thrown out) and hubs allowing 12 in the inner urban transect. (Transects are also not new ideas, had discussion on them in urban planning on university 8 years ago)

Also note that after the change the building only lost 50 units, so as for the new design take the old add 3 stories to the podium, remove 10 from the tower, and remove the affordable townhomes and extras and you'll likely have the new design.

[Harley613]

This makes my day. Short hot steaming piles of garbage are so much more palatable than Tall hot steaming piles of garbage.

[J.OT13]

Plans posted on DevApps:

https://devapps.ottawa.ca/en/applications/D01-01-20-0020/details

https://devapps.ottawa.ca/en/applications/D02-02-20-0117/details

[J.OT13]

It's even worse than it was before. A grossly disjointed design. Nothing more than a massive block-buster. It's like they didn't even try to come-up with something half decent.

[Urbanarchit]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

It's even worse than it was before. A grossly disjointed design. Nothing more than a massive block-buster. It's like they didn't even try to come-up with something half decent.

The feedback was it was too high for the area so they reduced it by 9 storeys but made the podium one taller, bulky block... Look how high that first floor is: 5m. It doesn't even try to take cue from the commercial building storefront heights. Their architectural drawings conveniently show adjacent properties with upzoned volumes to try to make it look like it fits the context (did they really expect a C-shaped building to be built around the heritage building on the block behind it?). They tried to keep a similar number of units (went from 283 to 271), which I imagine they accomplished by making the units smaller so the developer could still make the same amount of money.

Frankly, I'm disappointed enough that I'd say make it 6 floors. If the developer loses money because it bought out the entire block, that's his problem. Get rid of the ugly stone in the back, get rid of the grey brick. make it 6 floors with 3-4 floors of the red brick with a setback. Make the retail level 4m maximum. Or hire a better architect not from Ottawa capable of good designs.