335 Roosevelt Ave | 46 & 49m | 14 & 15f | Site Prep - Page 8

Williamoforange · #**141** Posted **Nov 25, 2021, 4:31 AM**

Resubmitted, Height reduction to 12 story towers each (including ridiculous stepbacks), loss of 77 units within ~150 meters of a mass transit station. Reduction in height is made up through width.

Area not considered part of OP HUB area.

rocketphish · #**142** Posted **Nov 25, 2021, 1:08 PM**

The original submission proposed two (2) high-rise buildings with towers set upon a four-storey podium having a total building height of 21 and 18 storeys, respectively. The revised design has reduced the building heights to two (2) 12-storey high-rise buildings in a more compact, ground-oriented form akin for a bar building design. The three (3) storey low-rise apartment buildings along Wilmont Avenue and Winston Avenue are to remain as per the original proposal, though the low-rise apartment building along Roosevelt Avenue has been removed as part of the revised plan.

SL123 · #**143** Posted **Nov 25, 2021, 1:15 PM**

Still looks good IMO

TransitZilla · #**144** Posted **Nov 25, 2021, 2:21 PM**

That plaza on the north side (along the pathway) between the buildings looks like a great spot for a little café.

kwoldtimer · #**145** Posted **Nov 25, 2021, 2:36 PM**

At a glance, I'd say the new proposal is more attractive.

roger1818 · #**146** Posted **Nov 25, 2021, 3:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

At a glance, I'd say the new proposal is more attractive.

I tend to agree. I know a lot of people don't care if new buildings fit into the existing neighbourhood, and just want them to be as tall as possible, but the new design does seem to fit in better.

SidetrackedSue · #**147** Posted **Nov 25, 2021, 3:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

At a glance, I'd say the new proposal is more attractive.

I agree.

As well, the new proposal feels much more welcoming to me. Walking past the abandoned industrial building in the past had negative energy. It feels like this could be a positive space to walk past.

This is a place that I walk through on a regular basis and I wasn't looking forward to the original complex being built. The complex will be in my view but would have had no impact on my view or daily life, so it isn't as if this is a NIMBY response. I suppose there's a built-in human-scale meter in me that registers better for this than the original.

Harley613 · #**148** Posted **Nov 25, 2021, 5:02 PM**

Still funny to me that Ottawa NIMBY's will always go for shorter bulk over taller slimmer.

That being said the new proposal looks much nicer.

roger1818 · #**149** Posted **Nov 25, 2021, 5:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harley613

Still funny to me that Ottawa NIMBY's will always go for shorter bulk over taller slimmer.

Shorter bulk works better when the surrounding area doesn't have much height. Taller slimmer works better when you do have some height and want to make it even taller. The CN tower works well in Toronto, as there already is some height surrounding it. The Eifel Tower works better in Paris, because it doesn't have as much height nearby.

Harley613 · #**150** Posted **Nov 25, 2021, 7:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by roger1818

Shorter bulk works better when the surrounding area doesn't have much height. Taller slimmer works better when you do have some height and want to make it even taller. The CN tower works well in Toronto, as there already is some height surrounding it. The Eifel Tower works better in Paris, because it doesn't have as much height nearby.

I would argue the opposite for this lot. The buildings are surrounded by single family homes. Taller and slimmer would reduce shadow time for the surrounding neighbourhood and form less of a giant wall abutting the neighbourhood. Short podiums with glassy slim towers floating on top would be far more desirable for me if I owned a single family in the immediate neighbourhood, but hey, that's just me...

roger1818 · #**151** Posted **Nov 25, 2021, 8:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harley613

I would argue the opposite for this lot. The buildings are surrounded by single family homes. Taller and slimmer would reduce shadow time for the surrounding neighbourhood and form less of a giant wall abutting the neighbourhood. Short podiums with glassy slim towers floating on top would be far more desirable for me if I owned a single family in the immediate neighbourhood, but hey, that's just me...

With the pathway, trench and Workman Ave between the development and the nearest buildings to the north, I don't think many of the houses will be affected by shadows with these short buildings, especially the way it is stepped. I would have to see the shadow diagram to know for sure though.

Unless you are talking about those south side shadows that NIMBYs complain about.

ponyboycurtis · #**152** Posted **Nov 26, 2021, 2:16 AM**

I'm always a fan of terraced style balconies like this. Height aside this seems like a massive visual improvement. I'd give it my blessing.

J.OT13 · #**153** Posted **Nov 26, 2021, 12:55 PM**

Resubmission Open House.

• Video Link

ottawasoccer · #**154** Posted **Nov 26, 2021, 2:58 PM**

Leiper and community association are opposing this revision too... 100 metres from LRT station. Crazy.

Urbanarchit · #**155** Posted **Nov 26, 2021, 5:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottawasoccer

Leiper and community association are opposing this revision too... 100 metres from LRT station. Crazy.

Doing what the neighbours want rather than doing the right thing... We have a housing crisis and need to be building more residential units, especially in urban neighbourhoods and near transit stations. If it's that close to Dominion Station, I can't see how planners and Council would reject it. I'm not a huge fan of the design and scale, but I think it's good for this area.

ottawasoccer · #**156** Posted **Nov 26, 2021, 5:59 PM**

Fair.. the NIMBYS argue "we're all for intensification, just smart intensification"... well I think this was an effort by the developer to meet everyone halfway. Yet they're still getting push back. Can't win I guess

Harley613 · #**157** Posted **Nov 26, 2021, 8:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottawasoccer

Fair.. the NIMBYS argue "we're all for intensification, just smart intensification"... well I think this was an effort by the developer to meet everyone halfway. Yet they're still getting push back. Can't win I guess

Push back in this city seems to vary depending on age demographics doesn't it? The older the average citizen in a neighbourhood, the louder they bitch and moan about anything new.

Uhuniau · #**158** Posted **Nov 26, 2021, 8:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottawasoccer

Fair.. the NIMBYS argue "we're all for intensification, just smart intensification"... well I think this was an effort by the developer to meet everyone halfway. Yet they're still getting push back. Can't win I guess

NIMBYs argue 'We're all for intensification, just in another part of town."

SL123 · #**159** Posted **Nov 26, 2021, 8:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottawasoccer

Leiper and community association are opposing this revision too... 100 metres from LRT station. Crazy.

Leiper is one of the biggest hypocrite. He's big talk for public transit, densification, Affordable housing, but when its in his ward, he switches real quick. This project couldnt be closer to the LRT station and 12 floor is still too much for him

passwordisnt123 · #**160** Posted **Nov 27, 2021, 2:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SL123

Leiper is one of the biggest hypocrite. He's big talk for public transit, densification, Affordable housing, but when its in his ward, he switches real quick. This project couldnt be closer to the LRT station and 12 floor is still too much for him

Agreed. I mean I get that he seems like a nice enough guy and he's quite good in transparency and he's way better than Watson in general sure. But Leiper is one of the biggest hypocrites on council as you rightly point out and a NIMBYer's wet dream of a city councillor.