General Update/Rumour thread [Urban Ottawa]

[Aylmer]

Ohh for heaven's sake! Are there any polititians in Ottawa that are not NIMBYs?

[Ottawade]

I mentioned 7 stories because the CBC said that was the current maximum anyone is allowed to build to in that neighbourhood, but that Charlesfort wanted to go over that...

13 is quite a bit more than 7 so they are going to have enough problems even without the NIMBYs

[lrt's friend]

I think we also have to consider the scale of the community and the road capacity. Ottawa South has entirely low scale buildings. It is totally out of community character to have a tall building here. More importantly, being between the Rideau Canal and the Rideau River, road patterns are very restricted. Bank Street is already often very congested and there is no prospect of rapid transit in the area. How can we possibly start introducing large buildings here without creating major traffic problems? It is not a matter of NIMBYism, it is a matter of logic. The 6 or 7 storey building limit is sensible and allows for some intensification. There is already an example of successful intensification with the construction of a properly scaled new building a Bank and Grove. Let's face it, this project is mainly designed to make money for the developer on prime real estate because of the views that it offers. It does not make sense in respect to planning this community.

[ajldub]

I say go for the 13 floors, then put a bunch of 13 floor buildings at lansdowne and together they'll combine to make a nice little node south of the downtown core.

[c_speed3108]

I imagine most developers are now smart enough to ask for more then they want to allow for some so called "winning room". So in this case if they want say 8 or 10 floors ask for 13 and "compromise" down to 9 and the NIMBY's will feel they won when in face you got three extra floors out of them (over the current zoning of 6)

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by ajldub

I say go for the 13 floors, then put a bunch of 13 floor buildings at lansdowne and together they'll combine to make a nice little node south of the downtown core.

With a Bank Street subway, maybe, yes. but as it stands, both Bank and Bronson are overtaxed as N-S arterials making both traffic and transit inadequate for much higher densities.

[Mille Sabords]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

With a Bank Street subway, maybe, yes. but as it stands, both Bank and Bronson are overtaxed as N-S arterials making both traffic and transit inadequate for much higher densities.

All you people who worry about traffic take it for granted that those living in the new building will drive everwhere. When you live at a location like that one, you can walk to most of your everyday shopping. Between the Glebe and Billings Bridge, either bike or bus will do it too. It's a vicious circle if we start thinking cars every time we get infill. Yes there will be more people, cars, traffic - but in the big scheme of things, better to have the extra (what?) 90 apartments, THERE, than 90 single-famile homes in Stittsville, no?

Besides, if you don't like traffic, downtown ain't for you. If someone commits to a mortgage in a downtown building then they accept everything that comes with it, including more people, more traffic, more congestion - the tradeoff is the convenience and beauty of where you live, and the higher property values.

[Aylmer]

I thought they were building this on Laurier where the current cement block now stands...

Now that I have an idea of where the proposal is being proposed, I think that 13 floors is a blessing!

[lrt's friend]

All you people who worry about traffic take it for granted that those living in the new building will drive everwhere. When you live at a location like that one, you can walk to most of your everyday shopping. Between the Glebe and Billings Bridge, either bike or bus will do it too. It's a vicious circle if we start thinking cars every time we get infill. Yes there will be more people, cars, traffic - but in the big scheme of things, better to have the extra (what?) 90 apartments, THERE, than 90 single-famile homes in Stittsville, no?

If you have lived in a neighbourhood that is low density, you should have certain rights that your neighbourhood remains liveable. If density increases, you still need to be able to get around the city. If you have narrow streets like Bank Street in Ottawa South, which is very congested most of the time, and transit that doesn't move because of the same congestion, it simply doesn't work. Sure, 90 appartments are better than 90 single family homes adding to sprawl, but lets build those 90 appartments within walking distance of our rapid transit lines as often as we can. Ottawa South may be reasonably close to shopping but it is still a very brisk walk from most employment areas. Also, remember the seniors who live in those neighbourhoods, for whom long distance walking and biking is no longer feasible.

Besides, if you don't like traffic, downtown ain't for you. If someone commits to a mortgage in a downtown building then they accept everything that comes with it, including more people, more traffic, more congestion - the tradeoff is the convenience and beauty of where you live, and the higher property values.

Excuse me, many people in those older neighbourhoods have lived there for decades and as I have pointed out, a high rise out of place is not necessarily beautiful. Don't forget the sometimes obscene property tax increases and people being taxed out of their homes.

[lrt's friend]

To those of you who think I am an Ottawa South NIMBY. Wrong! I don't live anywhere near there. It is just that Ottawa South and Ottawa East are both historic neighbourhoods with very special character and architecture and both face the Rideau Canal, and therefore must present a special image to the many tourists visiting the city. Intensification and redevelopment are possible (there are many good examples) but only if it respects the character of the area and we make every effort to preserve historic residential and commercial architecture. High rise development does not fit in.

[ajldub]

Some interesting points but I still think 13 floors is appropriate. Bank and Bronson are hardly congested. You could live in that building and shoot along the driveway to downtown in five minutes. Also, as Milles mentioned, why assume these people will be going downtown? Many people in Old Ottawa South have lived there for decades, yes. They are greying boomers and a project like this would be a perfect place for downsizing; I have no doubts the units will sell. Would a 13-storey condo be offensive here? Unquestionably the most offensive structure on the canal is Lansdowne park. That is slated for redevelopment and if this project doesn't go ahead because of density concerns then any hopes for anything substantial on the Lansdowne site are lost. Besides, Charlesfort is one of the few developers in the city that gives a damn what their buildings look like. Any site they get their hands on before Claridge does I say go for it!

We are going to see many projects like this all along Bank and Wellington/Richmond for the duration of this cycle and the next. I say build them tall and beautiful, each and every one.

[ajldub]

Who's with me? L'Optimiste???

[Cre47]

I don'T know if anyone caught the brief glimpse of the rendering of the proposal on CTV at 11:30, I haven't had a good look of it unfortunately.

[m0nkyman]

The reality is that we will never get anything resembling a subway going along Bank St. unless the density goes waaaay up. It's a chicken and egg problem. I do know that 900 people in towers near Sunnyside is going to cause less congestion than 900 people living in SFD's on the southside who have to commute the full distance into town.

[lrt's friend]

The reality is that we will never get anything resembling a subway going along Bank St. unless the density goes waaaay up. It's a chicken and egg problem. I do know that 900 people in towers near Sunnyside is going to cause less congestion than 900 people living in SFD's on the southside who have to commute the full distance into town.

Well, that is why we have an official plan and a transportation master plan. If those things don't fit together, or we try to deviate from it in major ways, we end up with chaos and it is the taxpayer who will have to pay to resolve the chaos. As we all know, a Bank Street subway is not up for discussion and I highly doubt that developers who want high density development along Bank Street are prepared to pay for the construction of a subway, given the astronomical costs.

In reality, we are better off to build in the suburbs than forcing the construction of enormously expensive infrastructure such as a subway. At least in the suburbs, corridors still exist that don't require us to go underground at 10 times the cost.

If we build according to our master plans, there are ample opportunities for intensification and building high rises, where our infrastructure is either built or planned to support it.

Constructing buildings more than double the size specified in the master plan is a good way to create chaos and neighbourhood protests.

[Mille Sabords]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

If you have lived in a neighbourhood that is low density, you should have certain rights that your neighbourhood remains liveable.

Excuse me, but there is no such thing as the "rights" you are inventing here. Neighbourhoods change. Who are you to stand in the way of change? You may not want it, but others would. This "right", would amount to the "right" not to let anyone else in? Unless they buy you out of your house at a large profit to you? Is that the "right" you're claiming here? I'm sorry, that won't work.

Besides, you're automatically equating "liveable" with low density. And you call yourself an LRT's friend? What planet are you on? Here's how I see it: Central, older neighbourhoods can only remain liveable if they receive infill. They have been so depopulated since the 1950's, and average household sizes in them are so much lower compared to the suburbs, that only a strong repopulation will ensure they stay liveable. By liveable, I mean: schools don't close. Stores don't close. New things open. New efforts keep being injected at beautifying and improving the neighbourhood. New families form. New residents can move in.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Sure, 90 appartments are better than 90 single family homes adding to sprawl, but lets build those 90 appartments within walking distance of our rapid transit lines as often as we can. Ottawa South may be reasonably close to shopping but it is still a very brisk walk from most employment areas. Also, remember the seniors who live in those neighbourhoods, for whom long distance walking and biking is no longer feasible.

If we were to confine infill ONLY to areas that are near rapid transit, we'd miss a bunch of good ones where people actually want to live. Rapid transit is important but it's not the only thing. As ajldub said, many of the possible buyers in these older neighbourhoods would be seniors. They don't have an office to go to in the morning. But they would like to walk to their local newsstand and coffee shop. And maybe they would like a new condo in Old Ottawa South.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Excuse me, many people in those older neighbourhoods have lived there for decades and as I have pointed out, a high rise out of place is not necessarily beautiful. Don't forget the sometimes obscene property tax increases and people being taxed out of their homes.

13 storeys is a mid-rise in my book. But for the sake of not splitting hairs, it doesn't matter whether it's a mid- or a high-rise. Design is what matters most. And as others have correctly pointed out, Charlesfort is the builder who can most be trusted with that aspect of development based on his track record.

The site is long and narrow. It has definite limitations. I would look at it from that perspective (ie. from the ground up). If the ground level is to have a library, how wide should its frontage be? Is there not an opportunity to introduce other retail here, and have the library on a narrower frontage and on TWO storeys? What retailers are missing from Old Ottawa South? Which ones would be needed or well received by the neighbourhood? What architectural style can this building adopt to blend in as well as possible? Charlesfort has been on an art-deco kick with his past two projects, what else can he propose?

[clynnog]

Originally Posted by AylmerOptimist

We should make it law that people can't decreasse the size of a building unless council finds a concret reason.

What exactly do you mean by this?.....size of what building...an existing building or a proposed building or an addition to an existing building. Council will find a 'concrete' reason if it is in their own best interests (i.e covering their butt).

[clynnog]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

It is just that Ottawa South and Ottawa East are both historic neighbourhoods with very special character and architecture and both face the Rideau Canal, and therefore must present a special image to the many tourists visiting the city.

I think you will find that everybody thinks their own neighbourhood is unique and has special characteristics. This type of argument comes up at PEC and public meetings all the time...it is up there with increased taxes, decreased property value, noise, traffic and loitering teenagers.

[clynnog]

Originally Posted by c_speed3108

I imagine most developers are now smart enough to ask for more then they want to allow for some so called "winning room". So in this case if they want say 8 or 10 floors ask for 13 and "compromise" down to 9 and the NIMBY's will feel they won when in face you got three extra floors out of them (over the current zoning of 6)

This is exactly what goes on all the time. It is much easier to ask for 13 and end up at 9 (based on an existing zoning of 6), then ask for 6 initially and then later on ask for 9.

[lrt's friend]

Excuse me, but there is no such thing as the "rights" you are inventing here. Neighbourhoods change. Who are you to stand in the way of change? You may not want it, but others would. This "right", would amount to the "right" not to let anyone else in? Unless they buy you out of your house at a large profit to you? Is that the "right" you're claiming here? I'm sorry, that won't work.

Besides, you're automatically equating "liveable" with low density. And you call yourself an LRT's friend? What planet are you on? Here's how I see it: Central, older neighbourhoods can only remain liveable if they receive infill. They have been so depopulated since the 1950's, and average household sizes in them are so much lower compared to the suburbs, that only a strong repopulation will ensure they stay liveable. By liveable, I mean: schools don't close. Stores don't close. New things open. New efforts keep being injected at beautifying and improving the neighbourhood. New families form. New residents can move in.

You are very wrong about rights. This is still public property. There are also zoning laws. A developer does not have the right to do as it pleases. The community has every right to demand something that is compatible with the aesthetics of the area especially when it is presently public property. We still live in a democratic society, don't we?

Read my posts. I am not opposed to intensification at all. I said intensification that respects the community character is fine. Look at some very fine examples along the Rideau Canal between the end of Main Street and Ottawa U. There are some near Sunnyside and Bronson. There are many others examples. All provide intensification without being out of place with the overall community. Now look at the other side of the coin. The absolutely dreadful looking apartment building on Bronson just north of the canal. It totally stands out in an otherwise low rise community to the detriment of everybody. Wrong colours and wrong height and just architecturally lousy.

I also point out my post from a few months ago, when I complained about intensification in my own neighbourhood. Not because of intensification itself, but because the infill housing did not in any way respect the architecture and scale of the neighbourhood. The result has been a horrid mishmash. A friend from Florida commented immediately about it when he visited me. His comment was far from complimentary.

I also said, show me a drawing that convinces me that it does fit in and I will change my mind. But 13 storeys on a very small lot in a low density community on one of the highest points of land on an already congested street sends up red flags immediately. Convince me otherwise with visual evidence.

If we were to confine infill ONLY to areas that are near rapid transit, we'd miss a bunch of good ones where people actually want to live. Rapid transit is important but it's not the only thing. As ajldub said, many of the possible buyers in these older neighbourhoods would be seniors. They don't have an office to go to in the morning. But they would like to walk to their local newsstand and coffee shop. And maybe they would like a new condo in Old Ottawa South.

Fine, scale the condos to fit the community. I didn't say no intensification, but if we are talking about really high density development, then most should be within walking distance of rapid transit or near downtown or scattered so as not to overwhelm transportation infrastructure.

Don't get me wrong, I am not out protesting every high rise building being constructed in the city, in factor I have never commented about such a thing before. It just concerns me about that particular location, having driven, biked, walked and skated by the site countless times. And then tearing down, an attractive older building in the process.