2 Monk St/160 Fifth Ave | Church site redevelopment | U/C

[rocketphish]

Neoteric Developments is proposing to redevelop the property at 2 Monk Street/160 Fifth Avenue.

The subject site is located in the Glebe Neighbourhood at the south-west intersection of Fifth Avenue and Monk Street. The property is currently occupied by church built prior to 1920 and an assembly hall built between 1965 and 1975. The site has a frontage of 47.78 m on Fifth Ave and a depth of 27.17 m with a lot area of approximately 1,288 m2.

The proposed development would consist of four(4) single family homes and six(6) attached three-unit buildings. There will be no parking provided for the row of 3 unit residential building of which 4 face onto Monk Street and 2 face onto Fifth Ave. 4 new single family dwelling are proposed on the west side of the property, each with a single car garage and with a building front yard setback that would allow for the temporary parking of a single vehicle without blocking the sidewalk.

Development application:
https://app01.ottawa.ca/postingplans...appId=__B0YOTX

Streetview:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.40124...4!8i8192?hl=en

Location:




Drawings:

[phil235]

Hard to judge much from those images, but the scale looks about perfect for that location.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by phil235

Hard to judge much from those images, but the scale looks about perfect for that location.

Agreed with this. Tentatively like this one but will wait out until better renders are available. (almost) Anything to bring more residents to the adjacent-core.

[J.OT13]

I'm disappointed with he eventual loss of the church. Too bad they couldn't (or wouldn't) intergrade it somehow, maybe convert it into a few residential units. Single family is also an odd choice here. Row housing would be better suited.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I'm disappointed with he eventual loss of the church. Too bad they couldn't (or wouldn't) intergrade it somehow, maybe convert it into a few residential units. Single family is also an odd choice here. Row housing would be better suited.

The church is a bit of a weird building. Not sure of its history, but it looks like a cheap 70s design, so maybe it wasn't possible to integrate.

Monk is small apartments and rowhouses, and Fifth is all single family west of there (at least until the new development at Lyon). This seems like the right way to transition, smaller lots and more density. I also expect that it is an easy approval done this way.

[kwoldtimer]

They are squeezing a lot of townhouse into the space. What will they be, 16 or 17 feet wide?

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by phil235

The church is a bit of a weird building. Not sure of its history, but it looks like a cheap 70s design, so maybe it wasn't possible to integrate.

Monk is small apartments and rowhouses, and Fifth is all single family west of there (at least until the new development at Lyon). This seems like the right way to transition, smaller lots and more density. I also expect that it is an easy approval done this way.

Shouldn't these Urban wards be built to what we want them to eventually become, not what they were? In the case of the glebe an urban area where the majority built form is not low density single family detached homes but instead something like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@45.5229...7i16384!8i8192

Anyway, the surrounding area is zoned R3P, so building to their rights that is roughly 12 to 18 units, so this to me is under what can be and probably should be built as they could just copy the design of the rowhouse to the south.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

Shouldn't these Urban wards be built to what we want them to eventually become, not what they were? In the case of the glebe an urban area where the majority built form is not low density single family detached homes but instead something like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@45.5229...7i16384!8i8192

Anyway, the surrounding area is zoned R3P, so building to their rights that is roughly 12 to 18 units, so this to me is under what can be and probably should be built as they could just copy the design of the rowhouse to the south.

I agree with the general sentiment. That said, I’m not entirely clear on the number of units here, but if it’s six 3-unit buildings, plus the 4 houses, that is plenty of density. That said, I don’t think that the goal is to completely change the composition of the neighbourhood, which is already reasonably dense. The objective is to strategically increase density. On transitional sites like this, the proposed scale and density is about right in my opinion.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by phil235

I agree with the general sentiment. That said, I’m not entirely clear on the number of units here, but if it’s six 3-unit buildings, plus the 4 houses, that is plenty of density. That said, I don’t think that the goal is to completely change the composition of the neighbourhood, which is already reasonably dense. The objective is to strategically increase density. On transitional sites like this, the proposed scale and density is about right in my opinion.

I entirely disagree with any assertion that the Glebe is "dense". It has pockets of density (usually on the fringes) but on a whole the Glebe is a low density single family detached home suburb that hasn't changed much since it was created as a suburb to the original Ottawa.

So again I ask, why are you and other giving weight to the idea that what the neighbourhood character is, should be considered in any regards to when deciding what it will become?

Just to put #'s to this Vanier is going b 2016 numbers ~5668 People/km^2, The Glebe 4828 people/km^2, Le Plateau-Mont-Royal (The area in the maps link) ~12,839people/km^2.

Le Plateau-Mont-Royal is dense, it is also on majority under 4 stories in height, should this not be the goal for Urban Ottawa? and the only way to reach this would one parcel at a time at that density.

P.S Going to point out for Unhuiu sake, note the density of Vanier, then not again the long discussion on the "fantasy" transit thread, and then finally note which one has people arguing for a subway.........

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by phil235

I agree with the general sentiment. That said, I’m not entirely clear on the number of units here, but if it’s six 3-unit buildings, plus the 4 houses, that is plenty of density. That said, I don’t think that the goal is to completely change the composition of the neighbourhood, which is already reasonably dense. The objective is to strategically increase density. On transitional sites like this, the proposed scale and density is about right in my opinion.

I misread the "six 3-unit buildings" as six three-storey townhouses. So the proposal is for four singles and 18 apartments (in six attached triplexes?)?

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

I entirely disagree with any assertion that the Glebe is "dense". It has pockets of density (usually on the fringes) but on a whole the Glebe is a low density single family detached home suburb that hasn't changed much since it was created as a suburb to the original Ottawa.

So again I ask, why are you and other giving weight to the idea that what the neighbourhood character is, should be considered in any regards to when deciding what it will become?

Just to put #'s to this Vanier is going b 2016 numbers ~5668 People/km^2, The Glebe 4828 people/km^2, Le Plateau-Mont-Royal (The area in the maps link) ~12,839people/km^2.

Le Plateau-Mont-Royal is dense, it is also on majority under 4 stories in height, should this not be the goal for Urban Ottawa? and the only way to reach this would one parcel at a time at that density.

P.S Going to point out for Unhuiu sake, note the density of Vanier, then not again the long discussion on the "fantasy" transit thread, and then finally note which one has people arguing for a subway.........

I do think that neighbourhood character can be used to advance lots of spurious claims. That said, I’ve not heard anyone claim that we should entirely disregard the character of a neighbourhood when making planning decisions. The Glebe is an outstanding neighbourhood, and I don’t think you’d find any consensus that we should re-make it into the Plateau. That certainly doesn’t resemble the City’s plan for the neighbourhood. A few other points:

- While the Glebe isn’t as dense as the Plateau, one of the densest neighbourhoods in Canada, I don’t think it’s accurate to call it “a low density single family detached home suburb”. There is a wide range of housing types, and it’s density is at least in the medium range.
-Four year old numbers are going to be quite low, as there are several hundred units either completed or under construction in that period, which will have a significant effect on density numbers. There are three new apartment buildings on that block alone.
- Population density figures don’t account for commercial density, which is also high in the Glebe and another big differentiator from a low density suburb.
- A decision has been made in Ottawa to place density along arterials and transit corridors, and not raze entire neighbourhoods. Hence the larger proposals for Bank and Chamberlain and Isabella, and the smaller scale proposals for neighbourhood streets.

All that said, I did a rough estimate of the planned density for this parcel (2 people per single family home, 1.5 per apartment) and it appears to almost double the density that you cite for the Plateau, so I’m struggling to understand the objection.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by phil235

I do think that neighbourhood character can be used to advance lots of spurious claims. That said, I’ve not heard anyone claim that we should entirely disregard the character of a neighbourhood when making planning decisions. The Glebe is an outstanding neighbourhood, and I don’t think you’d find any consensus that we should re-make it into the Plateau. That certainly doesn’t resemble the City’s plan for the neighbourhood. A few other points:

- While the Glebe isn’t as dense as the Plateau, one of the densest neighbourhoods in Canada, I don’t think it’s accurate to call it “a low density single family detached home suburb”. There is a wide range of housing types, and it’s density is at least in the medium range.
-Four year old numbers are going to be quite low, as there are several hundred units either completed or under construction in that period, which will have a significant effect on density numbers. There are three new apartment buildings on that block alone.
- Population density figures don’t account for commercial density, which is also high in the Glebe and another big differentiator from a low density suburb.
- A decision has been made in Ottawa to place density along arterials and transit corridors, and not raze entire neighbourhoods. Hence the larger proposals for Bank and Chamberlain and Isabella, and the smaller scale proposals for neighbourhood streets.

All that said, I did a rough estimate of the planned density for this parcel (2 people per single family home, 1.5 per apartment) and it appears to almost double the density that you cite for the Plateau, so I’m struggling to understand the objection.

My objection are 1) that anyone would consider the current built form of the Glebe as dense, as quite clearly visible its built form is single family detached houses on 40 ft lots, a built form that is similar to the south west development at Cambrian & Greenbank. (excluding bank street) 2) that any development should have to consider this "Neighbouhood Character" when building infill in an central ward.

So to simplify no need for the detached houses instead build row houses

>A decision has been made in Ottawa to place density along arterials and transit corridors, and not raze entire neighbourhoods. Hence the larger proposals for Bank and Chamberlain and Isabella, and the smaller scale proposals for neighbourhood streets.

That decision was made to as not upset Nimbys/Urban ward councilors who seem to defend the old single family detached built form of their central neighbourhoods. Planning wise there is nothing wrong with replacing detached houses with higher built forms, as Le Plateau-Mont-Royal shows it can be done with a low rise built form(3-4 story housing).

Rosemont-La Petite-Patrie - 8574 people/km^2, Centretown - 11,344 people/km^2 (That number does not include the CBD)

[Williamoforange]

Just to put further numbers to this by some very quick and very dirty calculations, to meet demand for the No expansion option, the option that every urban councilor is fighting for will require that roughly 1 block/year be demolished and replaced with 613 flats in every ward until the end date of the plan. (every ward excluding the Rural ones as that area is what the city is trying to save with the no expansion option)

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

My objection are 1) that anyone would consider the current built form of the Glebe as dense, as quite clearly visible its built form is single family detached houses on 40 ft lots, a built form that is similar to the south west development at Cambrian & Greenbank. (excluding bank street) 2) that any development should have to consider this "Neighbouhood Character" when building infill in an central ward.

So to simplify no need for the detached houses instead build row houses

>A decision has been made in Ottawa to place density along arterials and transit corridors, and not raze entire neighbourhoods. Hence the larger proposals for Bank and Chamberlain and Isabella, and the smaller scale proposals for neighbourhood streets.

That decision was made to as not upset Nimbys/Urban ward councilors who seem to defend the old single family detached built form of their central neighbourhoods. Planning wise there is nothing wrong with replacing detached houses with higher built forms, as Le Plateau-Mont-Royal shows it can be done with a low rise built form(3-4 story housing).

Rosemont-La Petite-Patrie - 8574 people/km^2, Centretown - 11,344 people/km^2 (That number does not include the CBD)

I think it’s more than NIMBYs who see value in the current built form of the neighbourhood. It’s likely the best example of a comprehensive walkable neighbourhood in Ottawa. You’re not going to win much support by dismissing that entirely.

As for the Glebe being “single family homes on 40-foot lots”, I think you need to spend some more time here. My lot is 29’ wide, and it is entirely typical of my street and the ones around it. Most of the street is semis or small apartments. The neighbourhood is full of those semis, rowhouses and small apartments (not to mention the numerous large apartments, including at least 3 under construction). It’s at least 40% rental. I don’t think that your perception matches reality.

You’ve also got to look beyond your overall density numbers. This is a neighbourhood that is about 4 km square, but that includes a 15-block commercial strip, plus Lansdowne, with a football stadium and arena. If you just look at an overall average, you’ll get a density that is artifically low.

[J.OT13]

Approved by Planning Committee. Menard supports the application.

Replying to
@KatePorterCBC

And, another development approved on the site of a church, this one in the Glebe.

Coun. Menard supports the 3 homes and 18 units in three at Monk and Fifth. #ottcity



9:36 AM · Apr 22, 2021·Twitter Web App

https://twitter.com/KatePorterCBC/st...26053854109701

[J.OT13]

There is a revised proposal from April 2021, but I'm unable to open the docs.

https://devapps.ottawa.ca/en/applica...0-0085/details

[LeadingEdgeBoomer]

Originally Posted by phil235

The church is a bit of a weird building. Not sure of its history, but it looks like a cheap 70s design, so maybe it wasn't possible to integrate.

Monk is small apartments and rowhouses, and Fifth is all single family west of there (at least until the new development at Lyon). This seems like the right way to transition, smaller lots and more density. I also expect that it is an easy approval done this way.

Not a 70's design. I lived on that block of Monk St in the early sixties. I had reason the visit that street often in the mid fifties(as a child) and it was there then, for how long I do not know.It looked just like it looks today .
It belonged to some independent Protestant group that I never heard of and can't remember the name today. It appeared to be locked up all week and then became busy all day Sunday.

[Williamoforange]

If what I'm seeing is correct it lost a unit, specifically a detached house.

Doesn't surprise me, the Glebe is going to Glebe.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

If what I'm seeing is correct it lost a unit, specifically a detached house.

Doesn't surprise me, the Glebe is going to Glebe.

Did the neighbourhood actually oppose this? If there was opposition, I never saw it.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by phil235

Did the neighbourhood actually oppose this? If there was opposition, I never saw it.

One delegate from the community spoke IN FAVOUR! They said the developer did an excellent job consulting with the local residents and thought this was a great infill.