Claridge Loop [70 Gloucester St]| 83m | 27fl | U/C

[blackjagger]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

The thing is that developers will constantly undermine zoning and community design plans no matter what. It is the game they play. Zoning often sets the value of land, so it is bought and sold with this potential in mind. By pushing past the limits that developers rake in the profits.

In #4, the councillor is simply saying that the site is probably already profitable at the current height limit, so granting approval would likely increase Claridge's profits exponentially without real benefit to the city which would be left dealing with the resulting traffic and parking problems.

If zoning is to be revised, it has to be approached from the big picture, it should not be driven by individual projects. While I am not against any of these projects, I can see that Claridge has driven a strategic wedge with the Tribeca project, setting a precedent from which to stand on. That cancelled Portrait Gallery was a coup for them, a withdrawn carrot that caught the rabbit.

To me this is very close to the developer is evil mentality. I know you are not saying that, but if the tower is taller there is more economic impact then just Claridge making a few extra dollars. The city receives more money in development fees and future property taxes, there is more work for local construction and design firms, and Claridge will pay taxes, both provincial and federal which finds their way back to us in services. I not saying there should not be more benefit to Ottawa directly, put to say there is no additional benefit in adding 15 floors is short sighted and ignores basic economics.

I would also have to argue the opportunity cost of not having an additional 100 houses built in Barrhaven to accommodate the units not allowed to be built beside the CBD and Transit (one extreme to the other...lol). Making money is not a bad thing and we should not be asking the developer to not try and make more, especially if we are getting projects that have look like this one.

Cheers,
Josh

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by blackjagger

To me this is very close to the developer is evil mentality. I know you are not saying that, but if the tower is taller there is more economic impact then just Claridge making a few extra dollars. The city receives more money in development fees and future property taxes, there is more work for local construction and design firms, and Claridge will pay taxes, both provincial and federal which finds their way back to us in services. I not saying there should not be more benefit to Ottawa directly, put to say there is no additional benefit in adding 15 floors is short sighted and ignores basic economics.

I would also have to argue the opportunity cost of not having an additional 100 houses built in Barrhaven to accommodate the units not allowed to be built beside the CBD and Transit (one extreme to the other...lol). Making money is not a bad thing and we should not be asking the developer to not try and make more, especially if we are getting projects that have look like this one.

Cheers,
Josh

[Kitchissippi]

At the same time we cannot slag the councillor for doing her job. There are yin and yang forces in action here, and the preservative views are just as valid as the ones pushing for change. If this city had caved in to the freeway building craze in the 60s and 70s it would be a completely different place, yet I'm sure those were in opposition were probably viewed as pesky NIMBYs by some.

[umbria27]

Originally Posted by blackjagger

I would also have to argue the opportunity cost of not having an additional 100 houses built in Barrhaven to accommodate the units not allowed to be built beside the CBD and Transit (one extreme to the other...lol). Making money is not a bad thing and we should not be asking the developer to not try and make more, especially if we are getting projects that have look like this one.

Cheers,
Josh

I don't think the planning math works this way. Just because you build 100 units downtown doesn't mean that 100 potential suburban homeowners will move downtown instead. A more likely effect of building 100 more units at one downtown site is to reduce demand for another downtown residential unit. If you have two undeveloped lots, would you rather have one 25 storey tower and an undeveloped lot or would you rather have two 12 storey towers. The planners have done the work to set goal densities and the zoning that supports it. We should get back in the habit of supporting those plans.

Asking developers to stick to current zoning does not presume that they are evil. They are in business to make profit, but that does not oblige the city to maximize the profits of developers. Asking them to justify the additional height with something other than profit is reasonable. And just saying "density" doesn't cut it either. It's not a get out of zoning free card.

[K-133]

Originally Posted by umbria27

I don't think the planning math works this way. Just because you build 100 units downtown doesn't mean that 100 potential suburban homeowners will move downtown instead. A more likely effect of building 100 more units at one downtown site is to reduce demand for another downtown residential unit. If you have two undeveloped lots, would you rather have one 25 storey tower and an undeveloped lot or would you rather have two 12 storey towers. The planners have done the work to set goal densities and the zoning that supports it. We should get back in the habit of supporting those plans.

Asking developers to stick to current zoning does not presume that they are evil. They are in business to make profit, but that does not oblige the city to maximize the profits of developers. Asking them to justify the additional height with something other than profit is reasonable. And just saying "density" doesn't cut it either. It's not a get out of zoning free card.

Honestly, assuming infinite growth, I'd prefer one beautiful 25 storey tower today, and another 25 storey tower tomorrow, than 2 'meh' 13 storey towers today.

I agree though, that this is an opportunity for the city to extract maximum value on behalf of its citizens. Its negotiations 101 - don't give up all your cards in the first round.

[umbria27]

Originally Posted by K-133

Honestly, assuming infinite growth, I'd prefer one beautiful 25 storey tower today, and another 25 storey tower tomorrow, than 2 'meh' 13 storey towers today.

I agree though, that this is an opportunity for the city to extract maximum value on behalf of its citizens. Its negotiations 101 - don't give up all your cards in the first round.

Except that growth isn't infinite. There's a finite number of people who will live in centretown and I'd rather have them in more buildings closer to the ground. We also shouldn't assume that shorter buildings will be less beautiful. "Meh" is not a factor of height.

...and hey... what's with adding a storey to my two towers? They were 12 in my post. Typical evil developer incrementalism!

[rde84]

I think this is a great development which, being on the edge of the CBD, does not overpower it's neighbors in any way. If the city wants to limit sprawl then these kind of projects need to be approved. Besides, it's great looking to boot!

[m0nkyman]

Section 37. Instead of outright opposing the plan, a councillor should be talking about what community benefits would be expected for the uptick in value from the upzoning.
Constructive comments instead of knee jerk opposition.

[citizen j]

No, growth is not infinite nor is space for this level of density -- it's currently hemmed into a relatively tight area in the north end of Centretown. Unless the community wants intense pressure to allow higher density levels south of Lisgar or Somerset or Gladstone in the next 10 or 20 years, they need to allow higher density in the northern sector abutting the CBD. If that area is instead filled with 12-storey buildings, available space will fill much sooner.

So, in both the short- and long-term, I'd prefer a 27-storey (or 35-storey) tower. Followed by others in the surface parking lots in the immediate vicinity. If Councillor Holmes wants to preserve the low-rise quality of the southern end of the neighbourhood and prevent solid mid-rise infill in every available corner of Centretown, she'll show some backbone and act with vision rather than out of a sense of political self-preservation. I suppose that's asking for a lot.

[eemy]

Almost any sort of development is going to require some sort of amendment or alteration to the Zoning By-law because, as noted above, Zoning By-laws almost always reflect the existing use so that any change of use must be accompanied by an amendment to the by-law. I think this is partially by design, so that the City has greater leverage over how development proceeds.

The fact of the matter is, unless the City has undertaken some sort of development plan for a particular area where they desire some sort of change in land-use patterns, the Zoning By-law is almost certainly not going to reflect the broader policy objectives of the City and Province. Instead, the development should be assessed with respect to the Official Plan and any sort of local Community Plans which have been approved. If the development is in conformity with those plans, a change in the Zoning By-law is probably justified to the extent that I would almost guarantee that the developer would win in front of the OMB if it should come to that.

TLDR - Zoning By-law is about what's there - Official and Secondary Plans are about what we want there.

So the question is then, how well does this conform to the OP?

[phil235]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

Almost any sort of development is going to require some sort of amendment or alteration to the Zoning By-law because, as noted above, Zoning By-laws almost always reflect the existing use so that any change of use must be accompanied by an amendment to the by-law. I think this is partially by design, so that the City has greater leverage over how development proceeds.

The fact of the matter is, unless the City has undertaken some sort of development plan for a particular area where they desire some sort of change in land-use patterns, the Zoning By-law is almost certainly not going to reflect the broader policy objectives of the City and Province. Instead, the development should be assessed with respect to the Official Plan and any sort of local Community Plans which have been approved. If the development is in conformity with those plans, a change in the Zoning By-law is probably justified to the extent that I would almost guarantee that the developer would win in front of the OMB if it should come to that.

TLDR - Zoning By-law is about what's there - Official and Secondary Plans are about what we want there.

So the question is then, how well does this conform to the OP?

Thanks - that was helpful.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by c_speed3108

Point #2...uh how to much this. Greenspace...that is an interesting word for it. Litter and cigarette but space is another. I know someone that lives in a condo with a few meters of grass in front. It is a nightmare for them. They are now trying to construct some sort of fence, brick planter thing to deal with it.

I don't mind the height, but the lack of setback makes little sense. Nepean is still primarily a residential street and almost all of the existing buildings are set back from the property line. I don't think it needs to be grass, but there should be a patio, flowerbed, trees or something. Without a setback pedestrians have to deal with water and ice falling from the balconies (not to mention cigarette butts). People like to trash Ottawa for the lowrise buildings, but few cities allow highrise buildings to build right to the property line.

[umbria27]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

Almost any sort of development is going to require some sort of amendment or alteration to the Zoning By-law because, as noted above, Zoning By-laws almost always reflect the existing use so that any change of use must be accompanied by an amendment to the by-law. I think this is partially by design, so that the City has greater leverage over how development proceeds.

The fact of the matter is, unless the City has undertaken some sort of development plan for a particular area where they desire some sort of change in land-use patterns, the Zoning By-law is almost certainly not going to reflect the broader policy objectives of the City and Province. Instead, the development should be assessed with respect to the Official Plan and any sort of local Community Plans which have been approved. If the development is in conformity with those plans, a change in the Zoning By-law is probably justified to the extent that I would almost guarantee that the developer would win in front of the OMB if it should come to that.

TLDR - Zoning By-law is about what's there - Official and Secondary Plans are about what we want there.

So the question is then, how well does this conform to the OP?

Yes, you're right of course. I've been assuming that the current zoning reflects the OP and CDP. As you point out, that's not always the case. By all means, if the zoning needs to catch up to those plans, rezone. I think that's what the councilor has recommended - that the the development be considered in the context of the CDP.

[Kitchissippi]

Actually, it's too bad that they are not proposing to develop more of the block. Putting a tall narrow building here sort of makes if more difficult to develop the surrounding properties in the future. Given my druthers, I would love to see the entire half block redeveloped with a building that has enough mass and height to stand next to Place Bell.

[reidjr]

Any one know when this will go for approval.

[Harley613]

typical ottawa... one developer building three stumps in a one block radius. i can't wait for the day someone has the balls and the power to do what campeau did in the 60's and lobby hard to fix the idiotic zoning restrictions in this city. just imagine the beautiful slender 40-50 story towers we could have instead of all our duplicate and triplicate towers all over the city. the cbd would be more compact and livable, much more attractive to business, more economical, more environmentally friendly, etc, etc etc. i LOVE this city, but boy do i hate it.

[reidjr]

Originally Posted by Harley613

typical ottawa... one developer building three stumps in a one block radius. i can't wait for the day someone has the balls and the power to do what campeau did in the 60's and lobby hard to fix the idiotic zoning restrictions in this city. just imagine the beautiful slender 40-50 story towers we could have instead of all our duplicate and triplicate towers all over the city. the cbd would be more compact and livable, much more attractive to business, more economical, more environmentally friendly, etc, etc etc. i LOVE this city, but boy do i hate it.

I get some people love nothing but massive towers is it more attractive no some cities that have massive town its more of a eye sore then anything.To say it would have been more attractive to do buisness is false some would say ottawa's skyline is unique because its not building after building.If you think it would be more livable thats not alwas the case one of the knocks aginst places like toronto is there is to many big buildings and they effect they quality of life to a degree.Could ottawa's skyline be better sure would it be better to just have 50 floor buildings no.

[AuxTown]

Originally Posted by reidjr

I get some people love nothing but massive towers is it more attractive no some cities that have massive town its more of a eye sore then anything.To say it would have been more attractive to do buisness is false some would say ottawa's skyline is unique because its not building after building.If you think it would be more livable thats not alwas the case one of the knocks aginst places like toronto is there is to many big buildings and they effect they quality of life to a degree.Could ottawa's skyline be better sure would it be better to just have 50 floor buildings no.

I completely agree with your point, but we really could use 2-3 signature 35-40 storey towers to take some of the focus off of the two giant monstrosities (Place Bell and PDVC) framing the ends of our CBD.

[reidjr]

Originally Posted by O-Town Hockey

I completely agree with your point, but we really could use 2-3 signature 35-40 storey towers to take some of the focus off of the two giant monstrosities (Place Bell and PDVC) framing the ends of our CBD.

I agree a couple 40 floor towers would be nice and i think with watson in office i think that could happen.However the logic that tons of huge towers is more appealing i really don't get that logic.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by O-Town Hockey

I completely agree with your point, but we really could use 2-3 signature 35-40 storey towers to take some of the focus off of the two giant monstrosities (Place Bell and PDVC) framing the ends of our CBD.

I have nothing against taller stuctures generally, but in Centretown wouldn't that risk making things worse? As it is Place de Ville sticks out like a sore thumb (will the story ever be told of how that was allowed to happen?).